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, 09:13 PM
  #26
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuggy
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.
This is the rule ( Rule 88).

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. Hence, he was allowed to stay in the game. The league has decided to overule its refs. I wonder if Campbell mentioned this in his interview. Did he say that Sundin intentionally threw his stick in the stands? How does Campbell know that Sundin intended to throw his stick in the stands? This ruling generates alot of confusion about what is a suspeendable offence, you can't toss your stick accidentally in the stands, but you can cross check a guy in the face as I've seen done to Tuck on many occasions and not recieve a penalty. Sheriff Campbell does a poor job.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:20 PM
  #27
Tuggy
Registered User
 
Tuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Saint John
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
This is the rule ( Rule 88).

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. Hence, he was allowed to stay in the game. The league has decided to overule its refs. I wonder if Campbell mentioned this in his interview. Did he say that Sundin intentionally threw his stick in the stands? How does Campbell know that Sundin intended to throw his stick in the stands? This ruling generates alot of confusion about what is a suspeendable offence, you can't toss your stick accidentally in the stands, but you can cross check a guy in the face as I've seen done to Tuck on many occasions and not recieve a penalty. Sheriff Campbell does a poor job.
What you say is true about the rule but from what I heard is that the refs never saw him throw the stick therefore no penalty.

Tuggy is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 11:34 PM
  #28
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuggy
What you say is true about the rule but from what I heard is that the refs never saw him throw the stick therefore no penalty.
one replay angle shows a Ref down Ice looking right at Mats. so it was defifntly seen.

what I don't get about Refs is times where a Holding, Tripping, Hooking, or Obstruction Call(whatever happened to those?) are called on someone but the player he tripped, held whatever also gets a Diving Call.

it should be one or the other if I'm touching a guy and he drops like a ton of bricks and the ref calls him for diving why should I also be penalised? or if I fall like the ton of bricks and he's getting called for hauling me down why should I also be called for diving if apparently he was in the wrong to begin with.

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 02:16 AM
  #29
Verbal Kint*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Bunny Vatican
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSJTOM
one replay angle shows a Ref down Ice looking right at Mats. so it was defifntly seen.
That was actually a linesman, neither of the guys with the orange sleeves were watching.

Which brings us back to Mother Tucker's argument. A ref did not see it and therefore did not issue a penalty. The idea that they called it differently is assumed. And even if it was not intentional, the rule clearly states that the player must be given at least a 10 minute misconduct.The fact that the misconduct was not called further proves the argument that the refs did not see Sundin when he threw the stick.

Colin Campbell reviewed the tapes and found that there was no way Sundin was going anywhere but the stands with his stick. He overuled the referees because they made the wrong call. Should a player be choked by another player's stick, yet the refs don't call a penalty, should there not be disciplinary action by the league because the referees missed the play?

I've also never seen Tucker get cross-checked in the face, and when Savard bit his thumb, there was disciplinary action. Also you must realize that a stick being thrown into the stands is more dangerous to more people than a cross-check on one player.

Verbal Kint* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 03:03 AM
  #30
Augustus
Registered User
 
Augustus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Roma in my soul.
Country: Italy
Posts: 12,946
vCash: 500
This is a terrible poll. There is no evidence that anybody in the national office has a problem with Toronto. As for Sundin's suspension, one game was actually generous under the circumstances of the dangerous action throwing a stick purposely into the stands. If they had not suspended him it would have been irresponsible of Campbell.

Augustus is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:04 AM
  #31
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple_Leafs_Forever
That was actually a linesman, neither of the guys with the orange sleeves were watching.

Which brings us back to Mother Tucker's argument. A ref did not see it and therefore did not issue a penalty. The idea that they called it differently is assumed. And even if it was not intentional, the rule clearly states that the player must be given at least a 10 minute misconduct.The fact that the misconduct was not called further proves the argument that the refs did not see Sundin when he threw the stick.

.
Sorry you read the rule incorrectly. I quoted the rule 88 verbatim from the NHL Rule book. The rule says the referee has "discretion" to call a misconduct not must be given a misconduct. The refs saw the play that is why their was a lengthy delay as they disscussed the play. Giving the refs discretion implies that they can ***** the intent. That is why no misconduct was given on the play.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:15 AM
  #32
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Sorry you read the rule incorrectly. I quoted the rule 88 verbatim from the NHL Rule book. The rule says the referee has "discretion" to call a misconduct not must be given a misconduct. The refs saw the play that is why their was a lengthy delay as they disscussed the play. Giving the refs discretion implies that they can ***** the intent. That is why no misconduct was given on the play.
Actually the long delay was because Trotz was going livid on the bench and called them. The two refs didn't see the play, one linesman did, hence the discussion taking place. Unfortunately in these circumstances the linesman are not allowed to have an impact on the call even though they may have witnessed it. Had the refs witnessed it, regardless of who made the infraction or whether or not they deemed it accidental they are obligated to call a minimum of ten minutes on the player. The refs in this instance will be dealt with internally according to Colin Campbell for missing the call.

Campbell doesn't have it in for the Leafs, he had to do this and was almost apologetic to the press in confirming his sentence. How often otherwise do you see Colin Campbell himself come in front of cameras and give such a long and reasoned interview? I hate to see Sundin suspended and still feel he's a good ambassador of the game, but I agree with some others in that one game was pretty generous by the NHL considering what consequences could have happened. It will cost Sundin 1 game, just over $47K in salary and probably 2 pts (actually 4pts seeing as we're playing Ottawa) in the standings for this brain fart. But, IMO had this been a different player such as McCabe (for eg) who even though isn't a repeat offender but plays a more rugged style and isn't the same type of character as Sundin, then we would have been looking at a minimum of 3 games handed out.

Dar is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:20 AM
  #33
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Actually the long delay was because Trotz was going livid on the bench and called them. The two refs didn't see the play, one linesman did, hence the discussion taking place. Unfortunately in these circumstances the linesman are not allowed to have an impact on the call even though they may have witnessed it. Had the refs witnessed it, regardless of who made the infraction or whether or not they deemed it accidental they are obligated to call a minimum of ten minutes on the player. The refs in this instance will be dealt with internally according to Colin Campbell for missing the call.

.
Refs don't go over to the bench to talk to a coach who is angry. They go to the bench to explain rule interpretation. Again you have also read the rule 88 incorrectly. Amisconduct is at the discretion of the ref.
This quote from JR (todays Star) may help:

I was surprised, certainly disappointed in the result," Leafs GM John Ferguson said of the league's decision. "I understand and respect the position (Campbell) is in, it's never easy making these decisions. We certainly felt there were significant mitigating factors to arrive at a less oppressive result.

"I don't believe Mats meant to throw it into the stands. It was ill advised but inadvertent. Certainly there is no history of any type of conduct to this effect (from Sundin), and let's face it, the refs (discussed it) and felt there was no call. All these things, I felt, were sufficient mitigating factors to possibly come down differently."

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:37 AM
  #34
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Refs don't go over to the bench to talk to a coach who is angry. They go to the bench to explain rule interpretation. Again you have also read the rule 88 incorrectly. Amisconduct is at the discretion of the ref.
I haven't read the rule incorrectly, unfortunately in your argument it's not the rule that applies here:

Section 6: Rule 41 Abuse of Officials and other Misconduct

(a) A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who uses obscene, profane or abusive language to any person or who intentionally knocks or shoots the puck out of the reach of an Official who is retrieving it or who deliberately throws any equipment out of the playing area.

This is the rule that applies in this instance, and although Sundin had a brain fart and I'm sure never thought about what he was doing, it was a deliberate action.

There is no discretion given to the refs in this instance other than the severity of the penalty (either 10 min misconduct or game misconduct).

As for the refs not explaining their actions to the coaches. Sure they do, all the time. If a ref has missed a call then again at his discretion he can approach the bench and explain this to the contending coach especially in the case of a major being missed. We've witnessed refs explaining to Quinn many times call made or non-calls. It was the right thing to do in this case.

Dar is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:43 AM
  #35
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
I haven't read the rule incorrectly, unfortunately in your argument it's not the rule that applies here:

Section 6: Rule 41 Abuse of Officials and other Misconduct

(a) A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who uses obscene, profane or abusive language to any person or who intentionally knocks or shoots the puck out of the reach of an Official who is retrieving it or who deliberately throws any equipment out of the playing area.

This is the rule that applies in this instance, and although Sundin had a brain fart and I'm sure never thought about what he was doing, it was a deliberate action.

There is no discretion given to the refs in this instance other than the severity of the penalty (either 10 min misconduct or game misconduct).

As for the refs not explaining their actions to the coaches. Sure they do, all the time. If a ref has missed a call then again at his discretion he can approach the bench and explain this to the contending coach especially in the case of a major being missed. We've witnessed refs explaining to Quinn many times call made or non-calls. It was the right thing to do in this case.
Rule 88 Throwing Stick deals specificaly with throwing the stick out of the playing area. Your rule 46 deals with referee misconduct and does not apply here. Sorry

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 11:39 AM
  #36
GoM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,588
vCash: 500
I'll say it again, but more bluntly

Screw his intent. Screw the fact that a penalty wasn't called. Screw the fact that no one got hurt. Screw your paranoia. Sundin threw a stick into a crowd, whether it was accidental OR on purpose, he deserves the suspension. I don't like it, but that's the rules. Just because a penalty wasn't called at the time doesn't mean the play was any less illegal or dangerous, lots of suspensions have had penalties not called at the time. Get the **** used to it, he broke the rules, endangered the audience and now is paying for it.

GoM is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 12:09 PM
  #37
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
why why whyy

i'm a huuuuge leaf fan.. I bleed blue and white!!!!!!!

lol stop making excuses for Sundin.... accident no accident... the stick went flying

end of story.. game suspension.. we shoudl be lucky he helped us win that last game.. cuss he could have easily been 2 and 10 gone!!!!

GO LEAFS GO BABY...

Sens are going down by the Twin Towers!!!!!!!!

joepeps is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 12:28 PM
  #38
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
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.
I never said Tucker deserved a suspension for the Gonchar hit. I said the charge is what made it as big as it was. If not for the charge it would have been ok. That's the reason he wrecked Gonchar the way he did.

I can't really comment on Stevens' hits because I can't exactly recall them to well. But I will say that Stevens has a better reputation, believe it or not than Tucker. I think the NHL and the refs have had a grudge against Tucker (some of it well deserved) for years. This may be the reason that you see Tucker get into trouble more often than Stevens.

McFly is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 12:34 PM
  #39
DJyellow
Registered User
 
DJyellow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Laval
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,563
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DJyellow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Rule 88 Throwing Stick deals specificaly with throwing the stick out of the playing area. Your rule 46 deals with referee misconduct and does not apply here. Sorry
argue your point all you want or interpret the ruling to death. The fact of the matter remains that almost 90% of the posters believe that Sundin got what he deserved and that Campbell made an objective call on the ruling.

DJyellow is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 10:23 AM
  #40
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJyellow
argue your point all you want or interpret the ruling to death. The fact of the matter remains that almost 90% of the posters believe that Sundin got what he deserved and that Campbell made an objective call on the ruling.
The poll is about whether the league has dealt with the Leafs fairly not whether Sundin received what he deserved. If people are voting on this issue I'm not surprised by the numbers.

Did Mckee deserve a suspension for almost taking out Nolans eye with a high stick? As with Sundin no ref call made. Same with Tuck on Gonchar.

Did the Bruins Gill deserve a suspension for the match penalty he took for boarding Poni into the boards from behind? Worse than Belak's defensive elbow?

Leafs are always being suspended such as Tuck and Belak but similar incidents go un punished.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-09-2004 at 10:29 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 11:41 AM
  #41
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,499
vCash: 500
Sundin's own words..

Suspension surprises Sundin

Says frustration led to stick-throwing

Mats Sundin apologized yet again yesterday for throwing his broken stick into the stands and blamed only himself for the incident.

But the Leafs captain also questioned the rationale behind the one-game suspension he took after on-ice officials made no call on the play.

He said other infractions have gone unpunished.

"I was surprised, yes," Sundin said yesterday.

"It was very unfortunate the way it happened and really there's no excuse for the stick going into the stands. But I didn't intend to do it.

In talking publicly yesterday for the first time since the incident in Tuesday's 2-1 win over Nashville, Sundin said he had no idea whether a penalty on the play would have changed the league's actions.

League Director of Operations Colin Campbell said a 10-minute misconduct should have been handed out. And in deliberating the suspension, Campbell said, he considered a $1,000 fine but opted for the suspension to emphasize to the rest of the league that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Leafs GM John Ferguson explored the possibility of appealing the suspension, which could have delayed the process and allowed Sundin to play in last night's game with the Ottawa Senators.

But an appeal would have required an in-person meeting in New York for Sundin and Ferguson, and the Leafs were not fully confident the league would have granted the appeal even if they went.

"I never talked to anyone after (a telephone meeting with Campbell Wednesday), I just explained what happened and they said okay," Sundin said.

He added there wasn't much precedent for this kind of action from him. "It's just disappointing not to be able to play in our biggest game of the year."

Sundin said his conduct was an action of pure frustration.

"I was getting rid of the stick, you're not allowed to hang onto it once it's broken," said Sundin, who was clearly frustrated when his one-piece stick broke after he tried a slapshot off a Bryan McCabe feed.

"I was frustrated. I wanted to get it out of my hands. I thought I was close enough to the boards and it (stick) would hit them. I didn't want it to go into the stands."

Mess is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 12:20 PM
  #42
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Rule 88 Throwing Stick deals specificaly with throwing the stick out of the playing area. Your rule 46 deals with referee misconduct and does not apply here. Sorry
What?!

1. Dar quoted Rule 41 subsection (a). He made no reference to rule 46.

2. Perhaps you didn't bother to read his post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player . . . who deliberately throws any equipment out of the playing area.
I'd say this rule applies just as much as the rule you gave. But as they say, ignorance is bliss.

How I miss the :rolleyes smilie . . .

King of Stankonia is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 12:22 PM
  #43
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubina_Fan
What?!

1. Dar quoted Rule 41 subsection (a). He made no reference to rule 46.

2. Perhaps you didn't bother to read his post.



I'd say this rule applies just as much as the rule you gave. But as they say, ignorance is bliss.

How I miss the :rolleyes smilie . . .
Haha, where were you two days ago?

Dar is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 01:21 PM
  #44
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubina_Fan
What?!

1. Dar quoted Rule 41 subsection (a). He made no reference to rule 46.

2. Perhaps you didn't bother to read his post.



I'd say this rule applies just as much as the rule you gave. But as they say, ignorance is bliss.

How I miss the :rolleyes smilie . . .
I don't see where I said rule 46 but If I did it was a mistake because I know Dar was discussing rule 41(a). Rule 41 is about abuse of official,

Rule 41 Abuse of Officials and other Misconduct

(a) A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who uses obscene, profane or abusive language to any person or who intentionally knocks or shoots the puck out of the reach of an Official who is retrieving it or who deliberately throws any equipment out of the playing area.

I cry uncle, but its seems clear to me that it deals with abusing officials (after all it is called Rule 41 Abuse of Officials and other Misconduct) but why not extend the rule to deal with the l'affaire Stick Sundin. Whereas Rule 88 Throwing the Stick seems clear to me that it deals with throwing the stick.

Congrats Dar you win


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-09-2004 at 01:48 PM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 01:46 PM
  #45
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Sundin's own words..

Suspension surprises Sundin

Says frustration led to stick-throwing

Mats Sundin apologized yet again yesterday for throwing his broken stick into the stands and blamed only himself for the incident.

But the Leafs captain also questioned the rationale behind the one-game suspension he took after on-ice officials made no call on the play.

He said other infractions have gone unpunished.

"I was surprised, yes," Sundin said yesterday.

"It was very unfortunate the way it happened and really there's no excuse for the stick going into the stands. But I didn't intend to do it.

In talking publicly yesterday for the first time since the incident in Tuesday's 2-1 win over Nashville, Sundin said he had no idea whether a penalty on the play would have changed the league's actions.

League Director of Operations Colin Campbell said a 10-minute misconduct should have been handed out. And in deliberating the suspension, Campbell said, he considered a $1,000 fine but opted for the suspension to emphasize to the rest of the league that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Leafs GM John Ferguson explored the possibility of appealing the suspension, which could have delayed the process and allowed Sundin to play in last night's game with the Ottawa Senators.

But an appeal would have required an in-person meeting in New York for Sundin and Ferguson, and the Leafs were not fully confident the league would have granted the appeal even if they went.

"I never talked to anyone after (a telephone meeting with Campbell Wednesday), I just explained what happened and they said okay," Sundin said.

He added there wasn't much precedent for this kind of action from him. "It's just disappointing not to be able to play in our biggest game of the year."

Sundin said his conduct was an action of pure frustration.

"I was getting rid of the stick, you're not allowed to hang onto it once it's broken," said Sundin, who was clearly frustrated when his one-piece stick broke after he tried a slapshot off a Bryan McCabe feed.

"I was frustrated. I wanted to get it out of my hands. I thought I was close enough to the boards and it (stick) would hit them. I didn't want it to go into the stands."

I know this doesn't change your view, but how does Campbell discern that Sundin's intent was to throw the stick into the stands? This was my original question. He used Sundin's intent to base his decision on the suspension. I think that Campbell has a credibility problem. Congrats You have convinced me that a suspension even without intent is somewhat justified.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 01:57 PM
  #46
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
I know this doesn't change your view, but how does Campbell discern that Sundin's intent was to throw the stick into the stands? This was my original question. He used Sundin's intent to base his decision on the suspension. I think that Campbell has a credibility problem. Congrats You have convinced me that a suspension even without intent is somewhat justified.
Read BOB McKenzie TSN ARTICLE

Sundin got off lightly
TSN.ca Staff
1/7/2004

The Toronto Maple Leafs can hiss and moan about the one-game suspension to Mats Sundin, but the truth of the matter is he deserved it.

In fact, this had to be a no brainer for the NHL and, if anything, Sundin got off lightly.

Under no circumstances should a player be allowed to throw anything off the playing surface, not a puck, not a glove, not a helmet, not a pad but especially not the jagged shaft of a broken composite stick.

It doesn't matter that Mats Sundin is one of the top five players in the game today and a good choice as mid-season NHL MVP. It doesn't matter that he is also one of the top five best people and good guys in our sport. It doesn't matter, not enough anyway, that Sundin was appropriately remorseful after the fact.

read the rest .... http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Mess is offline  
Old
01-10-2004, 04:00 AM
  #47
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Read BOB McKenzie TSN ARTICLE

Sundin got off lightly
TSN.ca Staff
1/7/2004

The Toronto Maple Leafs can hiss and moan about the one-game suspension to Mats Sundin, but the truth of the matter is he deserved it.

In fact, this had to be a no brainer for the NHL and, if anything, Sundin got off lightly.

Under no circumstances should a player be allowed to throw anything off the playing surface, not a puck, not a glove, not a helmet, not a pad but especially not the jagged shaft of a broken composite stick.

It doesn't matter that Mats Sundin is one of the top five players in the game today and a good choice as mid-season NHL MVP. It doesn't matter that he is also one of the top five best people and good guys in our sport. It doesn't matter, not enough anyway, that Sundin was appropriately remorseful after the fact.

read the rest .... http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
Still haven't answered my question about how you can determine intent which is what Campbell based his ruling on. I agree a player should not throw anything off the playing surface. Never disagreed. But accidents happen just as pucks always go flying into the stands. I agree with Quinns view of discipline in the NHL that it makes no sense

My initial reaction?" said Quinn. "I can't give you that. I haven't seen their rationale for it, I don't agree with it. We got a kid [Owen Nolan] hit in the face with a deliberate high stick the other night, and they're not even paying attention to that.

"He was throwing it at the glass. I know the big joke is that he missed by 15 rows. Well, I don't think it's very funny. It shouldn't have happened. There's no doubt about it. But there was no penalty call when it happened. Then, (Campbell) decides to overrule the officials. It doesn't make sense and works out to Ottawa's benefit."

Quinn agreed with the suggestion that the NHL's fear of litigation if fans were injured by flying sticks must have played into the decision to make a strong example of Sundin's intemperate action, but said "maybe we should have players suing each other for their high sticks, as well, if you want to carry that to another degree."

Damned lawyers.

Quinn almost grinned.

"Generally, it's because of the public, they're usually looking for help someplace," said Quinn. "And there's always a guy ready to put the meter on.

"And some justifiably so," he hastily added. "But our society is not as litigious as perhaps the one south of the border.

Of course I agree with Sundin

I see a lot of guys get way less for far more serious infractions," Sundin said. "Owen (Nolan) almost lost his eye from a high stick, yet (Buffalo's Jay McKee) never even got a fine.I know I shouldn't have done it. And, yes, there should have been (some kind of punishment) for what happened, but I don't think this was it. I was getting rid of a stick -- like the rules say you have to -- because it was broken. I thought I was going to hit the glass."

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-10-2004, 04:13 AM
  #48
Epoch
Registered User
 
Epoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,154
vCash: 500
How can those 4 posters vote for "Yes"? honestly.....

Epoch is offline  
Old
01-10-2004, 06:39 AM
  #49
GoM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,588
vCash: 500
Well there are lots of missed calls

Should others be missed on purpose to 'make up for it'?

Please

GoM is offline  
Old
01-10-2004, 06:40 AM
  #50
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Still haven't answered my question about how you can determine intent which is what Campbell based his ruling on. I agree a player should not throw anything off the playing surface. Never disagreed. But accidents happen just as pucks always go flying into the stands. I agree with Quinns view of discipline in the NHL that it makes no sense

My initial reaction?" said Quinn. "I can't give you that. I haven't seen their rationale for it, I don't agree with it. We got a kid [Owen Nolan] hit in the face with a deliberate high stick the other night, and they're not even paying attention to that.

"He was throwing it at the glass. I know the big joke is that he missed by 15 rows. Well, I don't think it's very funny. It shouldn't have happened. There's no doubt about it. But there was no penalty call when it happened. Then, (Campbell) decides to overrule the officials. It doesn't make sense and works out to Ottawa's benefit."

Quinn agreed with the suggestion that the NHL's fear of litigation if fans were injured by flying sticks must have played into the decision to make a strong example of Sundin's intemperate action, but said "maybe we should have players suing each other for their high sticks, as well, if you want to carry that to another degree."

Damned lawyers.

Quinn almost grinned.

"Generally, it's because of the public, they're usually looking for help someplace," said Quinn. "And there's always a guy ready to put the meter on.

"And some justifiably so," he hastily added. "But our society is not as litigious as perhaps the one south of the border.

Of course I agree with Sundin

I see a lot of guys get way less for far more serious infractions," Sundin said. "Owen (Nolan) almost lost his eye from a high stick, yet (Buffalo's Jay McKee) never even got a fine.I know I shouldn't have done it. And, yes, there should have been (some kind of punishment) for what happened, but I don't think this was it. I was getting rid of a stick -- like the rules say you have to -- because it was broken. I thought I was going to hit the glass."
Not Sure why your looking for and answer ...

I BELIEVE it has nothing to do with INTENT.....ANY person that throws their equipment into the stands should be AUTOMATICALLY suspended...be it Sundin, Mother Theresa, David Letterman, Bin Laden....doesn't matter who... The word intent leaves room for making human judgement calls and that could cause errors and discussion like yours about fairness.. Automatic leaves NO DOUBT..

Second Quinn and Sundin bring up the Nolan incident... Its totally irrelevant on this subject ...2 WRONGS don't make a Right and just because the league handled them both differently, doesn't mean that the league owes the Leafs anything on the Sundin incident because they may or may not have blown the call on the McKee incident...

I agree with Tor-Town how can you possibly vote YES for this I just don't understand...You would be better off asking Gilmour's Way, Jerkini, Joey24, Savage why they voted yes because you are not going to convince me of anything, and probably not going to convince any other people that also voted NO.. I don't understand why you just can't let it go...

I saw both acts that are described here ..... Sundin CLEARLY did not lose his stick on a follow through and have it go in the stands ..much like I have seen in Baseball where the bat shatters in the players hands and occasionally goes flying as a result... Sundin threw his broken stick Deliberately IN TO THE AIR clear INTENT ...He didn't drop it to the ice no INTENT, like he should have, and even if you read his own comments he thought he was closer to the boards and didn't think it would go in the crowd... Theres your intent..

TO ME Sundin's comments are total BS because he could have struck a player in the face if someone had been standing right behind him.... I think he should count his lucky stars and that he got off pretty easy in that NO ONE got hurt for his BONE HEAD action, learn from his mistake and move on.. Not for a second do I believe that Sundin wanted to hurt anyone and he is a very classy guy. on the ice and off..BUT he made a mistake like all humans do from time to time and as a result has to live up to those consequences..

If this sets an example for every other player out there, than going to a Hockey game just got a lot safer for everyone and I commend Colin Campbell for making the RIGHT CALL and having the guts to do it...

Maybe the Intent that you are so concerned about by Campbell was the the length of the Suspension in his eyes not the intent to throw the stick...that part is obvious to most people that saw the play and and the replay now a million times.. Campbell used the the words intent and you are taking out of context here.. TO me it doesn't matter ...my rule is clearer ... Do the Crime ...Do the Time..


Last edited by Mess: 01-10-2004 at 07:18 AM.
Mess 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 02:23 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.