Sheriff Shanny

[Physical_Graffiti]

Well, there ya go. Like I said, I couldn't remember

[ExPatriatePen]

Well, there ya go. Like I said, I couldn't remember

Well the Stafford Perezhogin altercation was an AHL event between Hamilton and Cleveland was it not?

[youtube][/youtube]

That's slightly different in that there was use of a weapon in these instances. The other incidents we're talking about (with the exception of McSorely/Brasher) didn't include the use of a weapon did they?

[relantel]

i recall someone last week (TB maybe - vaguely recall seeing it on OTF) jumping off the bench to join a brawl a la Godard - did Shanny give the auto 10 games?

[MRandall25]

i recall someone last week (TB maybe - vaguely recall seeing it on OTF) jumping off the bench to join a brawl a la Godard - did Shanny give the auto 10 games?

Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line change

[penmyst]

i recall someone last week (TB maybe - vaguely recall seeing it on OTF) jumping off the bench to join a brawl a la Godard - did Shanny give the auto 10 games?

Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line change

Who gives a %#$*? The guy left the bench in a scrum. 10 games. Period.

Did it to Goddard, and should have done it to Downie.

It's why Shanahan is becoming a joke and we ain't even to the halfway point yet.

[Physical_Graffiti]

Well, there ya go. Like I said, I couldn't remember

Well the Stafford Perezhogin altercation was an AHL event between Hamilton and Cleveland was it not?

[youtube][/youtube]

That's slightly different in that there was use of a weapon in these instances. The other incidents we're talking about (with the exception of McSorely/Brasher) didn't include the use of a weapon did they?

Truesay.


Wow, what a homer that coach is: You're player did the exact same thing that Perezhogin did, his aim was just worse.

[MRandall25]

i recall someone last week (TB maybe - vaguely recall seeing it on OTF) jumping off the bench to join a brawl a la Godard - did Shanny give the auto 10 games?

Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line change

Who gives a %#$*? The guy left the bench in a scrum. 10 games. Period.

Did it to Goddard, and should have done it to Downie.

It's why Shanahan is becoming a joke and we ain't even to the halfway point yet.

No. Godard left the bench on an illegal line change AKA there were already 5 guys on the ice and he jumped on in the middle of play (technically) to fight somebody.

Downie left the bench after play had stopped due to a goal. It's nowhere near the same offense as Godard.

[joopen]

i recall someone last week (TB maybe - vaguely recall seeing it on OTF) jumping off the bench to join a brawl a la Godard - did Shanny give the auto 10 games?

Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line change

Who gives a %#$*? The guy left the bench in a scrum. 10 games. Period.

Did it to Goddard, and should have done it to Downie.

It's why Shanahan is becoming a joke and we ain't even to the halfway point yet.

No. Godard left the bench on an illegal line change AKA there were already 5 guys on the ice and he jumped on in the middle of play (technically) to fight somebody.

Downie left the bench after play had stopped due to a goal. It's nowhere near the same offense as Godard.

Play had already stopped when Godard left the bench too. They had already called a penalty and blew the whistle.

[bhaw]

There is definitely a difference, but it's a pretty weak difference to substantiate 10 games vs a paltry fine. The problem is that there was already an ongoing altercation on the ice. So one player came to the bench to let Downie get involved with the altercation that was already ongoing.

The team should be fined for allowing it to happen. I think Downie got 5 and a game for it, but I'm not sure. The team should get hit with a bench penalty in game to deter it from happening later.

The loopholes in the existing rules are pretty amazing as we learn some of this stuff.

[relantel]

There is definitely a difference, but it's a pretty weak difference to substantiate 10 games vs a paltry fine. The problem is that there was already an ongoing altercation on the ice. So one player came to the bench to let Downie get involved with the altercation that was already ongoing.

The team should be fined for allowing it to happen. I think Downie got 5 and a game for it, but I'm not sure. The team should get hit with a bench penalty in game to deter it from happening later.

The loopholes in the existing rules are pretty amazing as we learn some of this stuff.

I saw the highlights and instantly thought of the auto 10 games, the altercation was already going on when Downie jumped the bench. It seemed obvious that it had to be applied, it is more similar than dissimilar to the Godard incident. For only a fine for such a clear cut thing is absurd.

[bhaw]

There is definitely a difference, but it's a pretty weak difference to substantiate 10 games vs a paltry fine. The problem is that there was already an ongoing altercation on the ice. So one player came to the bench to let Downie get involved with the altercation that was already ongoing.

The team should be fined for allowing it to happen. I think Downie got 5 and a game for it, but I'm not sure. The team should get hit with a bench penalty in game to deter it from happening later.

The loopholes in the existing rules are pretty amazing as we learn some of this stuff.

I saw the highlights and instantly thought of the auto 10 games, the altercation was already going on when Downie jumped the bench. It seemed obvious that it had to be applied, it is more similar than dissimilar to the Godard incident. For only a fine for such a clear cut thing is absurd.

Put it this way... I'm arguing more that Godard should NOT have gotten 10 games than Downie only got a fine. It should be somewhere in the middle as the clear intent was to put a fighter on the ice in the middle of an altercation.

[penmyst]

Put it this way... I'm arguing more that Godard should NOT have gotten 10 games than Downie only got a fine. It should be somewhere in the middle as the clear intent was to put a fighter on the ice in the middle of an altercation.

The "fighter" jumping off the bench to get in the middle of an altercation is sort of the exact, precise reason the rule was implemented. To stop hockey brawls.

As such, Shanahan should have erred on the side of suspension with Downie. I don't have a problem with Goddard being suspended appropriately.

Instead I got to hear semantics about shell games (who was, who wasn't going to be on the ice? Take your pick! as we shuffle them to conveniently get our fighter on the ice in a brawl).

There was an ongoing brawl. He left the bench. 10 games.

It is about as cut and dried as these sorts of situations can be.

And Shanahan manages to fk it up.

Doesn't bode well for the 99% of other cases he has to adjudicate that aren't so cut and dried, does it?

[ExPatriatePen]

When does a fight start? When two guys start chirping? When the gloves drop? When the first punch is thrown?

Determine that, and freeze the benches at that point.

But dear lord, I wish the league would quit trying to read people's minds and for gods sake, be consistent.

[MRandall25]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the rule.

To be honest, it looks like coming onto the ice after a goal (not before the altercation) is considered a legal line change (if I interpreted this correctly).

[ExPatriatePen]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26481

Here's the rule.

To be honest, it looks like coming onto the ice after a goal (not before the altercation) is considered a legal line change (if I interpreted this correctly).

There it is again.

70.1 Leaving the Bench - No player or goalkeeper may leave the players’ or penalty bench at any time during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation. Substitutions made prior to the altercation shall be permitted provided the players so substituting do not enter the altercation.

This is getting to be a real crusade for me, this stuff about making officials mind readers.

I'll try and stay off my soapbox.

[relantel]

good find, EPP. By that look, looks like Shanny really missed this one.

[MRandall25]

good find, EPP. By that look, looks like Shanny really missed this one.

I'd say he's more arguing that the rulebook is way too vague for anyone to correctly interpret the situation, so it's left up to personal judgement.

[relantel]

70.10 Fines and Suspensions – The first player to leave the players’ or penalty bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation from either or both teams shall be suspended automatically without pay for the next ten (10) regular League and/or Play-off games of his team.

This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.

[MRandall25]

70.10 Fines and Suspensions – The first player to leave the players’ or penalty bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation from either or both teams shall be suspended automatically without pay for the next ten (10) regular League and/or Play-off games of his team.

This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.

But it says "first player". What if he wasn't the first Bolt to come out onto the ice (aka for a change after the goal)?

[relantel]

70.10 Fines and Suspensions – The first player to leave the players’ or penalty bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation from either or both teams shall be suspended automatically without pay for the next ten (10) regular League and/or Play-off games of his team.

This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.

But it says "first player". What if he wasn't the first Bolt to come out onto the ice (aka for a change after the goal)?

2nd player is 5 games.

Seems the fine is automatic for all other players. Guess they decided Downie wasn't the first or 2nd? Though, how can you have someone illegally involved in the altercation not the 1st or 2nd without having players that are the 1st and 2nd?

All players as well as the first and second players who leave the bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercationshall be subject to an automatic fine in the amount equal to the maximum permitted under the collective bargaining agreement.

(later in 70.10)

[MRandall25]

70.10 Fines and Suspensions – The first player to leave the players’ or penalty bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation from either or both teams shall be suspended automatically without pay for the next ten (10) regular League and/or Play-off games of his team.

This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.

But it says "first player". What if he wasn't the first Bolt to come out onto the ice (aka for a change after the goal)?

2nd player is 5 games.

Seems the fine is automatic for all other players. Guess they decided Downie wasn't the first or 2nd? Though, how can you have someone illegally involved in the altercation not the 1st or 2nd without having players that are the 1st and 2nd?

All players as well as the first and second players who leave the bench during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercationshall be subject to an automatic fine in the amount equal to the maximum permitted under the collective bargaining agreement.

(later in 70.10)

That's where the problem lies. We don't really know how they decided it, which again goes back to consistency, or lack thereof.

[bhaw]

Seabrook crunched form behind by Bourque. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_d ... hl-wp20189" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure what the commentators are talking about by saying he turned his back due to the ref. Bourque was coming from behind the entire time.

[npv708]

Should be at least 3 for Bourque.

[cma3585]

Has Bourque been fined or suspended before?

[DocEmrick]