Can someone explain Tortorella's anger?

[pittsoccer33]

What did I miss exactly?

Calgary starts their 4th line. We do that too sometimes, right? Start the 3rd or 4th line for some energy?

So Tortorella thinks that McGratton is going to lay a Bortuzzi/Thornton on one of the Sedins? Is that what he was afraid of and decided to send a bunch of guys out there to agree to fight on the Flames? Then he was mad they did fight?

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Someone switched his Parmesan with Romano cheese.

[joopen]

He's overcompensating for something

[mikey287]

Their fourth line isn't like ours...well, I don't know what ours is really...but there was a lot of beef out there for Calgary, so Vancouver felt compelled to match that beef because you don't want one of these guys wound up on his first shift to crush Henrik or anything like that...obviously, something was brewing, something was said, someone had instructions...and all hell broke loose...

You don't really want mannequins out there like the Sedins to take a beating or unnecessarily heavy hitting, so you put out your heavier players as a reaction...could Torts have ignored it and gone with his own thing? Sure, he was the home team. But in the heat the moment, you make a decision like that and whatever...

Hartley antagonized, Torts retaliated...in hockey, you always get the retaliation and sure enough...

Generally, starting a line of goon-ish players has a different statement than starting an energy line...guys like McGrattan and Westgarth, they aren't really players, they're just fighters really...it's not even like Engelland, Engo is at least masquerading as a player...it's not the same as starting an "energy" line, but I can understand why some people don't see what the big deal is...it's just one of those hockey things...

[columbia]

Torts' on ice response was fine. He's too unhinged to have just left it at that.

[mikey287]

Torts' on ice response was fine. He's too unhinged to have just left it at that.

Yeah, going down to the other team's dressing room there...there's no place for that at all...

[shmenguin]

I understand if he thought it was stupid and classless. I just don't get why he went apes***. Because he didn't want to force his 4th line to fight? It seems like something you can be rightfully smug about and have fun talking crap about Hartley after the game. Right up torts' alley. Why the melt down?

[Beveridge]

I hope who ever Torts plays first game back the opposing coach puts out the 4th line to start.

[mikey287]

Detroit is the team Torts will have upon his return...a team that is notoriously non-combative...but then Boston and Toronto make up 2 of the next 3 after that, surely no slouches in the ring...

[meow]

I think Torts' anger is a show about 99% of the time. Not this time. He was obviously concerned about his top players' safety and felt bad having to put his bottom line guys in that sort of situation.
I still am not sure how I feel about this whole situation. I'm still digesting it.

[KG]

This is a regular season game that counts. I personally don't think that Hartley instructed his 4th line to take out the Canucks and get a ton of penalties against them. I just think he was starting his 4th line to stir the pot against a rival and play the game hard. People compare the situation to John Scott/Kessel incident. That was a pre-season game. Pre-season games always have a ton of shenanigans.

Torts freaked out IMO. Having Bieksa, a defensman, take the opening faceoff was over the top as well. Wonder if the ref's have any power or discretion to nip this in the bud before it escalates again into a line brawl?

Stuff like this is what makes the non-hockey channels laugh and mock the sport. We don't need this type of stuff in our sport.

[Pavel Bure]

I think Torts' anger is a show about 99% of the time. Not this time. He was obviously concerned about his top players' safety and felt bad having to put his bottom line guys in that sort of situation.
I still am not sure how I feel about this whole situation. I'm still digesting it.

I feel like there should be a rule that once the ref engages you and starts taking you to the box that even if the ref lets you go you shouldn't be allowed to engage another player in a fight. Westgarth had zero reason to engage another person after being escorted halfway to the box.

[ExPatriatePen]

I think Torts' anger is a show about 99% of the time. Not this time. He was obviously concerned about his top players' safety and felt bad having to put his bottom line guys in that sort of situation.
I still am not sure how I feel about this whole situation. I'm still digesting it.

I feel like there should be a rule that once the ref engages you and starts taking you to the box that even if the ref lets you go you shouldn't be allowed to engage another player in a fight. Westgarth had zero reason to engage another person after being escorted halfway to the box.

What would the additional penality be and at what point do you consider the player "escorted"?

Not that I think your suggestion is bad, quite the contrary, but the "devil" is in the details is it not?

[meow]

I think Torts' anger is a show about 99% of the time. Not this time. He was obviously concerned about his top players' safety and felt bad having to put his bottom line guys in that sort of situation.
I still am not sure how I feel about this whole situation. I'm still digesting it.

I feel like there should be a rule that once the ref engages you and starts taking you to the box that even if the ref lets you go you shouldn't be allowed to engage another player in a fight. Westgarth had zero reason to engage another person after being escorted halfway to the box.

I'm not sure that would change much. Players aren't thinking about consequences at that time. Maybe some supplemental discipline? The guys got tossed anyways, so not much more of a penalty you can assess in-game.

[brwi]

Seems like one way to contain the Sedin line is to simply put your 4th line bruisers out there if they are on the ice and add non-hockey player security to your dressing room.

This was an incredibly stupid move by Torts and I am glad to see a 2 week suspension. Yeah, I know Calgary put out some serious muscle to start the game, but it's hardly the first time that has happened and it still does. I've seen plenty of games where the first line out was the 3rd or 4th line to take the opening faceoff, including fighters. Torts had the last change before the puck drop and decided to go fire-with-fire. All well and good until his theatrics between periods that cannot be excused at all.

[wondermoose]

Funny thing about this incident is if Torts was smart, he would realize Hartley gave him a dream matchup. Today's NHL isn't what it used to be; if he put the Sedin's out there, they could have and would have skated circles around those guys. Instead, he takes it as some big affront and loses his mind.

[pittsoccer33]

I think Torts' anger is a show about 99% of the time. Not this time. He was obviously concerned about his top players' safety and felt bad having to put his bottom line guys in that sort of situation.
I still am not sure how I feel about this whole situation. I'm still digesting it.

So the Calgary coach's instruction to his "starting line" was to start punching whoever was on the other side?

This is just so unbelievably assinine to me. Didn't anyone learn anything from Todd Bertuzzi crippling Steve Moore? So if Tortorella had started the Sedins the plan was for McGratton to try giving them a concussion or paralyzing them?

[meow]

I think Torts' anger is a show about 99% of the time. Not this time. He was obviously concerned about his top players' safety and felt bad having to put his bottom line guys in that sort of situation.
I still am not sure how I feel about this whole situation. I'm still digesting it.

So the Calgary coach's instruction to his "starting line" was to start punching whoever was on the other side?

This is just so unbelievably assinine to me. Didn't anyone learn anything from Todd Bertuzzi crippling Steve Moore? So if Tortorella had started the Sedins the plan was for McGratton to try giving them a concussion or paralyzing them?

I doubt Hartley instructed them to goon it up. I think just saying who was starting was obvious enough to everyone in the room. His intention was intimidation. And it worked to a certain extent. Henrik Sedin only played 12 minutes - he was playing injured to begin with and Torts was protecting him, I would assume. I don't think he wanted his guys to injure anyone.

[pittsoccer33]

Then whats the problem? Stick your best guys out there to skate circles around them and start the game 1-0 in the first minute.

By sticking a bunch of players out there who agreed to fight it seems he got exactly what he wanted?

[meow]

Then whats the problem? Stick your best guys out there to skate circles around them and start the game 1-0 in the first minute.

That is the argument from the "Torts is as much at fault as Hartley" crowd.

By sticking a bunch of players out there who agreed to fight it seems he got exactly what he wanted?

It's more of a punk test. Hartley rolls out the meatheads. If Torts answers with his own meatheads, the tone of the game is set to be physical, earn every inch of ice, finish your checks and on and on with the hockey cliches. If Torts spills the Sedins and Kesler over the boards, the tone of the game is set to be, we aren't going to join your sideshow and we are going our try out damnedest to embarrass you on the scoreboard - while taking the risk that your meatheads might paralyze one of my skill guys. Torts decided to protect his star guys.

[llipgh2]

As far as starting 4th lines, Torts has been guilty of this in the past. If he'd have left it at that, he'd have been fined only. Like Hartley

It's obvious the league took exception to him trying to storm the Calgary locker room. Which frankly was hilarious, especially when he ran away when Clint Malarchuk came flying out of the Flames locker room.

[Digitalgypsy66]

Henrik Sedin was injured with sore ribs, so I don't think Tortarella wanted to risk him out there with the Flames "idiots." Henrik, as mentioned elsewhere, is taking tonight off, ending a streak of 679 games. Impressive.

[MRandall25]

Henrik Sedin was injured with sore ribs, so I don't think Tortarella wanted to risk him out there with the Flames "idiots." Henrik, as mentioned elsewhere, is taking tonight off, ending a streak of 679 games. Impressive.

There are 2 other lines he could have put out against them besides Henrik's and the 4th. Teams have 4 lines after all.

[jwest21]

So basically, it was a statement and Torts didn't like it. I mean, there are going to be times when your top line is on the ice with the other teams 4th line during the game. Just because that happens doesn't mean they are out to get your top line. Totally overblown.

[mikey287]

Wonder if the ref's have any power or discretion to nip this in the bud before it escalates again into a line brawl?

They do. Kerry Fraser describes it better than I ever could: http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=441637" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;