I am left with questions ...

[BetweenThePipes00]

I know we hate new threads on the same topic, but I am not jumping into the name-calling battles already started ... besides I have not been around in a while so i am craving attention ...

 

Let me set the stage as I saw it last night: For the second time this season, the Sabres saw one of their two best players and one of their captains blindsided when he did not have the puck. I am not going to get into the debate of HOW late the hits were. The fact is, the puck was gone in both cases, and both fall into areas the NHL has supposedly been cracking down on for years: Hits from behind into the boards, and blows to the head.

 

In the first case, the league chose to do nothing and the Sabres were called soft because no one went after anyone on Washington to "make them pay and think twice before doing that to a star." In the months since, opponents and critics have repeatedly called the Sabres soft and unwilling to engage physically.

 

Now last night, a Sabres captain and leading scorer is on the ice bleeding after getting hit without the puck. In response, the Sabres went after the opponents' stars. And now Ottawa fans (and their coach too, now that I think about it) say that the Sabres are dirty goons who need to be suspended for disprespecting the game, and some Sabres fans say they are still soft because it wasn't Vanek and Briere out there fighting.

 

:blink: :blink:

 

So here are my questions:

 

1. How exactly are they supposed to respond? Could they have waited until Neil's next shift and gone after him? Stafford already went after him and fought him, and besides that, you are not going to scare off Chris Neil by challenging him physically. The only way to make teams think twice about taking liberties on your stars is to take some on theirs. This is what everyone has been begging for for months, right?

 

2. How Neil is a good, honorable tough guy for hitting Drury when he is not looking, and Mair is dirty for punching Spezza after squaring off and trying to engage him for 5 seconds. Spezza knew what was coming and could have defended himself. No doubt Peters grabbed Heatly by the head from behind, but he was also challenged head up before the draw. Heatly knew what was coming. I don't understand the whining from Ottawa about how the Sabres violated some sort of code by trying to fight their stars who are not known for fighting. (Hitting defenseless guys without the puck when they are not looking is prefectly fine, of course.) Again, what good does it do to go after Chris Neil? He thrives on that. The only message that sends is "If you hit our stars, we'll fight your tough guys!" Well, great, that's what they are there for. If I was the opponent, I would take that trade off every day of the week.

 

I'm not saying the Sabres are the toughest team in the league, and I'm not saying they were without fault last night. No doubt, they started the brawl. I'm also NOT debating the legality of the Neil hit or the Ovechkin hit. Even if both hits were perfectly legal, the issue here is the response from the Sabres.

 

This is what everyone has been asking for for months. And if the league hands out suspensions (other than Peters for going after the goalie), I will be forced to ask again: If it's OK for stars to get blindsided without the puck, and it's not OK to respond by challenging the other team's stars straight up, how is it OK to respond? The only answer is to also hit the stars when they are not looking. That is the only logical response, right? But something tells me if Kaleta runs Alfie and leaves him with a concussion and his head bleeding on Saturday, there will be a response from the league.

 

3. So is that what we want? The league is not going to police the hits, and when the players try to police the hits, they are called dirty and maybe get suspended. So where does that leave us?

[sabregoats]

after watching the hit this morning Neal clearly saw that the puck was gone and still hit him from behind. Wether his elbow went up intentionally doesn't matter, his intent on that hit was to injure and in my opinion or guys and Lindy responded accordingly.

[Claude Balls]

But something tells me if Kaleta runs Alfie and leaves him with a concussion and his head bleeding on Saturday, there will be a response from the league.

Excellent post.

 

The league should know the differene between a legal hit and an Illegal hit I would hope. You can legally hit someone and then watch them leave the ice bloodied up (see RJ Umberger). If Kaleta did manage to do what you are saying, as long as it's clean, there shoud be no repremandation from the NHL.

[scottnc]

Let me set the stage as I saw it last night: For the second time this season, the Sabres saw one of their two best players and one of their captains blindsided when he did not have the puck. I am not going to get into the debate of HOW late the hits were. The fact is, the puck was gone in both cases, and both fall into areas the NHL has supposedly been cracking down on for years: Hits from behind into the boards, and blows to the head.

 

In the first case, the league chose to do nothing and the Sabres were called soft because no one went after anyone on Washington to "make them pay and think twice before doing that to a star." In the months since, opponents and critics have repeatedly called the Sabres soft and unwilling to engage physically.

 

Now last night, a Sabres captain and leading scorer is on the ice bleeding after getting hit without the puck. In response, the Sabres went after the opponents' stars. And now Ottawa fans (and their coach too, now that I think about it) say that the Sabres are dirty goons who need to be suspended for disprespecting the game, and some Sabres fans say they are still soft because it wasn't Vanek and Briere out there fighting.

 

You make some very valid points, but there is one thing you left out. Ovechkin got a boarding penalty in the game. Neil went unpunished. I believe that's what set the course of action after seeing the look on Ruff's face on the bench when he realized there was no penalty. If Neil gets a penalty I'll bet there was a much different outcome to the situation.

[BetweenThePipes00]

You make some very valid points, but there is one thing you left out. Ovechkin got a boarding penalty in the game. Neil went unpunished. I believe that's what set the course of action after seeing the look on Ruff's face on the bench when he realized there was no penalty. If Neil gets a penalty I'll bet there was a much different outcome to the situation.

 

Good point, and that's probably true. But given the constant questions about how the Sabres choose to respond when other teams get physical, legal or not, this was coming. Opponents and critics have been poking them with stick about it for months. I think a lot of people (and teams) really thought they would never hit back. Maybe they didn't do it exactly right, but now maybe they are "that team with the crazy, a-hole coach who might go after our stars" instead of "that skilled team that backs down."

[Assquatch]

<snip>

 

2. How Neil is a good, honorable tough guy for hitting Drury when he is not looking, and Mair is dirty for punching Spezza after squaring off and trying to engage him for 5 seconds. Spezza knew what was coming and could have defended himself. No doubt Peters grabbed Heatly by the head from behind, but he was also challenged head up before the draw. Heatly knew what was coming. I don't understand the whining from Ottawa about how the Sabres violated some sort of code by trying to fight their stars who are not known for fighting. (Hitting defenseless guys without the puck when they are not looking is prefectly fine, of course.) Again, what good does it do to go after Chris Neil? He thrives on that. The only message that sends is "If you hit our stars, we'll fight your tough guys!" Well, great, that's what they are there for. If I was the opponent, I would take that trade off every day of the week.

 

<snip>

Nor do I, especially given that the Sabres were going to throw down with whomever Murray put out there for the next shift. Murray is the one that put them in that position.

[scottnc]

Good point, and that's probably true. But given the constant questions about how the Sabres choose to respond when other teams get physical, legal or not, this was coming. Opponents and critics have been poking them with stick about it for months. I think a lot of people (and teams) really thought they would never hit back. Maybe they didn't do it exactly right, but now maybe they are "that team with the crazy, a-hole coach who might go after our stars" instead of "that skilled team that backs down."

 

I agree. I think this was a good thing for the team.

[Taro T]

I know we hate new threads on the same topic, but I am not jumping into the name-calling battles already started ... besides I have not been around in a while so i am craving attention ...

 

Let me set the stage as I saw it last night: For the second time this season, the Sabres saw one of their two best players and one of their captains blindsided when he did not have the puck. I am not going to get into the debate of HOW late the hits were. The fact is, the puck was gone in both cases, and both fall into areas the NHL has supposedly been cracking down on for years: Hits from behind into the boards, and blows to the head.

 

In the first case, the league chose to do nothing and the Sabres were called soft because no one went after anyone on Washington to "make them pay and think twice before doing that to a star." In the months since, opponents and critics have repeatedly called the Sabres soft and unwilling to engage physically.

 

Now last night, a Sabres captain and leading scorer is on the ice bleeding after getting hit without the puck. In response, the Sabres went after the opponents' stars. And now Ottawa fans (and their coach too, now that I think about it) say that the Sabres are dirty goons who need to be suspended for disprespecting the game, and some Sabres fans say they are still soft because it wasn't Vanek and Briere out there fighting.

 

:blink: :blink:

 

So here are my questions:

 

1. How exactly are they supposed to respond? Could they have waited until Neil's next shift and gone after him? Stafford already went after him and fought him, and besides that, you are not going to scare off Chris Neil by challenging him physically. The only way to make teams think twice about taking liberties on your stars is to take some on theirs. This is what everyone has been begging for for months, right?

 

2. How Neil is a good, honorable tough guy for hitting Drury when he is not looking, and Mair is dirty for punching Spezza after squaring off and trying to engage him for 5 seconds. Spezza knew what was coming and could have defended himself. No doubt Peters grabbed Heatly by the head from behind, but he was also challenged head up before the draw. Heatly knew what was coming. I don't understand the whining from Ottawa about how the Sabres violated some sort of code by trying to fight their stars who are not known for fighting. (Hitting defenseless guys without the puck when they are not looking is prefectly fine, of course.) Again, what good does it do to go after Chris Neil? He thrives on that. The only message that sends is "If you hit our stars, we'll fight your tough guys!" Well, great, that's what they are there for. If I was the opponent, I would take that trade off every day of the week.

 

I'm not saying the Sabres are the toughest team in the league, and I'm not saying they were without fault last night. No doubt, they started the brawl. I'm also NOT debating the legality of the Neil hit or the Ovechkin hit. Even if both hits were perfectly legal, the issue here is the response from the Sabres.

 

This is what everyone has been asking for for months. And if the league hands out suspensions (other than Peters for going after the goalie), I will be forced to ask again: If it's OK for stars to get blindsided without the puck, and it's not OK to respond by challenging the other team's stars straight up, how is it OK to respond? The only answer is to also hit the stars when they are not looking. That is the only logical response, right? But something tells me if Kaleta runs Alfie and leaves him with a concussion and his head bleeding on Saturday, there will be a response from the league.

 

3. So is that what we want? The league is not going to police the hits, and when the players try to police the hits, they are called dirty and maybe get suspended. So where does that leave us?

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

 

The Sabres did what they needed to do. They have a reputation (unearned IMHO) for being soft. The only way to counter it is to do what Max did when he was hit a while back (get up and ragdoll the guy) or what they did last night.

 

The thing is, if Captain Constipated isn't so clueless, the Sabres are having Peters fight Kelly on the next shift, not Mair fighting Spezza. And the Sabres reputation for taking what is dished out is not changed. Does anyone honestly believe the Sabres definitely won't try to exact retribution the next time one of theirs are messed with? They may not, but now there is that little bit of doubt in the other team's mind.

 

Maybe that bit of doubt keeps Danny Briere or Pominville from taking a massive shot down the road.