HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Colin Campbell has it in for the leafs

View Poll Results: Does Colin Campbell have it in for the Leafs
Yes 6 11.32%
No 47 88.68%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-10-2004, 11:10 AM
  #51
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger


I BELIEVE it has nothing to do with INTENT.....ANY person that throws their equipment into the stands should be AUTOMATICALLY suspended...be it Sundin, Mother Theresa, David Letterman, Bin Laden....doesn't matter who... The word intent leaves room for making human judgement calls and that could cause errors and discussion like yours about fairness.. Automatic leaves NO DOUBT..[/B]
According to Campbell he was suspended because he intended throw his stick in the stands. Intent mattered to Campbell. If you want a new rule that for automatic suspension regardless of intent fine by me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Second Quinn and Sundin bring up the Nolan incident... Its totally irrelevant on this subject ...2 WRONGS don't make a Right and just because the league handled them both differently, doesn't mean that the league owes the Leafs anything on the Sundin incident because they may or may not have blown the call on the McKee incident...
[/B]

Actually the subject matter is whether the leafs get a fair shake by Campbell. At issue is Campbells treatment of the leafs regarding on ice incidents. What happened to Nolan is relevant. Obviously you believe that no suspension on McKee for Nolan incident is fine. OK. I don't. This incident is just as bad orr worse than Sundin incident. I have included the other suspensions leafs received as examples that were not as bad or as bad as the Hit on Poni or Nolan. In each case their was no supplemental discipline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
I agree with Tor-Town how can you possibly vote YES for this I just don't understand...You would be better off asking Gilmour's Way, Jerkini, Joey24, Savage why they voted yes because you are not going to convince me of anything, and probably not going to convince any other people that also voted NO.. I don't understand why you just can't let it go...
[/B]

I voted yes because other players doing similar on ice acts to the leafs have not received suspensions when the leaf players have received suspensions. This is the point of the poll question. No whether Sundins suspension was deserved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
I saw both acts that are described here ..... Sundin CLEARLY did not lose his stick on a follow through and have it go in the stands ..much like I have seen in Baseball where the bat shatters in the players hands and occasionally goes flying as a result... Sundin threw his broken stick Deliberately IN TO THE AIR clear INTENT ...He didn't drop it to the ice no INTENT, like he should have, and even if you read his own comments he thought he was closer to the boards and didn't think it would go in the crowd... Theres your intent..
[/B]
Intent to throw into the boards not the stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
TO ME Sundin's comments are total BS because he could have struck a player in the face if someone had been standing right behind him.... I think he should count his lucky stars and that he got off pretty easy in that NO ONE got hurt for his BONE HEAD action, learn from his mistake and move on.. Not for a second do I believe that Sundin wanted to hurt anyone and he is a very classy guy. on the ice and off..BUT he made a mistake like all humans do from time to time and as a result has to live up to those consequences..
[/B]

I agree with this except his comments are truthful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
If this sets an example for every other player out there, than going to a Hockey game just got a lot safer for everyone and I commend Colin Campbell for making the RIGHT CALL and having the guts to do it...
Maybe the Intent that you are so concerned about by Campbell was the the length of the Suspension in his eyes not the intent to throw the stick...that part is obvious to most people that saw the play and and the replay now a million times.. Campbell used the the words intent and you are taking out of context here.. TO me it doesn't matter ...my rule is clearer ... Do the Crime ...Do the Time..
Don't have any problem with making hockey safer but Sundins suspension didn't make hockey safer because you can't legislate against unintended consequences. Of course if anyone who intends to throw their stick into the stands thinks twice it will make hockey safer.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-10-2004 at 11:14 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-10-2004, 11:14 AM
  #52
reg dunlop
Registered User
 
reg dunlop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: calgary
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Hard to say. The refs decided that his intent was not to throw the stick in the stands or else they could have given him a miscounduct. This is just a case of Colin Campbell giving it to the leafs once again.
now you guys will have an excuse when you dont win the cup yet again... I can hear it now, blame the refs, the leafs didnt win the cup.. Toronto is not going to win the cup in the next 10 years

reg dunlop is offline  
Old
01-11-2004, 10:17 AM
  #53
Charge_Seven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
The real question!!!

Everyone the issue is the non-calls against the Leafs vs the Calls against the Leafs. There seem to be far too many far too frequesntly, I believe this is what the original poster was getting at.

Colin Campbell clearly has two sets of rules when it comes to suspending people. I do not disagree with Sundin's suspension, don't get me wrong. But my issues sit with non-calls in Jay McKee's highstick, which was CLEARLY warranting a game at least. A player must control his stick (similarly, Sundin needed to control his). Same goes for way back when Berard got smacked. Hossa deserved a suspension. The hit on Ponikarovsky as well warranted a suspension as it was clear the player was trying to knock Alex into the boards head first, there was no other possible option. The talk of Tucker/Stevens and whether or not one is more liked by the league is also not something that should be talked about hear, because by stating that the refs dislike Tucker, and therefore he gets more penalties/suspensions clearly backs the idea that the league has favourites, and deals with players based on favouritism. Tie Domi's elbow to Niedermayer was brought up here as well, I'm not about to say Tie was screwed on that one, but come on, you can't give conditions for a suspension, Campbell had to say "6 games" or "2 games" or "58 games" or whatever he decided not "well...if the Leafs win then he gets more...and if they lose...he also gets more..." Maybe suspensions based on how long a player is out should be done if that's the way Campbell wants to be. It's clear that the Leafs have been screwed left right and centre year in and year out, but there's no use disputing it in this fashion, because people are confused as to the real question.

Charge_Seven is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 07:30 PM
  #54
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregStack
Everyone the issue is the non-calls against the Leafs vs the Calls against the Leafs. There seem to be far too many far too frequesntly, I believe this is what the original poster was getting at.

Colin Campbell clearly has two sets of rules when it comes to suspending people. I do not disagree with Sundin's suspension, don't get me wrong. But my issues sit with non-calls in Jay McKee's highstick, which was CLEARLY warranting a game at least. A player must control his stick (similarly, Sundin needed to control his). Same goes for way back when Berard got smacked. Hossa deserved a suspension. The hit on Ponikarovsky as well warranted a suspension as it was clear the player was trying to knock Alex into the boards head first, there was no other possible option. The talk of Tucker/Stevens and whether or not one is more liked by the league is also not something that should be talked about hear, because by stating that the refs dislike Tucker, and therefore he gets more penalties/suspensions clearly backs the idea that the league has favourites, and deals with players based on favouritism. Tie Domi's elbow to Niedermayer was brought up here as well, I'm not about to say Tie was screwed on that one, but come on, you can't give conditions for a suspension, Campbell had to say "6 games" or "2 games" or "58 games" or whatever he decided not "well...if the Leafs win then he gets more...and if they lose...he also gets more..." Maybe suspensions based on how long a player is out should be done if that's the way Campbell wants to be. It's clear that the Leafs have been screwed left right and centre year in and year out, but there's no use disputing it in this fashion, because people are confused as to the real question.
Finally, this is exactly what the poll was all about but l'affaire Stick Sundin and whether his suspension was warranted or not blinded everyone to the poll question. Where were you a few days ago.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 07:36 PM
  #55
Charge_Seven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
A few days ago I was reading, not replying ;-). Decided that the board needed some clarity.

Charge_Seven is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 11:31 AM
  #56
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Colin Campbell strikes again. Maybe time to get some more yes votes. Lets face it. If Tuck or Domi do the same thing they are gone for 5 games.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-14-2004 at 11:35 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 07:53 AM
  #57
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
In the eyes of the Leafs' Bryan McCabe, such actions seem to be worse than the stick-tossing incident that landed captain Mats Sundin a one-game suspension last week.

"It's a bit of a surprise," McCabe said of Roenick's suspension. "Mats got one game for such a little thing ... you can't even compare the two. It's surprising.

"I guess when you play in the spotlight of Toronto sometimes the league tries to make an example of you," McCabe said.

"Let's be honest, there are referees out there who hate the Flyers -- hate the way we play, hate the way we *****, hate the way we moan and complain, so they purposely call the games against us," Roenick said yesterday. "That's not right. So how do you expect us to react when we see blatant favouritism against us? It happens time and again."


Colin Campbell gives Roenick gets 5 games if he plays for the leafs. What a joke JR should try playing for the leafs (I wouldn't mind) then he would find out the definition of bad treatment.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 08:20 AM
  #58
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reg dunlop
now you guys will have an excuse when you dont win the cup yet again... I can hear it now, blame the refs, the leafs didnt win the cup.. Toronto is not going to win the cup in the next 10 years
Why don't you go troll somewhere else..

shakes is offline  
Old
01-16-2004, 08:48 AM
  #59
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
According to Bill Watters on Leaf lunch (Jan 16) Ed Snider runs the league and that Bettman is his boy. So it is not surprising that Roenick can carry on his diatribe at Bettman ad infinitum. Maybe Bettman is directing Campbell on the suspensions, in which case the poll should have included Bettman. Imagine a leaf behaving in the same way. Definitely, if Nolan carried on this way he would have received more than a game.

Big Mama* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:40 AM.

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.