toby91_ca

Here are the facts: - no one can know the intent, anyone suggesting Chara purposely put him into the stantion or anyone suggesting it was purely an accident are simply wrong, they really don't know one way or another. There is no way the video can show this. - if the player did not get hurt like he did, it would be a 2 minute penalty and no one would be talking about this at all. Because he got hurt, I agree that they probably needed to assess a major and game. My opinion, I think "results", meaning whether the player is hurt and extent of injury should be factored in to any discipline, but I think it is getting too much weight. I would place more weight on the act itself and in this case, it's hard to judge. I'd probably give him 2 games (simply because of the result). If you compare the Bertuzzi incident to what that Islanders player did against the Pens (not Gillies), it's not all that different, but the results were. Bertuzzi got signficant time (some pleaded for life time ban or longer than what he got) and the Islanders player only got 3-4 games I think. In those situations, I agree for longer time for Bertuzzi because of factoring in results, but I wouldn't place as much weight on that as they currently do.

Actually, if you look closely, you'll see the linesman's arm push the punch upwards, causing the errant punch.

Not to offend anyone, but those stats and the rationale for determining them, in my opinion, is absurd.

Wow! I'm not even sure what to say, but I'll try. I'd call a boarding penalty on Clutterbuck, but the hit wasn't that bad at all. The Isles player was skating up the ice when Clutterbuck committed to the hit and then the Isles player lost control of the puck, looked down and turned towards the boards. Clutterbuck even looks to let up on the hit. You have to blame Clutterbuck here, but those are tough hits to avoid at times and happen on the time. I highly doubt any player sticking up for a rookie woudl decide the best course of action would be to jump into the guy, with elbows up and drive the guy's head into the glass. Gillies will get extra time because he's a repeat offender and because he was literally 2 minutes into coming back from a 9 game suspension for the same thing, but if a guy like Lidstrom did the same thing, he'd get suspended too. However, that's a mute point because we all know that Lidstrom would never do that.

That doesn't make sense to me. What a player did in their career as a player shouldn't result in any limitations on their ability to assess whehter a player's actionas are "okay" or not, or suspension worthy. Also, when you are talking about hits to the head, the game has changed immensely, even over the past 10 years. Knowing what everyone now knows about head injuries, these types of hits are the most high profile now and ones that no one wants to be in the game. So, Mr. Hockey threw elbows all the time back in the day.....I'd have no problem with him not wanting to see players do it today. It's almost like saying murderer can't suggest another murderer has done something wrong.

I understand the reason, but I would certainly hope it has no bearing at all in length of suspension. I'd prefer the response to be a nice clean body check that hurts, but I'd also accept him taking an instigator penatly and lay a beat down on the guy. To do what he did though, is just stupid and exactly what the league is trying to get rid of.

Cooke always gets 2 games for what? Since his hit on Savard, which was clean at the time, but ended up causing a new rule to be created, he hasn't delievered any head shots, so there is really nothing to compare. Gillies hits were against the rules even before the new rule, since they were both elbows to the head. If the NHL truly wants to take head shots out of the game and show they mean business, there will be a serious suspension, but I worry there won't be. Oh, on whether the Clutterbuck hit was clean or not....who cares? That's a separate incicident, which should be treated separately.

That was my thinking. Not only was it his first game back, it was his second shift I think. I didn't think to much about it, but if Clutterbuck is not hurt, then the suspension would likely be minimized, which would be wrong in this case if you ask me. There are several other dirty players that have gotten suspended for less games, but I disagree in that several others were worse hits. The NHL has to start taking head shots way more seriously and with the high profile this issue has become, I have to believe he'll get something substantial. To me, going back to his 9 game suspension, he threw and incredibly dirty elbow, concussed the player, who was essentailly knocked out and he then proceeds to pummel him with punches, followed up by him standing at the door taunting him as he lays on the ice. What the hell is that? This is a guy who is 32 years old and has 2 "career" points in the NHL. What is the point of having this guy in the league. You can compare him to Cooke as well, who is just as much of a piece of crap, but at least Cooke can play a little bit. WARNING....I'm not making that comment suggesting Gillies should get more games than a guy like Cooke simply because Cooke is a better player, I'm simply wondering why Gillies is in the game to begin with.

So, awhile back, this was a name that had to be in the discussion when talking about Norris (as I and perhaps many others here look into now and then as a reference to Lidstrom). Letang was up there in scoring top 2 among defensemen and I think his +/- was blowing every other top 10 scoring dman out of the water. I never thought he had any chance of winning, but with those stats, he had to be in the discussion and it was Lidstrom's +/- that was a bit of a question for him. Fast forward a couple months, Letang is still hanging around a bit in terms of scoring (he's dropping though) and his +/- is still far better than the rest, but it's dropping fast. I still think Letang is a pretty good defenseman, but has he been a bit exposed since Crosby went down? Was he riding Crosby's coattails a bit? Again, still pretty good, but if I'm a voter, he's no longer in my consideration for top 3 votes. This is why stats can be a bit deceiving sometimes. Letang has 46 pts compared to Lidstrom's 49 and is a +13 compared to Lidstrom's -1, but Lidstrom is way ahead on my voting list at this point, simply because it doesn't look like Letang is entirely legit without Crosby. Stats before Crosby went down: 41GP, 36PTS, +23 Stats after Crosby went down: 23GP, 10PT, -10

Since you obviously know there is no roster limit come playoffs, what is the signficance of naming a 23 man roster? You can't dress 23 players.

There are still two, both will turn 110 in the next week or so.

What Gilles and Martin did were pretty disgusting, but other than that, I love a good fight or beatdown. I thought both deserved longer suspensions than what they got.

To me, it looked like a classic backside pressure/lateral/blindside hit, fits almost prefectly into how the rule was written. Some might even argue that his eblow came up, but it's hard to tell whether that was just follow through or not.

I'm not sure I can find much that's "clean" about that hit.

Wow, why would anyone even write a blog about this, have they nothing else to talk about?

An elbow to the mouth is not legal, which is what Prust did to Staal.

I thought he was looking right at Staal, I'm probably wrong though, I'll watch the video again. But....there is no way Prust got his bell rung...impossible. It's almost as if the punch didn't even touch Prust. And Prust was laughing on the way to the bench? Edit: Okay, I watched it again and I still think Prust was looking right at Staal when he got punched, so I don't see it as much of a sucker punch. Also, what I missed the first time I saw the video was a pretty good elbow thrown at Staal's head. That's probably what caused Staal to throw the punch. No excuse for a sucker punch though, but I still don't fully buy that it was a sucker punch.

Contrary to what some may think, the New Jersey Devils team is actually a pretty valuable franchise. It's probably in the top half of the league in terms of value. Just because someone wants to sell, it doesn't mean the franchise is in trouble. This is not the same scenario as Phoenix, Atlanta, NYI, etc.

Let's be real here, the question should be whether it was a sucker punch or not, not whether Prust dove and acted, that much is obvious. If what someone else on here said that they heard Prust suggested he went down because he was surprised by the punch, well, I can half buy falling down because of that, but not lying on the ice for as long as he did.

I'm not sure if it was much of a sucker punch at all, they players were scuffling and Staal responded with a punch. Both guys were facing each other and roughing each other up. Staal has been suspended for 1 game (automatic because of the match penalty). The only way he avoids suspsension now is if the league deems the call on the ice unjustified. I didn't watch the game though, wondering what the announcers had to say. While I can understand seeing a sucker punch, it obviously wasn't that nasty, wondering if you think it's a sucker punch, it's automaticlly a match penatly? I guarantee you this, if Prust didn't put on the acting show, Staal probably escapes with just a 2 minute roughing penalty.

What are you basing this on? The majority of the players that play against both of these guys disagree with you. For what it is worth, in terms of pure intelligence, Crosby was a straight A student.

Chara had 44% of the vote, Weber has 41%, doesn't leave much for the rest of the league. As far as the few wondering about Lidstrom not being the smartest, he was #3 behind Crosby and Dats.

Actually, if he gets healthy and playing well, he could be pretty attrative at the deadline for a team looking for an experienced goalie. His salary is an absolute non-issue. There won't be much left on his salary come the deadline and he's a free agent at the end of the season. There are only two issues regarding his trade value: 1. - needs of other teams 2. - his health

Odd, odd choices if you ask me. St. Louis, fine, just because he's an older guy, but I don't see him as much of a leader. Kesler is an okay choice I guess, but Kane and Green? That's just strange.

I haven't even looked at the video, so my comments are more general in nature. I would say that 99% of the time, in such a situation, the call on the ice will stand. If he called a no goal, the NHL wouldn't have overturned it and they probably would have even come to that conclusion quicker. The issue with batting the puck in with a high stick, different angles can really make the height of the puck look different, it's actually pretty amazing how different it can look. So, when they are trying to come up with "conclusive" evidence, it's diffult with this kind of a play, even when it looks like the most obvious call in the world. The photo in this thread doesn't really help either because A: you have the same angle issue and B: the stick isn't even touching the puck at that moment, so when does it. Again, haven't looked at the video though. If it was my team, I'm sure I'd be screaming blue murder though.