Official Hockey discussion thread

Yeah, Callahan had a huge game with 4 goals...King Henrick got his 9th shut out this year. I am still worried about their chances of staying in the playoffs
 
1. What does Chara deserve for almost killing Max Pacioretty? I say 2 games.

2. Antigonish (my town) made it into the finals of Kraft Hockeyville! If we win, we get a preseason game, probably something like Habs - Boston. Can you guys help by tossing some votes our way? Vote for Antigonish Arena, Antigonish NS.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hockeyv ... ndex.shtml
 
Chara/Pacioretty started some arguments after my game last night.
Personally, I don't think he meant to rub him into the stanchion, but that's kinda like saying Todd Bertuzzi didn't mean to break Steve Moore's neck.
The hit was late, the play was clearly interference and Chara had a mad on.
I'd call it irresponsible, illegal behaviour that caused a serious injury.
Two games seems likely to me, but this is one that seems open to a number of interpretations. Tough to call.
 
I agree with Carey - you know what's out there, or you should. Chara should be responsible for placing a hit in a danger zone. I don't think it should be Big Z's career, but here's how I see it.

If this was Gillies, it'd be 25 games. Chara deserves 2 for making a play in an extremely dangerous situation - the same as if the player was stationary a few feet from the boards and got hit into them head-first.
 
LooseCannon said:
I agree with Carey - you know what's out there, or you should. Chara should be responsible for placing a hit in a danger zone. I don't think it should be Big Z's career, but here's how I see it.

If this was Gillies, it'd be 25 games. Chara deserves 2 for making a play in an extremely dangerous situation - the same as if the player was stationary a few feet from the boards and got hit into them head-first.
Click to expand...

But there's no distinction between that area and the rest of the rink in the rulebook.  Hits like this happen 5-6 times every game.

No suspension.  I doubt that it was intentional on Chara's behalf.  Furthermore, I don't believe the NHL should determine suspensions based on the length of the injury, but rather the legality of the play.  Chara committed interference.  That's a penalty, not a suspension.
 
I completely disagree with that. Injuries occurred in the commitment of a penalty ABSOLUTELY deserve supplemental discipline. That's why it's a penalty. Pacioretty wasn't in control of the puck and had no need to guard himself. His guard was down - as the rules say they're allowed to be.

If Pacman was controlling the puck at the time, then it was a clean hit. It was a late hit. If you hit someone late and they get hurt, that's definitely 5, a game, and a supplemental discipline call. How is it any different to causing injury with any other illegal play?

I'd say intent does matter, sure. Which is why I'm suggesting 2, instead of 10. If there was evidence that Chara tried to ram his head into the staunchion, then it's intent to injure, and that is definitely deserving all the extra discipline. There isn't. However, Chara broke the rules in such a manner as to cause a major injury. It has to be treated the same as boarding, or hits to the head. Those aren't always intentional, but there is the onus on the player doing the hitting to understand where he is and where the opposing player is in regards to them and the apparatus.
 
Hitting from behind and interference aren't exactly the same kind of penalty.

Matt Cooke jumping into Fyodor Tyutin's back while he's picking the puck off the boards is an inherently dangerous play.  Just because Tyutin wasn't injured, that kind of play deserves less supplemental discipline than a thoroughly ordinary play that happens 99% of the time without any sort of damage?
 
The difference is the NHL seems to think a play like that which causes no damage doesn't deserve a suspension. Matt Cooke is fucking someone in the NHL it would seem. He's a greaseball.

Here's how I see it: Illegal and dangerous play deserves 1-2 games. More if there is an injury or repeat offender. Chara hasn't had any suspensions as I recall, and the play was illegal but only incidentally dangerous (IE, it wasn't dangerous elsewhere). Add an intent and you add games. So that's my criteria.

1. Was the play dangerous?
2. Was the play illegal?
3. Was the player hurt?
4. Was there an intent to injure?
5. Is the player a repeat offender?

Basically, dangerous play? Fine. Illegal + dangerous? 1-2 games. Hurt? Double that. Intent to injure? Triple that. Repeat offender? Double all the above.

So, this play (illegal, injured, not dangerous usually, no intent to injure, repeat offender), I'd normally scale 1 game for illegal, doubled by player hurt.

Same scale I apply to other hits. By that ranking, I think that Gillies got about 6 games too many last suspension and that Cooke should have been expelled from the NHL 2 years ago.
 
While the hit on Paciorrety was unfornunate, I don't think Chara intedned to injure him. Paciorerrty was coming down the boards and Chara was finishing his check. Paciorrety's own momentum caried him into the partition. Chara was only trying to finish his check. I am glad that Pacioretty is going to be ok. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time against the biggest player in the league. Chara got a 5 minute major and a game misconduct. I really think that the game misconduct might have been too much, because it really was'nt a dirty play.
 
LooseCannon said:
The difference is the NHL seems to think a play like that which causes no damage doesn't deserve a suspension. Matt Cooke is fucking someone in the NHL it would seem. He's a greaseball.

Here's how I see it: Illegal and dangerous play deserves 1-2 games. More if there is an injury or repeat offender. Chara hasn't had any suspensions as I recall, and the play was illegal but only incidentally dangerous (IE, it wasn't dangerous elsewhere). Add an intent and you add games. So that's my criteria.

1. Was the play dangerous?
2. Was the play illegal?
3. Was the player hurt?
4. Was there an intent to injure?
5. Is the player a repeat offender?

Basically, dangerous play? Fine. Illegal + dangerous? 1-2 games. Hurt? Double that. Intent to injure? Triple that. Repeat offender? Double all the above.

So, this play (illegal, injured, not dangerous usually, no intent to injure, repeat offender), I'd normally scale 1 game for illegal, doubled by player hurt.

Same scale I apply to other hits. By that ranking, I think that Gillies got about 6 games too many last suspension and that Cooke should have been expelled from the NHL 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

I could live with that.  It would be nice to see some consistency, for sure.
 
I've said this before - the suspensions shouldn't be decided by one person, but by a panel. There should be 3 people from the League/Owners, 1 GM, and 1 Player/Retired Player on the panel. Maybe the players elect a retired player each year, the League chairs it with Colin Campbell/Mike Murphy and adds another person, and one Owner or Owner Representative sits, the rule being that the owner and GM that sit on each discipline panel must be from the other conference/division as the team who's player was hurt, and different division if the offending team was from the same conference.

IE, the game from last night's panel could have Mike Murphy chairing, someone from, say, NHL Officiating, an Owner from the west who has a stake in protecting his investments, a GM from the west who wants to protect his players, and a player who represents the desire of the players. They can hash it out, with a vote required on a penalty.
 
LooseCannon said:
I've said this before - the suspensions shouldn't be decided by one person, but by a panel. There should be 3 people from the League/Owners, 1 GM, and 1 Player/Retired Player on the panel. Maybe the players elect a retired player each year, the League chairs it with Colin Campbell/Mike Murphy and adds another person, and one Owner or Owner Representative sits, the rule being that the owner and GM that sit on each discipline panel must be from the other conference/division as the team who's player was hurt, and different division if the offending team was from the same conference.

IE, the game from last night's panel could have Mike Murphy chairing, someone from, say, NHL Officiating, an Owner from the west who has a stake in protecting his investments, a GM from the west who wants to protect his players, and a player who represents the desire of the players. They can hash it out, with a vote required on a penalty.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, not just for the NHL, but the NFL, MLB, and the NBA.
 
LooseCannon said:
I've said this before - the suspensions shouldn't be decided by one person, but by a panel. There should be 3 people from the League/Owners, 1 GM, and 1 Player/Retired Player on the panel. Maybe the players elect a retired player each year, the League chairs it with Colin Campbell/Mike Murphy and adds another person, and one Owner or Owner Representative sits, the rule being that the owner and GM that sit on each discipline panel must be from the other conference/division as the team who's player was hurt, and different division if the offending team was from the same conference.

IE, the game from last night's panel could have Mike Murphy chairing, someone from, say, NHL Officiating, an Owner from the west who has a stake in protecting his investments, a GM from the west who wants to protect his players, and a player who represents the desire of the players. They can hash it out, with a vote required on a penalty.
Click to expand...

This is a good idea.

I'm also trying to think of incidents where a player was gravely injured on a play that was a penalty that did not result in a suspension.  The only one that comes to mind immediately is Marian Hossa highsticking Bryan Berard.
 
No discipline for Chara. Mike Murphy better not show his face at the Bell Centre anytime soon, the fans will tear him to pieces.

I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised.
 
I agree with the ruling. 

It's hard when someone gets hurt like this to try and step away from the emotions, but the NHL got this right, just like they did with the Cooke on Savard hit.  They made the right call the way the rules say.  In the latter case, they amended the rulebook afterward.  Maybe they'll do that this time too.
 
When they explained it it made sense. He never left his feet, stick on the ice, shoulders, elbows and hands down... the calling during the game (5 minute major and game misconduct) was appropriate. I too agree.
 
LooseCannon said:
I've said this before - the suspensions shouldn't be decided by one person, but by a panel. There should be 3 people from the League/Owners, 1 GM, and 1 Player/Retired Player on the panel. Maybe the players elect a retired player each year, the League chairs it with Colin Campbell/Mike Murphy and adds another person, and one Owner or Owner Representative sits, the rule being that the owner and GM that sit on each discipline panel must be from the other conference/division as the team who's player was hurt, and different division if the offending team was from the same conference.

IE, the game from last night's panel could have Mike Murphy chairing, someone from, say, NHL Officiating, an Owner from the west who has a stake in protecting his investments, a GM from the west who wants to protect his players, and a player who represents the desire of the players. They can hash it out, with a vote required on a penalty.
Click to expand...
I have never been a fan of one person from the League arbitrarily handing out the supplemental discipline. There is some inconsistency when it comes  to handing out supplemental discipline. If that would have been Chris Pronger, Chris Simon or Matt Cooke, then there would definitely been some kind of suspension, even though I don't think Chara intended to hurt Pacioretty. It was'nt like the Claude Lemueix ramming Chris Draper head first bwhile he was in a vulnerable position. Chara was careless in that he did'nt let up and that Pacioretty had lost possesion of the puck and it was in a dangerous area of the boards. But I believe Chara was finishing his check on Pacioretty. He was very careless, but I do not think he intentionally wanted to shove Pacioretty head first into the partition.
 
Nigel Tufnel said:
If that would have been Chris Pronger, Chris Simon or Matt Cooke, then there would definitely been some kind of suspension...
Click to expand...

ALL those players have a reputation of playing dirty and "repeat offenders." So yeah, a suspension would not have been a surprise. Chara doing that is as though Lidstrom or Rob Blake did something like that. In fact there was one such case. When Marty MacSorley hit that other player in the head with his stick. MacSorley was a good, "well behaved" D-man with that one aberration of an incident.... Hopefully this is the case with Chara and he learns from it.
 
Yeah, the big guy needs to know when to let up. But it is hard sometimes when you are competetive. Gaging from the reaction of the Habs in the third period, I don't think they thought it was intentional. Still pretty damn unfortunate.
 
Is it just me, or does this one seem like Habs fans are ready to strap the guy into an iron maiden, while everybody else is like "too bad, but these things happen."
For what it's worth, Chara can be a dirty player — not Pronger dirty, but he has a mean streak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top