Are you really suggesting that had he done the exact same thing to a 4th liner you would be okay with it ?
It's bad enough that some people want the extent of the injury to DICTATE the length of a suspension, but so say well Sedin is a superstar so you get 10 but feel free to go and elbow Staubitz all you want because really, who is gonna miss him ?
5 for a first time offender is about right. Could it have been 7, sure I think it was worse then the bourque one but people calling for the rest of the season and the first round are crazy.
1) There are some people here that really haven't learned anything from the Bertuzzi incident.
2) Other than the Bertuzzi incident, when have we really seen teams doing what people in this thread are suggesting. Let's call up a goon and bash in Kopitar's face since we might play LA in the playoffs. Well I guess we can just cheapshot other team's stars since it's only a 5 game suspension. Yes, there have been cheapshots in the history of the NHL, but when has any of that type of suggestions actually been followed through on? Teams for the most part haven't reacted that way in the past. Why is this hit going to be different?
Wizard got 8 games when he was a repeat offender who went headhunting after the game ended. DK got too many games if your using Wiz's suspension as the precedent. NOTE- not saying the suspension was too short.
Hope Daniel is 100% and playing soon.
Of course Daniel's 100%. He was just pretending to get Keith's suspension number up. I have good word on here from some Nova Scotian that Daniel will back for the Nucks' next game against Colorado tomorrow, err, against LA when their road trip's over, errrr, sometime soon. Point being, it's all a hoax! Rabble rabble rabble. Canucks are the true criminals here. Free Keith. One love. Peace.
You give him 25 and people freak out that it's too much.
You give him 10 and people freak out that it's inconsistent with the Bourque hit.
You give him 5 and people freak out that it's not enough even though it is consistent. Half the people here STILL cry that it's inconsistent even though it is quite obviously consistent given the precedent
So what the **** do you people want? At some point you need to realize that Shanahan has a job that, by its very nature, will never be done perfectly.
Live with it. A five game ban can certainly be justified given the rules in the book and the precedent set before.
And also, I'm honestly laughing at the people who bring up the Rome hit...that was a different guy in charge. It is completely irrelevant.
Agreed with the first 80%, well done. However, Rome is relevent because the topic is suspension length - obviously the two hits were different.
Based on precedent, the league gave Keith essentially exactly what was to be expected.
He deserved more, but the NHL looks stupid either way. You make an example out of a clean player who was guilty of a bad, bad hit and give him a bigger suspension than expected, or you give the player the suspension that follows the precedent set by other, similar hits. The NHL chose the latter in what was ultimately a lose-lose situation.
Not exactly surprising. Were people really expecting more than 5? That was the upper bound of what I thought he'd get.
Based on the request for an in-person hearing, that shouldn't have been your expected upper bound. That is definitive evidence that there was real consideration of raising the current standard with a 6+ game suspension. Ultimately the League backed off on that, which shows (to me) that they are not going in the right direction.
I agree there's a serious problem with the suspension he handed to Keith. I'm ok with not penalizing hits that injure players overly harshly so long as the hit was a HOCKEY PLAY that got out of hand, such as shoulder coming up to the head or what have you.
But this Keith hit which was a blatant attempt to hurt Sedin when he didn't have the puck and was a completely illegal hit and just not a hockey play.
Neither was the Bourque hit on Backstrom.
Both Keith and Bourque should have had to sit for seriously 25 games for that (and I'm not exaggerating for effect). Again, I'm not a soft hockey-guy, I actually am all for no suspensions for hits to the head that just happen to happen throughout the game due to player miscalculation.
But when you are throwing a disgusting hit with intent to injure when the guy doesn't even have the puck: that doesn't belong in hockey and neither should the offender for a long period of time.
I basically agree with this. I'm willing to be very lenient about mistakes, but when it's completely clear that a hit served zero purpose except for injuring the other player, and was 100% intentional, a 5 game suspension is a bit of a joke.
for future reference, Campbell made no decision regarding the Bruins
as he said, Murphy made any decision where a Bruins player was the recipient or the culprit
Except as we know Campbell was intervening on behalf of his son in the past per the e-mails that were revealed during the law suit by a terminated referee:
If you think Campbell was not consulted I have lovely bridge to sell you. Heck Murphy slipped up and revealed he had talked to Brian Burke about the Rome suspension - a rival GM with an axe to grind against the Canucks.