The 2009-2010 Suspension Thread

[camhockey16 5]

at this point im actually more interested if the league is talking to downie - i think his play on crosby was actually worse than ovechkins as far as an attempt to injure.

and there was at least a penalty on the play - just not a 5 min variety

[Ital79 0]

at this point im actually more interested if the league is talking to downie - i think his play on crosby was actually worse than ovechkins as far as an attempt to injure.

and there was at least a penalty on the play - just not a 5 min variety

I doubt it...

Downie's play on Crobsy was a trip. But since Downie (historically at least) is bad at hockey - he couldn't even trip Crosby correctly.

The big issue I have is why someone would go to those extremes to knock a player down. Crosby was out of the play, there was no scoring chance, and...well...the play was just f'n stupid. Downie needs an MRI or something...the ass-hat who signed him needs the fine. I cannot understand what was going thru his mind. Does the guy eat with toothpicks and dribble a lot? I've never met him...

Degenerates like Downie, Cooke, Ott, Ruutu (Jarko), etc all belong in the 'bonehead player' category. Yet, these guys get signed on 1-way contracts. Like any business transaction, there's a cost and a benefit. Since these players are still around, there's obviously more benefit to their teams than cost. And that's the problem - when Downie does what he does, the team really doesn't suffer.

A suspension to someone like Downie isn't going to change his game or hurt his team. While it might keep the league a bit safer for a couple games, it is a temporary fix to a long term problem - the teams need to suffer.

[slapshot2 0]

Sounds a little hypocritical, I don't think you can be both. I'm pretty sure 80% of minor hockey players know not to push a guy on the back when he's 3-4 feet from the boards. And the 20% that don't are probably under the age of 10 or still learning to skate.

That said I still feel Cooke should have been suspended as his was just as reckless.

What I mean is more about intent. Cooke is going headhunting and really wanted to annihilate savard, but Ovi had no intention of that. Im sure he though he was just gonna slide into the glass real hard after the hit. Not loose his footing and nail the wall. It's obvious he wasn't expecting it and realized he f**cked up thats why he stayed on the ice and gave that gesture.

It's not comparable in that one hit had intent to injure and one was just reckless, so I'll agree with that part.

Well exactly, not comparable, but how can you punish reckless and not punish INTENT TO INJURE ANOTHER PLAYER. That's why people are bothered. So what if it was a different TYPE of physical contact, that's not the point.

And I just watched Cherry's video too, finally hes got a good point.... :D

[hockeysc23 0]

Since I got sidetracked with some work related training I am on after my initial posts page #42 I felt the need to explain or at least not leave a response and run.

Was Ovie's hit borderline? I believe so. It was coming from the side and had Campbell not toe-picked it probably would've been right at the shoulder and hopefully for his sake not as bad an injury as what happened.

Do I wish injury on any NHL player outside of Crosby (j/k) ... no and I don't think Ovie did either.

The problem has become the NHL's crazy roulette wheel of justice where they cannot make up their mind whether the injury matters or not. Had Campbell gotten up from the injury probably no further suspension.

But there have been countless examples this year of plays that were malicious or at the very least put another player's safety into doubt and yet it seems Caps players (and superstars) seem to end up on the raw end of the suspension judgment and I think that is where a lot of upset Cap fans come from.

Do I have a bias? probably. Hopefully not a lot though as evidenced by threads before.

But lets look at some examples of plays that definitely 100% deserved a suspension and didn't get one:

Adams on Ovie. Same thing as what happened to Campbell. Dangerous hit. No suspension. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQKBGAQExQ...player_embedded

Koci on Green:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9GjQ9CsrBI...player_embedded

And we all remember the following plays that deserved suspensions but didn't get them:

Gonchar on Clutterbuck

Knutiz on Varlamov with the crosscheck to the throat

Cooke on Savard

Richards on Booth

What about this hit from Seidenburg on Parise:

the list goes on and on. Either the injury factors into the decision or it doesn't but there have been countless examples this season alone of players making plays with way worse intent but yet Ovie finds himself suspended.

I wouldn't mind Ovie being suspended for the play as long as the same rules for breaking down on malicious hits or hits that caused disastrous injuries were enforced throughout.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Apart from the fact that Adams is in a Pens jersey, can someone tell me how this is not even a penalty with 2 refs looking at it, but Ovechkins is getting kicked from the game and a 2 game suspension?

What exactly is the difference in the 2 plays

[slapshot2 0]

Since I got sidetracked with some work related training I am on after my initial posts page #42 I felt the need to explain or at least not leave a response and run.

Was Ovie's hit borderline? I believe so. It was coming from the side and had Campbell not toe-picked it probably would've been right at the shoulder and hopefully for his sake not as bad an injury as what happened.

Do I wish injury on any NHL player outside of Crosby (j/k) ... no and I don't think Ovie did either.

The problem has become the NHL's crazy roulette wheel of justice where they cannot make up their mind whether the injury matters or not. Had Campbell gotten up from the injury probably no further suspension.

But there have been countless examples this year of plays that were malicious or at the very least put another player's safety into doubt and yet it seems Caps players (and superstars) seem to end up on the raw end of the suspension judgment and I think that is where a lot of upset Cap fans come from.

Do I have a bias? probably. Hopefully not a lot though as evidenced by threads before.

But lets look at some examples of plays that definitely 100% deserved a suspension and didn't get one:

Adams on Ovie. Same thing as what happened to Campbell. Dangerous hit. No suspension. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQKBGAQExQ...player_embedded

Koci on Green:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9GjQ9CsrBI...player_embedded

And we all remember the following plays that deserved suspensions but didn't get them:

Gonchar on Clutterbuck

Knutiz on Varlamov with the crosscheck to the throat

Cooke on Savard

Richards on Booth

the list goes on and on. Either the injury factors into the decision or it doesn't but there have been countless examples this season alone of players making plays with way worse intent but yet Ovie finds himself suspended.

I wouldn't mind Ovie being suspended for the play as long as the same rules for breaking down on malicious hits or hits that caused disastrous injuries were enforced throughout.

Exactly, great point. Some I think might argue with the green hit because he kind of turned in the last second. The Ovie hit I love. Full force into the boards and the guy nudges him on the ass to push him in. Unbelievable.

Lucky it was Ovechkin too boucing up after that. Guarantee you 99 percent of players would have stayed down on that hit. Same with the La Pierre hit, tough guy to get up and go after whichever Canadian he thought did it.

Apart from the fact that Adams is in a Pens jersey, can someone tell me how this is not even a penalty with 2 refs looking at it, but Ovechkins is getting kicked from the game and a 2 game suspension?

What exactly is the difference in the 2 plays

Exactly, I think most of us here actually play the game, and everyone knows that if someone is going full speed right infront of you, even a little nudge on the lower back or ass will throw them off balance since they're already on the edge. Straight into the boards. Can't the NHL see that? and not even a boarding? Really?

[JGraz15 53]

Things seems to be much more dangerous than Ovie's shove on Campbell

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?c...35&id=62918

[LkptTiger 1]

The difference is in that 1) the puck was still there and 2) Parise actually held-up a little bit in an effort to gain body position on Seidenberg. It was definitely a bit scary to see Zach go in like that and, initially, I thought there probably should have been a penalty called on the play. Dangerous play, for sure.....but I don't think it holds a candle to what Ovie did to Campbell.

[Trooper 8]

Apart from the fact that Adams is in a Pens jersey, can someone tell me how this is not even a penalty with 2 refs looking at it, but Ovechkins is getting kicked from the game and a 2 game suspension?

What exactly is the difference in the 2 plays

Not much. There is the similarity that Caps fans are whining about AO getting called and now have to grasp at straws. Everybody here agrees that the NHL is inconsistent and their disciplinary procedure is a joke. Go take your "The Pens get away with everything" crap somewhere else. We could go through YouTube and find a million examples of calls that should have been made.

And hockeysc23, enough with the toe kick crap. It had nothing to do with the play. He would have gone headfirst into the board with or without the perceived toe kick shown at 1/5 the speed of the real play.

[jeffw 1]

I think it speaks volumes that the vast majority of people who are defending OV are Caps fans. Not just here but everywhere.

The majority of people who are not looking at this through rockin' red glasses pretty much agree that a suspension is warranted in this case.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I think it speaks volumes that the vast majority of people who are defending OV are Caps fans. Not just here but everywhere.

The majority of people who are not looking at this through rockin' red glasses pretty much agree that a suspension is warranted in this case.

Did you see NHL on the fly last night, the vast majority of players defended him, said it wasn't a dirty hit, just unfortunate.

When your own team mate (guerin) speaks out about how you (Cooke) should have been suspended, but almost everyone apart from Georges who was interviewed about the Ovechkin play say it's not dirty then I'm going to say that it's not just homeristic bias.

Scott Burnside - http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=4998669

Bob McKenzie from twitter...

Why Ovie was suspended, Downie not? U won't like it, but it's one word - injury. If Crosby injured, Downie sits. If Campbell not, Ovie plays

Truth is the Ovechkin hit on Campbell, or some form of it, happens in almost every game, but if there's no injury, there's no penalty.

It's not just caps fans. And again, why was there no penalty on Craig Adams for an almost identical hit (from behind, into the boards)

[Law Goalie 147]

As to why suspension length should take into account, if not actually reflect, the extent of injury, see "the thin skull rule." If it's an outright attack, the suspension should at least equal the effective duration of injury: re: Beruzzi, part of the issue was that they couldn't tell exactly when or how Moore's neck broke.

I'm not really sure about the Ovechkin hit. It is an impact to the numbers (albeit to the outside of the '5' of Campbell's 51, more in line with the scapula than the spine), and it is in a dangerous area at a dangerous distance from the boards. That said, Campbell does not go head-first into the boards (which is the classic sign of a pure hit from behind), and Ovechkin appears, in fact, to have done all he could to use his arms to send Campbell sideways into the boards, rather than continuing through his back and sending him in head first.

Campbell, on the other hand, does several things he probably shouldn't have. First, he spots Ovechkin coming in, then turns his head away in trying to make an overly precise play on the puck. Second, in trying to drop the puck behind him with precision, he not only turns his numbers to Ovechkin, he also raises the shoulder closest to the check, and drops his inside shoulder - not a good idea if you're looking to protect yourself. Result: rather than balancing and bracing for the hit and having his inside shoulder go into the glass, Campbell goes down diagonally into the boards, off his feet and out of control. I wish I had a copy of Dartfish - I bet you could draw a line right along the level of Campbell's shoulders as he makes the pass to the point of impact on the boards that fractures his clavicle.

Would I have preferred to see Ovechkin pull up in the last millisecond? Certainly.

Would I have preferred to see Campbell do more to acknowledge the likelihood of a hit and better protect himself? Absolutely.

Am I sympathetic to his injury? Completely. I heard - not saw, but heard - the same thing happen to one of my D behind the net. Probably the second most chilling injury after a broken femur.

The problem I have isn't with the two-game suspension; it's that once again, the criteria for suspension remain opaque at best.

A Posteriori Disclaimer: not a Caps fan, not an American, not a skater.

[Trooper 8]

Did you see NHL on the fly last night, the vast majority of players defended him, said it wasn't a dirty hit, just unfortunate.

When your own team mate (guerin) speaks out about how you (Cooke) should have been suspended, but almost everyone apart from Georges who was interviewed about the Ovechkin play say it's not dirty then I'm going to say that it's not just homeristic bias.

Scott Burnside - http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=4998669

Bob McKenzie from twitter...

Why Ovie was suspended, Downie not? U won't like it, but it's one word - injury. If Crosby injured, Downie sits. If Campbell not, Ovie plays

Truth is the Ovechkin hit on Campbell, or some form of it, happens in almost every game, but if there's no injury, there's no penalty.

It's not just caps fans. And again, why was there no penalty on Craig Adams for an almost identical hit (from behind, into the boards)

No, you're a homer. That hit doesn't happen every game, no matter how much you say it does. And again, it was because they made a bad call on Adams. Can you not read? Can you not let one (out of a million missed calls) go? Adams was tossed the other day for a hit after the whistle on a tag up offsides.

Most of Pittsburgh thought Cooke's hit was dirty. It was the Pittsburgh talk show hosts who got Campbell all fired up because they said it was dirty. Of those speaking out against Cooke, would two of those players be Lecavelier and St. Louis? Guys who play on a line with Steve Downie? Sound like hypocrites to me.

What players and hockey people say is of little interest to me anymore. These are the same people that apply asinine logic to situations that got us here in the first place.

I'm not really sure about the Ovechkin hit. It is an impact to the numbers (albeit to the outside of the '5' of Campbell's 51, more in line with the scapula than the spine), and it is in a dangerous area at a dangerous distance from the boards. That said, Campbell does not go head-first into the boards (which is the classic sign of a pure hit from behind), and Ovechkin appears, in fact, to have done all he could to use his arms to send Campbell sideways into the boards, rather than continuing through his back and sending him in head first.

The distance is the issue, as it was a boarding call. I don't know of anyone alleging it was a hit from behind.

[Law Goalie 147]

There were a few posts that made a big deal out of it being a "hit to the numbers," including one very grim-looking still-frame - I wanted to draw a distinction between "to the numbers", "blindside" and "from behind", but I didn't do it clearly.

Had Ovechkin been looking to hurt him, he could have followed straight through the numbers and put him in head-first at a lethal distance; I see signs of him going out of his way to make contact across the shoulders, even though Campbell turns his head and back to Ovechkin.

I completely agree that distance was at issue, both in terms of the call correctly made (boarding) and the ultimate injury. I still would argue, however, that Campbell could have taken that hit safely and made a play on the puck (if a less precise one) with little to no risk of injury, simply by keeping his shoulders square and not taking his eyes off Ovechkin. It would still have been a brutal hit, it would still have been boarding, and Campbell might have been hurt (though not injured), but it wouldn't have been a broken clavicle.

I've also found it interesting how the talk from Lecavalier and St. Louis about Cooke died down after Downie attempt to injure Crosby. I wouldn't go so far as to call it deliberate hypocrisy; I think they went somewhat unknowingly out on a limb, believing Downie to have changed his spots, and he really embarrassed them.

[hamstercaster 2]

As to why suspension length should take into account, if not actually reflect, the extent of injury, see "the thin skull rule." If it's an outright attack, the suspension should at least equal the effective duration of injury: re: Beruzzi, part of the issue was that they couldn't tell exactly when or how Moore's neck broke.

I'm not really sure about the Ovechkin hit. It is an impact to the numbers (albeit to the outside of the '5' of Campbell's 51, more in line with the scapula than the spine), and it is in a dangerous area at a dangerous distance from the boards. That said, Campbell does not go head-first into the boards (which is the classic sign of a pure hit from behind), and Ovechkin appears, in fact, to have done all he could to use his arms to send Campbell sideways into the boards, rather than continuing through his back and sending him in head first.

Campbell, on the other hand, does several things he probably shouldn't have. First, he spots Ovechkin coming in, then turns his head away in trying to make an overly precise play on the puck. Second, in trying to drop the puck behind him with precision, he not only turns his numbers to Ovechkin, he also raises the shoulder closest to the check, and drops his inside shoulder - not a good idea if you're looking to protect yourself. Result: rather than balancing and bracing for the hit and having his inside shoulder go into the glass, Campbell goes down diagonally into the boards, off his feet and out of control. I wish I had a copy of Dartfish - I bet you could draw a line right along the level of Campbell's shoulders as he makes the pass to the point of impact on the boards that fractures his clavicle.

Would I have preferred to see Ovechkin pull up in the last millisecond? Certainly.

Would I have preferred to see Campbell do more to acknowledge the likelihood of a hit and better protect himself? Absolutely.

Am I sympathetic to his injury? Completely. I heard - not saw, but heard - the same thing happen to one of my D behind the net. Probably the second most chilling injury after a broken femur.

The problem I have isn't with the two-game suspension; it's that once again, the criteria for suspension remain opaque at best.

A Posteriori Disclaimer: not a Caps fan, not an American, not a skater.

I agree completly with that post and would had to it that if you look at it in slowmo, Campbell seems to catch is outside edge and trip when getting hit. I don't know if it has anything to do with his fall or not but sure looks like it didn't help. Probably is a direct result of the push though. On RDS (French TSN) they are comparing that hit to the Lapierre hit. Although it may be similar in certain aspects, Lapierre was a true hit from behind. Still a dangerous play by Ovie however.

[Trooper 8]

I've also found it interesting how the talk from Lecavalier and St. Louis about Cooke died down after Downie attempt to injure Crosby. I wouldn't go so far as to call it deliberate hypocrisy; I think they went somewhat unknowingly out on a limb, believing Downie to have changed his spots, and he really embarrassed them.

Hypocrisy? Probably not, just a little hyperbole on my part. But Downie probably shouldn't even be in the league IMO.

[Law Goalie 147]

No argument there; he should have been dead and gone after McAmmond.

[chippa13 1844]

As to why suspension length should take into account, if not actually reflect, the extent of injury, see "the thin skull rule." If it's an outright attack, the suspension should at least equal the effective duration of injury: re: Beruzzi, part of the issue was that they couldn't tell exactly when or how Moore's neck broke.

I'm not really sure about the Ovechkin hit. It is an impact to the numbers (albeit to the outside of the '5' of Campbell's 51, more in line with the scapula than the spine), and it is in a dangerous area at a dangerous distance from the boards. That said, Campbell does not go head-first into the boards (which is the classic sign of a pure hit from behind), and Ovechkin appears, in fact, to have done all he could to use his arms to send Campbell sideways into the boards, rather than continuing through his back and sending him in head first.

Campbell, on the other hand, does several things he probably shouldn't have. First, he spots Ovechkin coming in, then turns his head away in trying to make an overly precise play on the puck. Second, in trying to drop the puck behind him with precision, he not only turns his numbers to Ovechkin, he also raises the shoulder closest to the check, and drops his inside shoulder - not a good idea if you're looking to protect yourself. Result: rather than balancing and bracing for the hit and having his inside shoulder go into the glass, Campbell goes down diagonally into the boards, off his feet and out of control. I wish I had a copy of Dartfish - I bet you could draw a line right along the level of Campbell's shoulders as he makes the pass to the point of impact on the boards that fractures his clavicle.

Would I have preferred to see Ovechkin pull up in the last millisecond? Certainly.

Would I have preferred to see Campbell do more to acknowledge the likelihood of a hit and better protect himself? Absolutely.

Am I sympathetic to his injury? Completely. I heard - not saw, but heard - the same thing happen to one of my D behind the net. Probably the second most chilling injury after a broken femur.

The problem I have isn't with the two-game suspension; it's that once again, the criteria for suspension remain opaque at best.

A Posteriori Disclaimer: not a Caps fan, not an American, not a skater.

Campbell does those things because he is not expecting to be buried into the boards by the guy behind him. Blame the checker and not the victim. What's next, the way Campbell was dressed he was asking for it?

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

No, you're a homer. That hit doesn't happen every game, no matter how much you say it does. And again, it was because they made a bad call on Adams. Can you not read? Can you not let one (out of a million missed calls) go? Adams was tossed the other day for a hit after the whistle on a tag up offsides.

Most of Pittsburgh thought Cooke's hit was dirty. It was the Pittsburgh talk show hosts who got Campbell all fired up because they said it was dirty. Of those speaking out against Cooke, would two of those players be Lecavelier and St. Louis? Guys who play on a line with Steve Downie? Sound like hypocrites to me.

What players and hockey people say is of little interest to me anymore. These are the same people that apply asinine logic to situations that got us here in the first place.

The distance is the issue, as it was a boarding call. I don't know of anyone alleging it was a hit from behind.

The quote about the hit happening every game came from Bob McKenzie, not me, so clearly he is a caps homer too.

The adams hit was not one missed call, the push to the boards happens every single game. Often it doesn't end with the player going head first into the boards, but rather both players hitting the boards and continuing the play

Go to the NHL video site, look at the oil/jackets highlights, at 2.44 of the video, you see Antoine Vermette try to put the body on the oiler from behind into the boards, he misses, but it's the same basic thing

Then there was the hit on Parise in the Devils/Bruins game last night. That's 2 out of 3 games last night (I didn't watch the wings/flames highlights, only watched the jackets because I like Chris Clark and saw he scored).

95% of these hits don't end in serious injury, but they, or very similar hits like it happen in pretty much every game

[chippa13 1844]

And 99.8% of those hits occur a lot closer to the boards than where Campbell was for the "push".

[Law Goalie 147]

Campbell does those things because he is not expecting to be buried into the boards by the guy behind him. Blame the checker and not the victim. What's next, the way Campbell was dressed he was asking for it?

To be fair, I'm not blaming him.

If Ovechkin doesn't follow through on the hit, of course, there is zero risk of injury.

What I am saying is that there are things Campbell could reasonably have done to reduce the extent and risk of injury, and that it's not unreasonable to expect that he might have done them, given that he makes visual contact with Ovechkin far in advance of physical contact: he knew exactly where Ovechkin was, how fast he was coming, and probably had a reasonable idea of his intention.

Let me be clear, if I wasn't before. Ovechkin is at fault for hitting Campbell:

1) in a dangerous manner;

2) in a dangerous area of the ice;

3) at a dangerous distance from the boards, hence the boarding call on the play;

4) when his target is in a vulnerable position (whether or not this changed during the course of the play).

All that said, Campbell made a bad situation worse, by:

1) turning his head away from and giving up visual contact with an oncoming check;

2) putting himself off-balance (see my comment about the angle of his shoulders) to make a very precise and tricky pass.

I firmly believe that if Campbell decides, after spotting Ovechkin, to simply take the hit as close to the boards as possible and NOT make a concerted play on the puck, there is close to zero risk of injury.

If Campbell decides to make a quick, limited play on the puck (eg. chipping it behind the net) while bracing for the hit and pulling alongside the boards, there is a very low risk of injury.

What he did put him at a maximum risk of injury.

This isn't analagous to "short skirt got her raped" - more like not wearing a seatbelt when you're in a car accident. No seatbelt means some assumption of risk.

Result: blame Ovechkin for the hit, recognise that he could have made it much worse; recognise equally that Campbell did in fact make it worse.

[chippa13 1844]

So Campbell should have hot potatoed it because Ovechkin is too dumb to know not to hit in that dangerous area? Ok, got it. I'll remember that the next time I'm coaching.

"Ok, defense, here's the drill. If you win a race for the puck then do not, I repeat, do not try to make a play to maintain possession. The player behind you is going to hit you from behind if you do."

[WSjo22 1]

Don't want to get into a pissing contest, just want to make a couple points no one has mentioned..... You can't decipher intent from watching a video but it's hard to not say the intent wasn't there from Ovi when he could take two more strides with Campbell and ride him into the wall behind the net and still finish his hit.

I think Cooke should have been suspended as well so I'll throw his hit in with this hit by Ovi. What do these two hits accomplish? Cooke hits Savard while he's in his follow through of his shot, if Cooke skates by him and doesn't annihilate Savard does it change the sequence of events in the play? Same thing with Ovi's hit on Campbell, what does that accomplish in the sequence of the Game? When you look at the Richards hit on Booth, I'm not saying it was dirty or clean just and observation, but he just completes a pass at the blueline if Richards lets him go and Booth crashes the net like most NHL'ers would and puts one in the back of the net whos fault is it? This is one point that I never see brought up in the arguments is the point or context of the game in which these questionable hits happen

[hockeysc23 0]

So Campbell should have hot potatoed it because Ovechkin is too dumb to know not to hit in that dangerous area? Ok, got it. I'll remember that the next time I'm coaching.

"Ok, defense, here's the drill. If you win a race for the puck then do not, I repeat, do not try to make a play to maintain possession. The player behind you is going to hit you from behind if you do."

But you can tell your players to raise their elbows and target people's head because that is not a punishable offense on the ice or suspended off of it ... got it.

[chippa13 1844]

If Cooke just goes shoulder to shoulder with Savard then nobody has a problem with the hit. That is just hockey. Although the Richards hit on Booth was a bit later, still the same thing, he puts his shoulder on Booth's and nobody is talking about it 5 months later.

But you can tell your players to raise their elbows and target people's head because that is not a punishable offense on the ice or suspended off of it ... got it.

That would be tough for any players I've coached as I taught them to be lifting the opponent's stick while putting their shoulder into the opponent. Unless the other guy's head is around his waist, it would be tough to catch them with an elbow.