new rule: if the offending player's actions are deemed suspendable, then the minimum suspension is the length of time the offended player is out injured...
Disagree. I understand the logic behind it...but I think it takes away from the action and focuses on the outcome.
Let's take two hypothetical identical open ice hits. One is against Jarome Iginla, the other is against Tim Connolly. These hits are identical in terms of positioning, timing, dirtyness, etc. Connolly shatters like glass and is out for 2 months. Iginla is a tough cookie and misses only a couple games.
Is it fair that the suspension would be different in each of those cases when the action was exactly the same?
"It’ll get taken care of either with the league," Sabres right Patrick Kaleta said this afternoon before the decision was handed down, "or I think we play them Saturday, so we’ll make a point that you can’t be taking hits like that against one of our leaders and one of the better players on our team."
The guys on PTI (ESPN) were talking about the play and came to the same conclusion.
Of course, they obviously don't know anything about hockey and I didn't agree with a lot of what they had to say, but it wasn't interesting that it was on the show nonetheless.
They like to throw stuff in at the end of SportsCenter and stuff, like "Hjalmarsson suspended two games" and their viewers are probably like "What? Need more baseball/college football/high school football/peewee football/Miami Heat coverage!!!".
It's just kind of pitiful when they even attempt to talk about anything related to hockey.
The only highlights I've really seen so far this season have involved Stanley Cup winners post-lockout.
The NHL will never get it as long as Campbell holds the hammer.
This was an issue even before Campbell was the man in charge.
Until the powers that be with the league take player safety as seriously as the people running the CHL (Exhibit A: BZK's suspension last year), then it won't matter if it's Campbell or any other likely replacement.
in reference to my quote on savard and the bruins fans and bruins players reactions.
Originally Posted by ImpressedDAHagent
what happened? what do you mean?
fans wanted blood, to put it mildly. the team tried to shrug it off like it was no big deal, then thornton has a lame fight with cooke, and that was the extent of it. bruins also got killed on the scoreboard. but if you ask a group of bruins fans i think you'll get a majority vote that nobody really gave a damn about the 2 points that night, we just needed some revenge and needed to know that the players actually gave a damn. turns out the fans perception of the situation was the opposite of the players. i would think you guys all feel the same way.
i'm not just talking about throwing down with hjalmarsson, i mean everybody. everyone on the ice in a hawks jersey needs to know that one of their own screwed up bad. i guarantee that if this game goes by with just a little scrum between hjalmarsson and say kaleta, you'll all be livid.
2 points should be a distant 2nd on saturday in my eyes.
How did the NHL go from a 20-game suspension to an eight-game suspension to a two-game suspension?
During his annual state of the game pep talk to media at the start of the season, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman went out of his way to explain to the wretched media masses that not only were VP Colin Campbell's supplementary discipline decisions a tribute to his "extraordinarily good job in understanding what takes place on the ice," but that his rulings (criticized by some as being wildly inconsistent) were in fact "absolutely consistent."
If there's a consistency in Campbell's ruling it's that once again the perpetrator gets off easier than the victim.