As I mentioned in the main thread, the issue for us is that we still compare everything to the Rome suspension. Honestly, I think that was far and away the worst decision by the league on justice in recent memory...
Yes, the Keith suspension is fully in line with the current standards.
The Rome suspension being so far out of left field is what made it a joke. Previously the longest sentence ever in the Finals was for one game. Add to that the fact that Rome's infraction was only borderline illegal, and the punishment was unjustifiable. I think someone high up in the league (Gary?) freaked out when things were in front of a US national TV audience.
The hit was more reckless, predatory, vicious, and likely pre-meditated than any of the hits you compare it to. It was the gold standard for a dirty hit, and the perfect opportunity to draw the line. There was no grey area on this hit.
All of the suspensions are generally too short, but this one seems particularly egregious given the hit itself and the claim by Henrik that Keith promised payback.
Exactly. It is no wonder to me that the NHL is looked at the way it is. Its not even just about the Canucks, its about getting these dirty head shots out of the game, and the concussions that result because of them. Was Shanahan consistent? Yes. Did he do the right thing in my opinion? Not even close. Dropped the ball, and concussions will continue. Now Keith can get some rest before playoffs, superb. What a punishment. At least he lost money i guess.
Good thing Keith's last name isn't Sutton (8 games) or Carcillo (7 games) or else his suspension would have been longer. Of a lot of the suspensions this season that elbow was the most deliberate of any infraction. It's not like Bourque who's elbow was a brush by blind side hit. Keith's elbow was a north-south leaping hit with the elbow pointed towards the banners.
Yes, the Keith suspension is fully in line with the current standards.
The Rome suspension being so far out of left field is what made it a joke. Previously the longest sentence ever in the Finals was for one game. Add to that the fact that Rome's infraction was only borderline illegal, and the punishment was unjustifiable. I think someone high up in the league (Gary?) freaked out when things were in front of a US national TV audience.
It's a lot easier to dole out a lengthy suspension to a 5/6 defenceman (Rome, Eager, Brendan Smith) or a bottom 3 forward (JF Jaques, Kaleta, Carcillo) then a marqius all star defenceman.
It's about the standard, it's not about this individual suspension. I don't know why so many of us were expecting that this be the hit the NHL draws the line in the sand and says "the standard for this hit is no longer 2-5 games".
If the NHL wanted to rid the game of this kind of hit (Keith on Sedin, Bourque on Backstrom, etc.) the standard suspension for a hit like that would be 10+ games, but it isn't. The standard has been set in the 2-5 game range, and Keith's suspension falls in line with that. His suspension isn't unfair. The standard that has been set is a joke in terms of it being a deterrent, however this suspension was fair in accordance with the standard that they've set.
The issue for Canuck fans (and hockey fans in general) should be that the standard suspension for dangerous, predatory hits in general is far too soft to act as a real deterrent to those kind of plays, but it's not like they can just change their mind right before the playoffs.
Personally, I'm fine with the suspension (when including the freebie kneeing to his testicles)...
I think the reason some are upset is because the expectations for the suspension length increased a lot today... First, the change in hearing type... Then, the talk and speculation that the NHL might finally want to make an example - to act as a deterrent for others... Crosby just came back, the NFL bounty stuff, etc. It just seemed like the perfect storm for this to be the "example setting" hit... This hit is textbook what the NHL (which includes the Hawks) want out of the league... Add this textbook example, plus the good chance that Keith called he was going to do it, then what's the problem here? It's late in the season... What a great way to end the season (from a league discipline point of view)... We started strong, we ended strong... We're committed to shaping behaviour here...
I think even Hawk fans would agree that they don't want head shots like the one Keith delivered in the game... I'd imagine that most Hawks fans hate the hit, and if it was delivered on their star player, they'd be just as pissed - and want a significant suspension (the more, the better) as well... Keith (and the Hawks) didn't exactly get off lightly... but it's hardly a trend setting/behaviour changing retribution...
In retrospect, it was probably the wrong player and wrong team to expect a new precedent-setting decision based on... It was only the right play to do it on...
I hope Daniel is ready to go for the start of the playoffs... Keith has a huge target on his back now... which is good for me as a Canuck fan... but not very good as a fan of hockey in general...
As has been pointed out, the GMs and the owners came hard on the NHL for certain suspensions at the start of the year and that's why we almost immediately saw the reduction in severity of the punishments. As for Sutton and Carcillo, both have previous history and that was factored into their suspensions.
5 games is consistent with what Shanny has been doing for most of the year.
Good thing Keith's last name isn't Sutton (8 games) or Carcillo (7 games) or else his suspension would have been longer. Of a lot of the suspensions this season that elbow was the most deliberate of any infraction. It's not like Bourque who's elbow was a brush by blind side hit. Keith's elbow was a north-south leaping hit with the elbow pointed towards the banners.
Almost enough to call it under the new rule for headshots as well since Keith knew what he was doing, it was very clearly a flagrant elbow to the head when he could've not hit his head but lower down with his chest/shoulder. I doubt that would change the suspension length though
It's hard to compare the discipline for the Rome hit and any of these hits considering the Rome suspension was given by Campbell who's no longer in charge of supplemental discipline.
Agree. Pretty much anyone in the hockey world would agree that the suspension on Rome was by far the worst decision ever made on a suspension in the NHL. It was borderline cheating knowing how depleted the Canucks D was at the time. It's hard to compare Rome's suspension to anything.
If I was Scott Howson I'd be choked. After the Wiz got eight games for a flagrant elbow and put Columbus behind the eight ball, you'd think that we'd be looking at a 'rest of the regular season' type sentence.
I for one thought Marchand should've gotten more too, but that's just because of my personal bias towards gutless players like him.
Agree. Pretty much anyone in the hockey world would agree that the suspension on Rome was by far the worst decision ever made on a suspension in the NHL. It was borderline cheating knowing how depleted the Canucks D was at the time. It's hard to compare Rome's suspension to anything.
That is why those NHL candidates related to Boston who made the decision is a joke.
How many other teams have drawn 3 suspensions thus far this year? Vancouver has Kevin Porter, Marchand, and now Keith.
We can thank Boston for that. Now every team wants to play us with an edge and "prove a point". Can't wait for some Edler-smash (clean hits, of course) in the playoffs.
