Cause he's the one that seems to have convinced many a fool that he attempted to avoid. All the while, with perfect execution.
Look at post #904.
If Smith doesn't lean his head down when he's firing the puck then no contact at all is made. I'm not blaming Smith at all because clearly Shaw came in not really in control of himself so he should have gotten a penalty. But he was trying to play the puck and he did make an effort to get out of the way.
Mike Smith needs to keep his head up, he's not untouchable back there.
where should the guy go..?..smith takes up the whole area behind the net......donīt go outside the crease if you canīt handle a little contact
He's an NHL player, HE CAN STOP. Why can't people understand this? And you're second point is wrong, a goalie doesn't have to be able to handle contact because they aren't fair game.
Who's being evasive? Let me give you a hint. . . it's you.
OK - I'll give you a couple more minutes of my time. Because of the way you present your question, it is a logical fallicy, sometimes called a fallacious argument. The parameters you present do not have to me met in order to meet precedent. In fact, the main point I've been making is that the NHL is capricious in judgements and my use of precedent was meant to be damning, albeit as applied arbitrarily Keith's 5-game suspension was excessive based on other arbitrary rulings.
He's an NHL player, HE CAN STOP. Why can't people understand this? And you're second point is wrong, a goalie doesn't have to be able to handle contact because they aren't fair game.
A player has every right to play the puck when it's behind the boards. Smith can't stand there with the puck all day and expect no pressure. Shaw makes the decision to play the puck and he is VERY close to actually touching it. Look at post #904, he is inches away from the puck and if Smith doesn't drop his head when he fired the puck then no contact is even made with Smith at all. Not saying it's Smith's fault but this is a physical game (or at least it used to be). Shaw was reckless and deserved a penalty but a suspension, no sir.
And to your next point: I disagree. An action that puts one player in the hospital should be punished more severely than the same action that does no damage to a different player.
"Darren Dreger had this to say on twitter:
Mike Smith is uninjured and will play tonight. Had he been hurt...Shaw would have been suspended rest of series."
this is the quote i was replying to. clearly, if there's an injury, it lengthens a suspension
"A goalkeeper is not fair game just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact 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 unnecessary contact."
Straight from the rule book. He is not "fair game" but that doesn't mean he can't be touched.
A player has every right to play the puck when it's behind the boards. Smith can't stand there with the puck all day and expect no pressure. Shaw makes the decision to play the puck and he is VERY close to actually touching it. Look at post #904, he is inches away from the puck and if Smith doesn't drop his head when he fired the puck then no contact is even made with Smith at all. Not saying it's Smith's fault but this is a physical game (or at least it used to be). Shaw was reckless and deserved a penalty but a suspension, no sir.
What does him almost touching the puck have to do with anything? Even if he did get it, if he still ran over Smith it would still be the same result. You realize that, right?
"A goalkeeper is not fair game just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact 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 unnecessary contact."
Straight from the rule book. He is not "fair game" but that doesn't mean he can't be touched.
...if he was body checked, I'm not sure its a suspension, and I'm certain it isn't 3 games. It was a check DIRECTLY TO THE HEAD.
This really, really isn't that difficult to understand.
OK - I'll give you a couple more minutes of my time. Because of the way you present your question, it is a logical fallicy, sometimes called a fallacious argument. The parameters you present do not have to me met in order to meet precedent. In fact, the main point I've been making is that the NHL is capricious in judgements and my use of precedent was meant to be damning, albeit as applied arbitrarily Keith's 5-game suspension was excessive based on other arbitrary rulings.
What does him almost touching the puck have to do with anything? Even if he did get it, if he still ran over Smith it would still be the same result. You realize that, right?
It shows he wasn't trying to run the goalie, he was trying to make a hockey play.
He didn't "run him over" and wouldn't have touched him at all had Smith's head not dropped when he shot the puck (as can be seen in #904).
You shoot somebody in the leg, you go to jail for a few years. You shoot somebody in the head you go to jail for life.
this is a terrible analogy.
those are two different actions. shooting someone in the head isn't the same as shooting someone in the leg.
i was talking about if the exact same play was to happen again between shaw and smith, but this time smith would be injured. same action, different result
...if he was body checked, I'm not sure its a suspension, and I'm certain it isn't 3 games. It was a check DIRECTLY TO THE HEAD.
This really, really isn't that difficult to understand.
The only reason it is a check to the head is because Smith's head drops, at the last second, into Shaw's path (hence him pulling back at the last second). The video in post 904 shows this clearly.
