Kesler_smash Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Where were you when other players got injured beside a Canuck? I didn't see this opinion voiced out. Let's face it, if Daniel injured Keith, none of us would be talking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ṣpiderman Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 You do realize this is a Vancouver Canucks message board right? Your arguments are so weak, but whatever keep replying and bumping my thread. If Daniel threw a blatent elbow like Keiths 1st I would od a spit take because it would be so unbelievable and 2nd I would be fine with a 15-20 game suspension because that is what this style of play warrants. But once again why even reply your arguments are so weak and ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler_smash Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Yes, it would be unfair to the player who threw the dirty hit if he got a more severe punishment than someone who, in the same season received less for a comparable play. I won't argue your belief that the standards have to change; that is all a matter of opinion. However, to change that standard in mid season would be unfair. There are two separate issues here, one being the severity of punishment, and the other being fairness. If a Canuck throws a blatant elbow in round 1 and gets 10 games, are you honestly going to come on to this board and say "it is about time the league showed the players they mean business, good suspension!" I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Where were you when other players got injured beside a Canuck? I didn't see this opinion voiced out. Let's face it, if Daniel injured Keith, none of us would be talking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler_smash Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Maybe your poor English is affecting your reading comprehension. Like every dumb fan on here, they're fine until something happens to the Canucks. I remember when people were fine with Shanny's bans, but then there was talk about Edler being suspended for a hit earlier in the year and everyone freaked and hated on Shanny. My argument isn't weak, you just can't comprehend. What can I expect though from a guy who only focuses on the Canucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiasedCarrot Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I say that instead of suspending him five games from when it happened, if it's close to playoff time and he takes a cheap shot like that, they should have suspended him five playoff games and seen how likely that makes players to reoffend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ṣpiderman Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Lol, when do either of the Sedins throw brutal elbows? They were being punched in the face in the playoffs constantly without retaliating... Let's face it, Daniel doesn't play that kind of hockey. Let's face it, Daniel isn't playing the first game of the playoffs and Keith's suiting up. Let's face it, that's reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Rome gets 4 games in the SCF for a hockey play (hit was late but no intent to injure) yet Keith gets 5 games at the end of the regular season (when his team pretty much had a spot locked-up) for a dirty, pre-meditated headshot that resulted in a worse injury than the Rome hit. Keith should have been suspended until the second round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 It maybe wasn't as vicious but it was just as...if not more pre-meditated. And with the concussion issues the NHL is "dealing" with these days 15 games is not out of line in my opinion. Just look at the time players are missing from these injuries (see Nick Backstrom, see Marc Savard) McSorley actually never palyed another NHL game so while the official "suspension" was in the 15-20 game range in reality this vicious play ended careers. I am completely serious if the NHL wants to stop looking like a joke in the discipline dept. the punishments need to become just that a punishment not a vacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Drew Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 If it wasn't for that weasel Bettman, the Canucks would have a Cup, they would of won it last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler_smash Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 It's an example. We could use Kesler if he seems more dirty to you. An example isn't meant to be true. The hidden message is that if it was a Canuck who did this, the reactions wouldn't be the same. I know this is a Canucks message board but asking for a suspension for the entire playoffs? Get real. It's not going to happen. You could sit here and whine all day, but at the end of the day, rules are rules. They don't change because a Canuck got hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 It's an example. We could use Kesler if he seems more dirty to you. An example isn't meant to be true. The hidden message is that if it was a Canuck who did this, the reactions wouldn't be the same. I know this is a Canucks message board but asking for a suspension for the entire playoffs? Get real. It's not going to happen. You could sit here and whine all day, but at the end of the day, rules are rules. They don't change because a Canuck got hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Fatigue Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 This is an issue where I believe more whining is in order, it would be nice if the national media would do a little whining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler_smash Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Giving out a lengthy suspensions won't stop players from hitting to the head again. Hits like this have been in the game since the beginning, and as much as the GMs think there's a way of taking these hits out of the game, there isn't. Unless you take out hitting completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 If it wasn't for that weasel Bettman, the Canucks would have a Cup, they would of won it last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ṣpiderman Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 This is what you don't understand I've said multiple times the suspensions the league hands out for this type of play are inadequate across the board. I don't care if a Canuck player is the perpitrator or what which I've said multiple times yet you keep using this as your counter argument. Sure maybe there are stupid hypocrites on this site who think the suspension should only be longer against Keith, this is stupid, I would agree. But this is not my opinion nor has anyone in this thread made that argument....so I really don't see your point. And you know someone is a weak debater when they resort to just calling you dumb and insulting your english. I don't attack people personally no matter how badly I'm being owned in an argument. Note...I insulted your argument not you personally...I can't say the same about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 This is completely hypothetical, you can't say that a 15 game suspension wouldn't make players think twice before making a hit like this because it hasn't happened yet. And taking a deliberately targeted elbow to the head out of the game compared to taking out hitting entirely??? Talk about comparing apples to oranges, I'm sorry but that argument just doesn't fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorrcoq Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Man, this fan base can't whine enough. Are you saying Steckel should have been out for a year + Bert should never play hockey again? Just because a Canuck got hit, the rules DON"T CHANGE. Have you just started watching hockey? Let me tell you something, the length of the injury doesn't affect how long the suspension is. Remember when fans wanted the NHL to suspend for the intent but not the result? QUIT WHINING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagorim Jarg Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Where were you when other players got injured beside a Canuck? I didn't see this opinion voiced out. Let's face it, if Daniel injured Keith, none of us would be talking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler_smash Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 What part of my argument did you insult? My mind has yet to be changed. You think your lengthy paragraphs can manipulate how I think rationally? What does the Canucks play style have to do with the example I'm trying to give? If it hasn't happened, it doesn't mean it won't happen. Can you honestly say a Canuck won't be suspended ever again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.