Believe in... Blackballing ?

[TimberWolf]

Keith got five games for his elbow. Raymond initiated contact they got tangled and their momentum carried them into the boards. I didn't think there was any suspendable offense in that incident.

Rome's incident was blatant. As much as I didn't like losing him for four games I think he deserved it. I don't care if it was the finals. Hortons injury isn't less because it's the finals is it?

Keith got no playoff games. his five were a meaningless vacation when the games didn't matter anymore. Even Chicago fans thought it was funny.

As for Rome that's not my argument.

Compare it to other incidents. Is Rome's the worst is finals history to merit the worst suspension ever and since?

Answer that question before you continue to justify a crappy decision.

[Baggins]

Keith got no playoff games. his five were a meaningless vacation when the games didn't matter anymore. Even Chicago fans thought it was funny.

As for Rome that's not my argument.

Compare it to other incidents. Is Rome's the worst is finals history to merit the worst suspension ever and since?

Answer that question before you continue to justify a crappy decision.

So you want the league to delay suspensions now? How do they decide that? I've advocated infractions that cause injury should be a suspension equal to the number of games the injured player misses. The owners will never go for that though.

Go ahead and show me final infractions as blatant as Romes. I've never bought into the notion suspensions should be reduced in the playoffs. As I said, injuries aren't reduced because it's the playoffs, therefore suspensions shouldn't be. I thought 4 games was justified as it really was a cheap shot on an unaware player. Not much different than a sucker punch. I don't know how anybody could even defend that hit.

[Hairy Kneel]

Tampa AND Carolina have rings ahead of us, go figure.

[Xanlet]

Boston - simply because people are butthurt that yes they got away with goonery vs us (and I can't deny it, heck if we got the same reffing Montreal did last year, maybe we'd have a cup. But at the end of the day, if you're up 2-0 in a series and have a game 7 at home (where you don't even show up), well you don't deserve it

I simply can't understand how people like you admit that if the reffing wasn't favoring the other team, we would have won the cup, but then go on to say how it was the teams fault for giving up the 2-0 lead.

[nuck nit]

A coach defending his player? Gadzooks! Unheard of!!!

Horton missed the rest of the series. Rome missing the rest for a dirty hit seems fair enough. The fraction of a second Rome had to make the decision was well after the puck was already passed. Rome chose to take Horton out because he was going to blow right past him at the blue line. It was a cheap shot that deserved a suspension.

Had that same hit been delivered on a Canuck you guys would have been calling for a lifetime suspension.

Longest suspension in Stanley Cup Finals history hardly seems legitimate or fair,never mind logical.

[Jayinblack]

It wasn't the first time a seven minute pp was given a team even if it is rare. But when you instigate a fight and the other player doesn't fight what will the penalty be? Five for fighting and two for instigating. There's a difference between playing "in your face" hockey and instigating a fight with and unwilling combatant.

But wasn't it the first time for a 5-on-3 for 7min ? Hansen getting the 7min alone was a farce.

[Jayinblack]

I simply can't understand how people like you admit that if the reffing wasn't favoring the other team, we would have won the cup, but then go on to say how it was the teams fault for giving up the 2-0 lead.

Don't forget, Boston got away with tonnes of infractions (incl IMO a suspendable late hit) in their game 7 win over Tampa that same year.

[nuck nit]

thought 4 games was justified as it really was a cheap shot on an unaware player. Not much different than a sucker punch. I don't know how anybody could even defend that hit.

"This has nothing to do with Rule 48 [the blindside rule hit]," Murphy said. "This is just an interference penalty, an interference hit. If it was immediate after he released the puck, it would be a legal hit. We have them all the time."

"I think as a group we don't agree with [the suspension]," Malhotra said.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/canucks-rome-suspended-4-games-for-horton-hit-1.1036537

"Think about it. This is now the longest suspension in Stanley Cup final history. For all the haymakers, elbows, slashes, cross-checks, hits-from-behind, bites and other illegal infractions that have dotted the NHL’s final over the years, this was deemed most heinous.

As Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler used to say on Saturday Night Live: Really!?"

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/40695-Canucks-Watch-Aaron-Rome-suspension-sets-an-unfair-precedent.html

[darkpoet]

Go ahead and show me final infractions as blatant as Romes.

Pretty much the exact same play as Rome on Horton.

Kariya's in the middle of the ice with his head down and Stevens does what he does best.

No penalty. No suspension.

Both hits were the same amount of "late" but neither was malicious in that the shoulders were down when the hits were made.

Invariably,the old "well that was a different era" argument will come up but you asked for a comparable so there you go.

This is also part of the problem in that the league keeps changing the rules or changing the bar on these kinds of hits. The grey area with respect to interpretation of hits is now so wide they can arbitrarily nail who they want at will (for lack of a better pun)

As I stated earlier, Boston was getting away with bloody murder in that series and as soon as one of our guys tries to dish it back, he's excommunicated from the series, which again, has NEVER happened before in a Stanley Cup Final.

Think of it in terms of just that series. Considering what Boston had done, does that hit REALLY deserve 4 games? How about Thornton pulling a can opener on Raymond then driving him ass-first into the boards breaking his back. No call there either yet that is by definition a penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXimH_N7TMs

[darkpoet]

CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada Hot Stove got heated on Saturday when Mike Milbury joined host Ron MacLean, Calgary Sun writer Eric Francis and ESPN.com reporter Pierre LeBrun to talk about whether Colin Campbell’s leaked e-mail scandal is serious. Francis said that he didn’t think Campbell did anything wrong, but MacLean disagreed. “No matter how you slice it, it’s a conflict of interest,” MacLean said. MacLean was disturbed that Campbell was discussing calls in games that his son, Bruins forward Gregory Campbell, played in. The league’s disciplinarian sent several e-mails to former director of officiating Stephen Walkom about referees who gave his son a penalty that ended with the other team scoring a tying goal. “What referee reading those e-mails or this story this week wouldn’t think, ‘The next time I have the Boston Bruins, if Colin Campbell has the ear of [director of officiating] Terry Gregson and I make a bad call in that game it’s going to jeopardize my chances’?” MacLean questioned

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2010/11/cbc-host-ron-maclean-calls-out-colin-campbell-for-having-conflict-of-interest/

I don't care what anyone says. Campbell still held that position at the time Boston (who his son Gregory played for at the time) was playing Vancouver for the Cup in 2011.

Sure Mike Murphy "allegedly" was given jurisdiction over any calls involving Boston games so as to avoid a conflict of interest. I don't believe for a second that Campbell didn't make the decision to suspend Rome himself. Murphy was just there to save his face. (and hence, the Leagues face)

Read through those leaked emails. Would you trust anything the guy says? He had his hands deep in the cookie jar friends and that is by definition a CONSPIRACY, but not in any way a THEORY since it's TRUE.

There is widespread corruption in the NHL and thank God those conversations got leaked because it gives us a glimpse into how bad it really is, at least with respect to the Officials and their relationship with their boss (the League)

[nuck nit]

Edler had two fingers broken by a Bruin slash.

Bieksa got his knee taken out by Peverley.

There's Raymond with a broken back.

According to Baggins ,none of these are as blatant as the half second hit on a forward admiring his pass in the middle of the ice.

[4thLineGrinder]

Keith got five games for his elbow. Raymond initiated contact they got tangled and their momentum carried them into the boards. I didn't think there was any suspendable offense in that incident.

Rome's incident was blatant. As much as I didn't like losing him for four games I think he deserved it. I don't care if it was the finals. Hortons injury isn't less because it's the finals is it?

you have a funny way of seeing reality.

boychuck had space and time to back out of breaking raymonds back, he intentionally chose to break him in half while raymond was in a vulnerable position (intent is there)

rome made a split second decision to stand up horton at the blue line, would have been a nothing play had horton not watched his pass instead of keeping his head up, especially while crossing the blue line. (there is no intent)

also the unspoken rule of thumb is that a suspension in the playoffs is worth about 4 in the regular season. so the math on keiths hit on danny would have been 1-2 games had it happened in the playoffs and romes hit on horton would have been 20-25 games had it happened in the regular season. see any disparity here?

your either trolling here or have some sort of hate for raymond to see things so backasswards

[Tre Mac]

They should play this at the games with a video montage of the refs screwing us over.

[JeremyCuddles]

If the NHL truely is rigged, why hasn't Phoenix made a huge splash in the playoffs? Bettman clearly wants a team to succeed there.

[nuck nit]

I think a better question to ask is how is there even a team in Phoenix ,given their colossal economic failure and fiscal drain on other NHL team's balance books?

NHL teams are supported in Canada,are profitable for the league,yet Phoenix and now Florida are draining the league and the game and they are not being moved into this country even when there are cities and owners lined up to take them.

[Gollumpus]

Atlanta would have never been moved north of the border if not for the increase in the Valuation of the Canadian dollar. It was at parity when the team moved back. When the Jets moved south the dollar was at or near 65 cents.

Phoenix would have been almost assured of a move, if not for the City council to approval of huge concessions. Interesting note that the team gained a name chance, even though they did not move.....

The move of the Stars was purely cash, moving it to the 6th largest economical sector in the states. They only realized how much it damaged grass roots hockey much later in the US. Thus once again awarding a franchise to the hotbed of American hockey.

The move of Hartford to Columbus 8X times population. Not including nearby populations

Quebec to Colorado 5X population and currency almost double in valuation.

This is a fun topic. Something to keep us busy til training camp.

I forgot some of the other points and am too tired to tackle them at this point.

Your examples make me think of the term "propped up" rather than "sustained" as you had mentioned earlier.

I do understand your point. The Winnipeg franchise could just as easily head south of the border should economic realities change (again). And there weren't at that time any viable targets for expansion in the USA (on a relatively short notice) to keep the team south of the border.

Another thing which made Winnipeg a viable target for getting another team was that they were in the same general area as Atlanta (time zones and the like), which made it very convenient for scheduling.

This being said, I find it hard to believe that the current ownership of the Jets bought the team knowing they wasn't going to be allowed to win the Cup should they team manage to get to the finals.

regards,

G.

[Gollumpus]

Pretty much the exact same play as Rome on Horton.

Kariya's in the middle of the ice with his head down and Stevens does what he does best.

No penalty. No suspension.

Both hits were the same amount of "late" but neither was malicious in that the shoulders were down when the hits were made.

Invariably,the old "well that was a different era" argument will come up but you asked for a comparable so there you go.

This is also part of the problem in that the league keeps changing the rules or changing the bar on these kinds of hits. The grey area with respect to interpretation of hits is now so wide they can arbitrarily nail who they want at will (for lack of a better pun)

As I stated earlier, Boston was getting away with bloody murder in that series and as soon as one of our guys tries to dish it back, he's excommunicated from the series, which again, has NEVER happened before in a Stanley Cup Final.

Think of it in terms of just that series. Considering what Boston had done, does that hit REALLY deserve 4 games? How about Thornton pulling a can opener on Raymond then driving him ass-first into the boards breaking his back. No call there either yet that is by definition a penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXimH_N7TMs

However, that's the point here, chum. A comparable (for what we need in this case) has to be from the same era, and has to have the same set of ground rules. Otherwise it's just not a valid comparable.

regards,

G.

[Tearloch7]

However, that's the point here, chum. A comparable (for what we need in this case) has to be from the same era, and has to have the same set of ground rules. Otherwise it's just not a valid comparable.

regards,

G.

Sometimes it appears that there are more than one set of "ground rules" .. either that, or there is a 'questionable consistency' to their incompetence .. at every level of "discipline".

[darkpoet]

However, that's the point here, chum. A comparable (for what we need in this case) has to be from the same era, and has to have the same set of ground rules. Otherwise it's just not a valid comparable.

regards,

G.

And I already spoke to your point, in that the rules change so often, and are now so entrenched in "grey area" that any infraction can arbitrarily be deemed anything from a simple penalty to outright assault.

Take the term "head shot" or "hit to the head" for example.

The calls for this are all over the map now. There is so much room for interpretation of the rule that officials have way too much leeway on what to call, when, and on whom.

The Rome hit is an excellent example because if you look at the replay you can clearly see that Rome had his arm tucked in tight to his body. There was no elbow or other specific targeting to the head. The fact that Horton, being the dumbass he is, decided to skate through the middle of the ice while not paying attention is irrelevant. He got caught. A bit late, sure, but if you shave off 1 second from the play and it still happens, (which it likely would have) - is it still a penalty and suspension? Of course not, because it would have been deemed a "legal hit".... but wait... the guy's out cold - well sh!t, we can't have that, throw the book at him!

This is what I'm talking about. The lines are drawn all over the friggin place. Intersecting each other, crossing over, and eventually so intertwined and messed up, the cat comes running to play with it.

[Gollumpus]

Sometimes it appears that there are more than one set of "ground rules" .. either that, or there is a 'questionable consistency' to their incompetence .. at every level of "discipline".

What I was getting at is that any comparisons should be from the same era/season where the referees are supposedly working from the same set of directives.

On a related point regarding officiating, I recall a scene from the movie "A League of Their Own". There's a bit of documentary footage during the closing credits of a game played by a number of the women who were in this women's baseball league back in the 40's. A rhubarb breaks out over a called strike. The batter says, "Yesterday that was a ball!"

The umpire replies, "Yesterday that may have been a ball, and tomorrow it may be a ball, but today it's a strike."

regards,

G.