JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So that's a double minor then - instigator and helmet - that the Pens for some reason were not assessed. Double minor AND 10 minute misconduct. We don't want to cheat anybody here... I wonder if any of our friendly neighborhood Pens fans have any insight as to why that might be? Conspiracy... <mumble mumble>... Area 51 <mumble mumble> nekkid pictures <mumble mumble>... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Conspiracy... ... Area 51 nekkid pictures ... the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people under the supervision of the reverse vampires are conspiring with Gary Bettmann to support the Penguins. We're through the looking glass here, people!!! In all seriousness, I don't think any of our friendly neighborhood Pens fans are in the completely delusional league of some of their compatriots in Western PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Can't argue with that. So that's a double minor then - instigator and helmet - that the Pens for some reason were not assessed. I wonder if any of our friendly neighborhood Pens fans have any insight as to why that might be? Refs suck, we all know that. That's like asking why Giroux didn't get called for the cross check on Crosby behind the net in the second period. Again, the refs suck, we don't complain about it(usually) because its a well known fact. In the Farnham case though, I'd have to add a level of incompetency too, because not calling the crosscheck, heck they may not have seen a player right next to the net get stiff cross check in the ribs because the puck was not there. But a player getting ready for a fight tossing his lid, that's just not knowing or applying the rules properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 But a player getting ready for a fight tossing his lid, that's just not knowing or applying the rules properly. Tossing lid and getting into "menacing attitude or posture" - I can sort of understand the "new" rule about "keep yer helmet on" but the "new" rule about "instigator" was instituted long enough ago that anyone born then is legal to drink now. Refs suck, we all know that. Amen, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 the "new" rule about "instigator" was instituted long enough ago that anyone born then is legal to drink now. So you're saying the refs were drunk? I could buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 You need a bigger (boat) Goon !!! ha ha ha ha ha .. You better take a good look at that your goon boy was not out for a evening stroll and a fight broke out .. he already had his gloves off and he pulled frenchy out of the pile to fight .You clearly think more of Farnham than he is. And more of that fight than it was. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 I agree with this. It was good sportsmanship. The fans who cheer for and the media that covers that team could learn a thing or two from him.You mean the Flyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 @JackStraw@radoranMaybe it's because Farnham was the receiver if two illegal hits before he went stupid? Maybe because he was reacting to those two (interference and then a crosscheck in the back) when he skated over to yap at the guilty when he got hit that second time from behind and the officials figured they'd already ignored two against him they could ignore one for him?Or maybe because they didnt call Voracek the extra two for instigating with a visor so they were willing to not call Farnham for removing his? You be the judge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 @JackStraw@radoranMaybe it's because Farnham was the receiver if two illegal hits before he went stupid? Maybe because he was reacting to those two (interference and then a crosscheck in the back) when he skated over to yap at the guilty when he got hit that second time from behind and the officials figured they'd already ignored two against him they could ignore one for him?Or maybe because they didnt call Voracek the extra two for instigating with a visor so they were willing to not call Farnham for removing his? You be the judge... Well, as I've read the "explanations" from various people including Pens fans on this board, the Scuderi hit on Voracek was "legal" because it wasn't called therefore - using the same "rationale" - Farnham wasn't "the receiver" of any "illegal" hits before he "went stupid." And, as I read it, Voracek did get the instigator? OK, "with a visor" - so you're basically saying that the no-calls evened out there? That works. All I was asking was a "reason." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Well, as I've read the "explanations" from various people including Pens fans on this board, the Scuderi hit on Voracek was "legal" because it wasn't called therefore - using the same "rationale" - Farnham wasn't "the receiver" of any "illegal" hits before he "went stupid." And, as I read it, Voracek did get the instigator? OK, "with a visor" - so you're basically saying that the no-calls evened out there? That works. All I was asking was a "reason." Rad, I missed it, where was the discussion on the Scuderi hit? Is there a discussion whether that was legal or not? What was wrong with that hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 @nossagog He went pretty low. I don't think he was going for the knees but it certainly looked like Voracek thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Maybe it's because Farnham was the receiver if two illegal hits before he went stupid? Maybe because he was reacting to those two (interference and then a crosscheck in the back) when he skated over to yap at the guilty when he got hit that second time from behind and the officials figured they'd already ignored two against him they could ignore one for him? Sorry, not a good excuse: 46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season. Or maybe because they didnt call Voracek the extra two for instigating with a visor so they were willing to not call Farnham for removing his? You be the judge.. Voracek DID get 2 for instigating. 2 + 5 + 10 = 17. You are taking this a little too seriously. Personally I don't really care who got how much for what. That's why the s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamflyers Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Not much to see there. Somebody made it sound like Bellemare cleaned Farnham out. I was pretty disappointed when I saw it. One punch lands. Barely a fight let alone cleaning out. Wasn't like a knockout or anything.Huh? What? You woke me up for this?...Not much to see? 20,000 rowdy fans disagreed with you! A one punch knock down is always something to see. Farnham took the punch well, but it was enough to knock him over. But let me guess...the punch wasn't what knocked him over...he slipped on a banana peel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 @JackStrawBut there is supposed to be an extra 2 for instigating while wearing a visor, which was not assessed. That was my even up point. I'm not being too serious about it, just countering all the "where was Farnham's extra two" comments that missed the Voracek embarrassment. @AdamflyersYeah wasn't much of a fight. I'd feel the same way no matter who was involved. One punch connects out if 9 or 10? That punch knocks Farnham off balance and they both fall down, but nobody is really out if the fight yet... Most fighters get back up and keep going. This one was a dud. 20,000 Philly fans are hardly who I'm taking opinions from. Lol. Bellemare wins by virtue of landing the only real punch, but hardly noteworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Rad, I missed it, where was the discussion on the Scuderi hit? Is there a discussion whether that was legal or not? What was wrong with that hit? http://www.hockeyforums.net/index.php/topic/64072-jake/ Good thing he fought. Just one more step to taking legal hits out of the game, right? And there are actual Flyer fans taking that side of it, too. No worries, really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 But there is supposed to be an extra 2 for instigating while wearing a visor, which was not assessed. That was my even up point. I'm not being too serious about it, just countering all the "where was Farnham's extra two" comments that missed the Voracek embarrassment. You know, I did think there was a penalty for fighting with a visor if the other guy didn't have one- but I can't find it in the rule book. I googled it and found an article in the NY Times that said this: Rule 46.6 in the N.H.L. rule book states: “If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.” But this is rule 46.6, from what is the latest version of the rule book (2014-2015) on the NHL website: 46.6 Helmets - No player may remove his helmet prior to engaging in a fight. If he should do so, he shall be assessed a two minute minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. Helmets that come off in the course of and resulting from the altercation will not result in a penalty to either player. Nothing at all about visors. I haven't read the entire rulebook but I looked around in likely places and couldn't find anything about fighting with a visor. I wonder if they got rid of the rule. From the article in the Times, it seems that a lot of players (particularly the ones likely to fight) didn't like that rule. http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/quirk-in-the-n-h-l-visor-debate-fighters-get-penalized/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 @JackStrawYeah it's in there just about instigatating wearing one is an extra 2. I don't really care that they didnt call it. Just thought it stupid people were calling out Farnham for doing the honorable thing despite the rule, even though Bellemare wouldn't. And conveniently forgetting the Voracek fiasco. The officiating lost control of that game so early it's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yeah it's in there just about instigatating wearing one is an extra 2. Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 From a post on another forum, here is text from rule 46.6, presumably from an older version: 46.6 Face Protection - If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.Should the player (including a goalkeeper) who instigates the fight be wearing a face shield, but removes it before instigating the altercation, the additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty shall not apply. So rule 46.6 was definitely changed. It looks like they may have replaced the visor part with a more general clause about removing helmets. That might sense since all players are now required to wear a visor, except those who are "grandfathered". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yeah it's in there just about instigatating wearing one is an extra 2. Where? Upon further review, I am curious. The word "Visor" doesn't appear in Rule 46. At all. Anywhere. I'm guessing it was subsumed into the Helmet rule. You can't really penalize someone for taking their helmet off and then penalize them for keeping something attached to the helmet on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 @radoran - I'm very curious. It's not in rule 46 and I don't see it anywhere else, including the specific rule for unsportsmanlike conduct. It really looks like it was taken out and as you say, essentially replaced with the helmet rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 @JackStraw@radoran Did they replace it then with the new don't take off the helmet rule and completely discard the instigating with a visor rule? If so then I stand corrected. I am in the truck on the road posting at red lights right now so I can't really look it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 @JackStraw@radoran Did they replace it then with the new don't take off the helmet rule and completely discard the instigating with a visor rule? If so then I stand corrected. I am in the truck on the road posting at red lights right now so I can't really look it up? It looks that way. I hunted around more and found this link: http://tinyurl.com/oexa3qp It's a press release (PDF) describing rules changes for the 2013-2014 season. Here is what it says about Rule 46: Rule 46 – FIGHTINGNote – The instigating an altercation with a face shield language from Rule 46.6 has been deleted. An additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty will no longer be assessed. Bang. Gone. Just like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 It looks that way. I hunted around more and found this link:http://tinyurl.com/oexa3qpIt's a press release (PDF) describing rules changes for the 2013-2014 season. Here is what it says about Rule 46:Rule 46 – FIGHTINGNote – The instigating an altercation with a face shield language from Rule 46.6 has been deleted. An additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty will no longer be assessed. Bang. Gone. Just like that.Not a lot of fanfare there! I stand corrected! Damn that Farnham for disregarding Uncle Gary and thinking to fight honorably! Ban him... Ban him for life!! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Not a lot of fanfare there! I stand corrected! Damn that Farnham for disregarding Uncle Gary and thinking to fight honorably! Ban him... Ban him for life!! Lol THAT'S the spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.