Seidenberg hit and Bartkowski hit are not comparable. Seidenberg hit was dangerous, but not really dirty. More unfortunate -- and I'm a Hawks fan saying this. I thought refs and league got it right, in that it was a penalty with no suspension.

I view Bartkowski hit as follows:
In Bartkowski's defense: it's not late (if Gionta catches pass), elbow is tucked, first point of contact is Bartkowski's shoulder, Bartkowski has no priors.
Against Bartkowski: first point of contact is Gionta's head, Gionta is in vulnerable position.

Conclusion: Bartkowski should have and was suspended for the rest of the game. No further suspension, but the play goes on Bartkowski's record.

Hope Gionta gets back quickly, as I have always liked him as a player.
- jam10sugar

What does that mean? That's like saying (on a hit to the back of a player against the boards) if he turned around it would have been clean.
He didn't catch pass, so that means anybody can be checked because they MAY get a pass to them and just missed it?

What does that mean? That's like saying (on a hit to the back of a player against the boards) if he turned around it would have been clean.
He didn't catch pass, so that means anybody can be checked because they MAY get a pass to them and just missed it?
- powerenforcer

Yeesh, you can turn words around better than my wife!

Reading Garth's blog is my new favorite thing to do when I need a cheering up. A few comments:

-This is really starting to sound like a Toronto "the world is against us" blog.
-Where's Foligno's suspension for jumping in and causing a fight. What happened to that rule?
-I've been waiting to see Gionta get hit hard since he concussed Reimer.

Reading Garth's blog is my new favorite thing to do when I need a cheering up. A few comments:

-This is really starting to sound like a Toronto "the world is against us" blog.
-Where's Foligno's suspension for jumping in and causing a fight. What happened to that rule?
-I've been waiting to see Gionta get hit hard since he concussed Reimer.
- thebutlerdunnit

There is no rule to suspend someone for jumping in and causing a fight.

There is no rule to suspend someone for jumping in and causing a fight.
- howie feltersnatch

My mistake, I misspoke. I was referring to game misconduct. I was thinking of this (the hit being the original altercation and the fight coming after the hit being a second altercation):

----------------------------------------------------------------
46.3 Altercation - An altercation is a situation involving two players, with at least one to be penalized.

46.7 Fighting After the Original Altercation - A game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who is assessed a major penalty for fighting after the original altercation has started.

Notwithstanding this rule, at the discretion of the Referee, the automatic game misconduct penalty may be waived for a player or goalkeeper in the altercation if the opposing player was clearly the instigator of the altercation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like this was applied in-game:

46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.

A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting and a ten-minute misconduct.

A player who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct (instigator) and a game misconduct penalty (aggressor).

My mistake, I misspoke. I was referring to game misconduct. I was thinking of this (the hit being the original altercation and the fight coming after the hit being a second altercation):

----------------------------------------------------------------
46.3 Altercation - An altercation is a situation involving two players, with at least one to be penalized.

46.7 Fighting After the Original Altercation - A game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who is assessed a major penalty for fighting after the original altercation has started.

Notwithstanding this rule, at the discretion of the Referee, the automatic game misconduct penalty may be waived for a player or goalkeeper in the altercation if the opposing player was clearly the instigator of the altercation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like this was applied in-game:

46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.

A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting and a ten-minute misconduct.

A player who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct (instigator) and a game misconduct penalty (aggressor).
- thebutlerdunnit

Looks like you misspoke again. A hit is not an "altercation". Foligno was assessed 2 for instigating, the 5 and 10. So it was penalized correctly.

Looks like you misspoke again. A hit is not an "altercation". Foligno was assessed 2 for instigating, the 5 and 10. So it was penalized correctly.
- howie feltersnatch

Yes it was penalized correctly, as I stated above. We agree.

Never said he did but, he sucks up to your owner as he always has.
- SABRES 89

Jeremy Jacobs is the Chairman of the Board of NHL Governors.

How this has anything to do with Bartkowski is beyond me.

looking at the hit, it does remind me of matt cooke's hit on savard. Blind side and head. I'm surprised it wasn't a suspension.

looking at the hit, it does remind me of matt cooke's hit on savard. Blind side and head. I'm surprised it wasn't a suspension.
- Isles_since_6

please

Hey Garth if this hockey thing doesn't work out (hint: it isn't!) you should look into working for Alex Jones and his Info Wars bull poop. You wouldn't even be the laziest/craziest guy on staff.

I like chicken

What does that mean? That's like saying (on a hit to the back of a player against the boards) if he turned around it would have been clean.
He didn't catch pass, so that means anybody can be checked because they MAY get a pass to them and just missed it?
- powerenforcer

Just that Bartkowski is lining up Gionta for a hit, expecting him to catch the pass and doesn't really have time to adjust because Gionta misplays the puck. What I'm saying there is that the fact that Gionta never gets the puck is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Bartkowski should be suspended. Bartkowski still has the responsibility to not target or hit the head, which he fails to do.

What does that mean? That's like saying (on a hit to the back of a player against the boards) if he turned around it would have been clean.
He didn't catch pass, so that means anybody can be checked because they MAY get a pass to them and just missed it?
- powerenforcer

Just that Bartkowski is lining up Gionta for a hit, expecting him to catch the pass and doesn't really have time to adjust because Gionta misplays the puck. What I'm saying there is that the fact that Gionta never gets the puck is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Bartkowski should be suspended. Bartkowski still has the responsibility to not target or hit the head, which he fails to do.