RunningWild Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 “I can attest to this as a player, if you ask me if I’d rather have a four-game suspension in November than a one-game suspension in the playoffs, I’d take the four-game suspension in November,” Shanahan said. “If you think about it, that one game in the finals is the equivalent of a 12-game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppleJack Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Actually I was just on a Chicago msg board and a lot of them are complaining about the harsh suspension. The bttom line is in a situation like this the player that gets hurt is the big loser, His team is also hurt. The offender loses a pretty big chunck of cash as a punishment, and thats it. Backstrom hasn't played since Bourque elbowed him, and he likely wont if Washington makes the playoffs, How is the 5 games Keith got any more an injustice than the 5 games Bourque got? The time of the year is inconsequential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacdeesSnipinGs Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Wasn't the vicious type that warrants 10+ games???? LOL...Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 let's move on and hope we get danny back for the playoffs.....the canucks will have to step up to cover for danny.....we should get behind them and support their required efforts...duncan got what the league deemed to be satisfactory....go canucks go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinteenseee Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 How does Rome get 4 SCF games with no intent and no history and Keith gets 5 regular season games with intent and no (official) history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I am not surprised that the Chicago fan are crying about the 'harsh' suspension, a lot of them on both this board, the Chicago board and even FB were saying that Danny deserved being hit because of his earlier 'vicious' hit on Keith. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rink on Renfrew Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 There's no point comparing daddy Campbell's decisions with Shanahan's, that's like comparing apples and oranges. If anything, compare this suspension to Doan and Bourque's, it's reasonable considering Keith isn't a repeat offender. IMO if the league REALLY wants to send a message, all these headshots should warrant more serious penalties.. but who are we kidding, it IS the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Either your biased, ignorant,or know nothing about hockey, trust me if they start handing out 10-20 games for that type a play, we are pointing the leauge in a direction of complete softness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Satisfied with the suspenion NOT satisfied with the explaination. Shanny's "key points" missed out one KEY POINT, it was a headshot. His video doesnt mention the hit as a head shot, only as an elbow. What's going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Doan - 3 games, Bourque (repeat offender)- 5 games. Giving Keith any more than 5 would have been completely out of line with the suspensions that have been handed out for other head shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrill-House Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 it is puzzling how Rome got 4 SCF playoff games for a late but clean body check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Once again Shanahan drops the ball, he had a chance to send a message loud and clear and only suspends him 5 games. This is a joke. Should have been 8 minimum, or 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppleJack Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well..if that's how their minds work, they shouldn't have any problem if Bitz drives Keith's face thorugh the glass and decapitates him next time they meet. That line of thinking is just wrong and leads to nothing but escalation. The league IS a huge part of the problem. Players are frustrated by the game management of the refs; by the ever-changing rules; the inconsistency of calls. Daniel should have been penalized for his hit...that may have been enough to defuse the situation, maybe not but drustration leads to retaliation and the league is mismanaging it eveyr step of the way from the on-ioce officials to the disciplinary hearing to teh board of governors. Real, honest hockey is the casuality of the corporate model adopted under Bettman's tenure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BZRK Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 You guys can whine as much as you can. What's done is done, deal with it. I think it's a little less then I would want, but reasonable, Keith will have a huge mark on his sheet, and if he does it again, he'll get even more. Keith misses some important games, and gets a nice big chunk of his pay taken out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 So, in Shanahans eyes, Rome got suspended for an equivalent of 48 reg season games (over half a season). The Rome hit was controversial, was NOT a heat hit, considered more of a 'late' hockey play. Duncan Keith doesn't even get suspended for an equivalent of 1 playoff game. The hit was controversial, WAS a head hit, puck was no where near and NOT a hockey play. The NHL justice system is so inconsistent it's disgusting. They say one thing, then do another. I just hope Danny is ok - or will be ok soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkSniper Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cmon people, take the 'homer' glasses off. 5 is beyond reasonable. It was cheap, dirty and caused injury, but it IMO, wasn't the vicious type that warrants 10+ games....On top of the 5 games loosing 150,000$ is a deterant no matter how much money you make. Shanny was more than reasonable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van_City123 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Weak, he should of got the 7 games left in the regular season. And the first round of the playoffs. If Shanahan wanted to lay down the line for the playoffs, he would of had the balls to make a decision like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancanfan Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The suspension is inline with other similar elbows of that type this year. The NHL can't all of a sudden part way through a season start throwing out much larger suspensions. The players union would have a fit. They do need to address this in the off season and make head shots a much longer suspension with larger fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haikara Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Intent? It's only mentioned that Kieth denied any intent, and Shanahan goes on in a matter that implies acceptance. So, two key points missed? I voted "not happy," though 5 was exactly what I was expecting. I don't think I'd be happy with any number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.