TOMapleLaughs Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not when you compare it to other hits that are worse, and received nothing. Speaking of which, Burrows wasn't suspended for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lK0GWEVzQw Yes, the late headshot on Emelin (who is indeed a prickish player himself, but that is irrelevant) was suspendable and worthy of 3 games. No, there is no anti-Burrows conspiracy. Yes, Burrows has gotten away with a lot of crap already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What a joke. Thought I'd repost poeticas post. Guess he's getting 3 games for being a Canuck. I think it's the lateness of the hit that they'll say was the difference. On the Nieddereiter hit, Burrows still had the puck. But a head shot is a head shot. If they claim they want to eliminate them from the game, they should all be suspension worthy. The message isn't received when certain players and/or teams get special treatment with suspensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If you had watched the game, you would have seen about 30 calls that were not made against both teams, tho they gave the Habs all the PP's early ..fyi i did watch the game. head shots do not belong in the game...especially late ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Speaking of which, Burrows wasn't suspended for this: Yes, the late headshot on Emelin (who is indeed a prickish player himself, but that is irrelevant) was suspendable and worthy of 3 games. No, there is no anti-Burrows conspiracy. Yes, Burrows has gotten away with a lot of crap already. Lol. That was from almost 6 years ago... The league hadn't even implemented it's blindside rule yet, and it certainly wasn't cracking down on headshots then. Bad comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex425 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Should be one or two, not three... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Lol. That was from almost 6 years ago... The league hadn't even implemented it's blindside rule yet, and it certainly wasn't cracking down on headshots then. Bad comparison.Really? Nashville was screaming bloody murder at the time there was no disciplinary action at the time and is really part of the reason why the NHL had to ramp up actions to clamp down on headshots. It is indeed a worse hit that got nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 At least put the best angle in the first post... Awesome. Wish it was Ratface not Emelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Really? Nashville was screaming bloody murder at the time there was no disciplinary action at the time and is really part of the reason why the NHL had to ramp up actions to clamp down on headshots. It is indeed a worse hit that got nothing. Doesn't matter what Nashville was demanding, the rules were different back then. There's plenty of examples of more recent hits that were as bad as that one that received nothing. It's painfully obvious that there's different standards for different players and different teams. There's countless examples that prove this. And what Burrows did 6 years ago can't have any impact on the NHL's decision to suspend him now anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I did think the hit was dirty/late. Meh. If the league was consistent with its suspensions no one would be complaining. The issue for me isn't the amount of games Burrows got, it's that the league can seem to decide on what is/isn't suspendable or the lengths for an action. This pretty much sums it up perfectly, although I think 3 games is at least 1 to many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 It certainly doesnt help out Alex's cause,...that Quintal has a very long and deep-seeded relationship & allegiance to the Habs organization. In most instances...this would be considered a 'conflict of interest'. The NHL has seeded their DPS and not made it at all regionally representative. Incidents like this, will always be viewed through the eyes of the beholder & we all know where those biases ally themselves as far as the DPS is concerned,...past & present. The NHLPA should definitely work to get the composition of this group fixed, asap. And - there's no talk of Emelin's possible embellishment? Very predictable, considering the eyes doing the evaluating here. And - they appear to have readily determined intent with no doubt - too. As for Burr being fined multiple times in the past, necessitating a stiffer penalty here,...really?! Fines like speaking-up in protest as a whistle-blower, ya mean? That's completely unrelated to dangerous play or violence. This was a hockey-play gone astray,...NOT an act of vindictive or violent retribution by a multiple-offender like say,..Duncan Keith on Sedin (out several weeks - 5 game suspension) or DK on Carter (hurt - 1 game suspension). What the hell is this, anyway? One or 2 games, fair maybe. More,..was showing that this league clearly plays favorites in such things. Nothing that isn't already known, however...but I damn well, wish someone would just fix it, 'cuz we all know that the League Commissioner just isnt interested in doing his job in this regard. Someone please cue the video of CGY's McGrattan ending Alberts career. No penalty or suspension. That's what a player leniently gets when they've got a very cocky Team-President & league insider who has enough clout in this league that he's been able to readily accept pay as an 'advisor' from multiple teams around this league over recent years,...except ours. Things that make ya go.... hmmmm? BTW: DPS member Patrick Burke, says "Hello there, 'Nucks-fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not sure if the league got it right nor wrong, really. But, if it means Horvat or Jensen gets the call for 3 games, I'm all for it. Especially if JB somehow manages to get them both up here at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Its a little excessive in context of Keith's blatant sucker punch on Daniel. Not saying that a suspension wasn't warranted, but if that hit is 3 games to a first time offender, Keith should have been gone for 10 for a premeditated hit! Have seen a lot worse over the last couple of years that went without anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Doesn't matter what Nashville was demanding, the rules were different back then. There's plenty of examples of more recent hits that were as bad as that one that received nothing. It's painfully obvious that there's different standards for different players and different teams. There's countless examples that prove this. And what Burrows did 6 years ago can't have any impact on the NHL's decision to suspend him now anyways.I put that up there to remind everyone here that Burrows is not squeaky clean, and because he wasn't suspended before, there is obviously no NHL mandate against him. But earlier hits by anyone not being suspended is actually irrelevant. The NHL got it right in this case and that's all that matters going forward. No point in crying about it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I thought it was about fair. I knew he's be suspended as soon as I saw the hit since it was a headshot. Didn't realize it was also late. Apparently, Burrows has a history since he has been fined four times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounoush Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Ugh...this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What a fucking joke. Gryba gets nothing and Burrows gets two less than John Moore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I did think the hit was dirty/late. Meh. If the league was consistent with its suspensions no one would be complaining. The issue for me isn't the amount of games Burrows got, it's that the league can seem to decide on what is/isn't suspendable or the lengths for an action. So very, very, VERY much THIS ^^^^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I love Burr, but it's the right call. The problem is that OTHER offender's suspensions are too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What's 'bush' about what the NHL did in this case is that the illegal head hit by Burrows directly led to the goal by Bonino, and yet it wasn't called a penalty, nor was the goal called back. Wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I put that up there to remind everyone here that Burrows is not squeaky clean, and because he wasn't suspended before, there is obviously no NHL mandate against him. But earlier hits by anyone not being suspended is actually irrelevant. The NHL got it right in this case and that's all that matters going forward. No point in crying about it either. That was before Burrows had even earned a bad reputation though, so that doesn't really prove anything. It was Burrows calling out an NHL ref to the media that really started it all. The NHL didn't get it right just because you say so. If you were unbiased (which you're clearly not), you could compare his hit to similar ones and see that he deserved no more than a game. Not whining about the suspension, just the continuous farce that is the NHL Disciplinary Committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.