Yes I would actually, but then I also know that he started the whole chain of events with a careless hit of his own, but yeah I would understand, how about that for you?
Thankfully the league expects players to be somewhat more mentally stable and in control of their emotions than you do.
Obviously we are operating with limited information, but this strikes me as a bad move by Keith. The first thought that crossed my mind is that Keith is defiant and doesn't even feel the need to explain himself to the League in person.
But I suppose it's just as possible that Keith told them via phone that he's guilty as charged, that he cannot defend his actions and he won't waste the League's time with a groveling in-person hearing when he knows he deserves to get the book. Perhaps that kind of contrition could get him a little leniency.
Well, perhaps what this demonstrates is that the officiating is tremendously inconsistant to the point that it can be impossible to determine what is or isn't a penalty.
9 out of 10 times that hit goes unpenalized. It is simply not a penalty in the game today.
The histrionics around Daniel Sedin's hit have reached absurd levels. A routine hard full-body forecheck is now being talked about like it's Kasparitis or Stevens leveling Lindros with a huge headshot or something.
They're trying to deflect the attention to a lesser hit to rationalize the stupidity of the hit by duncan keith.
Yes I would actually, but then I also know that he started the whole chain of events with a careless hit of his own, but yeah I would understand, how about that for you?
Sometimes you just don't have the moral high ground. This is one of those times. Stop.
Sometimes you just don't have the moral high ground. This is one of those times. Stop.
Nope I'm not stopping because people are on their high horse and acting in a completely ridiculous way, and I will continue to call people out on it because quite frankly, it's assinine.
Those are all interpretations on your part. Watch the actual examples from Shanahan, and Daniel's is basically a carbon copy.
I'm happy discussing whether or not the standard is the right one, but it's a plain fact that Daniel's hit fits Shanahan's own examples of "not suspension worthy".
And more to the point based on numerous similar hits "not even minor penalty worthy".
Nope I'm not stopping because people are on their high horse and acting in a completely ridiculous way, and I will continue to call people out on it because quite frankly, it's assinine.
If he can't take a Sedin hit, he needs to sit down for a long time. Didn't his buddy Dave Bolland call them the Sedin sisters? Could Duncan Keith really be scared of them?
When you get hit in the head, it doesn't matter how soft the player is, it can cause the same amount of damage....but of course you knew that
I agree that the league's policy has been a failure. They need to start throwing the book at people. It happened with Matt Cooke and he's completely turned his game around (albeit after multiple suspensions).
As much as I despise Matt Cooke, I have to begrudgingly admit you are right here.
Cooke is the reason behind Rule 48 -- and his getting major suspensions from the league (and, as I understand it, the team taking action themself) has made a change.
Ironically, perhaps he is the poster child for the League looking at an actual case study and finally cleaning this mess up.
The League, teams, and players have to all get serious about this -- and they have lots of work to do before next season.
Nope I'm not stopping because people are on their high horse and acting in a completely ridiculous way, and I will continue to call people out on it because quite frankly, it's assinine.
Maybe instead of sitting on your high horse, you could objectively look at what neutral fans think and see the majority of them think Keith is in the wrong.
Don't you find it strange that "the most hated team in the NHL" is getting more support than your beloved Hawks?
The Flyers would start brawls over nothing, often just to take better players off the ice.
Are you seriously trying to claim that hard hits like Sedin's routinely led to bench-clearing brawls in the past? Your fetish with "old-time hockey" is beyond embarrassing at this point.
Hit a guy late in the corner high and from behind? Yeah, you're getting retaliated on big time, which is why so few guys did that. Less guys doing that=way less guys on IR than now. Because the consequences of doing what Sedin did were too high. Keith attaches similar consequences to keep himself out of the ranks of the IR and he's being demonized for it.
Which I would be okay with if the league really had the whole player safety thing under control. If the penalty for hitting a guy in the head on purpose was a serious deterrent (say, automatic 10 games for hitting a guy in the head on purpose, which is what Sedin did) instead of one part hair-splitting, one part politics and one part roulette, I'd be fine with hammering Keith for 50 games. Hell, a year, even. But those aren't the conditions Keith plays in.
League discipline isn't a serious deterrent. So now Keith's being punished, basically, for responding to a dangerous thing done pointlessly to him in a way, in my view, that will keep in games in the long run--something the league has shown criminal indifference toward.
I love Chicago the City. Do business there regularly. People are amazingly friendly - friendlier than west coasters, for sure - and it's one of the very few places in the US where you can catch a cab and the cabbie will start talking hockey.
Good thing Sedin's was none of those. Let's break it down:
>vulnerable position
How the ******* was Keith in a vulnerable position??? He just cleared a puck, does he not expect a hit? And if so, how is that anyone's fault but his own?
>principal contact to the head
debatable
>late
nope
>blindside
is that even illegal anymore? and still, not really
Keith is looking up ice to where he moved the puck, Sedin approaches from behind his peripheral vision and hits Keith directly in the side of the head.
Hit a guy late in the corner high and from behind? Yeah, you're getting retaliated on big time, which is why so few guys did that. Less guys doing that=way less guys on IR than now. Because the consequences of doing what Sedin did were too high. Keith attaches similar consequences to keep himself out of the ranks of the IR and he's being demonized for it.
Which I would be okay with if the league really had the whole player safety thing under control. If the penalty for hitting a guy in the head on purpose was a serious deterrent (say, automatic 10 games for hitting a guy in the head on purpose, which is what Sedin did) instead of one part hair-splitting, one part politics and one part roulette, I'd be fine with hammering Keith for 50 games. Hell, a year, even. But those aren't the conditions Keith plays in.
League discipline isn't a serious deterrent. So now Keith's being punished, basically, for responding to a dangerous thing done pointlessly to him in a way, in my view, that will keep in games in the long run--something the league has shown criminal indifference toward.
No, he's being demonized because the Sedin hit wouldn't have ever hurt anyone (which is why Keith is 100% fine) and because his hit would hurt anyone every time (which is why Sedin is not fine).
Obviously we are operating with limited information, but this strikes me as a bad move by Keith. The first thought that crossed my mind is that Keith is defiant and doesn't even feel the need to explain himself to the League in person.
But I suppose it's just as possible that Keith told them via phone that he's guilty as charged, that he cannot defend his actions and he won't waste the League's time with a groveling in-person hearing when he knows he deserves to get the book. Perhaps that kind of contrition could get him a little leniency.
From what I understand of the situation, here is what happened:
Keith was told they'd be doing a phone hearing. Word got out. People started pre-emptively complaining that, because it was a phone hearing, Keith would get a maximum of 5 games and in their minds, that wasn't enough.
Somewhere along the line, Shanny realized he may wish to impose a harsher penalty than 5 games to Keith. However, in order to do this he would have to have an in-person hearing with Keith. To avoid having to do that, he asked Keith to waive his right to an in-person hearing, freeing Shanny up to suspend him for as long or as short as he'd like. Keith agreed to waive his right to an in-person hearing.
All that's happened so far is Shanny has more or less said he's considering a suspension longer than 5 games (by asking Keith to waive his right to an in-person hearing), but he has not committed to any minimum length for a suspension. It could be 3 games, 5 games, 7 games, etc.
Maybe instead of sitting on your high horse, you could objectively look at what neutral fans think and see the majority of them think Keith is in the wrong.
Don't you find it strange that "the most hated team in the NHL" is getting more support than your beloved Hawks?
Frankly, I couldn't give two ***** about what other people think, not to mention your reading comprehension is apparently poor enough that you somehow think I think Duncan Keith's actions were completely ok...when I've repeatedly said, no, his actions WERE NOT ok, and he deserves to be suspended...but I empathize and understand why he did it given the circumstances. Good Lord.
If Sestito's hit does not apply under rule 48, you dont suspend it.
It wasnt anything but a late hit. It was textbook interference. Not every interference play deserves a suspension. Not every hit with head contact deserves a suspension.
This is the most misunderstood thing about the NHL's policy-- the NHL only penalizes hits where the head was targeted AND the principal point of contact. It's right there in the rules. If the head was not targeted, it doesnt deserve a suspension.
Sestito deserved an interference call. Probably 5 minutes for being reckless. That doesnt mean it deserves anything else.
People fall on the "inconsistency" argument when they dont udnerstand the NHL's policy. But under Shanahan, the NHL has taken a direct stance-- if you target the head you get suspended. They have been consistent in implementing that philosophy.
I don't agree that Sestito's hit on Horton didn't target the head -- I'm quite sure it did.
That said, perhaps I am guilty of not understanding the League policy.
However, I'm quite sure that, whatever the League's policy on reducing head shots and related concussions is, it has been an abject failure to date.
If you don't concur, then it's probably best we agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Keith is looking up ice to where he moved the puck, Sedin approaches from behind his peripheral vision and hits Keith directly in the side of the head.
This has been discussed to death, particularly in the Kronwall incidents. Sedin leads with the shoulder, and the only reason any contact is made with the head is because Keith's leaning forward staring at the pass.
The league has ruled on this, multiple times. Lead with shoulder + incidental head contact = no problem. Otherwise everyone could skate with their heads down and never get hit.
The only problem with Sedin's play was that it was late. Maximum 2 min interference penalty, if the refs decide to call that. And we know how that's been going lately.
Maybe instead of sitting on your high horse, you could objectively look at what neutral fans think and see the majority of them think Keith is in the wrong.
Don't you find it strange that "the most hated team in the NHL" is getting more support than your beloved Hawks?
I find it strange that Hawks fans continue to agree and say Keith deserves a suspension... and Nucks fans continue to paint the events in increasingly ridiculous language.
If he can't take a Sedin hit, he needs to sit down for a long time. Didn't his buddy Dave Bolland call them the Sedin sisters? Could Duncan Keith really be scared of them? 
