Burrows not suspended for hit on Gaustad :Team 1040

[DIBdaQUIB]

I'd think (apart from in the heat of the moment) that Byfuglien would be much more worried about a suspension of any length. There are stories all over the place today about how Big Buff is one of the main reasons they're in the playoff hunt to begin with, but this hit could be the reason they don't make it.

He could care less about the money, and can handle anyone who comes at him (a la Chara) but 3-5 games out of the lineup could mean he's putting the boat in the water early again this year.

Buff may be a rather unique example but no one likes having someone throwing punches at their face. It's a totally different kind of physical act than body checking or even slashing etc.

I am not a proponent of goon hockey where teams stacked themselves with thugs but I do believe self-policing, just because of the nature of hockey, is a strong deterrent to all the cheap shots that threaten career-ending or even life-threatening injuries we are seeing.

The DOPS has been doing its thing now for a few years while the enforcers have been basically removed from the league and on a nightly basis we are seeing hits and actions that defy belief. The DOPS has had very little impact on making the game safer.

What it appears they are doing is creating a climate where players rely on the league instead of their own play to protect them and increasingly, we are seeing players exposing themselves foolishly in a manner that results in injury. They used to teach how to avoid collisions like we see in how you went into a corner, skated up ice, crossed the neutral zone etc. Players now skate with wild abandon anywhere they like and seem to think they are immune from being hit because DOPS will look after them.

[oldnews]

Hard to believe Big Buff would be concerned about retaliation but then again, he doesn't really fight.

I believe that most players do care about the other guy and wouldn't intentionally try to injure anyone...on the other hand, just like in society, there are bullies and psychopaths (to varying degrees) who are not deterred by anything other than a threat to their personal safety. Fines and suspensions mean nothing to them and do not affect their behavior. The only thing they understand is the threat of harm to themselves. This is where the enforcer was effective at "policing" the cheap shot artists and keeping the fringe players "honest".

There is a reason the Sedins play with more aggression and physicality when Kass is on their line and the incidences of cheap shots against them drops. Hockey is a hard, physical game and crossing the line happens but by not having immediate repercussions or fear of reprisal in the game, too many guys cross that line and take advantage, knowing they may get a penalty or a fine/short suspension. To them, it's worth the risk of taking out a Crosby, Sedin etc.. If they are faced with the prospect of having their face pummeled by someone tougher than themselves, they might alter their behavior.

It is interesting that it is seldom the "enforcer-types" that take cheap shots on vulnerable players. Removing them from the game has allowed teams to employ the services of "rats" who are tasked with creating as much pain and suffering as possible to top players, something that would have seen their face rearranged in days gone by.

I doubt the players have any more respect for the Department of Player Screwing than most fans do.

The problem with this theory imo is that in reality, the cheap shot artists are seldom enforcers - and enforcers pretty much exclusively deal with enforcers. You literally never saw a rat having to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. It just never happened - there is no honour in an enforcer engaging a flyweight or even guys outside their weight class.

Ken Linseman - the prototypical "rat" - for example, never once had to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. The perceived deterrence is not really there. Linseman fought guys like Ferraro, Svoboda, Carboneau, Smail, Kasper, Sutter.

Would having an enforcer deter Brad Marchand? Hell no. All having an enforcer meany is that the enforcer then heads out post-cheap-shot and winds up dancing with the other teams heavy - in modern times, Chara, McQuaid, perhaps Thornton. The rat stood behind and if he answered the bell, it was with a guy in his weight class. I don't recall once in my life witnessing a Darius Kasparaitus having to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. The dirtiest of cheap shot artists rarely fight, and when they do, it aint with an enforcer.

The reality - teams don't just hang their rats out to dry. They protect them. They're integrated elements of a team. They are perceived as valuable when they're one of ours. It's a larger hockey culture phenomena and isn't simply proliferating in the absence of enforcers. Enforcers concussing each other in heavyweight bouts prevents literally nothing.

There were always cheap shots. There probably always will be. The idea that players used to have more respect for each other is way overdone imo. Enforcers never really deterred or prevented cheap shots. Moreso than enforcers deterring cheap shots on stars was the counterpoint imo - you run our star, we'll run yours - and "we" meaning anyone on our club, not necessarily our enforcer.

My opinion is that the problem with DoPeS is inconsistency and pathetic leniency. Five games is a 'severe' suspension in this league, while guys can miss months with severe concussions as a result of cheap shots. There is really no deterence with the length of these suspensions - run Daniel Sedin with a flying elbow, get a mere five game suspension, and it's essentially a net gain. I'd like to see much heavier suspensions in line with the toll the receiver of the cheap shot suffers.

Also, if we really want to see a change - then looking at the difference between North American hockey and the rest of the world is probably where the answer lies. Different hockey cultures. The rest of the world did not require enforcers to see a game with more respect and less cheap shots. The dirty, violent cheap shots, stick work, etc did not run rampant in Europe in the absence of enforcers, did it.

[poetica]

All depends on whether initiating contact needs to be understood merely as an action or as a conscious decision, which I agree, it almost certainly wasn't in this case. As for the minor versus major question, that was the part that I thought Fraser covered well. He pretty clearly favoured a minor as the correct call, but allowed that given the linesman's "perception", which (reading between the lines) Fraser doesn't share, 5 and a game would follow from Rule 56.4. Unlike Bieksa, I am willing to believe that Gaustad might be legitimately injured, but that doesn't justify Burrows' penalties since it wasn't a malicious hit from behind away from the play, which is what Rule 56.4 is supposed to cover. Anyway, we survived and it's all water under the bridge now.

That's pretty well it in a nutshell. A lot of people's agreement or disagreement comes down to whether they think we should assume intent by one party or if we should look only at the physics of what actually happened. And to be fair, neither would be the correct way of looking at every situation so it leaves a lot of room for disagreement in cases like this.

For me, this is a situation where we should be concerned with the physics. Burrows had a legitimate hockey reason for his movements and never deviated from his original path, which was entirely within his right to take. Had Guastad not deviated from his original path Burrows' path would not have led to certain contact. Rather, it was Guastad altering his path and body positioning to led to the contact and to making the contact worse. So, I think it's clear that Guastad initiated the contact. That's just not the same thing as saying he did it deliberately. It was just an accidental collision that neither player should have been penalized for.

Whatever his upper-body injury, I wish Gaustad a quick and complete recovery.

[Mackcanuck]

Jeff Paterson ‏@patersonjeff 1m1 minute ago

#Canucks Bieksa says wrong to chirp fallen Gaustad but questions a few others says trainer had longer avg shift length than half Preds team

[Mongrel]

To Mongrel

1. So do you apply that to Gaustad too? Or does one guy get to aimlessly roam the ice while another has to make sure he doesn't contact him?

2. Because the Canucks had the puck and were breaking out of their end...there were 3 Preds in Burr's vicinity. So he should give up on the play? Or get into position for that offensive break out, which is the whole point of hockey.

3.

I'd say Gaustad had as much responsibility as Burr did....he actually changed direction after sweeping his stick behind him to get in the lane of a pass. Burr was traveling in the same direction from square one, which was positioning to go up the wing. They were both on a criss cross path but Burr was on the offensive path, with Gaustad acting defensively. I think that should matter, even if it doesn't. The team focused on moving the puck is just that...but the defensive players are more concentrated on the players and how they're positioning themselves in that manner. So Gaustad doesn't have to care about that?

4. So it's not just Burr's responsibility to avoid contact...and, in that event and the ensuing collision, both parties at least owned the same responsibility to avoid it. Why are you giving Gaustad immunity in that? Burr was traveling with the direction of the puck that his team was in possession of...so he shouldn't get in position to participate in that? He was ahead of Gaustad after a stride or two...I'd say it's more Gaustad's responsibility to avoid contact there.

5. The fact that a ref had to be told to call it by a linesman? That's a little off.

6. Sure, Burr gave him an extra nudge. W/E. But FAR more concerning was the crawling on the ice crap that we've seen before with this guy. No wonder Bieksa called him out (even if it shouldn't happen that way). I'm glad he did.

7.

At worst, he had a groin pull because of HOW he was twisting from one way to the other as they collided. Perhaps he should be more present in body positioning and how he's aliining himself with others? He's had a few "collisions", so I'm placing the onus on him (too) in being more aware out there.

1. Of course I do. the rules (should) apply to every player.

2. Of course he shouldn't give up. That is silly to even suggest. Having said that you do bring up the extra nudge.

3.I'm not sure where this is coming from. I agree almost completely with you. you may be making some assumptions on what I'm saying based on nothing I can see.

4. Again this is silly and defensive for no reason.

5. Not weird at all. linesmen make calls all the time.

6. Without the extra nudge its a non issue so it's not W/E at all but again we're in agreement that more concerning was the vs gaustad pulled on the ice.

7. It seems you are doing what you're accusing me of. I'm not giving gaustad a pass at all but you don't seem to be applying any responsibility to burrows. That hardly seems fair.

For the most part I think we actually agree which is almost more puzzleing.

[DIBdaQUIB]

The problem with this theory imo is that in reality, the cheap shot artists are seldom enforcers - and enforcers pretty much exclusively deal with enforcers. You literally never saw a rat having to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. It just never happened - there is no honour in an enforcer engaging a flyweight or even guys outside their weight class.

Ken Linseman - the prototypical "rat" - for example, never once had to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. The perceived deterrence is not really there. Linseman fought guys like Ferraro, Svoboda, Carboneau, Smail, Kasper, Sutter.

Would having an enforcer deter Brad Marchand? Hell no. All having an enforcer meany is that the enforcer then heads out post-cheap-shot and winds up dancing with the other teams heavy - in modern times, Chara, McQuaid, perhaps Thornton. The rat stood behind and if he answered the bell, it was with a guy in his weight class. I don't recall once in my life witnessing a Darius Kasparaitus having to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. The dirtiest of cheap shot artists rarely fight, and when they do, it aint with an enforcer.

The reality - teams don't just hang their rats out to dry. They protect them. They're integrated elements of a team. They are perceived as valuable when they're one of ours. It's a larger hockey culture phenomena and isn't simply proliferating in the absence of enforcers. Enforcers concussing each other in heavyweight bouts prevents literally nothing.

There were always cheap shots. There probably always will be. The idea that players used to have more respect for each other is way overdone imo. Enforcers never really deterred or prevented cheap shots. Moreso than enforcers deterring cheap shots on stars was the counterpoint imo - you run our star, we'll run yours - and "we" meaning anyone on our club, not necessarily our enforcer.

My opinion is that the problem with DoPeS is inconsistency and pathetic leniency. Five games is a 'severe' suspension in this league, while guys can miss months with severe concussions as a result of cheap shots. There is really no deterence with the length of these suspensions - run Daniel Sedin with a flying elbow, get a mere five game suspension, and it's essentially a net gain. I'd like to see much heavier suspensions in line with the toll the receiver of the cheap shot suffers.

Also, if we really want to see a change - then looking at the difference between North American hockey and the rest of the world is probably where the answer lies. Different hockey cultures. The rest of the world did not require enforcers to see a game with more respect and less cheap shots. The dirty, violent cheap shots, stick work, etc did not run rampant in Europe in the absence of enforcers, did it.

Good points. I agree that the DOPS implementation of discipline is sadly lacking both with leniency for actions, relying on the outcome of an act versus the act itself to determine punishment and in the length of suspensions.

If they are serious, suspensions start at a minimum of 5 (more for serious breaches) and double (at a minimum) with each additional infraction. It would really hurt a team to lose players under this structure but players and coaches would soon be thinking consequences before they act.

The problem will continue to be the implementation as the league has shown a reluctance to hand out sentences equitably and to truly punish teams. Who you are, who you play for and who you hit all factor into their decisions and until that is cleared up, the DOPS will never clean up the dirty stuff.

[Mackcanuck]

Iain MacIntyre ‏@imacVanSun 16m16 minutes ago
Bieksa said he yelled at Gaustad: "Are you faking or are you hurt?" Says he learned lesson and shouldn't have gone near him.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Fraser's analysis is reasonable and (to me) illuminating on the question of what kind of calls linesmen are allowed to propose. The only part that seems questionable to me is the idea that Burrows initiates contact. As James argues below, Burrows' intent was probably to set a subtle pick but Gausted turned into him beforehand and so was the one who initiated contact. Anyway, a two-minute interference call would certainly have been fine, if the rules allowed it. But the linesman clearly sold the refs a much more sinister interpretation. Fraser basically contradicts himself by affirming that only a two-minute interference penalty was actually warranted on the one hand, but on the other, that Burrows' actions were properly subject to Rule 56.4, and the resulting five-minute major and a game misconduct. And yet this is still, by far, the best media commentary on the incident. That's how bad it is.

Fraser is a steaming POS his bias knows no bounds.

[DIBdaQUIB]

Iain MacIntyre ‏@imacVanSun 16m16 minutes ago

Bieksa said he yelled at Gaustad: "Are you faking or are you hurt?" Says he learned lesson and shouldn't have gone near him.

...and since when has something like that ever resulted in a game misconduct?

Refs lost their cool which even Kerry Fraser alluded to. They became emotionally engaged in what was happening on the ice and over-reacted...they took sides. Should never happen and none of that reffing team should ever see a playoff game.

[Mackcanuck]

The longer this Buffugly ruling takes, the more I think he will get off pretty lightly

[-DLC-]

For the most part I think we actually agree which is almost more puzzleing.

Wut? Awesome, high five, we're good. Thank you for engaging in a reasonable debate. And I do think Burr holds some of the responsibility...my main point being that the whole incident as played out was much ado about nothing. That Gaustad worked an agenda and a linesman bought in like a superhero and it unfolded from there.

But the bump itself, when isolated, was hardly worth talking about. Gaustad sold it.

Have a good day and, again, I appreciate how you've met in the middle and I think that's very commendable. Cheers.

[Boudrias]

Brad Marchand doesn't answer the bell very often. Old News suggested that agitator do not as a rule take on enforcers. Derek Dorsett is only 8 pounds heavier than Marchand and is a on going pesky player who does answer the bell, even against players 50 pounds heavier. Prior to Dorsett Rick Rypien was another who was not big but answered the call.

[Mongrel]

Brad Marchand doesn't answer the bell very often. Old News suggested that agitator do not as a rule take on enforcers. Derek Dorsett is only 8 pounds heavier than Marchand and is a on going pesky player who does answer the bell, even against players 50 pounds heavier. Prior to Dorsett Rick Rypien was another who was not big but answered the call.

I don't think I would call either Dorsett or Rypien agitators. Certainly not in the same sense as guys like Marchand. Different types of players imo.

[Mongrel]

Wut? Awesome, high five, we're good. Thank you for engaging in a reasonable debate. And I do think Burr holds some of the responsibility...my main point being that the whole incident as played out was much ado about nothing. That Gaustad worked an agenda and a linesman bought in like a superhero and it unfolded from there.

But the bump itself, when isolated, was hardly worth talking about. Gaustad sold it.

Have a good day and, again, I appreciate how you've met in the middle and I think that's very commendable. Cheers.

All this agreeing and not a beer in sight. Tis a crying shame.

[elvis15]

The problem with this theory imo is that in reality, the cheap shot artists are seldom enforcers - and enforcers pretty much exclusively deal with enforcers. You literally never saw a rat having to 'answer the bell' with an enforcer. It just never happened - there is no honour in an enforcer engaging a flyweight or even guys outside their weight class.

...

This. Unless the enforcer who had to answer for the rat was going back and putting pressure on them to stop being such a, well, rat, then there'd be very little consequence for them to stop doing it. Marchand is a prime example as you noted. Lucic, Thornton, Chara, etc. have been protecting him for years and he's just a stupid as ever.

A fair number of enforcers are pretty stand up guys. They have more respect for other players than the rats do certainly, and even some of the more skilled players. It doesn't make for good hockey though, and they aren't really that effective a deterrent so I'm fine with them dropping out of the top ranks of hockey.

Meanwhile, Big Buff gets 4 games for his whiskey tango foxtrot moment.

Actually, I'd like to share a little different view of sports discipline after another suspension handed down recently.

(incident starts at 22 seconds)

http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/04/4191/ulsters-nick-williams-suspended-for-8-weeks-for-striking-rhys-patchell

Ulster number eight Nick Williams has been banned for 8 weeks following the incident that took place in the Guinness PRO12 match between Ulster and Cardiff Blues at the weekend. Patchell was knocked out as a result, so a citing and hearing followed, with all details below.

Williams appeared on Thursday before an independent PRO12 Rugby Disciplinary Committee, following a citing for striking an opponent, under Law 10.4(a): Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Roger Morris (Wales) along with Rhian Williams (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed footage of the incident and listened to representations made by and on behalf of the player, found that the incident was at the top end of the World Rugby sanctions for this type of offence, meriting a 16 week starting point.

In the absence of any aggravating factors and in light of several mitigating factors, including the player's exemplary previous playing record, the Disciplinary Committee applied a 8 week reduction from the entry point and suspended the player from playing for 8 weeks.

This is a pretty good assessment in how to do things for the most part (they had a bit of a head scratcher the other day, suspending a player for mostly accidental contact - albeit a shin to the head) and they have set starting points for infraction types.

Pretty clearly other sports with significant physical contact don't need enforcers - or even fighting for that matter - so why does hockey? Does carrying a wooden stick make some plausible difference that should require bodyguards?

[elvis15]

I don't think I would call either Dorsett or Rypien agitators. Certainly not in the same sense as guys like Marchand. Different types of players imo.

I'd say they fall in the agitator category, but most certainly not the 'rat' category of which Marchand is a poster boy.

[Miltt]

Am I the only one who feels the league is obligated to apologize to both Burrows and to the Canucks for almost taking away 2 crucial points in their battle for the playoffs? Admit you made a huge mistake league and move forward.

[RUPERTKBD]

Am I the only one who feels the league is obligated to apologize to both Burrows and to the Canucks for almost taking away 2 crucial points in their battle for the playoffs? Admit you made a huge mistake league and move forward.

Probably.

Ask Sabres' fans if they got their apology for the refs (and the league) ignoring the skate in crease rule when Hull scored the Cup winning goal...

[Miltt]

Probably.

Ask Sabres' fans if they got their apology for the refs (and the league) ignoring the skate in crease rule when Hull scored the Cup winning goal...

Yeah you're right, can't expect too much from them regarding the right thing to do.

[poetica]

Am I the only one who feels the league is obligated to apologize to both Burrows and to the Canucks for almost taking away 2 crucial points in their battle for the playoffs? Admit you made a huge mistake league and move forward.

Probably.

You may be overestimating not only how much they care but how many things they have to apologize for should they ever start. Sadly, if they're going to start apologizing, this is WAAAAAY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down on the list.