You are not connected. Please login or register

 » The other NHL teams » General Hockey talk » General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 35 ... 67  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 67]

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Tim is exactly right. History should have played absolutely no role in whether Chara was punished or not. It was either right or wrong and until that little quip comes out of the decision making process The NHL will continue to be a joke.

PTFlea


Co-Founder
Co-Founder
22_4_ever wrote:
my problem isn't that they didn't suspend him, but for the record if you give him 1 game you set the precedence with the other players and send a message that it won't be tolerated, hockey play or not.

With that said, my problem was with Murphy's statement (and I paraphrase) that they took Chara's history into consideration. To me that opens Pandora's box. I could and do interpret that to mean that if it was Gilles that threw the hit, he would have been suspended because of his past. So either the hit is a suspension-able hit or it's not. From there you decide on how long based on the history of the player..etc.

Interesting take, even I was using Chara's exemplary record when defending the hit - and that shouldn't matter.

shabbs


Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
SpezDispenser wrote:
22_4_ever wrote:
my problem isn't that they didn't suspend him, but for the record if you give him 1 game you set the precedence with the other players and send a message that it won't be tolerated, hockey play or not.

With that said, my problem was with Murphy's statement (and I paraphrase) that they took Chara's history into consideration. To me that opens Pandora's box. I could and do interpret that to mean that if it was Gilles that threw the hit, he would have been suspended because of his past. So either the hit is a suspension-able hit or it's not. From there you decide on how long based on the history of the player..etc.

Interesting take, even I was using Chara's exemplary record when defending the hit - and that shouldn't matter.
Don't they always use a player's history when assessing suspensions? Repeat offender etc....

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
NEELY wrote:Tim is exactly right. History should have played absolutely no role in whether Chara was punished or not. It was either right or wrong and until that little quip comes out of the decision making process The NHL will continue to be a joke.

Just a guess but Labor Law probably has something to do with that. Most workplaces account for past behaviour or incidents when handing out discipline and when they come down too hard and an appeal is made to a court or tribunal, the complainant ends up winning.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
SeawaySensFan wrote:
NEELY wrote:Tim is exactly right. History should have played absolutely no role in whether Chara was punished or not. It was either right or wrong and until that little quip comes out of the decision making process The NHL will continue to be a joke.

Just a guess but Labor Law probably has something to do with that. Most workplaces account for past behaviour or incidents when handing out discipline and when they come down too hard and an appeal is made to a court or tribunal, the complainant ends up winning.

That could be it too. I don't know enough about anything really to understand this kind of thing.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Is anyone else starting not to care about the whole Chara/Pac thing? It's being pushed down our throats like this is the worst thing to happen in hockey since Masterson died.

22_4_ever

22_4_ever
Sophomore
Sophomore
shabbs wrote:
SpezDispenser wrote:
22_4_ever wrote:
my problem isn't that they didn't suspend him, but for the record if you give him 1 game you set the precedence with the other players and send a message that it won't be tolerated, hockey play or not.

With that said, my problem was with Murphy's statement (and I paraphrase) that they took Chara's history into consideration. To me that opens Pandora's box. I could and do interpret that to mean that if it was Gilles that threw the hit, he would have been suspended because of his past. So either the hit is a suspension-able hit or it's not. From there you decide on how long based on the history of the player..etc.

Interesting take, even I was using Chara's exemplary record when defending the hit - and that shouldn't matter.
Don't they always use a player's history when assessing suspensions? Repeat offender etc....

I'm ok with them using it to determine length of suspension, but they need to start determining it is or isn't a suspension-able hit. Then you consider past transgressions. I'm sure Murphy meant it that way, but to say that you took it into consideration makes it sound like you may have given someone else a suspension.

Like I said, either it is or it isn't.

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
NEELY wrote:Is anyone else starting not to care about the whole Chara/Pac thing? It's being pushed down our throats like this is the worst thing to happen in hockey since Masterson died.

Journalists love drama. They make me sick to my stomach. Laugh1

22_4_ever

22_4_ever
Sophomore
Sophomore
NEELY wrote:Is anyone else starting not to care about the whole Chara/Pac thing? It's being pushed down our throats like this is the worst thing to happen in hockey since Masterson died.

Yep,

For the record I don't think it warrants a suspension. I think the 5 min major and game misconduct were over the top but I get what the refs were trying accomplish. I have a problem with the way the NHL brass worded the whole investigation..etc.

It's really funny but if you search the web you'll find enough videos of guys getting hit into the stanchion to make a full length movie (ok maybe not but you get the idea).

It happens what 10 maybe..maybe 15 times a year. The collisions due to icings are far worse...hell IMHO the crosscheck to the head that Lucic handed out last week was worse, and that wasn't even reviewed.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
22_4_ever wrote:
NEELY wrote:Is anyone else starting not to care about the whole Chara/Pac thing? It's being pushed down our throats like this is the worst thing to happen in hockey since Masterson died.

Yep,

For the record I don't think it warrants a suspension. I think the 5 min major and game misconduct were over the top but I get what the refs were trying accomplish. I have a problem with the way the NHL brass worded the whole investigation..etc.

It's really funny but if you search the web you'll find enough videos of guys getting hit into the stanchion to make a full length movie (ok maybe not but you get the idea).

It happens what 10 maybe..maybe 15 times a year. The collisions due to icings are far worse...hell IMHO the crosscheck to the head that Lucic handed out last week was worse, and that wasn't even reviewed.

I remember playing NHL2000 on my PC and one of the video's that highlight the game is a guy literally slamming into the end of the glass. People are so stupid and hypcritical when it comes to the game it's embarsssing (like the way I spell).

Amnesia021

Amnesia021
Rookie
Rookie
Kubina gets 3 games for an elbow to the head of Dave Bolland

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Is the state of Florida going to charge Kubina?

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Reaction to Air Canada taking a stance on NHL violence.

Mr. Bettman wasn’t backing down.

“Air Canada is a great brand as is the National Hockey League and if they decide that they need to do other things with their sponsorship dollars, that’s their prerogative,” the commissioner said, when asked if he took the threat to pull sponsorship money seriously.

Instead, he fired off a counter-threat. “It is the prerogative of our clubs that fly on air Canada to make other arrangements if they don’t think Air Canada is giving them the appropriate level of service,” he said.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Hahaha, good call AC. I agree with Bettman 100% here. Pretty sure West Jet would jump at the chance tp be in AC's shoes. Called their bluff and AC will do nothing.

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
NEELY wrote:Hahaha, good call AC. I agree with Bettman 100% here. Pretty sure West Jet would jump at the chance tp be in AC's shoes. Called their bluff and AC will do nothing.

It's not like they're Air USA anyway. They should have known better.

Amnesia021

Amnesia021
Rookie
Rookie
NEELY wrote:Is the state of Florida going to charge Kubina?

Probably not, They don't even know they have a hockey team Ahhhhh!

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Thank God for that, hockey is just becoming too violent to watch.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
SeawaySensFan wrote:Reaction to Air Canada taking a stance on NHL violence.

Mr. Bettman wasn’t backing down.

“Air Canada is a great brand as is the National Hockey League and if they decide that they need to do other things with their sponsorship dollars, that’s their prerogative,” the commissioner said, when asked if he took the threat to pull sponsorship money seriously.

Instead, he fired off a counter-threat. “It is the prerogative of our clubs that fly on air Canada to make other arrangements if they don’t think Air Canada is giving them the appropriate level of service,” he said.

That is Cussing awesome. You won't find me giving Bettman too many props, but this is one time where it's justified.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 67]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 35 ... 67  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum