Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Robert Bortuzzo suspended 4 games

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Intent to injure doesn't get any more obvious than that. Should have been a 10 game suspension at minimum. 

 

Just think, Hathaway got three games for spitting on Gudbranson. Apparently an extremely dangerous and malicious cross check on a defenseless player is almost equivalent to that? What kind of joke is this league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, riffraff said:

First one wasnt that bad imo.

 

second was cheap and suspension worthy.

 

4 is fair imo and maybe even on the high side.

From the DoPS video (via Vingan):  "It is important to note the differences between the cross-checks on this play. Bortuzzo was correctly assessed a minor penalty for the original cross-check on Arvidsson. … Bortuzzo’s second cross-check, however, is not a hockey play.”

 

They even add that it was out of frustration. 

 

A return on 1 January has Arvidsson missing 16 games vs only 4 games.  Players should be treated equally but to their team they have completely different value.  Arvidsson is the Predators' best RW and it's not close.  Bortuzzo has been a healthy scratch for half of the games.  

 

Edited by mll
  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, the grinder said:

yep then walk over to the other teams best player and do a burtuzzo you only get four games right ?

Lol Canucks luck it would be 10 games :lol:

 

This suspension should of been more imo, even the first cross check was bad, so dangerous being whiplashed from behind like that, also surprised his head didn't hit the cross bar on that first cross check, and if it did he could of got a concussion. But then that 2nd cross check was an attempt to injure with a weapon technically, almost similar with McSorley and being charged with assault because he used his stick/weapon to injure someone, don't really see much difference besides one was directed at the head and the other was directed at the lower body, still the same body...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mll said:

From the DoPS video (via Vingan):  "It is important to note the differences between the cross-checks on this play. Bortuzzo was correctly assessed a minor penalty for the original cross-check on Arvidsson. … Bortuzzo’s second cross-check, however, is not a hockey play.”

 

They even add that it was out of frustration. 

 

A return on 1 January has Arvidsson missing 16 games vs only 4 games.  Players should be treated equally but to their team they have completely different value.  Arvidsson is the Predators' best RW and it's not close.  Bortuzzo has been a healthy scratch for half of the games.  

 

Dops should obviously hire me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent to injury on the 2nd cross check, as far as I'm concerned he should have to sit out as long as the player is injured. Otherwise, what's stopping teams from putting out a goon to go head hunt stars?

 

For example, if we send Roussel out to go try and break one of McDavid's ribs, we lose a 4th liner for 4 games, they lose their star and we can easily creep up on them in the standings. From that point of view, it makes sense to play dirty. Obviously not many players are classless enough to want to do such a thing but in the playoffs where morals are skewed, anything goes and every advantage helps.

 

This is a disgrace and should be easily one of those big 10-20 game suspensions. Cross check to a guy on the ice after the play with intent to injure is not hockey. I'm surprised the Preds didn't send someone to pummel Bortuzzo but they will next game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Lol Canucks luck it would be 10 games :lol:

 

This suspension should of been more imo, even the first cross check was bad, so dangerous being whiplashed from behind like that, also surprised his head didn't hit the cross bar on that first cross check, and if it did he could of got a concussion. But then that 2nd cross check was an attempt to injure with a weapon technically, almost similar with McSorley and being charged with assault because he used his stick/weapon to injure someone, don't really see much difference besides one was directed at the head and the other was directed at the lower body, still the same body...

the first crosscheck ok I get it  your sending the message don't come near the goalie but the second one that was bad   it should be 10 games like ive said  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...