HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Colin Campbell has it in for the leafs

View Poll Results: Does Colin Campbell have it in for the Leafs
Yes 6 11.32%
No 47 88.68%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2004, 06:44 PM
  #1
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Colin Campbell has it in for the leafs

This is a terrible call. How can the league discern the intent of Sundin to throw his stick into the stands. His intent could have been to just throw the stick away not necessarily into the stands.

This is worse than the 2 game suspension Campbell gave Belak when Brendon Witt charged Belak and he put up his elbow to defend himself and received two games.

Or Tuckers hit on Gonchar. That two game suspension was a joke.

Or Domi's 3 gamer for puching Arvedson.

I don't want to mention the horrible officiating the leafs are subjected to on a nightly basis.

This post is about whether leafs are getting a fair shake from Campbell not whether Sundin received what he deserved.

But what about McKee's hit on Nolans eye, no call ala Sundin but no supplemental discipline. And (Gill or McLaren) hit on Poni from behind which was a match penalty compared to Tuck getting two games for his hit on Gonchar.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-10-2004 at 05:10 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:46 PM
  #2
GoM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,588
vCash: 500
I surprisingly agree witht he suspension

Whatever his intent, it coul dhave hurt someone. No, it didn't. It's the principle. I don't like it, but it's the rules.

GoM is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:48 PM
  #3
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,164
vCash: 500
intent makes no difference. you can't toss your stick into the crowd.

Frankie is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:49 PM
  #4
august
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoM
I surprisingly agree witht he suspension

Whatever his intent, it coul dhave hurt someone. No, it didn't. It's the principle. I don't like it, but it's the rules.
I agree with you.

august is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:55 PM
  #5
McFly
Registered User
 
McFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Milton, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
This is a terrible call. How can the league discern the intent of Sundin to throw his stick into the stands. His intent could have been to just throw the stick away not necessarily into the stands.

This is worse than the 2 game suspension Campbell gave Belak when Brendon Witt charged Belak and he put up his elbow to defend himself and received two games.

Or Tuckers hit on Gonchar. That two game suspension was a joke.

I don't want to mention the horrible officiating the leafs are subjected to on a nightly basis.
Don't be so blind! Come on we all love Sundin, but he probably deserved more than one game! The incident went about as positively as it could. Someone could have lost an eye or worse yet been killed. Also, don't let a few minor suspensions all of a sudden determine that Campbell has it in for the Leafs, that's bull. Many would say the Leafs are favoured. I don't agree with the Tucker suspension either, but that's irrelevant. Gonchar was almost decapitated, whether Tucker left his feet or not. It was a charge. You can't honestly assess this situation and say it's a "terrible call". In life you have to be held accountable for your actions, and Sundin is being held accountable right now, and fortunately not to the degree he deserves for such a brain cramp.

McFly is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:57 PM
  #6
GoM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,588
vCash: 500
Did anyone listen to that LeafsTalk show on Mojo Radio/Leafs TV?

They had some guest speaker after Stajan, Alex something....he was going on and on about how Sundin doesn't deserve it because McKee didn't get a penalty.

Totally different thing, and he was being all ignorant and spewing **** about how people assume a risk by comign to the hockey game. Sure, they do. Want to tell that to Brittanie Cecil's parents?

GoM is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:06 PM
  #7
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McFly_GoLeafsGo
Don't be so blind! Come on we all love Sundin, but he probably deserved more than one game! The incident went about as positively as it could. Someone could have lost an eye or worse yet been killed. Also, don't let a few minor suspensions all of a sudden determine that Campbell has it in for the Leafs, that's bull. Many would say the Leafs are favoured. I don't agree with the Tucker suspension either, but that's irrelevant. Gonchar was almost decapitated, whether Tucker left his feet or not. It was a charge. You can't honestly assess this situation and say it's a "terrible call". In life you have to be held accountable for your actions, and Sundin is being held accountable right now, and fortunately not to the degree he deserves for such a brain cramp.
Apparantly, charging is an offence that deserves a suspension? Charges happen all over the ice. Stevens left his feet to hit Francis a couple years ago knocked him out and there was no suspension.
Pucks get knocked out of the rink all the time no different from a stick.

This is the rule ( Rule 88). The refs didn't call it.

c) A misconduct or game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on a player who throws his stick or any part thereof outside the playing area. If the offense is committed in protest of an Official's decision, a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to the offending player.

The reason discretion is given to the ref is so that the ref can decide on intent. In this case the ref decided the intent was not to throw the stick in the stands.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-07-2004 at 07:12 PM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:07 PM
  #8
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,164
vCash: 500
yeah, this assumed risk stuff is total garbage. it might included errant pucks, but not spiteful players throwing sticks because they just missed a shot.

the small print on the back of the ticket doesn't cover everything. it doesn't make it ok for players to be irresponsible.

Frankie is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:07 PM
  #9
Shawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under Your Skin
Posts: 672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
This is a terrible call. How can the league discern the intent of Sundin to throw his stick into the stands. His intent could have been to just throw the stick away not necessarily into the stands.

This is worse than the 2 game suspension Campbell gave Belak when Brendon Witt charged Belak and he put up his elbow to defend himself and received two games.

Or Tuckers hit on Gonchar. That two game suspension was a joke.

I don't want to mention the horrible officiating the leafs are subjected to on a nightly basis.
Sundin clearly intended to do what he did. You watch the replay and he is looking into the stands as he lets go of the stick. He got what he deserved. Lucky for him that he didn't hurt anyone.

Shawn is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:11 PM
  #10
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn
Sundin clearly intended to do what he did. You watch the replay and he is looking into the stands as he lets go of the stick. He got what he deserved. Lucky for him that he didn't hurt anyone.
Hard to say. The refs decided that his intent was not to throw the stick in the stands or else they could have given him a miscounduct. This is just a case of Colin Campbell giving it to the leafs once again.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:14 PM
  #11
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoM
Totally different thing, and he was being all ignorant and spewing **** about how people assume a risk by comign to the hockey game. Sure, they do. Want to tell that to Brittanie Cecil's parents?
They DO assume a risk going to a game. Try to pull all the heartstrings you want, but accidents happen even tragic ones. You know, I frequent other teams message boards and by far the most critical people of Mats Sundin were Leaf fans. I wonder if all you people agreeing with the suspension would be so noble if it were your beloved Dougie.

shakes is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:15 PM
  #12
Shawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under Your Skin
Posts: 672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Hard to say. The refs decided that his intent was not to throw the stick in the stands or else they could have given him a miscounduct. This is just a case of Colin Campbell giving it to the leafs once again.
It has been stated many times on tsn that the refs didn't see the incident and that is why they didn't give him the gate. I feel that one game is good enough considering the type of player Sundin is. He has never been known to do such a thing.

Shawn is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:15 PM
  #13
Verbal Kint*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Bunny Vatican
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,132
vCash: 500
This is another case of why people hate our fans. Sundin deserved more than a 1 game suspension and his reputation let him get away with one. The sheer potential of injury when throwing a splintered stick into the stands makes it a big No-no. Also, the only assumed risk at a hockey game is that of errant pucks as is described before each and every game by the announcer.

Verbal Kint* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:21 PM
  #14
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn
It has been stated many times on tsn that the refs didn't see the incident and that is why they didn't give him the gate. I feel that one game is good enough considering the type of player Sundin is. He has never been known to do such a thing.
I don't get TSN, was there an interview with the refs were they said they didn't see it. Could be covering their butts. Funny if they didn't see it why did they hold up the game to discuss it? The game whould have just continued. But there was a long stoppage. I don't see refs go over to explain alot of stuff to the coach unless it is rule interpretation

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:23 PM
  #15
Joey24
Registered User
 
Joey24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Zealand
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Joey24
Was the suspension warranted? Yes. Did Sundin get away with something? Possibly. But not by what Colin said. (It's either a 1 game suspension or its a 1k fine). And what do u know, Sundin gets the suspension. You have to look around the league and see some of the other things high profile players have done and got away with over the years since Colin has been the sheriff. But Colin is Colin and you have to take him with a grain of salt. Thankfully no one was hurt in the incident and all is okay but you have to agree on one thing, Toronto seems to almost always get the ****** end of the stick when facing either suspension or Fine. Anyone remember the DOMI incident on Neids? I think that may have been a little severe considering with what Stevens gets away with for doing similar things. Anyhow I am off oh and I haven't been posting as much on here so a belated happy new year to you all and best wishes.

Joey24 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:26 PM
  #16
Mikey 71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
Also, look at the angle of the swing he took when he threw his stick. It was clearly an upward angle and there was no other place that stick was going except in the stands. It is not like it barely cleared the glass either. Good rep or bad rep, he should have been suspended for more than 1 game. He should have been given 3 games.

Mikey 71 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:32 PM
  #17
GoM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes
They DO assume a risk going to a game. Try to pull all the heartstrings you want, but accidents happen even tragic ones.
As someone mentioned earlier, that gives the players the right to act irresponsibly? I assume a risk by crossing the road, if the driver doesn't stop, can he be not held accountable because I assumed a risk?

They assume a risk by flying pucks and accidents. Not intentions.

GoM is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:43 PM
  #18
NJ_Devil_Boy
Registered User
 
NJ_Devil_Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 560
Please...everyone knows Colin Campbell has it in for NJ. It's been there since he was with the NYR.

NJ_Devil_Boy is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:01 PM
  #19
King of Stankonia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: aka Kubina_Fan Blues fan in Ontario loving Calgary
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to King of Stankonia
I still fail to understand Colin Campell's reasoning for anything.

1. A player cross-checks another player in the head. The struck player has no injuries and skates away.

2. A player throws his broken stick into the stands. The person who caught the stick received a whole one as an apology.

3. A player uses his stick to injure another player. Though there was no seemed intent, the player struck by the stick is injured for a good chunk of the schedule as a direct result of the stick infraction.

Which player should receive the worst suspension?

I'll let you all discuss.

King of Stankonia is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:07 PM
  #20
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 500
I listened to Colin on Fan590 and anyone who thinks he has it in for the Leafs is way off base.

1. He stated how great a hockey player Mats Sundin was.
2. He stated that he has never had to deal with a Mats Sundin incident and would likely never have to again.
3. He stated that there had to be a statement made that this in an unacceptable infraction so no one else does it.
4. He stated again what a great hockey player and ambassador Mats Sundin is.

1 game, I think it should have been more. But he is right, it was one brain fart by a special player. I can accept his reasoning.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:16 PM
  #21
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 33,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
This is a terrible call. How can the league discern the intent of Sundin to throw his stick into the stands. His intent could have been to just throw the stick away not necessarily into the stands.
C'mon man, it was a dangerous act. Let it go.

Stephen is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:17 PM
  #22
NJ_Devil_Boy
Registered User
 
NJ_Devil_Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
I listened to Colin on Fan590 and anyone who thinks he has it in for the Leafs is way off base.

1. He stated how great a hockey player Mats Sundin was.
2. He stated that he has never had to deal with a Mats Sundin incident and would likely never have to again.
3. He stated that there had to be a statement made that this in an unacceptable infraction so no one else does it.
4. He stated again what a great hockey player and ambassador Mats Sundin is.

1 game, I think it should have been more. But he is right, it was one brain fart by a special player. I can accept his reasoning.
Yeah, I heard it too. Basically, Mats was going to get suspended anyway (for breaking the rule), but Colin wanted to hear Sundin's reason(s).

NJ_Devil_Boy is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:22 PM
  #23
NJ_Devil_Boy
Registered User
 
NJ_Devil_Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
C'mon man, it was a dangerous act. Let it go.

I know eh? What is there not to understand? Sundin threw a stick into the stands, broke a rule and got suspended.

gg


I'm just glad no one got seriously injured.

NJ_Devil_Boy is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:34 PM
  #24
Porn*
Registered User
 
Porn*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your nightmares
Country: Israel
Posts: 34,331
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Porn*
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoM
I surprisingly agree witht he suspension

Whatever his intent, it coul dhave hurt someone. No, it didn't. It's the principle. I don't like it, but it's the rules.
i concur! I think right after he threw the stick he realized what he did and followed to where it went... probably to make sure it didn't hurt anyone.

Porn* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:24 PM
  #25
Tuggy
Registered User
 
Tuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Saint John
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
This is a terrible call. How can the league discern the intent of Sundin to throw his stick into the stands. His intent could have been to just throw the stick away not necessarily into the stands.

This is worse than the 2 game suspension Campbell gave Belak when Brendon Witt charged Belak and he put up his elbow to defend himself and received two games.

Or Tuckers hit on Gonchar. That two game suspension was a joke.

I don't want to mention the horrible officiating the leafs are subjected to on a nightly basis.
I find it hard to understand how you can think that Sundin did not deserve at least the one game suspension.

First off its nothing "against" the Leafs, had it been any other player for any other team I'm sure he would have been dealt the same result.

Sundin himself said that he was lucky not to get a penalty so even he knows he did something wrong.

It was a careless act that could have resulted in serious injury...what if the fan had his head turned or if it was a kid who couldn't react fast enough. Personally I think that Sundin is lucky to of only got a one game suspension and of not hurt anyone.

Tuggy is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.