• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rrasco

Jamie Benn Cross Checks Ryan Jones - Hearing Scheduled

Rate this topic

23 posts in this topic

Okay, Benn shouldn't have done that....but really? 5+ a game and now he has a hearing? I watched homer get nailed that hard repeatedly and then get goals waived off night in and night out. He would take it, not say anything, and went right back to his spot the next shift. I thought this was a hockey league.

Thoughts?

Edited by rrasco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with having a hearing just to review it but it seems like 5 and a game was enough.

I know guys want to protect their goalie but from the replay it didn't look like Jones was really trying to run him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Benn shouldn't have done that....but really? 5+ a game and now he has a hearing? I watched homer get nailed that hard repeatedly and then get goals waived off night in and night out. He would take it, not say anything, and went right back to his spot the next shift. I thought this was a hockey league.

Thoughts?

A retalitory shot, but it's pretty cheap.

Don't see the correlation between a cheap crosscheck away from the orignal play and what Homer did on a nightly basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lebrun has a pretty good article on Shanny and the Player Safety reviews.

The real lessons are not just learned in the actual suspensions, but rather in the knowledge gained from the 800-plus incidents -- small or big -- his player safety group reviewed last season.

That's right, 800-plus plays were reviewed last season. Many people are aware that only 56 of those plays resulted in suspensions. But where the comfort zone is developed is in the total volume of plays that are reviewed, whether there's a suspension or not.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9002609/take-brendan-shanahan-player-safety-room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A retalitory shot, but it's pretty cheap.

Don't see the correlation between a cheap crosscheck away from the orignal play and what Homer did on a nightly basis.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't cheap. I'm arguing that happens 100x a night and they don't ever consider suspending. I realize the context of the hit, but I just didn't think it was that bad. Cheap? Yes. Penalty? Yes. Misconduct? Maybe. Suspension? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that it wasn't cheap. I'm arguing that happens 100x a night and they don't ever consider suspending. I realize the context of the hit, but I just didn't think it was that bad. Cheap? Yes. Penalty? Yes. Misconduct? Maybe. Suspension? No.

Sorry, but that does not happen 100x a night. A guy getting cross-checked in front of the net is by no means comparale to this at all. I think you've acknowledged that, but haven't considered how much of a difference it actually is.

I think 5 and a game is enough though. I think the issue is that the other player ended up getting hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that it wasn't cheap. I'm arguing that happens 100x a night and they don't ever consider suspending. I realize the context of the hit, but I just didn't think it was that bad. Cheap? Yes. Penalty? Yes. Misconduct? Maybe. Suspension? No.

I agree. If that same hit happens in the crease it's usually not a penalty. Had it happened immediately after the goalie interference it's likely just 2 min. Being that it happened well after and away from the play, and with Dallas being down 5-1, I think it warrants a 10-min misconduct. Nothing more.

Sad that Jones died, though. Guess you shouldn't play hockey if you're made out of fine china.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty cheap by Benn, it's one thing to do that in front of the net when a guy is prepared to take it, it's another to sneak up behind the guy and deliver a hard cross check at the kidneys. That's a cheap play, I agree he shouldn't get a ton, but I really wouldn't be against him getting a game.

I agree. If that same hit happens in the crease it's usually not a penalty. Had it happened immediately after the goalie interference it's likely just 2 min. Being that it happened well after and away from the play, and with Dallas being down 5-1, I think it warrants a 10-min misconduct. Nothing more.

Sad that Jones died, though. Guess you shouldn't play hockey if you're made out of fine china.

You make it sound like unprepared crosschecks to the kidneys don't hurt. I don't want to assume anything, but from that comment it seems likely that you haven't played hockey, and haven't recieved a cross check like that. It hurts a lot, and makes you lose your breath, makes your muscles tense randomly, it's not a pleasant thing, even worse when you can't defend yourself.

Edited by Carman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound like unprepared crosschecks to the kidneys don't hurt. ...

Really? I thought I made it sound like a joke...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would've been a normal hockey play years go, but the game's changing as it always has. In the 70's fans probably called players who wore helmets *******.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no padding there. Cheap shot, deserves a nice suspension.

Also, don't compare this to Homer. Homer was braced for all of his shots. Tighten your gut and get punched there. Now jack someone in the gut who isn't expecting it. What do you think hurt more? Use your brain people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those saying 5 and a game is enough - the problem is its a meaningless penalty. Down 5-1 with 4 minutes to, you get thrown out the game for a dangerous cheap shot - where is the deterrent in that to stop you doing it again in the same situation? Where is the punishment to make you pay for doing it in the first place?

I think what makes it worse is Jones is gliding backwards when it happens, as well as being unprepared, hence the whiplash effect on his back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a Bertuzzi like incident occurred? Everyone would be screaming 20+ games. Luckily Ryan wasn't too badly injured, but a message still needs to be sent that player safety is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those saying 5 and a game is enough - the problem is its a meaningless penalty. Down 5-1 with 4 minutes to, you get thrown out the game for a dangerous cheap shot - where is the deterrent in that to stop you doing it again in the same situation? Where is the punishment to make you pay for doing it in the first place?

I think what makes it worse is Jones is gliding backwards when it happens, as well as being unprepared, hence the whiplash effect on his back.

10% of the season isnt enough? He didnt hit the guy in the head. This shouldnt even be 5, but it shouldnt be longer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a Bertuzzi like incident occurred? Everyone would be screaming 20+ games. Luckily Ryan wasn't too badly injured, but a message still needs to be sent that player safety is important.

What if this what if that. It wasn't a Bertuzzi-like incident so there is no point in even making that correlation.

My comparison to homer was to demonstrate that people take crazy cross checks all game and it's just part of the game. I know this wasn't a hockey play, but it's not like he two handed him in the back of the head. I know it was retaliatory and I know it was away from the play, I just personally think it wasn't that bad. A cross check is a cross check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if this what if that. It wasn't a Bertuzzi-like incident so there is no point in even making that correlation.

My comparison to homer was to demonstrate that people take crazy cross checks all game and it's just part of the game. I know this wasn't a hockey play, but it's not like he two handed him in the back of the head. I know it was retaliatory and I know it was away from the play, I just personally think it wasn't that bad. A cross check is a cross check.

A cross check from behind isn't just a cross check. Taking a crosscheck unprepared to the back is 1000x worse then taking one while battling in front of the net. You try taking a kidney shot without warning, and then compare it to a cross check where you can brace yourself.

Honestly I'm amazed more people don't understand how dirty this play was. I don't like bringing hockey experience into it, but as someone who has played a fairly high level, and watched hockey for a long time, this play is dirty, and in no way is it "not that bad". I'm not saying Benn should get 5 games, but I do think he should get a game, the 5 minutes had no affect on the Edmonton game, so I believe he should serve a full game. The NHL can't just let people blind side players from the back with cross checks. It's a dirty play that has no place in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cross check from behind isn't just a cross check. Taking a crosscheck unprepared to the back is 1000x worse then taking one while battling in front of the net. You try taking a kidney shot without warning, and then compare it to a cross check where you can brace yourself.

Honestly I'm amazed more people don't understand how dirty this play was. I don't like bringing hockey experience into it, but as someone who has played a fairly high level, and watched hockey for a long time, this play is dirty, and in no way is it "not that bad". I'm not saying Benn should get 5 games, but I do think he should get a game, the 5 minutes had no affect on the Edmonton game, so I believe he should serve a full game. The NHL can't just let people blind side players from the back with cross checks. It's a dirty play that has no place in the game.

Crosby does this routinely.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crosby does this routinely.

Yeah, and I believe he should be punished too if his cross checks had the same context and strength as Benn's. It's not that I don't like Jamie benn, I just don't like these hits there are better ways to send messages when you are down 4 goals with two minutes to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad he didn't get suspended. I can support the fine. The league's way of saying, "knock that s*** off."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0