emptyattic Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 what part of that statement is wrong? No part of the statement is wrong but to just come out and say it? And then backtrack right away? Is the league bias supposed to be a secret? Because if it is they may have to give Weekes' wrist a wee little slap.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Why not? Its similar, though certainly not the same. Comparisons don't have to be of identical things. The differences are that (a) Roy didn't intend on the glass tipping over ( b ) the incident happened on-ice. The similarities are that (a) Roy did something stupid ( b ) he put people at risk of injury. that ( b ) difference, for me, is the biggest thing of them all going after a player or coach in the hall, in the back rooms, outside the building, whatever, is immature and borderline crazy, i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sypher009 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 so how long does that mean he can be suspensed for? unlimited if its in person right? just means it can be over 5 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 that ( b ) difference, for me, is the biggest thing of them all going after a player or coach in the hall, in the back rooms, outside the building, whatever, is immature and borderline crazy, i think Roy did the exact same thing in front of everyone in the building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 To those of you who wanted Torts to put the twins out, or Kesler's line out, you need to be reminded of the John Scott incident. That lunatic went after the first player not wearing a Sabres uni. He had little or no choice, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex the Great Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 No part of the statement is wrong but to just come out and say it? And then backtrack right away? Is the league bias supposed to be a secret? Because if it is they may have to give Weekes' wrist a wee little slap.. Weekes said that Vancouver gets treated worse than eastern teams as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandro17 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 The differnece between this and the Roy thing is that Roy was clearly agitated by Bruce and the Ducks yelling at him and so it was a spur of the moment thing. This incident with Torts on the other hand was premeditated, no one was screaming at him, he was separated from Calgarys' coach with a couple of brick walls and the aggravating incident (Calgarys 4th line going out on the ice) happened about 30 minutes before Torts went to the Calgary locker room. The incident was over and Torts literally went out of his way to the flames locker room to pick a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkSniper Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I would've thought they'd be more inclined to do this over the phone, I mean he must have quite the pair to go over to the other team's dressing room... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 To those of you who wanted Torts to put the twins out, or Kesler's line out, you need to be reminded of the John Scott incident. That lunatic went after the first player not wearing a Sabres uni. He had little or no choice, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Exactly. People who say he should have just ignored it and put out our core players are talking out of their a$ses. Hartley sent those guys out there with the intention of roughing our guys up. He basically sent the message right away that they weren't there to play hockey, they were there to goon it up. Do we really want the Sedins getting dummied, ragdolled, or even drilled into the boards? Any good coach would have done the exact same thing Tortorella did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 The differnece between this and the Roy thing is that Roy was clearly agitated by Bruce and the Ducks yelling at him and so it was a spur of the moment thing. This incident with Torts on the other hand was premeditated, no one was screaming at him, he was separated from Calgarys' coach with a couple of brick walls and the aggravating incident (Calgarys 4th line going out on the ice) happened about 30 minutes before Torts went to the Calgary locker room. The incident was over and Torts literally went out of his way to the flames locker room to pick a fight. do we actually know that nobody was yelling at Torts in the hallway hmm the story is very one sided and all we see is Torts in the hallway nothing before or how he got there both were looking to pick a fight doesn't matter how it happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 that ( b ) difference, for me, is the biggest thing of them all going after a player or coach in the hall, in the back rooms, outside the building, whatever, is immature and borderline crazy, i think It is certainly going to be the key difference that justifies the suspension. However, I don't think it is borderline crazy, just not thought out. Torts was ragin' and had tunnel vision. He wanted to go after Hartley, but Hartley made things worse by (1) not acknowledging Torts' rant to start the period and (2) hiding behind his players and coaching staff during the intermission. I don't have the .gif, but there is one out there that shows Hartley pop his head out to the tunnel and then shrink back into the room. Hartley's decision to start a fourth line was what dictated the game. Westgarth isn't a centre, that line had not played a single shift together all year. Hartley claimed that those three had been playing well together, which was a total lie because Blair Jones was making his first game back after a knee injury. Hartley's poor decision forced Tortorella to choose between two bad decisions (put the Sedins out and risk them getting injured or put his fourth line out and risk the melee). What Torts was not forced to do was start something in the tunnel, and for that he has to be held responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownky Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I think people are looking at this negatively. It's likely going to involve a suspension, but now that Torts has had a taste of how the league treats the non 'expand our market(like Florida or SoCal)' or Original 6 teams, he's got a chance to do some talking in that hearing too. He will bear the brunt of it, but you can bet that if he gets a chance he'll express his own level of frustration at the officiating which I believe led down this path. The inconsistent calls force our hand; if our skill guys are allowed to get gooned with no penalties called, then we must go gooning ourselves and damn the consequences. Now that he's seen the comparison of treatment, he might be able to send some sort of message as well. If he can eloquently get this point across, at least fair officiating would be a nice start here. Even if it does cost him a few games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Phil Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 5 to 15 game suspension probably. Knowing the NHL I say Torts gets 10 to 15 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Good. Give the NHL bigwigs the business too. Hartley and the waste of skin team he leads got what they asked for. I don t blame him for being angry and goin at them in the halls. Hartley, of course, hid behind his players like a coward. My only hope is that Torts doesn t fold to league pressure. It seems no one in the league respects the Canucks organization. Too far out of the way to give a sh*t about I guess. As I see it, if the league won t offer it, it s up to the team to go out and demand it. And that's the main issue, respect. The Canucks tried to win with class.... They got ridiculed. The Canucks try to play with edge.... They get ridiculed. PJ Stock with his rant epitomised what the league and much of the media seem to want with the Canucks, to be the skilled whiny wimps that get bullied out of the rink by teams that play the "right" way. Honestly, I think the Canucks reaction is over the top, but in no way do I blame them. This is the result of 6+ years of undeservedly getting the shaft. The Nhl deserves an ugly circus right now because of how the Canucks were treated when they tried to do it with class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I think people are looking at this negatively. It's likely going to involve a suspension, but now that Torts has had a taste of how the league treats the non 'expand our market(like Florida or SoCal)' or Original 6 teams, he's got a chance to do some talking in that hearing too. He will bear the brunt of it, but you can bet that if he gets a chance he'll express his own level of frustration at the officiating which I believe led down this path. The inconsistent calls force our hand; if our skill guys are allowed to get gooned with no penalties called, then we must go gooning ourselves and damn the consequences. Now that he's seen the comparison of treatment, he might be able to send some sort of message as well. If he can eloquently get this point across, at least fair officiating would be a nice start here. Even if it does cost him a few games. When Torts isn't fired up, yelling, and acting like an idiot, he is quite an endearing person and a very genuine guy. He can definitely provide his side of things in the meeting and hopefully can do so calmly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 It is certainly going to be the key difference that justifies the suspension. However, I don't think it is borderline crazy, just not thought out. Torts was ragin' and had tunnel vision. He wanted to go after Hartley, but Hartley made things worse by (1) not acknowledging Torts' rant to start the period and (2) hiding behind his players and coaching staff during the intermission. I don't have the .gif, but there is one out there that shows Hartley pop his head out to the tunnel and then shrink back into the room. Hartley's decision to start a fourth line was what dictated the game. Westgarth isn't a centre, that line had not played a single shift together all year. Hartley claimed that those three had been playing well together, which was a total lie because Blair Jones was making his first game back after a knee injury. Hartley's poor decision forced Tortorella to choose between two bad decisions (put the Sedins out and risk them getting injured or put his fourth line out and risk the melee). What Torts was not forced to do was start something in the tunnel, and for that he has to be held responsible. i don't have any issue with the PLAYERS fighting, and i recognize that Hartley was being a weirdo throughout, but that doesn't mean I don't think Torts was not only wrong, but also deserves a fine and suspension. he needs to control himself better sometimes it seems like he embellishes the 'spectacle' of himself for the cameras or something, or to justify his reputation. how many coaches in the league are bona fide stars and ticket sellers in their own right? one, that i can think of. and he is ours. which is great and all, but he needs to be put in place sometimes, and for me this is one of those times. OR he is not trying to embellish the spectacle and he literally is, as you say, THAT short sighted. and that, to me, is bad. dude needs to put a cap on it. (although you could say Roy is a star, too, but that is because of his playing, not because of his coaching antics -- yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Most likely jumps across table at Campbell when he hears the decision . Would be great to see Torts and Bettman in a fistfight, two tough smurfs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 And that's the main issue, respect. The Canucks tried to win with class.... They got ridiculed. The Canucks try to play with edge.... They get ridiculed. PJ Stock with his rant epitomised what the league and much of the media seem to want with the Canucks, to be the skilled whiny wimps that get bullied out of the rink by teams that play the "right" way. Honestly, I think the Canucks reaction is over the top, but in no way do I blame them. This is the result of 6+ years of undeservedly getting the shaft. The Nhl deserves an ugly circus right now because of how the Canucks were treated when they tried to do it with class. It isn't so much that there is a league conspiracy against the Canucks as much as it is there are a bunch of idiots working for CBC and the league. PJ Stock says stupid things about literally every team. That is why he is there. It is easy to hate his face and even easier when his face starts speaking. But that's what CBC wants. If they cared about having articulate analysts, they wouldn't have hired Stock. There are a hundred retired NHL players just like Stock, but Stock gets hired because he's the one willing to be the CBC patsy. He wasn't hired for his informed opinion, he was hired to cause controversy. CBC took the Fox News style of news delivery and applied it to their NHL broadcasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoosh Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 He'll get a couple of games and a big fine. Gulutzan and Sullivan will get the job done meanwhile. No place for that hallway scrum in the NHL, but it's been known to happen sometimes. And with everything that happened before that, it don't surprise me it did happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Sure would feed the conspiracy theorists if Torts was punished in Vancouver for what he did unpunished in NY. Meanwhile, where's Hartley's Ron Rolston punishment? Basically, we're used to getting the shaft by now, aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.