-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Columbus Blue Jackets forward Jared Boll suspended 4 games for interference against Flyers forward Pierre-Edouard Bellemare. Video: http://ow.ly/ZUlxs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 wtf.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I've seen worse late hits but "repeat offender" so 4 games it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I think the term "interference" is a definite misnomer for what actually occurred. I can't recall a time when 'interference' was used as a term for a suspension. There were several other terms that could have been used as we have seen time and time again. A couple of Canucks suspensions come to mind (Both the deserved and undeserved) Interference may have been the beginning of the play but it's hard to rationalize that hit as being 'interference'. Has there been a change in the NHL rule book that indicates that a hit like that one is now suspendable as 'interference'? DoPS screws with the minds of hockey fans once again. (That said, the hit was definitely suspension worthy....whether it's appropriate to call it 'suspended for interference' is another) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Rome asked the same question 5 years ago. Still no reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 43 minutes ago, elvis15 said: I've seen worse late hits but "repeat offender" so 4 games it is. Yep. The hit itself wasn't even so bad, but it was wayyyy late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 40 minutes ago, Cerridwen said: I think the term "interference" is a definite misnomer for what actually occurred. I can't recall a time when 'interference' was used as a term for a suspension. There were several other terms that could have been used as we have seen time and time again. A couple of Canucks suspensions come to mind (Both the deserved and undeserved) Interference may have been the beginning of the play but it's hard to rationalize that hit as being 'interference'. Has there been a change in the NHL rule book that indicates that a hit like that one is now suspendable as 'interference'? DoPS screws with the minds of hockey fans once again. (That said, the hit was definitely suspension worthy....whether it's appropriate to call it 'suspended for interference' is another) I can. Remember Aaron Rome on Nathan Horton in the 2011 Cup final? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 It is my recollection (and in any of the googled hits) that Rome was suspended for a late hit. It wasn't called 'interference' in what I've been able to find. Rome was initially assessed an interference penalty on the ice and given a game misconduct but the DoPS didn't term the suspension as one for 'interference'. It was assessed and suspended accordingly as 'a late hit'. Quote MIKE MURPHY: I probably viewed it like most of you did. I thought it was a late hit. I thought that the body was contacted. But I also thought that the head was hit. It caused a serious injury to Nathan Horton. So the key components are: the late hit, which I had it close to a second late. We have our own formula at NHL Hockey Operations for determining late hits, and it was late. We saw the seriousness of the injury with Nathan on the ice last night. That's basically what we deliberated on. We tried to compare it with some of the other ones in the past. But it stands alone. It's why we made the ruling. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhls-murphy-explains-rome-suspension/c-565132 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 26 minutes ago, Cerridwen said: It is my recollection (and in any of the googled hits) that Rome was suspended for a late hit. It wasn't called 'interference' in what I've been able to find. Rome was initially assessed an interference penalty on the ice and given a game misconduct but the DoPS didn't term the suspension as one for 'interference'. It was assessed and suspended accordingly as 'a late hit'. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhls-murphy-explains-rome-suspension/c-565132 Quote Rome was assessed a five-minute major penalty for interference and game misconduct at 5:07 of the first period after hitting Horton almost a full second after Horton had made a pass to teammate Milan Lucic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 5 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: And? I already said that in my post. The officials on the ice called an 'interference' penalty. The DoPS called it something different in the terms of the suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Just now, Cerridwen said: And? I've already said that in my post. Ah. Misread your original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Just now, RUPERTKBD said: Ah. Misread your original post. No prob! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Cerridwen said: It is my recollection (and in any of the googled hits) that Rome was suspended for a late hit. It wasn't called 'interference' in what I've been able to find. Rome was initially assessed an interference penalty on the ice and given a game misconduct but the DoPS didn't term the suspension as one for 'interference'. It was assessed and suspended accordingly as 'a late hit'. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhls-murphy-explains-rome-suspension/c-565132 But this is a late hit, that falls under the interference rule. I'm not sure what other rule you could put it under, regardless of how you refer to it in the video or statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-PatLostInEdm Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, elvis15 said: But this is a late hit, that falls under the interference rule. I'm not sure what other rule you could put it under, regardless of how you refer to it in the video or statements. Actually, if you look farther down in the article Cerridwen cites, Murphy himself calls it "an interference hit". So it sure looks like Rome was suspended for interference to me. Of course that whole interview was a load of bullocks anyways. If that was an NHL media hack asking those questions, then the bias couldn't be more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Not suspension worthy imo. It's Jared boll however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.