That depends on the league's definition of 'Automatic'

[PotbellyJoe 10]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=504796

Rangers' Byers suspended one game

Wednesday, 11.04.2009 / 3:08 PM / News

NHL.com

New York Rangers forward Dane Byers has been suspended for one game and coach John Tortorella has been fined for an incident in the third period of Tuesday's game against the Vancouver Canucks.

Byers was given an instigator penalty with 1:10 left in the third period of the Rangers' 4-1 loss. Pursuant to NHL Rule 47.22, a player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five minutes of a game is subject to an automatic one-game suspension. Byers will miss Thursday's game at Edmonton.

Tortorella was fined $10,000 as well, as the rule states that the offending player's coach is subject to that automatic penalty.

The players' suspension money goes to the Players' Emergency Assistance Fund while the coach's fine goes to the NHL Foundation.

Wonder if the Malkin case can be brought up as precedent?

[Echolalia 2,961]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=504796

Wonder if the Malkin case can be brought up as precedent?

Can they actually fight this?

[skyphoenix 153]

So now its automatic? Did I miss something?

[PotbellyJoe 10]

So now its automatic? Did I miss something?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,167172

Supposedly it has been an Automatic 1-game suspension after the lockout. It's just lame when the league is afraid to enforce its own rules because they don't like what it means.

The extra clause in rule 47.22 is that Campbell gets to look over criteria and decide if it should be meted out. It just allows for favorites to be played.

[skyphoenix 153]

Okay, thats what I figured. I knew it said it was automatic but with the Malkin incident last season they proved it wasnt automatic but now its back to being automatic? Was it reviewed?

[rage 24]

Yeah, don't even get me going on this.

[Carman 387]

Meh, I don't really care too much. The rule is in their mainly to effect enforcers/fighters from giving messages at the end of the game.

Not to suspend a superstar player. Sure it's playing favorites, but it's not like what Malkin did was a horrible malicious thing really deserving of a game.

[PotbellyJoe 10]

Meh, I don't really care too much. The rule is in their mainly to effect enforcers/fighters from giving messages at the end of the game.

Not to suspend a superstar player. Sure it's playing favorites, but it's not like what Malkin did was a horrible malicious thing really deserving of a game.

Agreed, but if you aren't going to enforce it to all, don't write it. It only feeds the conspiracy theorists...

[Viking_Erection 1]

Meh, I don't really care too much. The rule is in their mainly to effect enforcers/fighters from giving messages at the end of the game.

Not to suspend a superstar player. Sure it's playing favorites, but it's not like what Malkin did was a horrible malicious thing really deserving of a game.

The rules are the rules. It doesn't matter if they are 'superstars' or 'goons', the rule is in place for any and all players who try to instigate in the dying 5 minutes of the game. Malkin was handed the free pass to favor Crosby and the Penguins.

[Carman 387]

The rules are the rules. It doesn't matter if they are 'superstars' or 'goons', the rule is in place for any and all players who try to instigate in the dying 5 minutes of the game. Malkin was handed the free pass to favor Crosby and the Penguins.

No, there is an exception that lets them overlook the situation. They cannot label the players in the rulebook, but that's my interpretation.

And there will always be conspiracy theorists.

[Statts 4]

The difference between the malkin incident and this one is that Byers came off the bench and went straight for Glass down 4-1 with 1 min left. This is the type of senario the NHL was trying to eliminate with the automatic suspension.

Malkin was throwing a hissy fin in the heat of the moment. Byers was premeditated I guess you could say.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Statts

[egroen 384]

Meh, I don't really care too much. The rule is in their mainly to effect enforcers/fighters from giving messages at the end of the game.

Not to suspend a superstar player. Sure it's playing favorites, but it's not like what Malkin did was a horrible malicious thing really deserving of a game.

I can't say I am not bothered by a league that "plays favorites"... as prevalent as it might be in other leagues.

[Carman 387]

I can't say I am not bothered by a league that "plays favorites"... as prevalent as it might be in other leagues.

Any other 'superstar' would of been of the hook like Malkin. Playing favorites probably isn't the best way to describe it, I'd say more of a way to limit enforcers from sending end of the game messages without having to suspend regular players for heat of the moment game situations.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Carman

[edicius 3,269]

Any other 'superstar' would of been of the hook like Malkin. Playing favorites probably isn't the best way to describe it, I'd say more of a way to discriminate enforcers from sending end of the game messages without having to suspend regular players for heat of the moment game situations.

Sure, that's why superstars like Lidstrom and Datsyuk got a free pass after that whole All Star Weekend deal.

Oh, wait a second...

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Rules are rules.

Either enforce them in all circumstances or don't bother making it a rule.

Edited November 5, 2009 by GoWings1905

[Carman 387]

Sure, that's why superstars like Lidstrom and Datsyuk got a free pass after that whole All Star Weekend deal.

Oh, wait a second...

Regular season =/ Playoffs.

[Doc Holiday 0]

The difference between the malkin incident and this one is that Byers came off the bench and went straight for Glass down 4-1 with 1 min left. This is the type of senario the NHL was trying to eliminate with the automatic suspension.

Malkin was throwing a hissy fin in the heat of the moment. Byers was premeditated I guess you could say.

Bingo, that's the entire point.

Get over it, ladies and gents.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Regular season =/ Playoffs.

That's why the NHL has minimal credibility.

The officiating changes along with the enforcement of rules April through June.

[Carman 387]

That's why the NHL has minimal credibility.

The officiating changes along with the enforcement of rules April through June.

No.

47.22 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more instigator penalties.

When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.

No team appeals will be permitted either verbally or in writing regarding the assessment of this automatic suspension.

It's in the rules stop saying the NHL doesn't follow the rules.

[mjlegend 155]

Thank Jeebus this rule is in place to protect the superstars like the Tanner Glass's of the league from a beatdown in a meaningless early-regular season game, and not a scrub like Hank Zetterberg in the dying seconds of a Stanley Cup final game.

If the league is going to treat stars differently with respect to punishment, it should also treat them differently as victims.

[b.shanafan14 733]

It's in the rules stop saying the NHL doesn't follow the rules.

The rules are flawed to purposely allow the league to play heavy favorites and by making it subjective, especially by the so-called "criteria" they look at, it puts the outcome of games into the leagues hands, making conspiracy theories about to the leagues intentions unavoidable.

When other players commit the offense and the emphasis is put on how "automatic" it is and then in a case no different other than the name and team of the player involved, the emphasis is put on its supposed review process, I honestly can't see how anyone can look at the rule and think the league is in the right.

Its either automatic or its not. In this case, its automatic until the league decides its not.

[RusDRW 155]

Malkin incident is not the most obvious from the last play-offs. What is about Matt Walker's sucker punch with less than 5 minutes to go in Carolina-Boston game last year? Even though Ward decided not to go, that's a definition of an instigator penalty. Puck Daddy writes that the worst case of this rule is that it allows to enforce a special treatment for star player. I'm afraid that the worst case of it is that if allows to affect outcomes of games.

[Carman 387]

They made the rule to weed out enforcers going out at the end of games to send messages that are premeditated. Not to weed out players fighting in the heat of the moment. If you can't see the difference I have no I idea how to convey the message to you. If you think that the NHL manipulates the rules to choose the winner of each game then you have a very paranoid outlook on the NHL. Not to mention they must love the Red Wing's considering how much we've won the past couple decades.

There is a clear difference between Jared Boll going out 5 minutes to go in the game and starting a fight then Malkin going out in the last 5 minutes starting a fight. If you can't see the difference you are helpless. They cannot label players in the rule book that's why the clause is there so they can still enforce what the rule is there for. There has never and will never be a player that is in the top 20 in scoring that will be automatically suspended because of this rule.

Take off the "world is against us" glasses and understand the premise of the rule.

Let's see how I can clearly get you to understand what the NHL is thinking.

1. They had an issue of goons/enforcers sending messages at the end of the game in premeditated acts. It was pretty cut and dry situation that needed to be stopped.

2. They wanted to avoid suspending non enforcers/goons that weren't sending premeditated messages and happened to start fights out of game situations. And they would use criteria on whether or not the player in question had a history of fighting/suspensions.

3. Malkin does not have a history of being an enforcer and racking up the fights, therefore his case was rescinded based on the criteria that it was not premeditated and his history was clean in these types of actions.

4. Byers happens to have a pretty heavy history of being an enforcer, not to mention it's pretty safe to say that he is not a top player and would normally be used at the end of the game to try and win. Also Tortorella certainly isn't an angel when it comes to the NHL rules therefore he wasn't going to be granted any free passes.

5. Logical reasoning is the NHL's goal in this rule, to be honest I don't really like the rule I have no problem with messages being sent, but I'm certainly not going to say the NHL put this rule in with the intention that they would be able to orchestrate game outcomes by choosing who to suspend.

Hopefully this helps off to work. Have a great day.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over the whole Malkin situation in the FInals in game 2. Him not being suspended did not cause the Wings to lose the series no matter how paranoid or bitter some Wings fans want to be about the whole ordeal.

The rule is meant for enforcers/goonery to cool there stuff at the end of a game when things are out of hand, I understand it and won't get too worked up over it, but I'm all for simplicity. Black and white, no grey area. Either completely enforce the rules or don't.

[Guest micah]

The rules are the rules. It doesn't matter if they are 'superstars' or 'goons', the rule is in place for any and all players who try to instigate in the dying 5 minutes of the game. Malkin was handed the free pass to favor Crosby and the Penguins.

If that's what you believe then you were not paying attention a couple years back when this rule came to be. This rule exists solely to curb "message sending" by frustrated thugs at the end of games, NOT to punnish organic fights by people who are not known as s***-stirrers. The rule could be worded better, but anyone wha was paying attention when they league came up with the rule would know that it was understood that it would not apply in cases other than late game bullying by thugs.