Bertuzzi Suspension Prediction/ No Suspension Per League

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

BY HELENE ST. JAMES

DETROIT FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER

Detroit Red Wings forward Todd Bertuzzi will not face any further disciplinary action for his hit on Chicago forward Ryan Johnson in Monday night’s game.

“I talked to the league – no suspension for Bert,” Wings general manager Ken Holland said this morning.

Bertuzzi was ejected after getting a five-minute elbowing major 5:17 into the 3-2 overtime loss. Bertuzzi hit Johnson just as he’d played the puck, catching him with an elbow even as Bertuzzi backed off the hit. Johnson's helmet flew off as he fell to the ice.

Johnson continued to play and was adamant afterwards that Bertuzzi didn’t intend to cause injury. Bertuzzi sought out Johnson while he was getting minor treatment immediately after the incident.

“I don’t think it was malicious,” Johnson said. “He was very apologetic. He came in here.”

This will drive Pens fans nuts, as upset as they were over the length of the Cooke suspension. Bertuzzi's suspension for the Moore incident was brought up often in their discussions.

[mjlegend 155]

Nice to see that Milbury's started blogging.

No, someone with an even larger mental block. Versus will pretty much let anyone blog.

http://www.versus.com/blogs/nhl/monday-should-be-bertuzzis-last-regular-season-game/

I won't quite understand when (and if) he'll be allowed to return this season, because even at slow motion, is elbow came up and he left his feet. If Matt Cooke was worthy of getting a message, then Todd Bertuzzi should check his mail.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

[stevkrause 1,247]

First they get the Cooke hit right and then get this one right with no suspension... do my eyes deceive me, did the NHL actually get 2 disciplinary decisions right?!?!

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

No, someone with an even larger mental block. Versus will pretty much let anyone blog.

http://www.versus.co...ar-season-game/

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

Haha. DraperFan.

[Electrophile 3,554]

per the Freep, no suspension.

http://www.freep.com...-Todd-Bertuzzi-

Figured as much. I think his reputation got him thrown out of the game, but hearing people talk about the play (I couldn't watch the game), it sounded like it was borderline or not even an elbow at all, so this was the right decision.

[esteef 2,679]

People really don't like Homer in front of the net.

Plus Homer likes to prod the defense for s***s and giggles.

Homer is one of the best agitators in the league although he's not really considered an agitator. Weird indeed.

esteef

[kylee 727]

Thank God he didn't get anygames, although for all intents and purposes, he basically was suspended for one game on a hit where a Guy went to duck, bertuzzi filled out his check, and it probably looked worse than it really was. I hope/wish he would play with an edge like that more often.

[wings1110 184]

its more like he hit bert in the elbow with his head not the other way around.

[Konnan511 1,736]

Most of the hawks fans I've talked to said it shouldn't deserve a suspension so I'm glad the league did the right thing.

[wingslogo19 281]

League got it right.. Bertuzzi wasn't meaning to do it like Cooke did.. Like Babs said " his helment went flying and the refs deemed that a hit to the head"

[lookalive07 251]

I keep watching the hit at the end of the video in slow motion and really the only thing I see wrong with that check is that he a) left his feet, and b) doesn't know how to check properly anymore. If anything, the back of his arm grazed the top of his head and knocked his helmet off. I'm sure the resulting action of his ear being damaged was because of the helmet being ripped off. Those ear straps can do some damage, I'd imagine.

[Rivalred 630]

Most of the hawks fans I've talked to said it shouldn't deserve a suspension so I'm glad the league did the right thing.

You talk to Hawk fans?

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

All this "look at this screenshot, he hit him with his armpit" bulls*** needs to stop. You're worse than a Nixon supporter after Watergate. You seem to forget that most hits in hockey (including this one) are HORIZONTAL, not vertical, so Bert's armpit being right under Johnson's head in that frame means what exactly? That Bert is clobbering him with his arm.

It was absolutely elbowing, there's no question of that. Bert is lucky to avoid a suspension; it was likely the league looking back at the fact that he doesn't know how to throw a hit and just figuring that was why his arm was up.

so if it were absolutely elbowing wonder why no suspension? hmmmmmmm

"bert since we know you don't know how to throw a hit we aren't going to suspend you"

thats does sound like the league

Edited March 30, 2011 by hillbillywingsfan

[Barrie 900]

I think it was called right on the ice and by the League.

[Konnan511 1,736]

You talk to Hawk fans?

The long standing Hawk fans aren't bad, it's the ones that became fans the season before their cup that are obnoxious, just like ours that only became fans during our most recent cup win.

[eva unit zero 271]

so if it were absolutely elbowing wonder why no suspension? hmmmmmmm

"bert since we know you don't know how to throw a hit we aren't going to suspend you"

thats does sound like the league

Elbowing is not worth an automatic suspension. Relative to some of the decisions, Bert probably should have gotten a game or two. But with the Chara decision, it's shocking they even called a penalty.

That said, the elbowing major and game misconduct was probably the correct call.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Elbowing is not worth an automatic suspension. Relative to some of the decisions, Bert probably should have gotten a game or two. But with the Chara decision, it's shocking they even called a penalty.

That said, the elbowing major and game misconduct was probably the correct call.

A five minute elbowing call is an automatic game misconduct.

I think it should have been a major roughing call due to the recklessness of the hit. However, I don't agree with the amount of game misconducts being called recently (including this one). When the play is obvious, like Cooke's latest elbow, I agree with the call but IMO it is being called too much on borderline plays. Bert's hit looked bad in real-time, but after reply is it obvious that contact to the head by the elbow didn't happen. Therefore, there the automatic game misconduct was incorrect. If the ref's are unsure, I'd rather have the player stay in the game. The league can always issue a game suspension if that should have been called, but an incorrectly called game misconduct can't be rescinded.

[eva unit zero 271]

A five minute elbowing call is an automatic game misconduct.

I think it should have been a major roughing call due to the recklessness of the hit. However, I don't agree with the amount of game misconducts being called recently (including this one). When the play is obvious, like Cooke's latest elbow, I agree with the call but IMO it is being called too much on borderline plays. Bert's hit looked bad in real-time, but after reply is it obvious that contact to the head by the elbow didn't happen. Therefore, there the automatic game misconduct was incorrect. If the ref's are unsure, I'd rather have the player stay in the game. The league can always issue a game suspension if that should have been called, but an incorrectly called game misconduct can't be rescinded.

Rule 45 - Elbowing

45.1 Elbowing - Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.

You may notice in particular that under 45.1, the general description, it states that elbowing is the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury. Bertuzzi's elbow was extended and his extended arm was what made contact with Johnson's head. Now let's get back to the rule.

45.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of elbowing an opponent.

45.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to foul an opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent (see 45.5).

Bertuzzi hit Johnson in the head. It was a legitimate elbowing penalty. Johnson was injured by the hit. Whether it was the contact or his equipment that caused the actual injury is arguable, but the end result is Johnson's head was injured by a hit thrown by Bertuzzi which was, in fact, elbowing. Major penalty.

45.4 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by elbowing.

45.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct penalty shall also be imposed.

As we've already all stated, the automatic game misconduct is tied into the major penalty based on injury to the head, which Johnson had.

As for your alternatives; there is no such thing as a roughing major. All other major penalties have the same game misconduct clause that elbowing does. Bertuzzi was gone regardless of which major you pick.

Edited March 30, 2011 by eva unit zero

[swedishconnection 36]

A five minute elbowing call is an automatic game misconduct.

I think it should have been a major roughing call due to the recklessness of the hit. However, I don't agree with the amount of game misconducts being called recently (including this one). When the play is obvious, like Cooke's latest elbow, I agree with the call but IMO it is being called too much on borderline plays. Bert's hit looked bad in real-time, but after reply is it obvious that contact to the head by the elbow didn't happen. Therefore, there the automatic game misconduct was incorrect. If the ref's are unsure, I'd rather have the player stay in the game. The league can always issue a game suspension if that should have been called, but an incorrectly called game misconduct can't be rescinded.

So we are calling for league review of all hits, then? - and during game time?

I wonder why no one brought up what I like to call the "Pronger Defense?" Remember when Pronger (and was it Needavacation?) elbowed Homer in the playoffs? The argument at the time against any suspension was that Pronger is a sasquatch and his elbows are at a normal human head level. Bertuzzi is pretty large himself... why not just throw him into the same category? His arms are at a normal player's head level. Seems like the same concept just applied several years later.

[eva unit zero 271]

So we are calling for league review of all hits, then? - and during game time?

I wonder why no one brought up what I like to call the "Pronger Defense?" Remember when Pronger (and was it Needavacation?) elbowed Homer in the playoffs? The argument at the time against any suspension was that Pronger is a sasquatch and his elbows are at a normal human head level. Bertuzzi is pretty large himself... why not just throw him into the same category? His arms are at a normal player's head level. Seems like the same concept just applied several years later.

Ah yes, the Pronger defense.

"Of course I'm going to hit him in the head. He's quite a bit shorter than me. It's just a law of physics."

To be fair, WorkingOvertime wasn't here back then.

Edited March 30, 2011 by eva unit zero

[BigWillieStyle 662]

I'm kind of surprised that Pee-Aire didn't lecture about Johnson's chin strap being too loose. Oh, that's right, Bert is a barbarian, and his powerful armpit to the head would have been enough force to destroy even the strongest of chinstraps.

And, yeah, I think they got both the call on the ice right and the non-suspension right.

[hockeychik25 10]

watching the game and seeing the replay it looked like he was coming at bert head down. they collided and he got knocked down. the refs were pretty s***ty that game anyway. bert did nothing. it looked as if he even haad his back to johnson. also he returned in the first and i believe took a penalty hisself. so he really wasn't hurt, just shaken up for a few minutes.

Edited March 30, 2011 by hockeychik25

[WorkingOvertime 536]

You may notice in particular that under 45.1, the general description, it states that elbowing is the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury. Bertuzzi's elbow was extended and his extended arm was what made contact with Johnson's head. Now let's get back to the rule.

Bertuzzi hit Johnson in the head. It was a legitimate elbowing penalty. Johnson was injured by the hit. Whether it was the contact or his equipment that caused the actual injury is arguable, but the end result is Johnson's head was injured by a hit thrown by Bertuzzi which was, in fact, elbowing. Major penalty.

As we've already all stated, the automatic game misconduct is tied into the major penalty based on injury to the head, which Johnson had.

As for your alternatives; there is no such thing as a roughing major. All other major penalties have the same game misconduct clause that elbowing does. Bertuzzi was gone regardless of which major you pick.

If you want to quote the rule-book, I believe this description best fits the play.

Rule 42 - Charging

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

Charging would have allowed the call to be a major but not a game misconduct. However, tying to match the rulebook definition to the call on the ice is often difficult.

The rule for elbowing states that player uses their extended elbow to cause injury. IMO the amount of injury on the play is debatable itself. From the video and screen shots it is clear that the elbow does not make contact with the head or any other part of the body. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that the extended elbow cause the injury. In fact, most NHL hits involve an extension on the arm/elbow on the follow-through, and should therefore be called elbowing by your interpretation. I will admit that discussing the nuances of rule interpretation is likely a useless discussion since the NHL cannot even get it right.

As I said, it as certainly a penalty. However, the call was not deserving of a game misconduct. There have been multiple game misconducts called this year that have been weak IMO.

So we are calling for league review of all hits, then? - and during game time?

I wonder why no one brought up what I like to call the "Pronger Defense?" Remember when Pronger (and was it Needavacation?) elbowed Homer in the playoffs? The argument at the time against any suspension was that Pronger is a sasquatch and his elbows are at a normal human head level. Bertuzzi is pretty large himself... why not just throw him into the same category? His arms are at a normal player's head level. Seems like the same concept just applied several years later.

No. I am calling for a league review of all questionable hits after the game. The league already does this. I just believe that the refs shouldn't make a game misconduct call without complete certainty of the play. Bert's hit certainly looked dirty, but I don't think any ref could have be certain that the elbow hit the head (which is did not).

[eva unit zero 271]

If you want to quote the rule-book, I believe this description best fits the play.

Charging would have allowed the call to be a major but not a game misconduct. However, tying to match the rulebook definition to the call on the ice is often difficult.

The rule for elbowing states that player uses their extended elbow to cause injury. IMO the amount of injury on the play is debatable itself. From the video and screen shots it is clear that the elbow does not make contact with the head or any other part of the body. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that the extended elbow cause the injury. In fact, most NHL hits involve an extension on the arm/elbow on the follow-through, and should therefore be called elbowing by your interpretation. I will admit that discussing the nuances of rule interpretation is likely a useless discussion since the NHL cannot even get it right.

As I said, it as certainly a penalty. However, the call was not deserving of a game misconduct. There have been multiple game misconducts called this year that have been weak IMO.

No. I am calling for a league review of all questionable hits after the game. The league already does this. I just believe that the refs shouldn't make a game misconduct call without complete certainty of the play. Bert's hit certainly looked dirty, but I don't think any ref could have be certain that the elbow hit the head (which is did not).

Bertuzzi came in with his arm raised. The contact was Bertuzzi's arm against Johnson's head. The league commonly interprets elbowing as a hit thrown where the arm is extended before contact and it is the principal point of contact.

Charging could have been called also, but it wasn't and realistically, elbowing was the more clearly accurate call.