The 2009-2010 Suspension Thread

[chippa13 1844]

I don't know if he caught him with the elbow but definitely a cheap shot.

[Chadd 916]

I don't know if he caught him with the elbow but definitely a cheap shot.

Elbow came up to the chest on the hit and head height on the follow-through to my eyes. Not worth a suspension to me, especially given the way Clutterbuck hits people.

[mik3 1]

I don't know, the way the whole play went makes me think he's going to get a game. Clutterbuck and Talbot had been going at it earlier then Gonchar throws that hit with no regard for the puck.

[Chadd 916]

I don't know, the way the whole play went makes me think he's going to get a game. Clutterbuck and Talbot had been going at it earlier then Gonchar throws that hit with no regard for the puck.

That sounds exactly like the way Clutterbuck plays all game long.

[tro 4]

The hit on Clutterbuck is like the hits Kaleta and Cook took, that went unsuspended. Yeah it's dirty/dangerous and should be punished, but then you look at who got hit and go "oh well, I can live with that"

Guys can get seriously hurt, and that's not good, but guys like Kaleta/Cook/Clutterbuck run around every game throwing dangerous hits.

[EBondo 232]

Steve Ott with a questionable hit from behind on Danny Syvret tonight. Got two minutes for boarding and Syvret is out of the game now

[Law Goalie 147]

Lawgoalie, did you happen to watch them game?

What Burrows said after the game, after cooling off, and riding the bikes, was absolutely an accurate portrayal of how the third period was officiated.

I did, and I would point out that my comments pertained to the likelihood that Burrows was accurately quoting Auger, *not* how accurately Burrows described the officiating. Those were extremely fishy calls, but I find it hard to believe that Auger would be dumb enough to announce his intentions. As per chippa:

I highly doubt that a NHL referee would be stupid enough to have said something like that. My bet, it was probably more along the lines of, "You fooled us the last time, don't think we'll be buying it tonight."

Well put. I think it might have been even more succinct than that, as in, "You embarrassed me with that dive in Nashville," followed by a pointed stare. The conversation that ensues is probably Burrows chirping back, and Auger saying something vague like, "I'll keep my eyes on you."

[Chadd 916]

Burrows gets a $2500 fine and no discipline to Auger.

[J22 0]

I don't know if he caught him with the elbow but definitely a cheap shot.

Elbow came up to the chest on the hit and head height on the follow-through to my eyes. Not worth a suspension to me, especially given the way Clutterbuck hits people.

The way Clutterbuck plays has zero bearing on whether or not Gonchar should be suspended. Run down the checklist for suspendable actions

Intent to injure=check

Forearm/Elbow to the head= check

vulnerable/unsuspecting player=check

puck not within 10 feet of player=check

That hit is the definition of the hits to the head that the NHL claims to be cracking down on

The hit on Clutterbuck is like the hits Kaleta and Cook took, that went unsuspended. Yeah it's dirty/dangerous and should be punished, but then you look at who got hit and go "oh well, I can live with that"

Guys can get seriously hurt, and that's not good, but guys like Kaleta/Cook/Clutterbuck run around every game throwing dangerous hits.

Are you seriously comparing Clutterbuck to guys like Cooke or Kaleta? Clutterbuck is leading the league in hits yet has only 18pim.

[camhockey16 5]

just curious but where is the "state of hockey"?

im not saying that gonchars hit wasnt dirty - but you aren't exactly surprising anyone with your opinion when we see your geographical location

[Chadd 916]

I don't know if he caught him with the elbow but definitely a cheap shot.

Elbow came up to the chest on the hit and head height on the follow-through to my eyes. Not worth a suspension to me, especially given the way Clutterbuck hits people.

The way Clutterbuck plays has zero bearing on whether or not Gonchar should be suspended. Run down the checklist for suspendable actions

Intent to injure=check

Forearm/Elbow to the head= check

vulnerable/unsuspecting player=check

puck not within 10 feet of player=check

That hit is the definition of the hits to the head that the NHL claims to be cracking down on

The hit on Clutterbuck is like the hits Kaleta and Cook took, that went unsuspended. Yeah it's dirty/dangerous and should be punished, but then you look at who got hit and go "oh well, I can live with that"

Guys can get seriously hurt, and that's not good, but guys like Kaleta/Cook/Clutterbuck run around every game throwing dangerous hits.

Are you seriously comparing Clutterbuck to guys like Cooke or Kaleta? Clutterbuck is leading the league in hits yet has only 18pim.

Clutterbuck is just like those guys. Karma can be a harsh mistress.

[J22 0]

just curious but where is the "state of hockey"?

im not saying that gonchars hit wasnt dirty - but you aren't exactly surprising anyone with your opinion when we see your geographical location

Minnesota is "the state of hockey" and yes i am a Wild and Clutterbuck fan. Having said that is there anything in my post that you would dispute?

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

I don't know, the way the whole play went makes me think he's going to get a game. Clutterbuck and Talbot had been going at it earlier then Gonchar throws that hit with no regard for the puck.

That sounds exactly like the way Clutterbuck plays all game long.

I have to admit, I find this statement somewhat... i guess hypocritical for lack of a better word. This play to me seems flat out dirty. Not as bad as others admittedly, but dirty none the less. Sure his elbow didn't catch Clutterbuck in the face, but the forearm and hand sure did. Chadd, i know your a big advocate against suspending people for the result of the hit. So why should who the hit was thrown against factor into it at all? Granted you did not state that Gonch shouldn't be suspended based on who he hit, i just find it odd that you mentioned Clutterbuck as getting what he deserves. I would be interested in seeing what would happen if we handed the disciplinary role to someone who knew nothing about hockey. Not the players, their reputations nor the different styles used within the game. Id love to see how someone like that would rule on these hits given an NHL rulebook and video review.

[J22 0]

I don't know if he caught him with the elbow but definitely a cheap shot.

Elbow came up to the chest on the hit and head height on the follow-through to my eyes. Not worth a suspension to me, especially given the way Clutterbuck hits people.

The way Clutterbuck plays has zero bearing on whether or not Gonchar should be suspended. Run down the checklist for suspendable actions

Intent to injure=check

Forearm/Elbow to the head= check

vulnerable/unsuspecting player=check

puck not within 10 feet of player=check

That hit is the definition of the hits to the head that the NHL claims to be cracking down on

The hit on Clutterbuck is like the hits Kaleta and Cook took, that went unsuspended. Yeah it's dirty/dangerous and should be punished, but then you look at who got hit and go "oh well, I can live with that"

Guys can get seriously hurt, and that's not good, but guys like Kaleta/Cook/Clutterbuck run around every game throwing dangerous hits.

Are you seriously comparing Clutterbuck to guys like Cooke or Kaleta? Clutterbuck is leading the league in hits yet has only 18pim.

Clutterbuck is just like those guys. Karma can be a harsh mistress.

Clutterbuck is nothing like those guys. Yes he hits everything he can, but he does it clean. If Gonchars hit is just "Karma" catching up to Clutterbuck, then there must be a stretcher in Gonchars near future.

[Chadd 916]

I don't know, the way the whole play went makes me think he's going to get a game. Clutterbuck and Talbot had been going at it earlier then Gonchar throws that hit with no regard for the puck.

That sounds exactly like the way Clutterbuck plays all game long.

I have to admit, I find this statement somewhat... i guess hypocritical for lack of a better word. This play to me seems flat out dirty. Not as bad as others admittedly, but dirty none the less. Sure his elbow didn't catch Clutterbuck in the face, but the forearm and hand sure did. Chadd, i know your a big advocate against suspending people for the result of the hit. So why should who the hit was thrown against factor into it at all? Granted you did not state that Gonch shouldn't be suspended based on who he hit, i just find it odd that you mentioned Clutterbuck as getting what he deserves. I would be interested in seeing what would happen if we handed the disciplinary role to someone who knew nothing about hockey. Not the players, their reputations nor the different styles used within the game. Id love to see how someone like that would rule on these hits given an NHL rulebook and video review.

The initial impact was body to body, the main force of the impact was body to body. As part of the follow through Gonchar's hands came up high and made some contact with the head. If the puck had been there, it likely wouldn't have been a penalty at all. As it was, the puck wasn't there and Gonchar went to the box. I see nothing in the play that warrants a suspension. I can't imagine where the NHL would find anything worthy of a suspension in that play. Given their performance this season though, anything is possible.

All of that said, Clutterbuck is well known throughout the league for his borderline, or worse depending on you point of view, hits. I don't care for players like that, no matter what team they play for or how they act off the ice. If you want to be an agitator, don't be surprised when someone gets agitated and does something back to you.

Here are a couple nice ones from his junior days

There are some montages that have some typical charges, elbows and hits from behind from his NHL days as well. I just don't feel like pulling out the time stamps of the individual hits.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

I don't know, the way the whole play went makes me think he's going to get a game. Clutterbuck and Talbot had been going at it earlier then Gonchar throws that hit with no regard for the puck.

That sounds exactly like the way Clutterbuck plays all game long.

I have to admit, I find this statement somewhat... i guess hypocritical for lack of a better word. This play to me seems flat out dirty. Not as bad as others admittedly, but dirty none the less. Sure his elbow didn't catch Clutterbuck in the face, but the forearm and hand sure did. Chadd, i know your a big advocate against suspending people for the result of the hit. So why should who the hit was thrown against factor into it at all? Granted you did not state that Gonch shouldn't be suspended based on who he hit, i just find it odd that you mentioned Clutterbuck as getting what he deserves. I would be interested in seeing what would happen if we handed the disciplinary role to someone who knew nothing about hockey. Not the players, their reputations nor the different styles used within the game. Id love to see how someone like that would rule on these hits given an NHL rulebook and video review.

The initial impact was body to body, the main force of the impact was body to body. As part of the follow through Gonchar's hands came up high and made some contact with the head. If the puck had been there, it likely wouldn't have been a penalty at all. As it was, the puck wasn't there and Gonchar went to the box. I see nothing in the play that warrants a suspension. I can't imagine where the NHL would find anything worthy of a suspension in that play. Given their performance this season though, anything is possible.

All of that said, Clutterbuck is well known throughout the league for his borderline, or worse depending on you point of view, hits. I don't care for players like that, no matter what team they play for or how they act off the ice. If you want to be an agitator, don't be surprised when someone gets agitated and does something back to you.

Sorry for not being clear enough. I agree that it shouldn't be a suspension, but the hit was certainly borderline at best. After looking at it a few more times, i think it looks worse than it is. I also agree with your 'what goes around comes around' when it comes to the agitator type players. If you spend 60 trying to piss off the other team, like you said, don't be surprised when someone finally does get pissed off. Just want to be sure we're on the same page that as far as suspensions go, the player receiving the hit, along with the result should not factor into the equation.

[J22 0]

I don't know, the way the whole play went makes me think he's going to get a game. Clutterbuck and Talbot had been going at it earlier then Gonchar throws that hit with no regard for the puck.

That sounds exactly like the way Clutterbuck plays all game long.

I have to admit, I find this statement somewhat... i guess hypocritical for lack of a better word. This play to me seems flat out dirty. Not as bad as others admittedly, but dirty none the less. Sure his elbow didn't catch Clutterbuck in the face, but the forearm and hand sure did. Chadd, i know your a big advocate against suspending people for the result of the hit. So why should who the hit was thrown against factor into it at all? Granted you did not state that Gonch shouldn't be suspended based on who he hit, i just find it odd that you mentioned Clutterbuck as getting what he deserves. I would be interested in seeing what would happen if we handed the disciplinary role to someone who knew nothing about hockey. Not the players, their reputations nor the different styles used within the game. Id love to see how someone like that would rule on these hits given an NHL rulebook and video review.

The initial impact was body to body, the main force of the impact was body to body. As part of the follow through Gonchar's hands came up high and made some contact with the head. If the puck had been there, it likely wouldn't have been a penalty at all. As it was, the puck wasn't there and Gonchar went to the box. I see nothing in the play that warrants a suspension. I can't imagine where the NHL would find anything worthy of a suspension in that play. Given their performance this season though, anything is possible.

All of that said, Clutterbuck is well known throughout the league for his borderline, or worse depending on you point of view, hits. I don't care for players like that, no matter what team they play for or how they act off the ice. If you want to be an agitator, don't be surprised when someone gets agitated and does something back to you.

You might want to watch the clip again. The initial contact is Gonchar's forearm/elbow to Clutterbucks face. Gonchar jumps into the hit and extends is arm through Clutterbucks head after contact. This play is very similar to the Richards/Booth hit except Clutterbuck never comes close to touching the puck.

Again it makes no sense for you to bring up Clutterbucks style of play as justification for Gonchar's cheap shot.

[Chadd 916]

You might want to watch the clip again. The initial contact is Gonchar's forearm/elbow to Clutterbucks face. Gonchar jumps into the hit and extends is arm through Clutterbucks head after contact. This play is very similar to the Richards/Booth hit except Clutterbuck never comes close to touching the puck.

Again it makes no sense for you to bring up Clutterbucks style of play as justification for Gonchar's cheap shot.

Initial contact is body, his forearm does come up and make contact. There is a difference between justification and explaining the cause. Gonchar got a penalty, I don't see anyone disputing that he deserved a penalty. Comparing this to Booth and Richards is absurd. This was about payback, that hit was about trying to kill someone.

[J22 0]

You might want to watch the clip again. The initial contact is Gonchar's forearm/elbow to Clutterbucks face. Gonchar jumps into the hit and extends is arm through Clutterbucks head after contact. This play is very similar to the Richards/Booth hit except Clutterbuck never comes close to touching the puck.

Again it makes no sense for you to bring up Clutterbucks style of play as justification for Gonchar's cheap shot.

Initial contact is body, his forearm does come up and make contact. There is a difference between justification and explaining the cause. Gonchar got a penalty, I don't see anyone disputing that he deserved a penalty. Comparing this to Booth and Richards is absurd. This was about payback, that hit was about trying to kill someone.

Do me a favor and pause this clip at :33 and tell me where initial contact is made.

[Chadd 916]

Gonchar's left knee to the right arm

[J22 0]

Leaving your feet before you make contact actually lessens the impact. By jumping up and into Booth he did the most possible damage. He also skated in from an angle and got in front of Booth and chose to target the head. He knew Booth wasn't looking and did everything possible to do the maximum amount of damage.

As for teaching kids to hit like that, it's one of the biggest problems with the game today. The game was not played this way until recently. We've discussed the lack of respect that players have for each other a number of times in the past. This is yet another example of that.

" (NOTE 2) Possession of the Puck:

The other guy had the puck on his stick by the time the hit was delivered. Once another player is in possession and control of the puck, the last player to have the puck is no longer fair game. Obviously the NHL has ignored this for years.

To use your own words. Replace Booth's name with Clutterbuck and tell me what you said doesnt apply to Gonchar's hit

[J22 0]

[

Gonchar's left knee to the right arm

So you're saying he lead with his knees and the force of the impact is what threw his forearm into Clutterbucks face? seriously?

do you think fraser & sutherland thought it warranted a suspension? i was just assuming from their calls that they actually thought it was

As a ref, that isn't up to you. You make the penalty call and it's up to others to decide what, if any, suspension is applicable. They teach you that from the very start.

very true - so how does a ref judge "intent to injure"? because no one knows what richards real intent was

My criteria:

If the act was likely to cause an injury and/or

Was not a hockey play and/or

Was an act of retribution

To use more of your own words from this thread

likely to cause injury= i suppose you could debate this one

was not a hockey play= where exactly was the puck again

was an act of retribution= i think this one is obvious

[Chadd 916]

Leaving your feet before you make contact actually lessens the impact. By jumping up and into Booth he did the most possible damage. He also skated in from an angle and got in front of Booth and chose to target the head. He knew Booth wasn't looking and did everything possible to do the maximum amount of damage.

As for teaching kids to hit like that, it's one of the biggest problems with the game today. The game was not played this way until recently. We've discussed the lack of respect that players have for each other a number of times in the past. This is yet another example of that.

" (NOTE 2) Possession of the Puck:

The other guy had the puck on his stick by the time the hit was delivered. Once another player is in possession and control of the puck, the last player to have the puck is no longer fair game. Obviously the NHL has ignored this for years.

To use your own words. Replace Booth's name with Clutterbuck and tell me what you said doesnt apply to Gonchar's hit

First, you need to work on the quoting thing.

Second, I'm not saying this should have gone unpenalized. We simply disagree with the amount that it crossed the line.

Third, there is a contextual issue with those quotes, especially the second one. This was never a case of possession and control, it was a textbook cheap shot version of interference.

I'm saying that I don't think Gonchar should be suspended, not that it was a good, clean play.

Gonchar's left knee to the right arm

No, that's not what I said at all and this shit is getting really old. I've explained my position in reasonable terms, you don't agree. That's fine. To continue pushing this is just getting absurd and you're making it personal for some odd reason.

[J22 0]

Leaving your feet before you make contact actually lessens the impact. By jumping up and into Booth he did the most possible damage. He also skated in from an angle and got in front of Booth and chose to target the head. He knew Booth wasn't looking and did everything possible to do the maximum amount of damage.

As for teaching kids to hit like that, it's one of the biggest problems with the game today. The game was not played this way until recently. We've discussed the lack of respect that players have for each other a number of times in the past. This is yet another example of that.

" (NOTE 2) Possession of the Puck:

The other guy had the puck on his stick by the time the hit was delivered. Once another player is in possession and control of the puck, the last player to have the puck is no longer fair game. Obviously the NHL has ignored this for years.

To use your own words. Replace Booth's name with Clutterbuck and tell me what you said doesnt apply to Gonchar's hit

First, you need to work on the quoting thing.

Second, I'm not saying this should have gone unpenalized. We simply disagree with the amount that it crossed the line.

Third, there is a contextual issue with those quotes, especially the second one. This was never a case of possession and control, it was a textbook cheap shot version of interference.

I'm saying that I don't think Gonchar should be suspended, not that it was a good, clean play.

Gonchar's left knee to the right arm

No, that's not what I said at all and this shit is getting really old. I've explained my position in reasonable terms, you don't agree. That's fine. To continue pushing this is just getting absurd and you're making it personal for some odd reason.

First of all you're right on the quoting thing but i am trying to figure it out. 2nd, i am not trying to make this personal at all. if it seems that way i apologize. I have read this board long enough to have alot of respect for your opinions, and i usually agree with them. The reason i brought up your old posts is because i agreed with them at the time and i do think they apply to this situation. "caught a guy that wasnt looking, jumped into the hit, targeted the head,maximized the damage".

The wild have been without 2 of their better players for most of the season because of concussions, so when i read people saying Cal got what he deserved i take exception.

[Chadd 916]

“He better hope he retires at the end of the year, I’ll tell you that,” Clutterbuck said, a cut on the bridge of his nose. “Somebody’s going to hurt him before the end of the year. Someone will. It’s not going to be me, but someone will.”

Classy quote from Clutterbuck right there.