Per TSN: McLennan suspended 5 games, Lebda out for Game 6

[esteef 2,679]

if he wasn't submarined, he wouldn't have had to sucker punch him. He should have received a penalty, but not a suspension.

It's a hip check, how many f***in' times does this have to be pointed out! Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. We actually have posted visual evidence to prove it all over this board. What has Calgary done to prove their side except keep repeating the same Don Cherry bulls***?

Losers.

esteef

[luvmnger 125]

would/could calgary dress d-MAC?

[BetweenThePipes 0]

Let's just take the rest of the team out of the playoffs tonight and call it even

[Matt 1,048]

if he wasn't submarined, he wouldn't have had to sucker punch him. He should have received a penalty, but not a suspension.

Excuse me? Since when do you "have" to suckerpunch anyone? Was Lebda's lowbridge on him some kind of affront to his manhood? There's no excuse for suckerpunching someone. Yes, I thought Lebda low-bridged him, but that's no excuse to do what Langkow did.

[Vansmack-CP 0]

It's a hip check, how many f***in' times does this have to be pointed out! Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. We actually have posted visual evidence to prove it all over this board. What has Calgary done to prove their side except keep repeating the same Don Cherry bulls***?

Losers.

esteef

Proof? He was given two mintues for what he did. Therefore the ref clearly does not agree with you. So just because this is a wings board doesn't make you right. A low hit is a low hit, langkow snapped and punched him in the face. Im not defending his actions, saying they were right, but it clearly did not warrant a suspsension. Call it watergate if you want, but your not really making a convincing argument.

Further, you don't need to get personal, its childish and trivial

Edited April 23, 2007 by Vansmack-CP

[esteef 2,679]

Proof? He was given two mintues for what he did. Therefore the ref clearly does not agree with you. So just because this is a wings board doesn't make you right. A low hit is a low hit, langkow snapped and punched him in the face. Im not defending his actions, saying they were right, but it clearly did not warrant a suspsension. Call it watergate if you want, but your not really making a convincing argument.

And we all know, from this game especially, refs calls are ALWAYS right. Right? Please. Once again, NO PROOF.

esteef

[Vansmack-CP 0]

Excuse me? Since when do you "have" to suckerpunch anyone? Was Lebda's lowbridge on him some kind of affront to his manhood? There's no excuse for suckerpunching someone. Yes, I thought Lebda low-bridged him, but that's no excuse to do what Langkow did.

I may not have been clear in my previous post, I don't think what he did was right. He should have received a penatly for his actions, but a suspension? come on. He retaliated for a low hit, it is as simple as that.

[wingslogo19 281]

And we all know, from this game especially, refs calls are ALWAYS right. Right? Please. Once again, NO PROOF.

esteef

I love it esteef

[Vansmack-CP 0]

And we all know, from this game especially, refs calls are ALWAYS right. Right? Please. Once again, NO PROOF.

esteef

No they don't call everything right, but I am sure this was received the league and nothing further has come. I think they side with me. We can debate whether the hit was low or not all night, but what we cannot debate is that langkow reacted to the hit the way he did because he thought it was low.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I may not have been clear in my previous post, I don't think what he did was right. He should have received a penatly for his actions, but a suspension? come on. He retaliated for a low hit, it is as simple as that.

His retaliation far exceeded the damage done, or intended to be done, by the low hit. This would be like sucker punching an offender every time he boards someone or delivers a cross-check. One of these thing was a two minute minor, the other should have been a game.

[esteef 2,679]

No they don't call everything right, but I am sure this was received the league and nothing further has come. I think they side with me. We can debate whether the hit was low or not all night, but what we cannot debate is that langkow reacted to the hit the way he did because he thought it was low.

OR, he saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, and took it. Unless you know what he was thinking of course.

esteef

And by Calgary's definition, how many of these Don Cherry approved "hip checks" would NOW be considered "submarines"?

Edited April 23, 2007 by esteef

[Statts 4]

The whole situation reminded me of the Nichol /Spacek incident. Spacek ran Nichol into the post and he took acceptation and threw a few sucker punches, and Nichol was handed a 9 game suspension.

The two situations were pretty similar, but the outcome completely different. That my friends is bulls***.

[Aussie_Wing 354]

Wow, that is weak by the NHL.

[SoupGuru 0]

OR, he saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, and took it. Unless you know what he was thinking of course.

esteef

And by Calgary's definition, how many of these Don Cherry approved "hip checks" would NOW be considered "submarines"?

OMGWTFBBQ!! They should call that Submarine 101!!!!1!