KjellShocked Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You are entitled to your opinion Kjell, but I'm not budging. I know what I see and there are players and teams in the NHL who can get away with pushing the envelope and there are players and teams that can't.Staal should have absolutely been suspended and I was not surprised in the least that he wasn't. His last name is Staal and he plays for the beloved Penguins. I'm surprised the freaking play wasn't on TSN as the check of the week.I understand - no hard feelings. I'll ask the same question again though - where was the suspension for the Rinaldo's slew? We got away with one there. No way around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I didn't see the slew foot. I guess you mentioned it was the Devils game? I didn't see that whole game.They sure made up for the slew non call with a ridiculous suspension. You got one example and I'm talking about guys like Cooke and Lucic who get away with murder on a regular basis. Cooke just slew footed someone a little while ago and got nothing for it too. It took Cooke a ton of incidents last season to be finally suspended for elbows and head shots. The guy got 10 games and now he gets away with a slew foot. You want to talk about Rinaldo getting left off the hook, what about Cooke? There are guys who are favored and guys who aren't. If you think its fair that Rinaldo gets that kind of reputation after his actions in the Devils game and gets suspended for a borderline hit later and you call that justice, then why doesn't Cooke or Lucic get that same kind of "justice"? I can answer it. Its because of the logos on the front of their sweaters. You think the fact that he's a Staal and the fact that he is a Penguin didn't play into his non-suspension at all? I'm asking you if you honestly believe that it didn't. By the way, whether he is a first time offender or not shouldn't matter. Danny Briere got a 3 game suspension for a bad hit and he isn't a dirty player. Why not Staal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KjellShocked Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 "I didn't see the slew foot. I guess you mentioned it was the Devils game? I didn't see that whole game."Yeah - that's the game. The slew preceded the Kovy/Schenn fight. Pretty bush i/m/h/o.I agree on Lucic and have no idea why he gets away with so much. His hit on Miller was total bush league, too. Cooke did get away with a lot but got the book thrown at him, too. It was 10 plus playoffs which is pretty serious so in the end "justice" was kinda done. I haven't read anything about a slew from him. Most accounts have him being a model citizen but I have to believe he's under closed scrutiny. If he reverts back to his old ways my hunch is he gets more than your more "reputable" player would."You think the fact that he's a Staal and the fact that he is a Penguin didn't play into his non-suspension at all? I'm asking you if you honestly believe that it didn't."Honestly - yes. What does being a Staal have to do with it? If that's former Lady Byng winner Martin St. Louis or any other player generally regarded as a "clean" player making that hit, I think they get a fine. "By the way, whether he is a first time offender or not shouldn't matter. Danny Briere got a 3 game suspension for a bad hit and he isn't a dirty player. Why not Staal?"Bad example. Briere is "sneaky" dirty. Don't forget, he's the guy who gave Ovie shot to the onions and it's no secret he can be a bit laissez faire with his stick. If Briere weren't a Flyer, I would hate him. Don't get me wrong - I am not arguing that the discipline is inconsistent or even biased to a point. I just don't think these recent incidents are good examples of that. Even if you think Staal got away with one and Rinaldo's suspension was not deserved, you have to concede that Rinaldo also got away with one, too.But yeah - scratching my head on Lucic. We can't even call in Bruin bias now that Campbell is gone. Add Marchand to that list, too. My blood is boiling just from typing those names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KjellShocked Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ah, another crafty one. Welcome aboard!That's what missus' said when she posed for that photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It was 10 plus playoffs which is pretty serious so in the end "justice" was kinda done. I haven't read anything about a slew from him. Most accounts have him being a model citizen but I have to believe he's under closed scrutiny. If he reverts back to his old ways my hunch is he gets more than your more "reputable" player would.His slew foot was after he had the book thrown at him Kjell. He isn't on his best behavior. He just appears that way because he's being tolerated just like Lucic is. Ultimately my question is why is Lucic tolerated and Cooke tolerated? Yet Rinaldo (or others) not tolerated?Because the NHL coddles the Penguins and Bruins and the likes especially when it comes to discipline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Briere is "sneaky" dirty. Don't forget, he's the guy who gave Ovie shot to the onions and it's no secret he can be a bit laissez faire with his stick. If Briere weren't a Flyer, I would hate him.He wasn't always a Flyer and he didn't get his *** cracked down on until he became one. Besides, saying Briere is sneaky dirty and saying Staal is not is way too subjective to be included criteria in a disciplinary hearing.Thats why you punish the action and not the reputation you decide to give to a certain player. Hence, the NHL's discipline enforcement is a joke. Its just like the NFL. They say they want to protect players from concussions, however, they only protect QBs and WRs and not ball carriers like RBs and the likes. Translation: They are only concerned with keeping the scoring in the game up. Fans want to see passing plays and great catches and hot-shot QBs. Therefore you have to protect them specifically so it keeps the scoring up.Until you are going to set a solid standard disciplining dirty plays in those sports you aren't serious about protecting the athletes you are only concerned with appearing to be protecting athletes.The NHL needs to get consistent and stop running the league like a good-old-boys club. Edited February 21, 2012 by Phillygrump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I agree that Staal should have gotten a major instead of 2 but I really don't have a problem with a fine there. Now, if it happens again it's another story. I also agree that Stewart should not have been suspended. Just because they get one wrong doesn't mean they have to get them all wrong.I do have a problem with only a fine. The standard was set when Stewart was suspended. Theres is a HUGE disparity in the discipline handed out. Both should have received a 1 game suspension. They got both wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KjellShocked Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 His slew foot was after he had the book thrown at him Kjell. He isn't on his best behavior. He just appears that way because he's being tolerated just like Lucic is.Ultimately my question is why is Lucic tolerated and Cooke tolerated? Yet Rinaldo (or others) not tolerated?Because the NHL coddles the Penguins and Bruins and the likes especially when it comes to discipline.PG: Is this the slew you are referring to?http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2012/1/20/2720810/matt-cooke-slew-foot-video-brad-richards-penguins-rangersIf it is, I have to disagree. It's a good link and the guy arguing that was not a slew is a Flyers' blogger but like he points out, Dreger said so - so it's gospel. Take that out of the equation and Cooke's been on his best behavior since the 17 games. I get to see the Pens more than most teams since I live in NNJ and get all the Rags, Debbies and Isles games and I can't recall anything controversial with him this year.Now, Lucic I agree. If you were asking me about Cooke last year I'd agree but not now. As for Rinaldo, Shanny has made it clear history counts. Rinaldo has a history that was less than a week old when he go two games. Two fines and he didn't get the message and he should have been suspended and not fined for his slew so I can't take issue with him getting two games for that his when he was "warned" via the fines just a week earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KjellShocked Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "He wasn't always a Flyer and he didn't get his *** cracked down on until he became one. Besides, saying Briere is sneaky dirty and saying Staal is not is way too subjective to be included criteria in a disciplinary hearing."Yes he did, PG. You gotta be fair here. Staal is not a dirty player. Briere is. Briere has been suspended 3 times in his career including once with the Sabres. He's taken whacks at guys from the bench and we all know about his famous shot to the onions on Ovie. To compare the two is way off."Thats why you punish the action and not the reputation you decide to give to a certain player. Hence, the NHL's discipline enforcement is a joke. Its just like the NFL. They say they want to protect players from concussions, however, they only protect QBs and WRs and not ball carriers like RBs and the likes. Translation: They are only concerned with keeping the scoring in the game up. Fans want to see passing plays and great catches and hot-shot QBs. Therefore you have to protect them specifically so it keeps the scoring up."Guys have reputations for a reason. A rep is really another way of saying a guy has a history. Most "reps" have at least some truth to them to it's not some huge injustice to take a guys "rep" into account.I definitely agree with you that there should be come kind of standard but I DO think two players can make the same bad hit and not be deserving on the same suspension. If it's Datsyuk that levels Coburn, does he deserve the same # of games if it's Lucic? Hell no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KjellShocked Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I do have a problem with only a fine. The standard was set when Stewart was suspended. Theres is a HUGE disparity in the discipline handed out.Both should have received a 1 game suspension. They got both wrong.I'll agree they got both wrong. Both are guys who have never been disciplined and don't have reps as dirty players. Some times good players make mistakes. I think that was the case with both Staal and Stewart and thought BOTH should have been fined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinorama Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Thats why you punish the action and not the reputationexactly. This is such a basic concept and yet for some reason it's not applied here. it's an aspect of the sport that the longer I watch it, the more it causes me to lose respect for the game. I love the sport of hockey, but I can get very frustrated with the NHL at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinorama Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'll agree they got both wrong. Both are guys who have never been disciplined and don't have reps as dirty players. Some times good players make mistakes. I think that was the case with both Staal and Stewart and thought BOTH should have been fined.rep shouldn't be applied. a rule is a rule. if you break it you get punished simple as that. These conversations are always much more complicated than they need to be because there's no consistency in the officiating. When one fan wants to complain about a call that went against someone, usually there is another fan who has another player that falls into the opposite end of the spectrum to use as an example of why fan #1 doesn't have room to complain.If Zac slew flooted someone, he should get called. If Staal boarded someone he should get called. If Malkin wants to fight in the closing moments of a playoff game that was already decided, he should get his due punishment. The fact that the NHL can run around making up all these rules and then only enforcing it when they see fit is ludicrous.I don't like the whole first offense, past history, keeping in mind what kind of player he is blah blah blah. If you aren't going to enforce a rule every time a player breaks it, then why have the rule in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Now, Lucic I agree. If you were asking me about Cooke last year I'd agree but not now. As for Rinaldo, Shanny has made it clear history counts.If history counts Cooke wouldn't be in the league anymore. There is no blatantly dirtier player than him. Cooke's existence alone proves that history doesn't matter to Shanny. It seems you may have contradicted yourself in saying that last year you could see how Cooke would have been cracked down on, but not this year. He didn't change his style of play...If history matters then Cooke should be treated more harshly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygrump Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 exactly. This is such a basic concept and yet for some reason it's not applied here. it's an aspect of the sport that the longer I watch it, the more it causes me to lose respect for the game. I love the sport of hockey, but I can get very frustrated with the NHL at times.Completely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.