HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Upshall suspended two games

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-24-2011, 08:41 AM
  #51
Orange Crush 89
Registered User
 
Orange Crush 89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
If he did that wearing orange he would have gotten a major, game misconduct and 5 game suspension. You all know it's true.

Orange Crush 89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 08:47 AM
  #52
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangecrush18 View Post
41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

Id say this says it all
That's not how the rule is implemented, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
Lol yeah, that's exactly what you worry about, clearing the god damn rebound.
What can he even do by "playing the body"? The net-crashing Phoenix players would've gotten to the puck, if it would have been a bigger rebound, anyhow because he was standing and they were coming in pretty fast.

It's 100% Upshall's fault, there's no way you drive a defending player who's standing there through the boards like he did. You just don't see this very often, because the players who crash the net usually hit the breaks to be able to play the puck if the rebound gets to them. Upshall just drove through to hit Bartulis.

To say it's Bartulis' fault is ridiculous.
Actually, no, you don't worry about the rebound.

You clear the porch.

Hell, there's a friggin expression. D are supposed to specifically worry about the man first, and the puck second in that situation. Remember Coburn the other day blasting two players in front of the net during a puck scramble? Watch our Vet D and what they do... they turn around and get in front of whomever is coming at 'em and let the goalie grab the puck.

And even if you want to stand there serving no purpose as the goalie grabs the puck, don't stand their in a relaxed position like you're on a walk through the park.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 08:56 AM
  #53
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
'Textbook'? That's a bit much. Upshall was heading to where the puck was, Bartulis was too close to the puck to put down his defenses, and Upshall hit him late. Agree to disagree.
It's really not a bit much. A hit like that resulting in a serious injury will get suspended by the NHL 10 times out of 10.

Not a hockey play + violent collision + injury = suspension.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:00 AM
  #54
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
It's really not a bit much. A hit like that resulting in a serious injury will get suspended by the NHL 10 times out of 10.

Not a hockey play + violent collision + injury = suspension.
Going to the net hard isn't a hockey play? The hit was late... that was it. If the puck had bounced away from Bob (which Bartulis was apparently defending) then that was a perfectly clean play on a loose puck in front of the net.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:06 AM
  #55
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
It was a bit late, a bit of a charge, a bit of a board, and maybe even a bit of an elbow.

All the little bits make a normal 2 game suspension.

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:09 AM
  #56
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
It was a bit late, a bit of a charge, a bit of a board, and maybe even a bit of an elbow.

All the little bits make a normal 2 game suspension.
It was shoulder to shoulder, and Upshall wasn't really striding into it... he's just fast and was coming hard while the puck was in play. And, really, the puck was frozen RIGHT before he got there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:11 AM
  #57
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Going to the net hard isn't a hockey play? The hit was late... that was it. If the puck had bounced away from Bob (which Bartulis was apparently defending) then that was a perfectly clean play on a loose puck in front of the net.
Going to the net hard is one thing....sprinting into it and trucking a guy who doesn't have the puck and is out at the side of the net is not.

This is just another case of you being too stubborn to admit when you're wrong. It wasn't a hockey play, it was a dumb, late, unnecessary hit that resulted in a violent collision into the boards and an injury. He's not going after the puck or doing anything that would just be a 'normal' play. Therefore it got a suspension.

Welcome to the NHL.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:16 AM
  #58
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It was shoulder to shoulder, and Upshall wasn't really striding into it... he's just fast and was coming hard while the puck was in play. And, really, the puck was frozen RIGHT before he got there.
I meant charging as in Upshall left his feet a bit.

I admit that Bartulis should have been prepared, but Upshall was not innocent here. Also boarding and checking from behind are 2 different things, like someone posted earlier

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:20 AM
  #59
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
Going to the net hard is one thing....sprinting into it and trucking a guy who doesn't have the puck and is out at the side of the net is not.

This is just another case of you being too stubborn to admit when you're wrong. It wasn't a hockey play, it was a dumb, late, unnecessary hit that resulted in a violent collision into the boards and an injury. He's not going after the puck or doing anything that would just be a 'normal' play. Therefore it got a suspension.

Welcome to the NHL.
So, if the puck is loose in Bartulis' feet that isn't a hockey play? He came in hard and put his shoulder into him and Bartulis had his head down. The puck was RIGHT THERE. Bob was freezing it at Bartulis' feet. He wasn't standing in some random location by himself.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:25 AM
  #60
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
So, if the puck is loose in Bartulis' feet that isn't a hockey play? He came in hard and put his shoulder into him and Bartulis had his head down. The puck was RIGHT THERE. Bob was freezing it at Bartulis' feet. He wasn't standing in some random location by himself.
Was the puck loose in Bart's feet? No. He didn't have the puck, and there's absolutely no *ing reason for Scottie to go right at Bartulis, he probably could have come in between him and Bob anyway without making a beeline for him. No need to throw that hit, not a hockey play no matter how badly you want it to be.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:30 AM
  #61
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
Was the puck loose in Bart's feet? No. He didn't have the puck, and there's absolutely no *ing reason for Scottie to go right at Bartulis, he probably could have come in between him and Bob anyway without making a beeline for him. No need to throw that hit, not a hockey play no matter how badly you want it to be.
It was going to be if the rebound sprung loose, which is apparently the reason Bartulis was staring at his goalie, rather than protecting the crease.

And he couldn't have come in between them. Upshall was also coming around Meszaros and whomever his teammate there is (meaning he probably couldn't see what Bob was doing, BTW) and into Bartulis. It was a congested space.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:33 AM
  #62
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It was going to be if the rebound sprung loose, which is apparently the reason Bartulis was staring at his goalie, rather than protecting the crease.

And he couldn't have come in between them. Upshall was also coming around Meszaros and whomever his teammate there is (meaning he probably couldn't see what Bob was doing, BTW) and into Bartulis. It was a congested space.
...But the rebound wasn't there. BARTULIS DID NOT HAVE THE PUCK. Period.

He charged in, hit someone without the puck late, and it threw him into the boards.

Even if Bartulis had seen him coming (and you can see he's turning to luck up just as Upshall comes in), he's standing completely still and someone is bearing down on him at close to full speed. He's getting trucked there regardless in what is an unnecessarily vicious hit and not a hockey play.


Agree to disagree, I guess - as usual with you.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:36 AM
  #63
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
...But the rebound wasn't there. BARTULIS DID NOT HAVE THE PUCK. Period.

He charged in, hit someone without the puck late, and it threw him into the boards.

Even if Bartulis had seen him coming (and you can see he's turning to luck up just as Upshall comes in), he's standing completely still and someone is bearing down on him at close to full speed. He's getting trucked there regardless.


Agree to disagree, I guess - as usual with you.
If he's in a position to take on a guy coming, he doesn't get propelled into the boards like he was shot out of a cannon.

And I've never disputed that it was a penalty.... but it was a 2 min penalty with a bad result. Just like Downie's was a double-minor, maybe a major with a bad result.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:43 AM
  #64
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If he's in a position to take on a guy coming, he doesn't get propelled into the boards like he was shot out of a cannon.

And I've never disputed that it was a penalty.... but it was a 2 min penalty with a bad result. Just like Downie's was a double-minor, maybe a major with a bad result.
He's still going to get hit dangerously into the boards. Even as it was, he had his weight toward the opposing player and his edges dug from stopping and turning in that direction. He's fairly decently dug-in, short of sticking Upshall in the face there's little he can do to avoid getting trucked right there...he got hit with a full head of steam.

And given the way the NHL rules things, that's gonna get a suspension every time. It's textbook for them.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:43 AM
  #65
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Bartulis does need to bulk up. He is lanky

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:45 AM
  #66
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
He's still going to get hit dangerously into the boards. Even as it was, he had his weight toward the opposing player and his edges dug from stopping and turning in that direction. He's fairly decently dug-in, short of sticking Upshall in the face there's little he can do to avoid getting trucked right there...he got hit with a full head of steam.

And given the way the NHL rules things, that's gonna get a suspension every time. It's textbook for them.
Well, that's exactly what he should have been in a position to do...

And I'm not sure I buy that a "textbook" for suspensions exists in the NHL.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 09:46 AM
  #67
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, that's exactly what he should have been in a position to do...

And I'm not sure I buy that a "textbook" for suspensions exists in the NHL.
No, I think one exists, it's just a "Choose Your Own Adventure" textbook.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 10:12 AM
  #68
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, that's exactly what he should have been in a position to do...

And I'm not sure I buy that a "textbook" for suspensions exists in the NHL.
So, because Bartulis wasn't ready to stick Upshall in the face (illegal) - which still may not have change the fact that he was getting run full speed while stationary and likely to get leveled anyway - it's still all his fault and a hockey play? You're hopeless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
No, I think one exists, it's just a "Choose Your Own Adventure" textbook.

If there's anything that can be called text book, an unnecessary hit on a defenseman by the boards that causes a season-ending injury is it.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 10:50 AM
  #69
Snipsnap12
Registered User
 
Snipsnap12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
The hit was disgusting and has no place in the game whatsoever. The purpose of body contact in hockey isnt to knock the other guy out/injure him, its to remove him for the puck for your own benefit. Bartulis didnt have the puck, if you make the argument upshall was going for the puck its totally off base due to the face bob had it in his glove, and upshall was totally locked in on destroying bart. If the puck was there and upshall had a chance to have a shot he wouldnt have even looked at bart he would have went for the puck, and if he didnt hes just a complete idiot. The fact he came in pretty well full speed and hit an unsuspecting player after the whistle is dirty the fact that he was close to the boards makes it even worse.

Even if bart had the puck in his skate and that same hit is made, upshall still gets a penalty for boarding/charging/roughing take your pick.

Snipsnap12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 11:10 AM
  #70
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
So, because Bartulis wasn't ready to stick Upshall in the face (illegal) - which still may not have change the fact that he was getting run full speed while stationary and likely to get leveled anyway - it's still all his fault and a hockey play? You're hopeless.
Defenseman put their stick up in a guys face coming at 'em all the *ing time in the NHL. All the time. That's how you defend yourself when a guy is coming at you.

I also remember fondly pretty much everyone on this board defending Randy Jones for running Bergeron through the end boards... so, color-me-shocked that Upshall is a bad guy for a shoulder-to-shoulder hit right after the whistle.

Quote:
If there's anything that can be called text book, an unnecessary hit on a defenseman by the boards that causes a season-ending injury is it.
Beyond the goal line is "by the boards" now? He was standing 11+ feet from the boards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangecrush18 View Post
The hit was disgusting and has no place in the game whatsoever. The purpose of body contact in hockey isnt to knock the other guy out/injure him, its to remove him for the puck for your own benefit. Bartulis didnt have the puck, if you make the argument upshall was going for the puck its totally off base due to the face bob had it in his glove, and upshall was totally locked in on destroying bart. If the puck was there and upshall had a chance to have a shot he wouldnt have even looked at bart he would have went for the puck, and if he didnt hes just a complete idiot. The fact he came in pretty well full speed and hit an unsuspecting player after the whistle is dirty the fact that he was close to the boards makes it even worse.

Even if bart had the puck in his skate and that same hit is made, upshall still gets a penalty for boarding/charging/roughing take your pick.
The puck was right there. I would all but guarantee you that he wouldn't have gotten a penalty if the puck was loose, too. It wasn't charging (he coasted in and the contact was shoulder-to-shoulder), and it wasn't really boarding how it is enforced in the NHL.

The only real problem with that hit was that it was late... and it wasn't that late.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 11:23 AM
  #71
Snipsnap12
Registered User
 
Snipsnap12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
well Jester we obviously wont agree... Im happy that he got suspended, and bitter than he didnt get a major penalty because if the NHL thought it was suspension worthy, than a 2 minute minor was obviously not justice.

Snipsnap12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 11:38 AM
  #72
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangecrush18 View Post
well Jester we obviously wont agree... Im happy that he got suspended, and bitter than he didnt get a major penalty because if the NHL thought it was suspension worthy, than a 2 minute minor was obviously not justice.
If you're going to base your opinion off of NHL suspension policy... irrational worldview will be yours.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 11:49 AM
  #73
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
It's really not a bit much. A hit like that resulting in a serious injury will get suspended by the NHL 10 times out of 10.

Not a hockey play + violent collision + injury = suspension.
What constitutes a 'hockey play'? This seems to be one of those terms that is coined and then elasticized so as to fit whatever scenario one wants to. If you trip a player with your stick, is it a hockey play? To me, Upshall made late use of a hockey play (ie, a body check), and was appropriately assessed a charging minor. Is a charging hit a hockey play, since it is covered in the official NHL rules:

Quote:
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.

...

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).
btw, wow a whole $100 fine! That'll get them thinking twice!!

And I agree with you about how it is regarding a foul resulting in injury. I disagree that that's how it should be. Under that logic, Steckel should still be sitting out a suspension. Conversely, Cooke was issued a suspension even though the player he hit jumped back up right away. Results have to be tempered with intent and degree of recklessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangecrush18
The hit was disgusting and has no place in the game whatsoever. The purpose of body contact in hockey isnt to knock the other guy out/injure him, its to remove him for the puck for your own benefit.
There's quite the grey area between the two poles you have planted in your statement. "Finishing your check" has been preached, is preached and will be preached to players in the NHL, with the result to get your opponent thinking about being hit when he is playing the puck, and to wear him down (not injure). That's why there is an allowable delay of 1-2 seconds (and sometimes more) to hit a player who was in possession of the puck but who has passed/shot/lost possession.

And call me a lowbrow, but I subscribe to Jester's POV that Bartulis, being in a danger zone, has to plant himself better. He doesn't have to be ready to high-stick or coldcock an onrushing opponent, but he should be ready for some contact to protect the puck.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 11:56 AM
  #74
Snipsnap12
Registered User
 
Snipsnap12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If you're going to base your opinion off of NHL suspension policy... irrational worldview will be yours.
Did I say my opinion was based off of the NHL's ruling? No, I just said I was happy with the suspension that was handed out.

Snipsnap12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 11:59 AM
  #75
Snipsnap12
Registered User
 
Snipsnap12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
What constitutes a 'hockey play'? This seems to be one of those terms that is coined and then elasticized so as to fit whatever scenario one wants to. If you trip a player with your stick, is it a hockey play? To me, Upshall made late use of a hockey play (ie, a body check), and was appropriately assessed a charging minor. Is a charging hit a hockey play, since it is covered in the official NHL rules:



btw, wow a whole $100 fine! That'll get them thinking twice!!

And I agree with you about how it is regarding a foul resulting in injury. I disagree that that's how it should be. Under that logic, Steckel should still be sitting out a suspension. Conversely, Cooke was issued a suspension even though the player he hit jumped back up right away. Results have to be tempered with intent and degree of recklessness.



There's quite the grey area between the two poles you have planted in your statement. "Finishing your check" has been preached, is preached and will be preached to players in the NHL, with the result to get your opponent thinking about being hit when he is playing the puck, and to wear him down (not injure). That's why there is an allowable delay of 1-2 seconds (and sometimes more) to hit a player who was in possession of the puck but who has passed/shot/lost possession.

And call me a lowbrow, but I subscribe to Jester's POV that Bartulis, being in a danger zone, has to plant himself better. He doesn't have to be ready to high-stick or coldcock an onrushing opponent, but he should be ready for some contact to protect the puck.
I am all for players finishing their check, just not after the whistle has been already blown, and oskars never even had possession of the puck

Snipsnap12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.