Dragonfruits Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 the nhl will come out with a serious suspension, so this won't happen 10games minimum ya because their so great and deterring people with suspensions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Anything more than a fine is too much. If anything, both coaches should be fined. Bob Hartley should be fined for trying to incite a brawl on the opening faceoff, and Torts for trying to wring Hartley's neck in the first intermission. Part of me is curious about what Torts would have done had he managed to get ahold of Hartley... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Watch him get hammered because he's a Canuck. The NHL thirsts for these opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 the nhl will come out with a serious suspension, so this won't happen 10games minimum Tortorella tries to enter Flames dressing room to confront Bob Hartley = 10 games. Duncan Keith nearly takes Daniel Sedin's head off = 6 games. Yeah, that proposition sure makes sense to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icetime Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 This was an embassasment for the Canucks and their fans. The Torts specticle is the most negative thing he has done todate. Splitting the Sedins - sensless jumbled lines -- Kessler a winger really? These were just stupid coaching decisions that cost the Canucks many early season wins.. Now Torts creates a fiction to justify his panic response. What is tough about this nonsense. The Canucks continue to be the joke of the new Pacific Division -- not because of their win loss record. But because of the constant we're getting tough jabber. Moral victrories rather than wins -- what a joke. I only hope the league imposes a substantial suspension so we get someone else on the bench. Time for the Canucks to correct the ship. This is jus the tip of the iceberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Interesting opinion piece by CBC's Elliotte Friedman: NHL has no choice but to suspend John Tortorella Some questions before I fly home from Fight Night Saturday in Vancouver: Will John Tortorella be suspended? The NHL has no choice. You can't have team personnel charging into the opponents' dressing room area. In fact, the league owes one of its most fearsome fighters, Brian McGrattan, a huge thank you for preventing an escalation of this conflict. McGrattan kept calm throughout a potentially explosive situation, holding back both Tortorella and Calgary assistant Clint Malarchuk from doing something they'd really regret. The NHL, which has asked CBC for all video from the hallway camera that captured the event, frowns on coaching/management off-ice confrontations. Rule 46.8, "Fighting Off the Playing Surface," specifically deals with this, reading, "Whenever a Coach or other non-playing Club personnel becomes involved in an altercation with an opposing player, Coach or other non-playing Club personnel on or off the ice, shall be automatically suspended from the game, ordered to the dressing room and the matter will be reported to the Commissioner for further disciplinary action." In 1999, Washington GM George McPhee was fined $20,000 and suspended one month for punching then-Chicago coach Lorne Molleken after an exhibition game. McPhee was angry at the Blackhawks for roughing up his team. There is no evidence Tortorella threw any punches, so that harsh a punishment seems unlikely. But, the NHL has to send some kind of message. You give Tortorella's brethren any reason to think, "Hey, that wasn't a bad idea... let me try it" and you've got more of these coming. Should Tortorella have started a different group? We'll get to Bob Hartley's role in all this. PJ Stock and I had a good debate about how the Canucks coach responded. PJ felt Tortorella could have put out a skill line against McGrattan and Kevin Westgarth, thereby cooling the temperature. During the game, I texted a few coaches and GMs to ask their opinion and a couple executives agreed with PJ's point. So, it's not like he's on an island with this one. The reason I took the opposite stance was the coaches polled felt otherwise -- for one reason: Henrik Sedin's injury. An injury, by the way, that prevented Sedin from finishing the game. Calgary didn't need this game like Vancouver did. The Canucks have higher expectations and were reeling after a brutal week. A loss at home to the Flames was not acceptable. If Sedin is healthy, Tortorella can throw another line or centre out there. But, in this situation, he needs Ryan Kesler and Brad Richardson to play. He cannot afford to lose them as secondary fighters or to injury or whatever. PJ said off-air Tortorella could have ordered them not to fight, but, in the heat of the moment, who knows what happens? In some ways, he's in a no-win situation. He gets criticized for sending out his tough guys, but, if he sends out non-heavyweights, he probably gets ripped for serving them up to a beating. What exactly was he doing in the hallway? Because he's going in front of the NHLs justice system, it doesn't benefit Tortorella to answer this question now. But, here is one man's theory: It's been an interesting week for Vancouver. Not only were there three losses by a combined 11-1, but the Canucks had some unusual moments with the referees. Even Keith Olberman noticed Tom Sestito's 27-minute penalty parade in Los Angeles. Then, they were penalized with seven-minute five-on-three at the end of the Anaheim blowout. Justified or not, that doesn't happen very often. I didn't get a chance to talk to anyone about it last night, but there is no doubt Vancouver feels it gets officiated much more harshly since the Alex Burrows/Stephane Auger incident in 2010. I look at it another way: sometimes, I think teams get penalized when they play "differently" than expected. Basically, every team has its identity and some of them are edgy. Some aren't. The Canucks, right or wrongly, don't have an "edgy" reputation as a group. So, when things happen (like Sestito on Dustin Brown), it stands out. If Sestito played for Detroit, it would look weird, too. Anyway, I'm betting your house that Tortorella HATES this... and is going to try and change it. The Canucks are in a kind of transition anyways, with some good young prospects ready to force their way into the lineup as soon as next season. As new blood finds it way in, he wants a new attitude, a change in the way his team is perceived. Was charging into the Flames' hallway a message to his team as much as it was a message to Calgary? Shouldn't Bob Hartley be punished, too? He's not getting suspended. But, you have to think he'll be fined. In September, then-Sabres coach Ron Rolston was fined a reported $10,000 for "player selection and team conduct" issues. John Scott was sent on the ice after Corey Tropp was injured in a fight with Toronto's Jamie Devane. Scott immediately went after Phil Kessel and the predictable gong show ensued. If Rolston was guilty of "player selection" for that, then Hartley certainly is, too. He put on an amazingly innocent performance in his post-game media scrum, but, like Tortorella, he knows he's in trouble with the league and is thinking, "Do I want them to fine me $20,000...or $50,000? I'll take the lower one, thanks." Last night was Westgarth's 10th game with Calgary and that line combination never started before Saturday. Just talking with the players Saturday morning, it is a hugely frustrated group. They are competing hard, but aren't scoring and losses are mounting. Hartley tried to ignite them the old-school way, simple as that. Also, as some of you helpfully pointed out on Twitter, Hartley and Tortorella have a history. In 2005, with the former coaching Atlanta and the latter in Tampa, they met in Tortorella's office after he ripped Eric Boulton for elbowing Paul Ranger. As Tortorella yelled and Hartley stood there ignoring him -- which undoubtedly made the Canucks coach even angrier -- it was pretty obvious they don't give each other friendship bracelets. Wasn't Brian Burke there last night? Why yes. Let's make this very clear: Burke is not responsible for this. Hartley and Tortorella are adults responsible for their own actions. But, let's look at what's going through Hartley's head on Saturday: The team is really trying, but has three wins in 16 games. The guy who hired you is gone and the guy in charge is publicly praising you, but that doesn't really mean a ton. When he takes over, Burke comes right out and says he doesn't like the way the Flames play, wanting more toughness, for one thing. On Saturday, he ended a lengthy silence by telling The Calgary Sun's Eric Francis he can't sleep because the team is losing. And, he shows up at the game. It's been kind of a weird dynamic with Burke so far. He hasn't been at a lot of road games, so when Hartley reads that and knows the boss is coming, his mind is working overtime. He's done the best possible job with this group and there are only 30 of these spots available. Hartley had to wait longer than he wanted to get this opportunity, so he's going to do whatever it takes to keep it. It made for a wild night. One that I won't soon forget, if ever. And one that will have some consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmon Arm Canuck Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 In-person hearing means 5 games minimum. Like MC Hammer, let's pray it's not more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 #FREE TORTORELLA!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miked1101 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 In-person hearing means 5 games minimum. For players. Is it the same for coaches/management, since it's a totally different process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Friedman is an excellent analyst. He comes from a professional and unbiased position, and analyzes things logically, rather than with emotion. He made Stock sound like a whiney fanboy last night. Can't believe that guy is still on the panel. One thing I don't get is why Tortorella was allowed to finish the game. Doesn't that rule state that they will automatically be suspended and removed from the game? Perhaps the NHL does like Tortorella's antics more than they're letting on. Why ruin the chance for more explosive outbursts from him right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cuporbust2 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hahaha Ada bot torts. Love this guy. Ferocious players coach. Absolutely love him here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Fivehole0 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 He deserves a suspension, even if I understand why he did what he did. Interestingly enough, IMO, if it wasn't for Brian McGrattan playing peace-maker, that incident would have been a lot worse. I have a lot of respect for McGrattan after his After Hours interview. Last night helped me appreciate his role on the Flames. In no way did he try to go after or antagonize Torts. He held back his own coaching staff and made sure things did not get out of hand. Good on him, he probably saved Torts from being suspended longer. No he doesn't deserve a suspension, and if he was in New York or named Patrick Roy, He would have never even been looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I'm maintaining my stance on I think torts getting 10-15. NHL will come down hard as a deterrent so this never happens again. Has the NHL ever done this in any aspect ? why would we believe that " coming down hard " will happen now lol ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman13 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Welcome to being a Canuck torts expect the league to come down hard make an example of you then let the next guy off with little to nothing. That being said I'm glad he did it, nice to see a coach defend the players unlike the previous regimes smile and chew then throw them under the bus with the press. Hope he's not gone to long. On a different note bieska should be the captian even calgaries captian intimated Henrick while speaking at the penalty box, that's unacceptable from a leader. Dont be silly, you cant even spell our captains name properly, give him a bit of respect. What is unacceptable from a leader, you claiming he was 'intimated?' Like what does intimated even mean? It cant be intimidated i am sure, because I never saw that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Remember when Edler got 3 games for not even hitting Hertl? Tortorella will probably get 10 games. The canucks are clearly disciplined by a different standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephnick Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I don't see any posts in this thread supporting your statement People are arguing that there's no difference between Roy freaking out behind the bench and Torts storming down the Calgary hallway to accost the team near their dressing room. By that logic my statement would be true. There's objectively a difference between on and off the ice actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 So if a player walks into the opposition dressing room and beats the hell out of a player, that's the same as doing it on the ice during the game right? That's the logic some of you are arguing from right now and it seeeeemmms pretty dumb. I don't think anyone is saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 can't believe you monkeys are comparing it to the Roy thing, rofl Listen to you. Get back to white noise and arguing everything you can pal. There's no room for your incessant trolling and then back tracking when you're proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephnick Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I don't think anyone is saying that. Roy crossed the line also there is no difference between going bezerk off the bench or on the bench Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 People are arguing that there's no difference between Roy freaking out behind the bench and Torts storming down the Calgary hallway to accost the team near their dressing room. By that logic my statement would be true. There's objectively a difference between on and off the ice actions. So it's okay for coaches to do that as long as it's in view of the ice. Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.