Torts Suspended For 15 Days; Bob Hartley Fined $25,000

[elocomotive]

Really can't make a case against Hartley because it's all assumption. The reason I make assumption is based on his comments that "they were playing well". I find it hilarious that the NHL takes this more seriously than what players actually do.

That's an excellent point, Pix. We're going to allow and endorse fighting, but if you're not subtle about it.. suspension!

I look forward to the day when fighting is banned in the NHL. 15 years tops. Looking like less all the time.

 

[TiLoBrown]

That's a good question JR...

"Did Hartley get fined $25,000 because he started his 4th liners? So if the next team starts their 4th liners against the Canucks, will their head coach get fined $25,000?"

This is what I want to know. The Devils routinely start their 4th line because they're the only ones with speed, and they do throw their bodies around. Fuck, we were in the first Torts line brawl, but since it was NJ nothing was made of it.

 

[SLY]

That's an excellent point, Pix. We're going to allow and endorse fighting, but if you're not subtle about it.. suspension!

I look forward to the day when fighting is banned in the NHL. 15 years tops. Looking like less all the time.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Yeah. Every time Richards send out Boll he risks 15 days off. Good thing the meat head is hurt.




That's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.



I don't get 15 days vs 15 games. Why is it different for coaches? A suspended player is not allowed to practice or travel with the team while on suspension, correct? Seems like a weird thing to get all semantic-y on. Should be an X number of Games thing for consistency. But then again, consistency is not something the discipline squad is very good at.



I do. It's how I get my free Boomer Plush coupons.

That could go back to the earlier question of how coaches are paid. Players get paid for games only, if I'm not mistaken, so suspending them for games is the only way to accurately affect how much they lose.

But if coaches get paid for all days, either during the season only or on a 365 basis, suspending him for games only wouldn't hit him as hard.

 

[forty_three]

if they had started their 4th liners and had a good hard forchecking shift, we're all good.
immediate gongshow shows intent pretty clearly.

I would like to see the punishments for staged fights be a little more severe.

Question, did Torts change his players before the drop? I thought I had heard that. So Hartley put his fourth line out there, expecting to face the Sedins and then Torts with last change put out who he put out (probably with some kind, gentle words to accompany it).

 

[dash]

I would like to see the punishments for staged fights be a little more severe.

Question, did Torts change his players before the drop? I thought I had heard that. So Hartley put his fourth line out there, expecting to face the Sedins and then Torts with last change put out who he put out (probably with some kind, gentle words to accompany it).

No, Torts didn't change the guys on the ice for the opening draw, although Bieksa moved into the face-off circle to take his first NHL face-off of his career (he won it as well, straight back).

/And my question earlier was a little bit facetious, I knew Hartley would be getting something as the optics of what happened Saturday night were not good. However, I also believe that if Torts throws the Sedins and Burrows out there for the opening face-off, I don't think we see any fisticuffs (we probably would have seen some later, sure, but McGrattan and Westgarth wouldn't have jumped the Sedins).

 

[forty_three]

No, Torts didn't change the guys on the ice for the opening draw, although Bieksa moved into the face-off circle to take his first NHL face-off of his career (he won it as well, straight back).

/And my question earlier was a little bit facetious, I knew Hartley would be getting something as the optics of what happened Saturday night were not good. However, I also believe that if Torts throws the Sedins and Burrows out there for the opening face-off, I don't think we see any fisticuffs (we probably would have seen some later, sure, but McGrattan and Westgarth wouldn't have jumped the Sedins).

OK, I thought in the early reports that I heard that Torts put that line out there when he saw Grats and Westgarth out there.

I would love to know what kind of yapping was going on beforehand.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

OK, I thought in the early reports that I heard that Torts put that line out there when he saw Grats and Westgarth out there.

I would love to know what kind of yapping was going on beforehand.

I think he saw the starting lineup ahead of time and used that to determine his starting lineup. He also had the option to change it, since, just like a line change, the visitors have to set their starting lineup first.

 

[forty_three]

From today's Dispatch:

--Here’s Richards on if he’d ever considered a Tortorellian foray into an opponent’s locker-room territory: “I know my own toughness. That would be suicide, doing that. That never once has ever crossed my mind.”

 

[Nasty_Magician]

This ruling Hartley seems fair...

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Tom Harrington ‏@cbctom ·7m
Maybe this has come up in the Tortorella Affair but why didn't officials send Calgary's line back to the bench, knowing what was coming?

Kerry Fraser:

The referee is expected to execute his duties as a 'reactionary' arbitrator. He must determine when a violation of the rules has been committed and then raise his arm to assess the appropriate penalty. There is nothing within the playing rules that prevents either coach from placing their fourth liners on the ice to start the game. As the visiting team, Flames coach Bob Hartley must provide his starting lineup to the Official Scorer first. This generally takes place following the pre-game warm-up.

As the home team coach, John Tortorella had the option to counter with a starting lineup selection of his choice. 'Torts' accepted the challenge from Hartley and chose to match "beef for beef"! Both coaches must accept the consequences of their players' actions, premeditated or otherwise.

All hands of the officiating crew were on deck as they observed the tell-tale signs as to what was about to occur the instant the puck was dropped. Players extended menacing looks, 'chatted' each other up as they assumed their positions, gloves shook on hands to make sure they came off quickly and Canuck defenceman Kevin Bieksa offered a word with Flames starting centre Kevin Westgarth before switching positions with Canucks starting center, 6'6' rookie Kellan Lain. Referee Dave Jackson was privy to all of this and delayed the puck drop after providing some instructions of his own.

At this point in the posturing that took place, I am going to step well outside of the expected referee protocol. I suspect many will disagree with the proactive intervention that I am about to suggest. (Know that I have utilized something similar when situations called for it). While many of you might have even enjoyed watching the line brawl that took place, I personally didn't like the 'staged' event that forced players to initiate and others to defend themselves as a result of coaching decisions and perhaps even instructions.

Prior to even thinking about dropping the puck, I would bring the other officials to centre ice for a conference and ask the linesmen to escort both starting lineups to their respective players' bench. I would speak to Bob Hartley first (with my ref partner) and read him the riot act. I would promise (not threaten) that if a brawl erupted, we would identify the instigators from either team and eject them from the game.

Additionally, I would offer the coach a moment, before we started the game, to instruct his players to exhibit restraint once I dropped the puck and to just play! If they did not comply with this request and a brawl resulted, I would hold the coach responsible and eject him from the game as well! The final thing I would do is allow the coach to make a change in his starting lineup if he wished.

The very same discussion would be held with John Tortorella at the Canucks bench and if Hartley made a change in his starting lineup, 'Torts' could counter the move. These are pretty drastic measures, for sure. Would I do it in the best interest of the game? You're damn right! If a line brawl erupted following the discussion with both coaches and their players, I would make good on my "promise". The battle lines would have been drawn before the puck drop.

Following the brawl, Tortorella understandably lost his mind on Hartley, perhaps forgetting that he also had a hand in placing a starting lineup on the ice. This would have been a perfect time to eject both coaches from the game in addition to the players that got an early shower.

Once the period ended, assuming the referees observed what took place in the hallway outside of the Calgary dressing room that was captured on camera, Tortorella should have been ejected from the game for his conduct. The officials would be required to submit a full report to the commissioner immediately following the game with regard to the line brawl and their account of the incident in the hallway.

Hefty fines and even suspensions should result from this ugly incident.





I take issue with the whole "reactionary arbitrator" aspect of Frasers argument. If the referees indeed saw all (or most) of the players jawing at each other and chirping as they lined up for the faceoff ... theres your chance to be reactionary ... right there ... 10 minute misconducts right off the bat, before the puck is dropped

 

[dash]

Thanks for that find, jstew (good read). Actually, the refs also blew it when Torts wasn't ejected from the game for his first period jaunt to the Flames dressing room (somebody made mention of it on the radio yesterday, but I don't know who it was). There is a rule in the NHL rulebook that covers this though.

 

[forty_three]

Tom Harrington ‏@cbctom ·7m
Maybe this has come up in the Tortorella Affair but why didn't officials send Calgary's line back to the bench, knowing what was coming?

Did someone actually ask that?

Really? You want the refs to interfere MORE with game play?

"I'm sorry, coach. But I'm not going to let you play that line."

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Thanks for that find, jstew (good read). Actually, the refs also blew it when Torts wasn't ejected from the game for his first period jaunt to the Flames dressing room (somebody made mention of it on the radio yesterday, but I don't know who it was). There is a rule in the NHL rulebook that covers this though.

assuming the referees observed what took place in the hallway

they were nowhere to be seen in the video ... theres arena operations people and security people but no refs ... do refs have communication with the war room in toronto? idk ... can a coach be kicked out of a game based on video evidence?

they didnt see it ... so they cant call it imo ...

 

[forty_three]

assuming the referees observed what took place in the hallway

they were nowhere to be seen in the video ... theres arena operations people and security people but no refs ... do refs have communication with the war room in toronto? idk ... can a coach be kicked out of a game based on video evidence?

they didnt see it ... so they cant call it imo ...

Well, yeah. But as soon as he comes onto the bench and drops a water bottle or uses an F-bomb they can boot him.

They knew what he did.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Did someone actually ask that?

Really? You want the refs to interfere MORE with game play?

"I'm sorry, coach. But I'm not going to let you play that line."

i think its a poorly worded question by Tom ... the sentiment Im getting at is why didnt the refs penalize these players prior to what happened ... I think penalties were warranted. Theyve given out 10 minute misconducts before for perceived threats of a fight about to be started by a player

and I dont even agree with Kerry frasers response of basically stopping the proceedings and escorting players to benches and dressing down Hartley and Tortorella

thats pure showmanship ... Im not surprised it was suggested by Fraser (or was it his hair that made that suggestion)

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Agree with u

Nhl should do better than using the term "player selection" but i guess if you throw intent (ie coach intended for his players to fight) youre publically opening some serious liability issues in this day

For sure. What's next? Just dressing a goon in a game will become punishable? That's.... wait...

That's awesome!!

 

[forty_three]

i think its a poorly worded question by Tom ... the sentiment Im getting at is why didnt the refs penalize these players prior to what happened ... I think penalties were warranted. Theyve given out 10 minute misconducts before for perceived threats of a fight about to be started by a player

and I dont even agree with Kerry frasers response of basically stopping the proceedings and escorting players to benches and dressing down Hartley and Tortorella

thats pure showmanship ... Im not surprised it was suggested by Fraser (or was it his hair that made that suggestion)

Ah. I see what you're saying. At first I was pretty shocked someone would even think it the way I read it.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Well, yeah. But as soon as he comes onto the bench and drops a water bottle or uses an F-bomb they can boot him.

They knew what he did.

how do you know on the bold ... and for all we know Torts was an angel for the rest of the game after the incident

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

So does this mean Sully is in the interim coach?