2013 Shanaban thread

[jstewismybastardson]

That might be the first - and last - time that Zac Rinaldo gets compared to David Backes.

I bet Kelly has made the comparison before ... shes a great girl


/OH MY GOD!!!

 

[forty_three]

That might be the first - and last - time that Zac Rinaldo gets compared to David Backes.

lol

Myyyy job is done here.

 

[forty_three]

This should be something the league looks at. Look at how far Neil comes to make the hit, even going around one of his teammates. That is not his hit/check to make.

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Another dirty fucking scumbag I can't stand, Chris Neil. But he wont be suspended, as usual.

Rinaldo, should get 10, will only get 2. Wont surprise me.

 

[forty_three]

Another dirty fucking scumbag I can't stand, Chris Neil. But he wont be suspended, as usual.

Rinaldo, should get 10, will only get 2. Wont surprise me.

10? How do you figure? Or is that with adding the mandatory 8 extra games for wearing orange rule?

Two or three given the game situation for Rinaldo. And the league will not even look at the Neil hit. But withing the mass hallucination that is "player safety" I think it is something that should be addressed. Targeting.

There were two incidents in the Jackets game last night. Carkner kept following and jabbing at Calvert and Matty dropped gloves before instantaneously realizing what a horrible mistake he'd made and turtling. Carkner got a double minor and that was it. Next period, Boll followed Carkner around and eventually got him to go. That targeting shit needs to stop.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Another dirty fucking scumbag I can't stand, Chris Neil. But he wont be suspended, as usual.

Rinaldo, should get 10, will only get 2. Wont surprise me.

Of course you would say 10 games, nobody else has said that

At the most he should get the rest of the regular season(4 games) - when you compare that hit to other hits that's a reasonable amount of games - he knows what he did wrong and he'll pay, but he's not getting 10 so forget about that

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Of course you would say 10 games, nobody else has said that

At the most he should get the rest of the regular season(4 games) - when you compare that hit to other hits that's a reasonable amount of games - he knows what he did wrong and he'll pay, but he's not getting 10 so forget about that

There's one fatal flaw in your analysis though: it assumes that the league makes any damn sense whatsoever when they hand out suspensions.

 

[Cobiemonster]

There's one fatal flaw in your analysis though: it assumes that the league makes any damn sense whatsoever when they hand out suspensions.

I haven't seen the league give out lengthy suspensions for hits that could be deemed like that this season so until they do I can't really say that they would give him a lot of games for a hit like that

I mean, we can sit here and say, "That hit deserves 10 games" or "That hit deserves 10 games" but at the end of the day, if they're not giving 10 games for the hit, then is it really worthy of that amount of games, even if the league's way of suspending players is flawed?

The league isn't going to give players lengthy suspensions unless they do something really dumb as fuck(for example, Shawn Thornton) - because then if they set the precedent for a player on a hit that has varied opinions, they're going to have to do that for every player in every situation going forward

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I haven't seen the league give out lengthy suspensions for hits that could be deemed like that this season so until they do I can't really say that they would give him a lot of games for a hit like that

I mean, we can sit here and say, "That hit deserves 10 games" or "That hit deserves 10 games" but at the end of the day, if they're not giving 10 games for the hit, then is it really worthy of that amount of games, even if the league's way of suspending players is flawed?

The league isn't going to give players lengthy suspensions unless they do something really dumb as fuck(for example, Shawn Thornton) - because then if they set the precedent for a player on a hit that has varied opinions, they're going to have to do that for every player in every situation going forward

Yes. The system is horrible.

After the Lucic/Miller incident, approximately 2/3 of the league's GMs said the hit should have been suspendable, yet no suspension came about.

I've not found a definite source, but what % of the GMs think there should have been a suspension when Cooke ended Savard's career? That hit resulted in rule changes even.

Kerry Fraser believed Niederreiter should have been suspended and wasn't.

The list goes on and on. And yet, here we are.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Yes. The system is horrible.

After the Lucic/Miller incident, approximately 2/3 of the league's GMs said the hit should have been suspendable, yet no suspension came about.

I've not found a definite source, but what % of the GMs think there should have been a suspension when Cooke ended Savard's career? That hit resulted in rule changes even.

Kerry Fraser believed Niederreiter should have been suspended and wasn't.

The list goes on and on. And yet, here we are.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that stuff, but as far as the Zac Rinaldo hit goes, some people think it's worth 2-3-4 games, some think 10 games - we can all agree it's suspension worthy, but when there are varying opinions on the hit, it's hard to say that it would be worth that many games

There are instances where players should be suspended and they're not and that's always going to happen, but my point is that if people think the league is going to suspend players for 10 games with hits like that, it won't happen because the league doesn't want to set a precedent on one player and then have to answer the bell for every hit just like that, because what if a star player delivers that hit? Would the league be prepared to suspend a star player that you know helps at the gate, for that many games?

 

[awaz]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that stuff, but as far as the Zac Rinaldo hit goes, some people think it's worth 2-3-4 games, some think 10 games - we can all agree it's suspension worthy, but when there are varying opinions on the hit, it's hard to say that it would be worth that many games

There are instances where players should be suspended and they're not and that's always going to happen, but my point is that if people think the league is going to suspend players for 10 games with hits like that, it won't happen because the league doesn't want to set a precedent on one player and then have to answer the bell for every hit just like that, because what if a star player delivers that hit? Would the league be prepared to suspend a star player that you know helps at the gate, for that many games?

i dont think the NHL cares about precedence. rinaldo could elbow drop ovechkin in the jugular and get a season long suspension. if ovechkin turns around and does that to rinaldo, it's probably 5 games. the NHL doesn't care about precedence, they care about the result of the hit, the perceived intent of the hit, and the player who threw it.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that stuff, but as far as the Zac Rinaldo hit goes, some people think it's worth 2-3-4 games, some think 10 games - we can all agree it's suspension worthy, but when there are varying opinions on the hit, it's hard to say that it would be worth that many games

There are instances where players should be suspended and they're not and that's always going to happen, but my point is that if people think the league is going to suspend players for 10 games with hits like that, it won't happen because the league doesn't want to set a precedent on one player and then have to answer the bell for every hit just like that, because what if a star player delivers that hit? Would the league be prepared to suspend a star player that you know helps at the gate, for that many games?

Hard to tell in writing what your opinion on that is. Are you saying they shouldn't suspend a star player based on that precedent, or pointing out that they won't?

 

[dash]

There are instances where players should be suspended and they're not and that's always going to happen, but my point is that if people think the league is going to suspend players for 10 games with hits like that, it won't happen because the league doesn't want to set a precedent on one player and then have to answer the bell for every hit just like that, because what if a star player delivers that hit? Would the league be prepared to suspend a star player that you know helps at the gate, for that many games?

Actually, I believe Shanny tried to set a much firmer precedent right out of the gate when he took the job when he suspended Wizniewski for the rest of the pre-season plus eight regular season games for this hit:


What followed I believe is some backroom conversations between high ranking executives and Shanny basically informing Shanahan that he needed to tone down the length of suspensions going forward. Of course, this is just speculation on my part.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Hard to tell in writing what your opinion on that is. Are you saying they shouldn't suspend a star player based on that precedent, or pointing out that they won't?

I'm pointing out that they won't, because me, like many others wanted James Neal's suspension to be longer than what it was because we knew how sneaky dirty he was

 

[Cobiemonster]

i dont think the NHL cares about precedence. rinaldo could elbow drop ovechkin in the jugular and get a season long suspension. if ovechkin turns around and does that to rinaldo, it's probably 5 games. the NHL doesn't care about precedence, they care about the result of the hit, the perceived intent of the hit, and the player who threw it.

That's my point though, the NHL needs to set a precedence and suspend players for hits whether they're star players or not - it shouldn't really matter who throws the hit - they know that certain players have more fine lines than others so they put that in play when they determine suspensions

 

[Cobiemonster]

Actually, I believe Shanny tried to set a much firmer precedent right out of the gate when he took the job when he suspended Wizniewski for the rest of the pre-season plus eight regular season games for this hit:


What followed I believe is some backroom conversations between high ranking executives and Shanny basically informing Shanahan that he needed to tone down the length of suspensions going forward. Of course, this is just speculation on my part.

I agree with you on that, they started off stiff and then ever since it's been horrible

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I'm pointing out that they won't, because me, like many others wanted James Neal's suspension to be longer than what it was because we knew how sneaky dirty he was

Gotcha. Like I said, couldn't tell what your opinion was. Thought for a second you were saying the league shouldn't suspend star players the same way.

That would have really :ss:

 

[evolver115]

I'm glad you did I was taking my morning dump and was hoping for something to read.


Well you got it he deserves to be suspended, see that's called an unbiased assessment. I have no issue admitting that but he did score so maybe he'll get off Scott free under the "Neal rule".

Sounds about right. Read about a shit while taking one.





And for the record, I never defended Neal, nor did I ever say he deserved anything less either in scrutiny or in discipline.

 

[forty_three]

Actually, I believe Shanny tried to set a much firmer precedent right out of the gate when he took the job when he suspended Wizniewski for the rest of the pre-season plus eight regular season games for this hit:


What followed I believe is some backroom conversations between high ranking executives and Shanny basically informing Shanahan that he needed to tone down the length of suspensions going forward. Of course, this is just speculation on my part.

Still pisses me off like few events in sport ever have.


The problem they have in quantifying appropriate punishment is the only angle they are looking at is from a player's perspective. And the guy they have doing it has prejudices and biases and was also a bit of a nasty cuss in his day. Double fail.

They need to have the input of the three areas of the game affected when a dangerous play happens. The players, the officials and the GMs.

The player can look at the style of play of both involved and the history between the two. They can review the game situation and weight all that in. In the Rinaldo case, he's a pest who rarely crosses the line and this time he crossed it big time. What kind of message should he get?

The Official can look at it in the context of the whole game setting and whether or not the on ice crew had control of the game or not? Was the play a direct result of something the on ice crew missed? Does it appear to be pre-meditated headhunting, carelessness or a reaction to something that should have been stopped before? In the Rinaldo case it was completely unnecessary at that time to make that hit. What kind of message needs sent?

The GM can review based on what it means to each team, and whether or not either coach was egging the situation on. What does each team lose with injury or suspension? Does the team getting the suspension deserve to be punished as much as the team taking in the injury?

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

10? How do you figure? Or is that with adding the mandatory 8 extra games for wearing orange rule?

Two or three given the game situation for Rinaldo. And the league will not even look at the Neil hit. But withing the mass hallucination that is "player safety" I think it is something that should be addressed. Targeting.

There were two incidents in the Jackets game last night. Carkner kept following and jabbing at Calvert and Matty dropped gloves before instantaneously realizing what a horrible mistake he'd made and turtling. Carkner got a double minor and that was it. Next period, Boll followed Carkner around and eventually got him to go. That targeting shit needs to stop.

Not just cause he's a Flyer. It was the intent, it very well looked like it was done on purpose, left the ice, went up high and in a 4-0 game

Unless somebody wants to debate that as well?