The 2009-2010 Suspension Thread

[Chadd 916]

So does Ovie get a suspension for the hit from behind? I say he should get a game or two considering this is his second offense.

Did you see the hit? He hit the shoulder .... shouldn't have even been a game misconduct at all.

The video I saw didn't look bad but it was a bad angle and just a quick clip. Hard to say until I see a better angle.

[hockeysc23 0]

So does Ovie get a suspension for the hit from behind? I say he should get a game or two considering this is his second offense.

Did you see the hit? He hit the shoulder .... shouldn't have even been a game misconduct at all.

The video I saw didn't look bad but it was a bad angle and just a quick clip. Hard to say until I see a better angle.

[Mike92 0]

Kinda close, looked like he was gonna hit full on shoulder but kaleta turned as he initiated the hit. Maybe a little bit of a charge if anything, I'd call it even with the misconduct.

[camhockey16 5]

kinda looks like he jumped into the hit though - i still can't make up my mind what i think..

didn't want to make a new topic but did anyone else catch alfredsson throwing his stick at langenbrunner when he was going for the empty net?

for some reason i've never liked alfredsson and this just gives me another reason..

[Chadd 916]

I have no problem with a four or five for the hit, but I can't see a suspension given the recent history.

[GimpIndustries 1]

I'm with Chadd on this, I don't agree with the suspension.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

Kaleta has to do a better job protecting himself as well though. He picks his head up and looks around before passing the puck. You gotta know he's going to hit you. That being said, based on the hit its self, id say its borderline. But because its OV, i would be shocked if they suspended him for this. If the hit was square on the back instead of from the back/side then i could see a small suspension. The NHL will not suspend its superstars for any long period of time. Period.

[Skoda10 14]

Doesn't look worthy of a suspension to me. Boarding, yup, charging, probably, but getting the gate, probably a little much.

Isn't a 5 and a game supposed to be a automatic one game? Not that the NHL ever feels bound by it's own rulebook. Or am I making that up?

[Chadd 916]

Doesn't look worthy of a suspension to me. Boarding, yup, charging, probably, but getting the gate, probably a little much.

Isn't a 5 and a game supposed to be a automatic one game? Not that the NHL ever feels bound by it's own rulebook. Or am I making that up?

No, that is only for USA Hockey, not the NHL

[hockeyfreak7 0]

definitely not worthy of a suspension.

he wasnt going in with the intention of hitting his back..it was an awkward situation for kaleta. he got knocked back diagonally into the boards.

give him boarding or charging...or even a 5 minute major for either. but not worthy of a suspension. this case doesnt have anything to do with ovi being a star.

[EBondo 233]

this case doesnt have anything to do with ovi being a star.

But the fact that he is would still play in to any decision-making process there could be.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

it'd be 5+ if it wasnt who he is.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

this case doesnt have anything to do with ovi being a star.

But the fact that he is would still play in to any decision-making process there could be.

thats true...but i dont understand why that is relevant considering this shouldnt be a suspension...

[Chadd 916]

it'd be 5+ if it wasnt who he is.

Have you been drinking tonight? Even as heavy handed as I would be with the suspensions, I can't see anything that warrants a single game.

[lee92 2]

With the few replays I've seen of OV's hit, it doesn't look suspendable to me. If it had been open ice as opposed to the awkward distance to the boards, I doubt he would of been ejected. I could still see one game coming out of it, just for how Kaleta went into the boards/glass face first, even though it wasn't a direct hit from behind.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

it'd be 5+ if it wasnt who he is.

Have you been drinking tonight? Even as heavy handed as I would be with the suspensions, I can't see anything that warrants a single game.

distance traveled 40+ ft, from behindish, no intent to play the puck, unnecessary check.... injury to the face. the criteria Campbell claims to use are there.

i 100% agree that there have been worse checks this season, but people are getting pissy about suspensions again, and usually if theres a hit like this, they'll do 5 or more. Chris Simon, 10+;Pronger, 3; Avery, 6; Steve Ott, 5; Ovechkin 0-1.

just trying to apply league logic.

[KingPest19 0]

And Kaleta just gets a Flyers player in a hit thats similar to Liambas on Fanelli in the aspect of how contact was made. Ross turns playing the puck and Kaleta catches him on the back of the shoulder and drives him into the boards.

[PBRyan 0]

You'd think as the "victim" of the Ovechkin hit, Kaleta'd be wary. Anyways, that didn't take long.

[Mike92 0]

My problem with Kaleta in this is it looks like he sees ovy coming, and starts to turn away.

[n3ss 0]

the guy didn't even get hurt from the hit did he? I'm not saying it was a totally clean hit but it looked shoulder to shoulder.. he just fell face first into the boards.

If ovi deserves 5+ then laraque should be out the rest of the season.

[fieldofdreams 0]

the guy didn't even get hurt from the hit did he?

I think you're missing the point here, bud. The problem is that Colon has been suspending people solely on the RESULT of the infraction, and not the infraction itself. It shouldn't, emphasis on shouldn't, matter whether or not the person is injured.

[Chadd 916]

the guy didn't even get hurt from the hit did he? I'm not saying it was a totally clean hit but it looked shoulder to shoulder.. he just fell face first into the boards.

If ovi deserves 5+ then laraque should be out the rest of the season.

The Flyers player did not return to the game if I remember correctly.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

it'd be 5+ if it wasnt who he is.

Have you been drinking tonight? Even as heavy handed as I would be with the suspensions, I can't see anything that warrants a single game.

distance traveled 40+ ft, from behindish, no intent to play the puck, unnecessary check.... injury to the face. the criteria Campbell claims to use are there.

this logic is ridiculous. unnecessary check? no intent to play the puck? you can make that argument for EVERY hit that is thrown over the course of the game. and also...find me the part in the rules where "distance traveled" is a factor in making calls. as long as he doesnt jump into the hit..that means nothing...

regarding the kaleta hit on ross-

i also do not think this is worthy of a suspension. ross should have been aware of the vulnerable position he was in on the ice. his vulnerability is only compounded by him turning at the exact time that he should not have. you could make the case that it was a board..and i would probably agree..but he got 5 and the game so i think he served his time already.

[EBondo 233]

the guy didn't even get hurt from the hit did he? I'm not saying it was a totally clean hit but it looked shoulder to shoulder.. he just fell face first into the boards.

If ovi deserves 5+ then laraque should be out the rest of the season.

The Flyers player did not return to the game if I remember correctly.

Correct. He made the trip to Atlanta for today's game, but still is questionable. Jon Kalinski was called up from the Phantoms just in case.

[Krev 86]

it'd be 5+ if it wasnt who he is.

Have you been drinking tonight? Even as heavy handed as I would be with the suspensions, I can't see anything that warrants a single game.

distance traveled 40+ ft, from behindish, no intent to play the puck, unnecessary check.... injury to the face. the criteria Campbell claims to use are there.

this logic is ridiculous. unnecessary check? no intent to play the puck? you can make that argument for EVERY hit that is thrown over the course of the game. and also...find me the part in the rules where "distance traveled" is a factor in making calls. as long as he doesnt jump into the hit..that means nothing...

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

You really need to think before you speak, hockeyfreak. <_<