Location: Our debt is easily solvable considering the assets owned by the province. QP, NY Joined: 06.26.2007
Apr 18 @ 9:14 AM ET
no if you knew anything about hockey you wouldn't care about a team that puts a sub par product on the ice every year and drones of mindless fans shell out insane amounts of cash to see a team that doesn't care about its fan base. Your ownership takes out full page adds in the Toronto star and the Toronto sun to apologize for how much the leafs suck and all the fans eat it up.. and still all the fans flok to to maple laffs to watch sub par hockey by a sub par team ... but year after year all of the leaf fans support and follow them and make sure they pay so much cash that your ownership will never care about winning and why should they its not like they are going to lose money or fans... did you no that your team has a 10,000 person waiting list to get season tickets and it costs a $1000 a year to stay on that list... that means that Toronto fans are paying $10,000,000 not even for tickets why would your ownership ever care if you win but as a un-informed hockey fan you keep following them blind leading the blind - flyer186
So...back to the point of Eklunds blog...which I am sure WASN'T to cause this kind of interaction (yeah...right!!)
The suspensions are fair...given the 'stars' in this playoffs get less than the grunts.
Obviously, there is something more to the way suspension are being handed out.
I read a comment that Shanny was kind of given his marching orders by the GMs - 'stars' get one set of rules, everybody else another.
That's stupid if you ask me...but the mighty $ rules and people don't tune in for the games if the money makers are out of the line-up...so it sounds like a reasonable explanation for the uneven suspensions. - icedog97
so if the flyers had taken the same liberties with the pens and the same discipline was doled out, you'd be ok with it? i'm not ok with it. i'm especially not ok with shanahan accepting neal's obvious lie that he was trying to avoid couturier. if you try to aviod a collision you don't ram your shoulder into a guy's head. you don't follow through. he changed his path to hit coots.
Location: Our debt is easily solvable considering the assets owned by the province. QP, NY Joined: 06.26.2007
Apr 18 @ 9:21 AM ET
maybe if you acted more maturely they wouldn't. if you keep getting banned, why do you keep doing the same things? does that make any sense to you? - flyerscup2011
Please drop it and move on to arguing with other posters.
Asham. All players should realize that you shouldn't punch the back of someones head... But, it seems to be a pattern of the Pens. Remember a few weeks ago Malkin punching Giroux's head while sitting on top of him. Man-up, drop the gloves and go toe to toe.
Asham didn't get suspended for the punch. His cross-check to the throat area is what got him suspended. Sure, he was trying to stick up for his team mate. But, a dangerous cross-check is not the way. Again, drop the gloves and go. I don't think Asham was trying to injure (hurt maybe not injure)... It looked like he tried to cross-check his upper chest and it slip up to the throat area. Regardless of intent - that's Very Stupid and Dangerous.
Location: much of what I write would nev Joined: 09.20.2005
Apr 18 @ 9:23 AM ET
Splitting hairs?
Learn to count...
- icedog97
having seen that hit in slow motion, it looks like the stick only made incidental contact with Schenn's head, and may have been partly caused by Schenn raising his hands in defense. previously I thought he hit him directly in the face.
4 games seems like a bit much now, even for Asham. 2 tops, and that is mostly for the punch in the head while he was down. 5 and a game would cover the crosscheck.
I'm not so upset with the ruling of 1 game. I am very upset over Shanny's breakdown. He gets one game for the hit on Giroux... but NOTHING for the hit on Courtier. In Shanny's words. "We are ok with Neil description that he left his feet to brace himself for the hit, after Courtier lost the puck."
1] Courtier was nowhere near the puck. He was in a vulnerable position away from the puck. If you don't have possession of the puck you are not expecting to be hit like that.
2] He was the aggressor trying to hit him. He left his skates. There is no clearer example of leaving your feet for the hit. The idea that he was only bracing himself for the hit is ridiculous.
3] Neil is a repeat offender. They ALWAYS make reference to this in these breakdowns but not this time.
Shanny has been inconsistent over all so far and if he doesn't give consistent punishments out for these violations he is asking for teams to take matters into their own hands. It's just a matter of time before someone does something stupid. When retaliations happen on the ice and not from the NHL, they have to potential to become another Bertuzzi/Moore situation.
so if the flyers had taken the same liberties with the pens and the same discipline was doled out, you'd be ok with it? i'm not ok with it. i'm especially not ok with shanahan accepting neal's obvious lie that he was trying to avoid couturier. if you try to aviod a collision you don't ram your shoulder into a guy's head. you don't follow through. he changed his path to hit coots. - flyerscup2011
Said I thought they were 'fair'...given the current climate - stars vs grunts rulings.
Location: this space for rent, PA Joined: 09.19.2006
Apr 18 @ 9:32 AM ET
I didn't say that...one of the Flyer fans did.
8X?
Please re-watch the video....1 time.
Arrogance? I said I was glad another Flyer fan said something more realistic about the Asham incident. It LOOKED a lot worse than it was. I have no problem with his punishment. Is that arrogance? - icedog97
The league is out of control and a total joke. They stop calling penaties in the regular season, Shannhan says one game suspensions in the playoffs are like 12 in the regular season, they don't suspend star players.... and Shannhan and this process is a joke as well, therefore the players feel they can do what they want. Now they have a serious problem and a PR nightmare with thie first round of the playoffs...it isn't hockey anymore , it has become WWF.
Location: this space for rent, PA Joined: 09.19.2006
Apr 18 @ 9:39 AM ET
The suspensions are fair...given the 'stars' in this playoffs get less than the grunts.
. - icedog97
and that in itself is ridiculous. not your statement but the fact that it does appear to work that way. who the player is shouldn't matter and its a joke that it does appear to be so.
having seen that hit in slow motion, it looks like the stick only made incidental contact with Schenn's head, and may have been partly caused by Schenn raising his hands in defense. previously I thought he hit him directly in the face.
4 games seems like a bit much now, even for Asham. 2 tops, and that is mostly for the punch in the head while he was down. 5 and a game would cover the crosscheck. - jarmstrong
What really bugs me about asham getting 4 is that it makes the 1 carkner got seem even more ridiculous. And I have no problem giving asham 4 for that punk move. But Asham's stick seems to not go above the collarbone and then he gives Schenn one punch. Meanwhile carkner runs boyle long after the puck is gone which is as scummy as the asham cross check and then punches Boyle while hes down more than 5 times and he only gets 1. Makes no sense.
The original comment was that Asham punched Schenn in the back of the head 8x.
Everybody agrees it was worthy of penalty/suspension. But some people think it was worse than it actually was. Some people see the same thing differently. But if you watch the replay, it's tough to argue there was more than 1 punch to the back of the head.
For example...Peirre McGuire said Schenn's hit was completely legal...yet the ref gave him a charging penalty. Watching the replay, it seems that Schenn did travel a pretty good distance to hit Martin, who, at the time of the hit, was already engaged with another Flyer.
Charging rules...the part relevant to the call on the ice...
42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
maybe if you acted more maturely they wouldn't. if you keep getting banned, why do you keep doing the same things? does that make any sense to you? - flyerscup2011
and that in itself is ridiculous. not your statement but the fact that it does appear to work that way. who the player is shouldn't matter and its a joke that it does appear to be so. - nastyflyergirl
I addressed that too...it's about $$.
People tune in to watch the stars play.
And in the case of the Pens/Flyers...they also tune in for the carnage...but int this series, you don't need grunts for that.
Ashem getting 4 games was kinda light. I was thinking more along the lines of 5 or 6 games, more for the punch after his victim was helpless on the ground.
Neal getting 1 game was a joke! He's a repeat offender, he's been warned twice so far this season and both hits were late, deliberate and were 100% intent to hurt.
But then again 1 game is all that is really needed after Philly sweeps the ladies team tonight.
As for Torres.... he's a repeat offender, he's been suspended at least twice and fined at least once and got super lucky last year with his hit on Seabrook.
I say the NHL makes an example of him.... a 100 games or lifelong ban!
The original comment was that Asham punched Schenn in the back of the head 8x.
Everybody agrees it was worthy of penalty/suspension. But some people think it was worse than it actually was. Soem people see the same thing differently. But if you watch the replay, it tough to argue there was more than 1 punch to the back of the head.
For example...Peirre McGuire said Schenn's hit was completely legal...yet the ref gave him a charging penalty. Watching the replay, it seems that Schenn did travel a pretty good distance to hit Martin, who, at the time of the hit, was already engaged with another Flyer.
Charging rules...the part relevant to the call on the ice...
42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice. - icedog97
It wasnt a charge.. they just threw that in there after.. You can travel a distance so long as you are gliding and not skating. He threw a clean hit and Asham cross checked him up high.. he then followed up with 1 -I REPEAT 1- punch.. and a weak one at that.
Adams on the other hand threw about 5-7 punches to a already entangled Hartnell.
It wasnt a charge.. they just threw that in there after.. You can travel a distance so long as you are gliding and not skating. He threw a clean hit and Asham cross checked him up high.. he then followed up with 1 -I REPEAT 1- punch.. and a weak one at that.
Adams on the other hand threw about 5-7 punches to a already entangled Hartnell. - jak521
Read the entire rule...it makes no mention of gliding...which is skating...
Rule 42 - Charging
42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.
42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).
42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.
42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
42.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
