Thread: Confirmed with Link: Upshall suspended two games
View Single Post
02-24-2011, 12:37 PM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
I'm not creating a paper tiger at all. You started this whole discussion by saying that this is Bartulis' fault for not having his head up...that is a retarded *ing statement. The dude got run and to make matters worse, the puck wasn't there and the play was dead, and he got rocked into the boards.

If Upshall is going to make that "play" in this NHL, he's going to get suspended for it, and that's fine. Be more careful and respect your fellow athlete.
It's Bartulis' fault he got flattened the way he did, that doesn't mean I ever argued it wasn't a penalty. It was a two-minute penalty for roughing or whatever you want to call it, because it was late.

My first two posts in this thread:

Originally Posted by Jester View Post
There was no way that should have been a 5 minute penalty... and, frankly, it shouldn't have been a suspension.

Similar to Downie's hit, it's rotten luck the guy went into the end boards the way he did, but the act itself wasn't that bad (Downie's was worse).

If Bartulis had been paying attention to what was going on around him, then nothing would have happened. God knows if Upshall came in like that on Pronger he would have caught an elbow to the face. As a D he should have been turning around to face the forwards coming at his goalie, not standing there looking at him.
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yeah, 2 minute penalty... which is what it got. The refs called it right, the NHL once again gave a suspension on the result not the act itself.

You're a NHL D on a puck getting frozen by the goalie in the NHL, the forwards are going to be crashing the net. Get your head up. Watch all the other D when that happens, they turn and get their sticks up to ward off guys coming at 'em (and, more importantly, their goalie).
The puck was RIGHT THE **** at his feet. It was RIGHT there. You're making it sound like Bartulis was some unsuspecting player on the other side of the rink from where the action was. He wasn't. He was right where the action was, with his goalie juggling a shot and covering it at his feet.

Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
According to the charging rule, emphasis is first put on the distance travelled. I know there's more of a tendency to count the strides, but the official rules (IMHO) give this wiggle room. Kind of like Richards getting a major / game misc (IIRC) for interference against Booth.
Charging rule has wiggle room, but it's the stupid kind... the big boom, "Oh, that's a penalty" kind.

Originally Posted by Orangecrush18 View Post
See I thought Richards hit was legal, I probably wouldnt have made the hit if I was playing but Richards is a very physical player who catches people with there head down.

I dont know how you could criticize a hit that at the time broke no rules whatsoever, and condone a hit that broke numerous rules.
That hit was vicious. Richards ducked his shoulder to get underneath Booth and put his shoulder clean through his jaw. Legal? By rule at the time, yep. Absolutely brutal and unnecessary in the sport? Yep.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote