Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Shanahan - "I hate what Ray Emery did"


Drouin

Recommended Posts

The NHL’s chief disciplinarian didn’t like what Flyers goalie Ray Emery did Friday versus Washington.

In fact, he “hated” it.

But despite his clear disdain for Emery’s actions — specifically, the ones where Emery skated down the ice to attack Capitals goalie Braden Holtby— Brendan Shanahan didn’t feel it was worth a suspension based on the current NHL rulebook and past supplementary discipline rulings.

“I hate what Ray Emery did,” Shanahan said today on Sportsnet’s Hockey Central. “I wouldn’t like it if I were a teammate of his. I wouldn’t like it if I were an opponent of his. And I think, more important, if the rest of the caretakers of our game, the general managers, don’t like it, it’s important for us to say when a rule is not properly addressed in the rulebook. And I don’t think it is.”

46.2 Aggressor – The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant.

A player must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.

A player who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed a major penalty for fighting and a game misconduct.

A player who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation will have this recorded as an aggressor of an altercation for statistical and suspension purposes.

A player who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct (instigator) and a game misconduct penalty (aggressor).

Shanahan did reference the one-game suspension he gave to then-Ottawa player Matt Carkner in April of 2012 for being the aggressor in an altercation with an unwilling opponent, Rangers forward Brian Boyle.

The difference? Shanahan felt the Carkner incident was “much worse” than Friday’s incident, and also noted that Carkner had a history. As such, he couldn’t justify a suspension for Emery, even if Emery was clearly guilty of breaking the aggressor rule (see below).

“If you look at the two [incidents] and line them up, it’s not the same,” said Shanahan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one gives a $hit about what Shanahan says <_<

He's obviously biased and always gives US more severe suspensions :angry:

Look at the Kassian suspension... it was an accident and Shanahan still suspended him -_-

Still can't believe the league hired someone even worse than Bettman :bored:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one gives a $hit about what Shanahan says <_<

He's obviously biased and always gives US more severe suspensions :angry:

Look at the Kassian suspension... it was an accident and Shanahan still suspended him -_-

Still can't believe the league hired someone even worse than Bettman :bored:

Really? It surprised you that much? Did you actually expect the league run by Bettman to hire anyone who is brave enough to stand up to Bettman and do the job the right way? Imagine if they hired someone fair and this person suspends Chara 5 games for all those high hits that he hands out every game... Jacobs (the owner of the Bruins) will fire Bettman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ordinarily I don't comment on suspensions, or lackthereof. However, these comments by Shanahan don't look very good. If you didn't like it, fine. If you didn't like it AND you won't/can't suspend the player, then don't comment on it.

Shanahan has a very thankless job, which is why I don't complain about it. However, it has become clear that he doesn't always have full control in which player gets suspended. And this "case" seems to fall in that category.

I can only assume, which means what I'm about to say is just heresay. The Flyers/Capitals incident took place 4 days prior to him making these comments, far too long after the fact; which means he had discussions with the Flyers, Capitals, and the NHL head office in regards to this incident. He didn't like what he heard and unfortunately was unable to suspend the player. Sucks, but that's the way it is. Then keep your mouth shut, Shanahan. Because now, it looks like he has no control in his job at all. It would have been better to say, "In this circumstance, there is no rule that applies to NHL goalies in regards to a suspendable offense. We are looking at revising this in the future and have a clear line on what is suspendable and what is not." Done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Edler didn't actually do anything wrong in the Hertl incident and no one got hurt but he gets 3 games while Emery assaults an unwilling guy who never even takes off his equipment to defend himself and Shanahan thinks it doesn't rise to the level of being suspension worthy? Yeah, Shanahan is fair and concerned about player safety...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...