People forget that the Kings "Clockgate" game could have still ended with the exact same standings outcome. Kings win in OT get two points and still have the same ROW. Kings would have had 56 seconds of 4-on-3 power play time.
I think your ability to believe in your own opinion as fact is equal parts amazing and appalling.
No. You are wrong. The NHL rule book states that this play is reviewable for supplemental discipline in section 56.2. Here is the link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
No. You are wrong. The NHL rule book states that this play is reviewable for supplemental discipline in section 56.2. Here is the link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
I never said that the play cannot be reviewable, I said that the play should not be suspendable.
In last season's playoff matchup between these same two teams, Jarrett Stoll checked Ian White from behind, and the refs did not call a penalty. As a result, the NHL suspended Stoll one game for the hit.
Precedent has been set. The league has already decided that it can suspend players who get away with dirty plays.
How convenient that the next game for Clowe is vs L.A.
The precedent was set a long time ago, last year was just a rehashing of it. That play should have been a penalty on the ice in addition to the additional discipline that Stoll got, not one or the other.
I don't think you understood my point though, because what you said doesn't really refute it.
Clowe shouldn't face repercussions as a result of this play not resulting in a penalty. If this play deserves it, then it should be done. People are suggesting that a fine or suspension is necessary because it was missed on the ice. I think that's incorrect.
thats a bit ironic. calling a player classless and yet hoping he gets cancer
What makes twitter great, also makes twitter awful. Great that you can communicate with people that you almost will certainly never talk to, also lets you be a giant ******* to someone when you're angry.
I never said that the play cannot be reviewable, I said that the play should not be suspendable.
This is what you said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomahawk214
...However, what distinguishes it from an intentional trip, hooking, or other similar action that could illegally break up a play? Why don't we consider those as suspendable?
There is a difference between the two and he may very well be suspended and that would be well within the NHL's right per the rule book. The reason a trip or hook aren't suspendable are because per the rule book they can't be. This action CAN be, do you see the difference?
That was disgusting. Just saw it on the replay from the game recap. There needs to be a fine or some kind of suspension for this.
Letting a player get away with something like that sends a TERRIBLE message. That wasn't a hockey play, that was straight up CHEATING. The same way throwing a puck onto the ice to your own player so he can have a breakaway is cheating.
The precedent was set a long time ago, last year was just a rehashing of it. That play should have been a penalty on the ice in addition to the additional discipline that Stoll got, not one or the other.
I don't think you understood my point though, because what you said doesn't really refute it.
Clowe shouldn't face repercussions as a result of this play not resulting in a penalty. If this play deserves it, then it should be done. People are suggesting that a fine or suspension is necessary because it was missed on the ice. I think that's incorrect.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out that the league has used the excuse of "well, it wasn't called on the ice, so you are suspended as supplemental discipline" before. and I could see it happening in this situation as well.
There is a difference between the two and he may very well be suspended and that would be well within the NHL's right per the rule book. The reason a trip or hook aren't suspendable are because per the rule book they can't be. This action CAN be, do you see the difference?
You're completely missing the point of what I said. I'm not saying why shouldn't intentional tripping etc be reviewable for supplemental discipline, I'm saying why doesn't intentional tripping get punished with suspension when you and others believe Clowe's action should? Technically I don't believe he should be fined either, but fines are often used by the league to discourage unfavorable behavior, so I wouldn't be surprised nor really opposed to it if it happened. I just believe that a suspension should be for serious incidents like dirty, dangerous hits.
The precedent was set a long time ago, last year was just a rehashing of it. That play should have been a penalty on the ice in addition to the additional discipline that Stoll got, not one or the other.
I don't think you understood my point though, because what you said doesn't really refute it.
Clowe shouldn't face repercussions as a result of this play not resulting in a penalty. If this play deserves it, then it should be called. People are suggesting that a fine or suspension is necessary because it was missed on the ice.
Just because it was "allegedly" missed on the ice does not mean the league cannot come back and do something.
Given that a play like this occurs once in a millenium, not sure how the NHL will react. It would not surprise me if he got suspended for 1 game, so if anyone else thinks about trying the same play might think twice. Seems extreme but this is the NHL we are talking about, so who knows.
What alot of people aren't thinking about is that if players see the punishment is only a $2500 fine, it might be worth the chance to try this in the playoffs. So Sharks fans, if this happened to you in the playoffs would you be ok with it just being a "missed call"?
Just because it was "allegedly" missed on the ice does not mean the league cannot come back and do something.
Given that a play like this occurs once in a millenium, not sure how the NHL will react. It would not surprise me if he got suspended for 1 game, so if anyone else thinks about trying the same play might think twice. Seems extreme but this is the NHL we are talking about, so who knows.
That San Jose's next game is against the same LA Kings (and that both teams involved have already locked up a playoff berth, that might be a great reason to suspend him from it.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out that the league has used the excuse of "well, it wasn't called on the ice, so you are suspended as supplemental discipline" before. and I could see it happening in this situation as well.
Ah, I misunderstood the purpose of your post then, my mistake.
A play like that though would very well deserve both penalty and fine/suspension, and it has a whole hell of a lot in the past.
For Clowe, I don't think they'll suspend him, even though its in the rules to do so if they wanted. There's not much precedent for this, so they can do what they want without a reasonable comparison judgement, but I think a suspension is a bit harsh, as the punishment should deter everyone from attempting this in the future, but it doesn't fit the crime at hand.
I figure it'll be a fine, which sends a message, even if its a small dollar amount. I also anticipate the league changing this rule to make it an automatic penalty shot.
