meecrofilm wrote:Well, there ya go. Like I said, I couldn't remember
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
meecrofilm wrote: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?Physical_Graffiti wrote:meecrofilm wrote:Well, there ya go. Like I said, I couldn't remember
Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line changerelantel wrote: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?
Who gives a %#$*? The guy left the bench in a scrum. 10 games. Period.MRandall25 wrote:Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line changerelantel wrote:i recall someone last week (TB maybe - vaguely recall seeing it on OTF) jumping off the bench to join a brawl a la Godard - did Shanny give the auto 10 games?
Truesay.ExPatriatePen wrote:Well the Stafford Perezhogin altercation was an AHL event between Hamilton and Cleveland was it not?Physical_Graffiti wrote:meecrofilm wrote:Well, there ya go. Like I said, I couldn't remember
[youtube][/youtube]
That's slightly different in that there was use of a weapon in these instances. The other incidents we're talking about (with the exception of McSorely/Brasher) didn't include the use of a weapon did they?
No. Godard left the bench on an illegal line change AKA there were already 5 guys on the ice and he jumped on in the middle of play (technically) to fight somebody.penmyst wrote:Who gives a %#$*? The guy left the bench in a scrum. 10 games. Period.MRandall25 wrote:Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line changerelantel wrote: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?
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.
Play had already stopped when Godard left the bench too. They had already called a penalty and blew the whistle.MRandall25 wrote: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.penmyst wrote:Who gives a %#$*? The guy left the bench in a scrum. 10 games. Period.MRandall25 wrote:Downie. He got fined. No suspension because it was after a goal, so technically, it wasn't an illegal line changerelantel wrote: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?
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.
Downie left the bench after play had stopped due to a goal. It's nowhere near the same offense as Godard.
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 wrote: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.
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.relantel wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.bhaw wrote: 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.
There it is again.MRandall25 wrote: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).
This is getting to be a real crusade for me, this stuff about making officials mind readers.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.
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 wrote:good find, EPP. By that look, looks like Shanny really missed this one.
This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.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.
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 wrote:This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.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.
2nd player is 5 games.MRandall25 wrote: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 wrote:This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.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.
(later in 70.10)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.
That's where the problem lies. We don't really know how they decided it, which again goes back to consistency, or lack thereof.relantel wrote:2nd player is 5 games.MRandall25 wrote: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 wrote:This seems clear cut - during an altercation applies.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.
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?
(later in 70.10)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.