Eleven Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 Well, here's my $0.02. The Janssen hit is one of the worst I've seen recently. Not even close to what happened to Drury (which still was bad). Janssen hit VERY late and left his feet. The guy shouldn't play again this season. I hope Kaberle comes back. I like his game, even if he plays for the Leafs.
grinreaper Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 The next time a team starts to "goon" it up is the time that the other team should do a striptease ala Slap Shot. Just think, the NHL will get their airtime on ESPN but will (might) be embarassed enough to do something about protecting their assets.
Corp000085 Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 the NHL is conducting a hearing right now on the hit by jansson. If they really got the message, they should conduct a hearing on why 4 officials missed the call.
Claude Balls Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 In all fairness. The Sabres had an 11 point lead in the division. The Leafs are on the outside looking in. That really shouldn't matter when one of the guys you go to war with night in and night out is nearly paralyzed. So what you are saying is that the playoffs are more important than a teammates well-being? There was plenty of time left in the game and only being down 2 goals that it shouldn't have been a factor. You think if Tucker was playing he would have let that go? He may be on the dirty side as well, but he is also the only Leaf with balls as far as I can tell. The fact that Janssen didn't play another shift shouldn't matter either. Stafford went out of his way and got after Neil immediately after the hit. Someone on the ice should have made a beeline towards that prick. It was obvious he was the one that did it and I'm sure some guys on the bench saw it. Bottom line: The hit was a disgrace, Toronto's reaction was a disgrace and so far the NHL's reaction has been a disgrace.
Taro T Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 Extremely cheap hit. Unlike the hit on Drury where the puck didn't end up on anyone else's stick (simply by dumb luck, not because there wasn't time for it to have gone to someone), Colaiacovo did have the puck by the time Janssen hit Kaberle so the Janssen hit isn't even TECHNICALLY legal. Both hits were clearly outside what a "clean" hit should be. Hopefully the league does suspend Janssen. If they do, I won't expect it to be because they hate the Sabres and love TO (as much as I do like that particular conspiracy theory), it would be because the Janssen hit, while uncalled, WAS illegal. DC, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the trailing ref have continued to watch Kaberle and the other ref should have been watching where the puck went up ice? Or should he have been following the puck and the other ref watching toward TO's forwards? If the ref should have been staying w/ Kaberle, there is absolutely no way he should have missed that call. If he had to stay with the puck, I'd still like to think he'd have seen it from the corner of his vision. As for the Loafs not mugging Janssen, I'd guess that Auto is correct in that no one on the Loafs w/ possible exception of Colaiacovo had any idea what had happened. (Welcome to the board, btw.) They wouldn't have seen a replay (most likely) in the Meadowlands and the hit was behind the play. Not seeing what had happened, makes it tough to exact retribution. The dynamics of the play were much different between what Kaberle's teammates saw and what Drury's teammates saw. Hopefully this does goad the league into addressing headhunting hits. I won't hold my breath waiting for it though. And finally, as dirty as the Janssen hit was, it was cleaner than Farcy skating past Grier, then trying to take Hecht's head off and getting his knee instead. Karma's a (rhymes with witch).
Eleven Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 TSN reports a three-game suspension is all. That's irresponsible, IMO.
carpandean Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=28998...ge&service=page
Orange Seats Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=28998...ge&service=page In cases where a guy is injured on a hit that the league deems dirty, the offender should be fined AND suspended AT LEAST until the affected player is able to return.
connee Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=28998...ge&service=page Amazing...no wonder this league is seen as a joke in the sports world. The NHL has a LOT of explaining to do
Kristian Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 Three games is a friggin' joke, but then again so is the NHL. Bush league.
BRH Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 Three games is a friggin' joke, but then again so is the NHL. Bush league. The message the league sent is that if you're on a Canadian team and you hit a guy late and to the head, it's "he should have kept his head up." But if you DO it to a Canadian team, expect at least three games. That's how I see it, anyway. I can't really agree with those who are saying this hit was worse than the Drury hit. Kaberle at least had the opportunity to see Janssen coming.
wjag Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 That figures.. He'll be back just in time for Buffalo. Hey Auto.. Want us to introduce Mr. Kaleta to him?.. Acknowledging you reluctance to exact some revenge, consider it a professional courtesy for two teams who share a lake.
Rabbit151 Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 I was watching that Sens/Canes game and saw Neil take out Gleason. He shoved his stick at Gleason's skate blade on the outside edge, effectively taking his feet out from under him while going full speed for the puck on an icing play. The guy was a couple of feet away from the boards. The net blocked the view of the refs and players so nobody did anything about it. Watch the replay if you can boys. It was every bit as disgraceful as the Drury hit and the one on Kaberle. Neil should by now have a solid rep as a cheap-shot artist, and the league should deal with him. Don Cherry needs to call him out on this Gleason hit. Neil would probably say it was an accident, I say, when the same guy keeps taking out players on border-line calls, it's no accident. I can't believe how no-one seemed to even notice his garbage play on Gleason. What a cheap piece of garbage Neil is. Someone needs to play a game with Neil. A make-up game like my kids play. One guy gets to be Claude Lemieux of the Colorado Avalanche, mid 90's. Chris Neil gets to play the part of Kris Draper. Now, let's play hockey.
drnkirishone Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 they gave him 3 games because he forgot to say that Kabarle was admiring his pass. seriously thou 3 games is nothing considering he just shelved there best defensman for a undisclosed amount of time
Taro T Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 The message the league sent is that if you're on a Canadian team and you hit a guy late and to the head, it's "he should have kept his head up." But if you DO it to a Canadian team, expect at least three games. That's how I see it, anyway. I can't really agree with those who are saying this hit was worse than the Drury hit. Kaberle at least had the opportunity to see Janssen coming. That's one way to look at it. That the only / primary difference in the plays was the laundry. But there was one other difference. While the hit on Drury was barely legal on about 4 different grounds, it was legal. It was dirty, but legal nonetheless. The hit on Kaberle barely stayed within the framework of about 3 rules, but when that puck touched Colaiacovo's stick before Janssen hit 15, it put the hit outside the framework of 1 rule. It made the hit interference and thus illegal. Hopefully, the league will add a rule about shots to the head this offseason, so the hit that Drury took will be illegal in the future.
Chief Enabler Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 My guess is from this point forward, if any Sabre is subject for giving a controversial check or hit. It would be look upon that Lindy told him to do it. (i.e Kaleta, Peters, or anyone) Which aint right?!?
connee Posted March 3, 2007 Report Posted March 3, 2007 That's one way to look at it. That the only / primary difference in the plays was the laundry. But there was one other difference. While the hit on Drury was barely legal on about 4 different grounds, it was legal. It was dirty, but legal nonetheless. The hit on Kaberle barely stayed within the framework of about 3 rules, but when that puck touched Colaiacovo's stick before Janssen hit 15, it put the hit outside the framework of 1 rule. It made the hit interference and thus illegal. Hopefully, the league will add a rule about shots to the head this offseason, so the hit that Drury took will be illegal in the future. Sorry, but in 37 years I have never heard of a suspension for interference. The NHL must now explain why that goon Neil was not suspended for 3 games. The message the league sent is that if you're on a Canadian team and you hit a guy late and to the head, it's "he should have kept his head up." But if you DO it to a Canadian team, expect at least three games. That's how I see it, anyway. I can't really agree with those who are saying this hit was worse than the Drury hit. Kaberle at least had the opportunity to see Janssen coming. The difference is that Janssen didn't mean to cause injury and Neil did.
Taro T Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Sorry, but in 37 years I have never heard of a suspension for interference. The NHL must now explain why that goon Neil was not suspended for 3 games. The difference is that Janssen didn't mean to cause injury and Neil did. The reason he wasn't suspended is the hit on Drury was TECHNICALLY legal and the league and (more importantly) the NHLPA doesn't want to impose further discipline on players for hits that are legal (but blatently dirty). When Janssen threw the hit on Kaberle, the ONLY thing that was TECHNICALLY illegal about it was that he hit a player without the puck. That IS interference. He did not throw an elbow, he did not charge him, and he did not hit him from behind. He was close on all 3 (VERY close on the 1st 2), but didn't meet the standard for any one of those calls. The NHL doesn't have a "late hit" penalty. Late hits are covered under the heading "interference". Janssen wasn't suspended because he interfered. He was suspended because he interfered in a "dirty" manner. (He threw a late hit.) You say Janssen didn't mean to cause injury. Does that mean you think he shouldn't have been suspended? I also am curious in what rule you think he violated other than interference or intent to injure. I think both should have been suspended (and for more than 3 games so that a message is sent) and that type of hit needs to be made illegal on it's own merits this off-season.
FogBat Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 They didn't retaliate because no one saw it. Tucker was the only one to see it because he was watching from the press box. By the time they found out what had happened, Maurice had told them to not go after anyone becuase he wanted the win. If that hit had been made in end where the leaf bench was it would have been a different story. And if Janssen shows his face on March 20th at the ACC there will be a reaction, trust me. Gee, you think? Just ask Drew Stafford, Patrick Kaleta, Adam Mair and Andrew Peters what they did to the baby sens last week. That was a fight to behold! BTW, Auto. Even though you're a Leafs fan, you are more than welcome to come here as long as you don't Troll.
FogBat Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 the NHL is conducting a hearing right now on the hit by jansson. If they really got the message, they should conduct a hearing on why 4 officials missed the call. What's even more disgusting is that the chief of officiating, Stephen Walkom, was present at that game last, not Colin-oscopy Campbell. I'm sure Walkom had some things to say about that at the hearing today. NM Huh? Please explain. I'm confused.
Taro T Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 What's even more disgusting is that the chief of officiating, Stephen Walkom, was present at that game last, not Colin-oscopy Campbell. I'm sure Walkom had some things to say about that at the hearing today. Huh? Please explain. I'm confused. NM = no message. I accidentally reposted my previous post, so rather than subject people to another read of my post, I just "deleted" it.
drnkirishone Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 actually any hit to the face or head of a player can be called boarding or if not near the boards roughing. Also if any hit that is penalized under thous two rules does injure a player's face or head it is suppose to carry a misconduct and/or a suspension. that is why I don't understand the Janssen suspenion but not one for Neil. Both players recieved a body check to the head, both players recieved head injuries because of the contact to the head (face bouncing off the ice counts in my book). Anyone that believes for one second that Janssen did not mean to hurt Kaberle is delusional.
Taro T Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 actually any hit to the face or head of a player can be called boarding or if not near the boards roughing. Also if any hit that is penalized under thous two rules does injure a player's face or head it is suppose to carry a misconduct and/or a suspension. that is why I don't understand the Janssen suspenion but not one for Neil. Both players recieved a body check to the head, both players recieved head injuries because of the contact to the head (face bouncing off the ice counts in my book). Anyone that believes for one second that Janssen did not mean to hurt Kaberle is delusional. Actually, no. Roughing is "a punching motion with the hand or fist, with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of the opponent." A shoulder is not a "hand or fist". The hit on Kaberle could possibly be called boarding, but I would not have expected that call from where the players were at the the time of the hit and the directions their momentum was initially taking them. Although, you are correct, in that IF a boarding call were made there should have been a game misconduct associated with it for the head injury.
drnkirishone Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 I gotta check the rule book again I know they reference another penalty if the boards are not near the hit, and it is basicly the same rules to it cause it literaly says if the play is not near the boards then the call goes under the other penalty *edit* 42.1 is the section and I was mistakend it is not roughing it is charging that is the penalty associated with boarding
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.