HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Colin Campbell confused by NHL Rulebook

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2004, 05:37 AM
  #1
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Colin Campbell confused by NHL Rulebook

Colin Campbell was quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying

According to NHL vice-president Colin Campbell, Sundin should have automatically received a 10-minute misconduct for the act of tossing the shaft of his hockey stick into the crowd during the Maple Leafs' 2-1 victory over the Nashville Predators Tuesday. Such is the punishment dictated by Rule 88(c) of the NHL rule book.

http://www.canoe.ca/Slam040108/nhl_tor3-sun.html.

Of course rule 88(c) as any good hockey fan knows states:

(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.

Rule 88 can be viewed at the NHL website in its entirety.
http://nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule88.html

I find Colin Campbell confused and confusing on Sundins suspension and must conclude that he is incompetent. Or he is misleading the press to vindicate his decision to suspend Sundin on the eve of the biggest game of the year.

Official Leaf Position

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


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-08-2004 at 06:24 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:41 AM
  #2
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Again, I posted this in the other thread. The rule that applies is not only 88(c) which BTW is more focused on a players reaction to a refs decision but on Sec 6: 41 (a) which the article fails to mention.

(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.

Dar is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:42 AM
  #3
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,880
vCash: 500
someone get this guy a kleenex...

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 05:46 AM
  #4
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Again, I posted this in the other thread. The rule that applies is not only 88(c) which BTW is more focused on a players reaction to a refs decision but on Sec 6: 41 (a) which the article fails to mention.

(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.

Again rule 88 deals specifically with throwing of the stick. Rule 41 applies to misconduct towards a referee. It does not apply here.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 06:14 AM
  #5
OshGeneralfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 47
vCash: 500
He deserved at least one game for his actions.

Imagine if the stick that went flying into the crowd cut someones arm, let's say a 12 or 13 year old. How many games would he get then???

He got off quite easy with his one game, and I think he knows it.

OshGeneralfan is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 06:25 AM
  #6
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
Again rule 88 deals specifically with throwing of the stick. Rule 41 applies to misconduct towards a referee. It does not apply here.
Wrong again. Section 6 of the rulebook deals with playing rules and what does or does not consitute as a misconduct, section 88(c) as you solely quoted displays what penalty may be imposed by the referee for such an action.

Still don't believe it? Question "Van" over on the Nucks board about it who referees hockey in his spare time and knows the rule book.

Dar is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 06:31 AM
  #7
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Wrong again. Section 6 of the rulebook deals with playing rules and what does or does not consitute as a misconduct, section 88(c) as you solely quoted displays what penalty may be imposed by the referee for such an action.

Still don't believe it? Question "Van" over on the Nucks board about it who referees hockey in his spare time and knows the rule book.
Section 6 deals with playing rules. In it is rule 41 and rule 88

Rule 41 Abuse of Officials and other Misconduct
Sundin did not abuse any referee.

Rule 88 Throwing Stick
Sundin threw his stick. Funny they have a specific rule for what Sundin did in Section 6. This is the rule that applies, the one that was broken!

Any all this does is make my point that Campbell is confused by the rulebook since he said rule 88c was broken and that Sundin should have received a misconduct. Of course rule 88c doe not say that. I'm surprised you are confused by the rulebook.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-08-2004 at 06:38 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 06:45 AM
  #8
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
Section 6 deals with playing rules. In it is rule 41 and rule 88

Rule 41 Abuse of Officials and other Misconduct
Sundin did not abuse any referee.

Rule 88 Throwing Stick
Sundin threw his stick. Funny they have a specific rule for what Sundin did in Section 6. This is the rule that applies, the one that was broken!
Also in Sec 41:
(e) Any player who, following a fight or other altercation in which he has been involved is broken up and for which he is penalized, fails to proceed directly and immediately to the penalty bench, or who causes any delay by retrieving his equipment (gloves, sticks, etc. shall be delivered to him at the penalty bench by teammates), shall incur an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) in addition to all other penalties or fines incurred.
(h) A bench minor penalty shall be imposed against the offending Team if any player, club executive, Manager, Coach or Trainer uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gesture to any person or uses the name of any Official coupled with any vociferous remarks.
(k) A bench minor penalty shall be imposed against the offending Team if any player, Trainer, Coach, Manager or club executive in the vicinity of the players' bench or penalty bench throws anything on the ice during the progress of the game or during stoppage of play.
and once again..
(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.

None of these deal with abuse towards officials, just what warrants a misconduct.

I'm not saying 88 doesn't apply to what you're getting at, it does, but what you're not seeing in 88(c) is "A misconduct or game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee" clearly stating that the referee at his discretion is to impose one or the other as described by the word shall and not "may". Section 6 clearly states that it was a misconduct penalty and 88 dictates how severe the penalty the referee assigns.

Again, ask Van if your still questioning it.

Dar is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 06:55 AM
  #9
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Also in Sec 41:
(e) Any player who, following a fight or other altercation in which he has been involved is broken up and for which he is penalized, fails to proceed directly and immediately to the penalty bench, or who causes any delay by retrieving his equipment (gloves, sticks, etc. shall be delivered to him at the penalty bench by teammates), shall incur an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) in addition to all other penalties or fines incurred.
(h) A bench minor penalty shall be imposed against the offending Team if any player, club executive, Manager, Coach or Trainer uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gesture to any person or uses the name of any Official coupled with any vociferous remarks.
(k) A bench minor penalty shall be imposed against the offending Team if any player, Trainer, Coach, Manager or club executive in the vicinity of the players' bench or penalty bench throws anything on the ice during the progress of the game or during stoppage of play.
and once again..
(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.

None of these deal with abuse towards officials, just what warrants a misconduct.

I'm not saying 88 doesn't apply to what you're getting at, it does, but what you're not seeing in 88(c) is "A misconduct or game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee" clearly stating that the referee at his discretion is to impose one or the other as described by the word shall and not "may". Section 6 clearly states that it was a misconduct penalty and 88 dictates how severe the penalty the referee assigns.

Again, ask Van if your still questioning it.
Rule 88 is the one that applies. It is the specific rule that was broken Also rule 46 says deliberately throws equipment out of the playing area. John Fergusen Jr says that it was not deliberate, so sec 41 does not apply. Of course their is debate here.

For you to be correct about Rule 88c it should read: At the discretion of the referee a misconduct or a game misconduct must be imposed on a player who throws his stick or any part thereof outside the playing area. Of course rule 88c is not written this way. Of course you clearly state the rule that way.


Last edited by Big Mama*: 01-08-2004 at 11:14 AM.
Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:01 AM
  #10
Biggun35
Bender
 
Biggun35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brentwood, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 143
vCash: 500
Mother, it doesn't matter which rule Sundin broke, or didn't break, his stick ended up in the stands. It was shown on every sports station in North America and made the NHL look bad. Sundin got what he deserved, though not enough in my opinion.

Biggun35 is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:10 AM
  #11
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Again rule 88 deals specifically with throwing of the stick. Rule 41 applies to misconduct towards a referee. It does not apply here.
What are you on man.????

Sundin threw his stick into the crowd ....I watched the game ...I have seen the replay many times...

Sundin was frustrated when he was set up for the perfect shot and his FANCY stick broke like the new ones do all the time..

In frustration he hurled his stick in the crowd and from the angle of the throw there was NO DOUBT that is where he was aiming... It went up 25 rows into the crowd...

The officials could have and SHOULD have awarded Sundin a Penalty on the play and if they had done so ...Sundin would have received an automatic expulsion from the game... The Refs blew the call and one could argue that Leafs received favouritism on the play rather than your consistent harping that leafs are being Cheated....

Sundin....Nice guy reputation is probably what saved him with the Refs...who by the way where having a tough time with calls in that game...

If you where a Preds I could see you being pissed off as not only was Sundin not tossed or receive a penalty, but since he remained in the game he also set up both McCabe goals and cost Nashville the game.. Its similar to when Gretzky clipped Dougie in the face and NO CALL and the Kings when on to eliminate Toronto with Gretzky's Help... If the Preds miss the playoffs by 2 points or Less then can point to that game and be bitter for a long time.

Campbell got it right and Sundin is lucky that the penalty was not greater.... NO PLAYER should be able to throw anything into the crowd, it dangerous and stupid... and Colin called it Black and White... No matter what type of player you are ....THROW YOUR STICK and you will be suspended ....and that's the right call.... Then we don't get into this ...Tucker threw his and got a suspension ...Sundin does it and nothing BS that always follows such things... all based on discretion and WHO the PLAYER is ...

Does Sundin regret doing???? Sure he does... Did he do it in frustration and not attempt to injure ??? Yes .....

Did he deserve to be tossed from the game and sit a game as a result of his actions?? ...Darn right he does...

So stop labouring on this point as you are giving Leafs fans a bad name,

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THE TIME ....THEN DON'T DO THE CRIME..

Mess is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:22 AM
  #12
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Messenger don't burst a blood vessel in your head on my account. Just having a lively debate. If he threw his stick into the stands on purpose he deserved the suspension. I have argued that his intent is unknown. How do you discern intent? You can't really.

GM Jr. official position is that Sundin did not intentionally throw his stick into the stands. If it was an accident and the refs thought it was then a suspension is not neccessarily warranted. Campbell states that Sundin did it intentionally and therefore he was suspended. I think this is grounds for reasonable debate.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:45 AM
  #13
Skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Mother Tucker]If he threw his stick into the stands on purpose he deserved the suspension. I have argued that his intent is unknown. How do you discern intent? You can't really.

GM Jr. official position is that Sundin did not intentionally throw his stick into the stands. QUOTE]

What else would you expect the GM of the player in question to say? Of course he'll argue that Mats didn't intend to do it. That point is hard to argue given the height, distance and angle of his throw. In all likelihood it was simply a spur of the moment action, when he was frustrated and tossed his stick. From my perspective the key part is that HE was frustrated and HE tossed his stick, which makes HIM responsible for it. He intended to throw his stick; it did not simply slip from his hands. Until that stick lands, Mats is the person who meant to throw it and he is the person responsible for what happens.

It is one thing for a player to irresponsibly not have control of their stick and have it come up and clip one of their peers who is being paid to be a part of that game. It is another (and IMO more serious) matter when the actions of a player put paying customers at risk. Sundin did something stupid and he's paying a totally reasonable cost. Can we please move on

Skylab is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:49 AM
  #14
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Messenger don't burst a blood vessel in your head on my account. Just having a lively debate. If he threw his stick into the stands on purpose he deserved the suspension. I have argued that his intent is unknown. How do you discern intent? You can't really.

GM Jr. official position is that Sundin did not intentionally throw his stick into the stands. If it was an accident and the refs thought it was then a suspension is not neccessarily warranted. Campbell states that Sundin did it intentionally and therefore he was suspended. I think this is grounds for reasonable debate.
See I disagree.. Campbell has discretion WITHOUT a RULE book to dish out punishment and discipline for any action that occurs on the ICE.. Its not in any Rule book how many games a player should be suspended for Elbowing or High Sticking etc... He watches the FILM a million times and then makes a judgement call and dishes out the sentence..

Fergy JR can call it anything he wants ...just like Johnny Cochran can and did in the OJ SIMPSON trial.... You are kidding yourself if you are trying to convince others that Sundin did not intend to throw his stick...It didn't go flying in the stands as a follow through on a shot while breaking.... The stick broke and Sundin held it in his hands for several seconds before in frustration throwing it up in the air and into the crowd.. The commentators where saying that..a broken stick should be dropped down to the ice ...not thrown in the air... So by that definition Sundin intent or not is guilty of the action...

I think personally he got off very lucky... Had that stick caught a player or Fan in eye or caused serious damage...He would be in a whole lot of trouble.... What if that was you or your kid sitting there and he are struck and hurt by the stick... Would you also be fighting the 1 game suspension as strongly as you are now or would you be forming a lynch mob right about now ...to have Sundin punished by your Kangaroo court...???

I think to stop debates like yours ..which if proven anything that the RULE book wording should be clarified and changed to ...THROW YOU EQUIPMENT in the crowd ... by any means ACCIDENT or on PURPOSE... AUTOMATIC ..Game Misconduct and further suspension at the discretion of the league commissioner..

They did this for the high sticking rule.... Hit a player 2 minutes..draw blood 4 minutes ..attempt to injure 5 minutes and a game...

You are not debating the point as much as you are coming across as a whiner, which makes Leaf fans look worse than they are...

If the shoe was on the other foot and it was an opponent Roenick or Alfredsson and they did it ...Ask yourself would you also be taking such a strong stance that the Rule Book and Refs and Campbell are all out to get the Leafs????..


Last edited by Mess: 01-08-2004 at 07:52 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:56 AM
  #15
The Blueblood
Registered User
 
The Blueblood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
Messenger don't burst a blood vessel in your head on my account. Just having a lively debate. If he threw his stick into the stands on purpose he deserved the suspension. I have argued that his intent is unknown. How do you discern intent? You can't really.

GM Jr. official position is that Sundin did not intentionally throw his stick into the stands. If it was an accident and the refs thought it was then a suspension is not neccessarily warranted. Campbell states that Sundin did it intentionally and therefore he was suspended. I think this is grounds for reasonable debate.

I don't feel intention has anything to do with this issue. I'm pretty confident that Sundin did not intend to throw his stick into the crowd. He was frustrated because it broke costing him a good scoring chance and he flung it in frustration. Unfortunately because the damn sticks are so light, it flew 15 rows into the stands.

What the league is concerned about is the fact the stick was tossed by Sundin and it went into the crowd. The NHL does not want another situation where they are involved in a lawsuit brought by a fan who was injured at the game through no fault of their own. Because of the way the american legal system works, I'll bet the league had to pay the family of the girl who died after being hit with the puck a large amount of money to settle out of court.

The league can't have players throwing objects such as a jagged piece of graphite into the stands, no matter if there was an incident or not. Teams are already having problems filling their buildings without having the added problem of fans fearing they could get seriously injured by flying equipment.

I agree that Sundin should be punished, but the problem is, Campbell gives out such weak suspensions when something longer is warranted that when they need to hand out a short suspension, it seems worse than it actually is because the amount of games is similar to the guy who committed a much worse offence.

The Blueblood is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 08:45 AM
  #16
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Okay, not that it's a big deal or anything, but who deleted my last post and why for?

Rand? Dutchy? Guilty fess up!!!

Dar is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 09:00 AM
  #17
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blueblood
I
What the league is concerned about is the fact the stick was tossed by Sundin and it went into the crowd. The NHL does not want another situation where they are involved in a lawsuit brought by a fan who was injured at the game through no fault of their own. Because of the way the american legal system works, I'll bet the league had to pay the family of the girl who died after being hit with the puck a large amount of money to settle out of court.


.
I agree that this is exactly why Sundin was suspended. Had nothing to do with intent no matter what Campbell said. The NHL legal affairs office determined that a suspension had to be given so that they can say in court they deter such behaviour.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 01:13 PM
  #18
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
I agree that this is exactly why Sundin was suspended. Had nothing to do with intent no matter what Campbell said. The NHL legal affairs office determined that a suspension had to be given so that they can say in court they deter such behaviour.

Personally I think he got off Lucky the suspension could have been longer and had it been ..Sundin would have had no one but himself to blame..

Mess is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 01:32 PM
  #19
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Personally I think he got off Lucky the suspension could have been longer and had it been ..Sundin would have had no one but himself to blame..
Sundin might have hurt someone.
Nolan was injured.

Yes, Campbell does have discretion.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 01:36 PM
  #20
Big Mama*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Palm Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger


I think personally he got off very lucky... Had that stick caught a player or Fan in eye or caused serious damage...He would be in a whole lot of trouble.... What if that was you or your kid sitting there and he are struck and hurt by the stick... Would you also be fighting the 1 game suspension as strongly as you are now or would you be forming a lynch mob right about now ...to have Sundin punished by your Kangaroo court...???

You are not debating the point as much as you are coming across as a whiner, which makes Leaf fans look worse than they are...

If the shoe was on the other foot and it was an opponent Roenick or Alfredsson and they did it ...Ask yourself would you also be taking such a strong stance that the Rule Book and Refs and Campbell are all out to get the Leafs????..
I'll leave the lynch mobs to you messenger. I'd like to think I'd be more like the Dan Snyder and Keith Magnussen families and be forgiving of an accident.

If I was whinning I would have pointed out that Nolan almost had his eye poked out by an errant stick and McKee received no suspension. Or pointed out the match penalty the Boston player received for knocking Poni into the boards from behind on purpose and received no suspension. These are worse than Sundin errant stick and he received a suspension. Of course you don't see it that way which is fine. I make no apologies for being a leaf fan who thinks we get the raw end of the stick.

Big Mama* is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 08:12 PM
  #21
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother Tucker
I'll leave the lynch mobs to you messenger. I'd like to think I'd be more like the Dan Snyder and Keith Magnussen families and be forgiving of an accident.
It wasn't really an 'accident' though. It was a hissy fit, and totally unprofessional, if not uncharacteristic of Sundin. If I go to a Leafs game and Jason Blake, for example, throws a stick up and it kills my hypothetical three year old kid, I'm not going to be forgiving AT ALL.

Stephen is online now  
Old
01-09-2004, 07:19 AM
  #22
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Sundin might have hurt someone.
Nolan was injured.

Yes, Campbell does have discretion.
Yes Sundin MIGHT have hurt someone...

but I am not going to be the one who thinks that the suspension should be based on the extent of the injury it may or may not have occurred...

Are you suggesting that the Ref should have gone in the crowd and check if the stick caused blood and awarded a more severe penalty???

I am suggesting that the suspension for the act of THROWING your equipment into the crowd be a set amount of games regardless WHO the player is or WHAT the injury it causes... If a severe injury happens then the fan has legal rights outside of the NHL punishment committee to seek retribution....

The Nolan incident...while it was a high stick, certainly was an ACCIDENT by McKee and deserved a 5 minute penalty because of the injury and blood it caused on the ice as a result...but the sad part is ...the eyes are so important ,yet players chose not to wear shields and protect them...its is their right and I respect it...but it is also dangerous not to..

Perhaps new equipment similar to what you wear in Racket ball should be invented that protect the eyes.....

Who knows maybe I should invent something like that and become a Billionaire...

Mess is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 07:55 AM
  #23
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,380
vCash: 500
Alfredsson stick work irks Leafs

Not mocking Mats, Sen says
by LANCE HORNBY -- Toronto Sun

Daniel Alfredsson's broken stick schtick stuck in the craw of the Maple Leafs last night.

Though the Senators captain insisted he wasn't trying to embarrass the Leafs or fellow Swedish countryman/captain Mats Sundin, he had many on the Toronto bench puzzled and angry in the third period after his stick broke. He looked ready to duplicate Sundin's "brain cramp" of hurling the shaft into the crowd, stopped short and took the busted stick back to the Ottawa bench.

Sundin was sitting out a one-game suspension for following through on throwing his stick on Tuesday.

http://www.canoe.com/Slam040109/nhl_tor_ott4-sun.html

Mess is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 08:15 AM
  #24
Shawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under Your Skin
Posts: 672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Alfredsson stick work irks Leafs

Not mocking Mats, Sen says
by LANCE HORNBY -- Toronto Sun

Daniel Alfredsson's broken stick schtick stuck in the craw of the Maple Leafs last night.

Though the Senators captain insisted he wasn't trying to embarrass the Leafs or fellow Swedish countryman/captain Mats Sundin, he had many on the Toronto bench puzzled and angry in the third period after his stick broke. He looked ready to duplicate Sundin's "brain cramp" of hurling the shaft into the crowd, stopped short and took the busted stick back to the Ottawa bench.

Sundin was sitting out a one-game suspension for following through on throwing his stick on Tuesday.

http://www.canoe.com/Slam040109/nhl_tor_ott4-sun.html
I always thought Alfredsson was a tool, just more so now.

Shawn 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 12:13 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.