Maiden
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,148
- Liked Posts:
- 0
I love the "whatever" post. Do you know how stupid it sounds?
btw: I agree with you their is lots of whining in this thread.
I love the "whatever" post. Do you know how stupid it sounds?
btw: I agree with you their is lots of whining in this thread.
Maiden
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,148
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Shoulder to shoulder is a joke and Shanny should be embarrassed. I don't give a fuck if Sedin is injured; he should be suspended as well whether or not he can play. That way the next time he takes another cheap shot its' on his record.
As far as Keith, he was suspended previously but can't remember the infraction. Any help?
Rex
Chief Blackcock
- Joined:
- Jul 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,447
- Liked Posts:
- 449
- Location:
- Grimson's Sweet Ass
he was never suspended. He was fined for a blind side retaliation head shot on Matt Cooke. I'll find the clip
- Joined:
- Oct 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,153
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Demolished, No Longer Standing
Rex
Chief Blackcock
- Joined:
- Jul 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,447
- Liked Posts:
- 449
- Location:
- Grimson's Sweet Ass
Maiden
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,148
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Keith has never been suspended? I'm losing touch with the hockey side.
Rex
Chief Blackcock
- Joined:
- Jul 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,447
- Liked Posts:
- 449
- Location:
- Grimson's Sweet Ass
R K
Guest
again for a dirty hit from a player not called I believe. If I remember correct the biggest offender of them all cooke was not penalized on the previous hit.
- Joined:
- Oct 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,153
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Demolished, No Longer Standing
It may be a dirty hit but what it tells me is Keith does not have a problem with taking up for himself when a players take liberties against him. He does not need Frankenstein to take up for him.
howcho
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 774
- Liked Posts:
- 40
- Location:
- Abbotsford, British Columbia
R K
Guest
Let me clarify for you. I have ZERO problem with Keith being suspended. I have a problem with how FUCKED the process was and the clear POLITICAL influence there was in said process.
I'm not sure a Canuck fan could see past their player being suspended. There is ZERO doubt that Keith's actions deserved some time off. 5 games with previous "repeat offenders" as presedence, I don't know.
I had a pretty interesting conversation tonight with someone that I will not name (but works for the NHL), but 100% agreed how fucked the entire process with Keith, and the Canucks-Hawks game was. Did not agree with their analysis on Sedins hit, nor did not agree with how something "appeared" to change the process in the middle.
The CBA negotiation is most DEFINITELY going to address this. And I wouldn't be suprised if an appeals process was included to allow the NHLPA and Players to retort with all the inconsistencies that transpired. In this case there were more than a couple.
Rex
Chief Blackcock
- Joined:
- Jul 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,447
- Liked Posts:
- 449
- Location:
- Grimson's Sweet Ass
I was talking about this with Emma the other night, and she was shocked that only one guy had the ability to make the choice. I kind of agree with her, it should be a panel and not just one mans choice.
R K
Guest
I'm assuming the appeals process will involve an un bias arbitrator. In this case I'd love to hear the reasoning the arbitrator would bring up in inconsistancies.
1. Why the change in 24hrs. Keith was requested for a phone interview then 24hrs later it was requested in person. Why or what influenced that change?
2. How can the initial hit of Sedin on Keith be considered "shoulder to shoulder"? It clearly wasn't. There is no excuse for the reasoning the league gave on that. None.
(i'm guessing this was to cover the initial missed call by the NHL SENIOR official Ohalleran. He makes that call the 2nd hit from Keith never happens)
3. How can you justify consistency in penalties when you bring in other similar rulings like Rene Bourque and more recently Shane Doan?
4. How can you discount other questionable plays during that game and not even question them, but then be so inconsistant on Keiths ruling.
Right now they don't have to say dick, with an appeals process they'd have to answer the questions.
I don't consider any of this whining, rather questioning the process. Keith should have been suspended, no question it was a dirty play.
1. Why the change in 24hrs. Keith was requested for a phone interview then 24hrs later it was requested in person. Why or what influenced that change?
2. How can the initial hit of Sedin on Keith be considered "shoulder to shoulder"? It clearly wasn't. There is no excuse for the reasoning the league gave on that. None.
(i'm guessing this was to cover the initial missed call by the NHL SENIOR official Ohalleran. He makes that call the 2nd hit from Keith never happens)
3. How can you justify consistency in penalties when you bring in other similar rulings like Rene Bourque and more recently Shane Doan?
4. How can you discount other questionable plays during that game and not even question them, but then be so inconsistant on Keiths ruling.
Right now they don't have to say dick, with an appeals process they'd have to answer the questions.
I don't consider any of this whining, rather questioning the process. Keith should have been suspended, no question it was a dirty play.
R K
Guest
R K
Guest
I don't buy that for a second. if it was, Keith would have had the original phone hearing.
Unfortunately you'd never get a straight answer from the NHL on this. We have no idea what influence Bettman has on the process. Or Campbell for that matter.