OV hit on Campbell

[Stoner]

 

Whether those who wouldn't call it a hit from behind because Soupy did know Ovie was there (as stated above, I'd disagree), it wasn't called a hit from behind; it was called a 5 minute boarding which means he'll be sitting a game unless both of his other suspensions were for reasons other than boarding/hits from behind.

The rules are funny. Any player who cross-checks an opponent who can't defend himself gets a major? That happens 30 times a night!

 

I read something briefly this morning to the effect that Ovie does not qualify for an automatic suspension because 42 games had passed since his previous suspension. Credit for good behavior, I guess. Wish I still had the link.

[Stoner]

I knew there was something wrong with you. Can't trust a man who won't cuss or drink coffee and beer...

 

It's hard to visualize he was doing anything else. Maybe the league will finally do something about these thugs now that their poster boy is on the receiving end. Think the Pens wish they had Laraque now?

 

I may be a teetotaling Javaphobe, but you know ###### goddamn well that I will curse the ####(self-censored)sucking hockey gods from ###### with the best of them.

[Stoner]

Now that's funny.

[spndnchz]

Downie has quite the history. He's suspended right now by the AHL for slashing a linesman, but he's okay to play in the NHL? That's FUp.

[That Aud Smell]

Watching the game I didn't think it was cheap.

When the thread was started I kinda felt this way but since no one else felt the same I thought I must have been wrong. Glad to see this.

from my perspective, OV's conduct is a textbook example of a "cheap" play.

 

this is where i distinguish between plays that are cheap and those that are dirty. the former, to me, is a "hockey play" that is nonetheless completely out of proportion vis-a-vis what the play was intended to accomplish, what it did accomplish, or even what it could have accomplished, on the one hand, and what the play risked in terms of the opponent's health, on the other. OV's election to take brian campbell's life in his hands in connection with a routine (i would say futile) forecheck was as cheap a play as i have seen in quite some time.

 

Ewwww, that's kinda ugly ...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95gD79dWjA

now that's a dirty play - did they call that a "slew knee"? sounds right.

 

Think the Pens wish they had Laraque now?

like others, i don't see how having a professional bouncer on your roster would discourage downie from being who he is: a sociopath on skates.

[spndnchz]

Or Martin putting Phaneuf's face into the ledge: replay at 00:48

 

[inkman]

from my perspective, OV's conduct is a textbook example of a "cheap" play.

I hate to go hockey dinosaur, as PA would say, but you need to protect yourself out there. What OV did was questionable but Brian may want to have tried to use a little self preservation by easing up or trying a different path.

 

now that's a dirty play - did they call that a "slew knee"? sounds right.

As clear as day. He put himself in the position to lean on the back of his knee. Why this chump is in the league, I'll never know.

 

 

like others, i don't see how having a professional bouncer on your roster would discourage downie from being who he is: a sociopath on skates.

While true retribution may not have been achieved, seeing Georges mits bounce of of Downies face a few times would have gone a long way with teammates and fans. Now we have to wait for Downie to get "Steve Moored" by whatever thug Pittsburgh employs. We can hope anyway... :pirate:

[shrader]

The rules are funny. Any player who cross-checks an opponent who can't defend himself gets a major? That happens 30 times a night!

 

I read something briefly this morning to the effect that Ovie does not qualify for an automatic suspension because 42 games had passed since his previous suspension. Credit for good behavior, I guess. Wish I still had the link.

 

I think it was 42 games since his last game misconduct for boarding, the Pat Kaleta hit. I wonder if that's actual games played or total team games (since he missed time for the kneeing suspension).

[spndnchz]

The rules are funny. Any player who cross-checks an opponent who can't defend himself gets a major? That happens 30 times a night!

 

I read something briefly this morning to the effect that Ovie does not qualify for an automatic suspension because 42 games had passed since his previous suspension. Credit for good behavior, I guess. Wish I still had the link.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=314096

[inkman]

Or Martin putting Phaneuf's face into the ledge: replay at 00:48

Well, hard to tell Martin's intentions. Dion was near the boards but he fell kinda awkwardly after the hit.

[Eleven]

Hating OV more and more.

 

Ovechkin was given a five-minute major for boarding and a game misconduct for the hit. It's his third game misconduct of the season.

 

Ovechkin said Sunday he didn't feel the hit warranted any further discipline.

 

"It was not a hard hit," he told reporters. "I just wanted to push him. It's just a moment in the game. I don't think it has to be five minutes or something like that. I just felt bad."

(No you idiot it was a push from behind on a defenceless player and you are going to get yours real soon, I can feel it.

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=521416

 

 

THAT's the part that should be bolded. Campbell didn't have the puck anymore; Ovie "just wanted to push him." There was no reason for it, and nothing to be gained by it; he "just wanted to." So, he did. Apparently hard enough that Campbell (not a small or weak man) hit the boards from three feet away.

 

I like Ovechkin, and I usually like the way he plays his game--I like that a skill player is both willing and able to be physical. But he should be suspended for this one. And the reaction on his face--I saw this yesterday on NBCHD--tells me that he knows he did something he shouldn't have done.

[Kristian]

The rules are funny. Any player who cross-checks an opponent who can't defend himself gets a major? That happens 30 times a night!

 

I read something briefly this morning to the effect that Ovie does not qualify for an automatic suspension because 42 games had passed since his previous suspension. Credit for good behavior, I guess. Wish I still had the link.

 

So now going half a season without getting kicked out of a game is considered good behavior??! :blink:

 

This league has ISSUES............!!

[shrader]

So now going half a season without getting kicked out of a game is considered good behavior??! :blink:

 

This league has ISSUES............!!

 

Didn't we run into the same issue at some point last year with Rivet? I don't remember any complaints about the rule then.

[Kristian]

Didn't we run into the same issue at some point last year with Rivet? I don't remember any complaints about the rule then.

 

Even if it did benefit us at any point, it's still a BS rule.

 

You're either a repeat offender or you're not.

 

I don't recall the incident you're referring to though, what exactly was that about?

[shrader]

Even if it did benefit us at any point, it's still a BS rule.

 

You're either a repeat offender or you're not.

 

I don't recall the incident you're referring to though, what exactly was that about?

 

I'm not clear on the specifics, but I think he got a couple game misconducts for being the 3rd man in on a fight. Now that I actually type it out, I do remember him coming to Adam Mair's aid early in the year because Mair was fresh off of shoulder surgery.

 

If they're going to have a rule about so many game misconducts within a period of time, that clock needs to reset at some point. How they came up with half a season, I don't know, but it has to start somewhere.

[Kristian]

I'm not clear on the specifics, but I think he got a couple game misconducts for being the 3rd man in on a fight. Now that I actually type it out, I do remember him coming to Adam Mair's aid early in the year because Mair was fresh off of shoulder surgery.

 

If they're going to have a rule about so many game misconducts within a period of time, that clock needs to reset at some point. How they came up with half a season, I don't know, but it has to start somewhere.

 

Maybe you're right, especially considering some of they stuff they throw people out for, while happily letting guys like Cooke take someone elses head off.

[shrader]

Maybe you're right, especially considering some of they stuff they throw people out for, while happily letting guys like Cooke take someone elses head off.

 

Maybe they could have some sort of rolling system depending on the type of game misconduct, different lengths of time for different penalties. The counter resets after 40 games for boarding, 20 games for 3rd man in, etc...

 

There might be something to that, but I don't want to be the guy who has to determine which type of penalty is more severe than the other.

[Corp000085]

Getting back to the instigator rule, yes, Taro, I agree that the instigator rule takes the focus away from fighting and back on the skill. It works very well in that regard. However, when you have guys throwing around cheap shots with no repercussions, in part because of the instigator rule, it needs to be abolished. Players need to police themselves to prevent injury or death.

[Taro T]

Getting back to the instigator rule, yes, Taro, I agree that the instigator rule takes the focus away from fighting and back on the skill. It works very well in that regard. However, when you have guys throwing around cheap shots with no repercussions, in part because of the instigator rule, it needs to be abolished. Players need to police themselves to prevent injury or death.

1st off, there ARE repercussions. On this particular hit, the best forward in the league got booted from a 1 goal game. As mentioned in an earlier post of mine, even had there been no instigator rule, on this particular play, the Blackhawks were not going after Ovie. Every single one of them went up the ice on the breakout. The hit either didn't look that bad to the guys on the ice or because the puck was already gone from Campbell they didn't see the hit. Either way, no one was going to rearrange Ovie's face at that juncture.

 

The instigator rule was not high on Ovie's thought process when he checked Campbell in the back. Heck, I don't think he was thinking much of anything other than sending him a "you got rid of it before I could really rail you this time, next time I'll be a step or 2 quicker" message.

 

The instigator rule didn't keep Stafford from going after Neil when Drury got his bell rung. I don't recall Schaefer getting jumped after he hit Connolly, and he shouldn't have been; it was a clean hit. Had the play been regular season & the instigator rule not in place, Mr. Schaefer would almost definitely have had a dance partner.

 

It seems that there are an awful lot of people that are opposed to the instigator rule but love to see hard hits. I've got a newsflash for people, IF having no instigator rule works as most of the supporters of abolishing it profess, it will REDUCE the number of bone jarring hits that occur because the resident goon (or goons) on each team will have a duty (implicit or explicit) to beat the crap out of anyone that dares to Umberger someone. It will also increase the number of fights, as teams now would be pretty much required to carry at least one and more likely several goons on the roster. I guess that it could increase the number of bone-jarring hits, but only because you'd now have more chuckle-heads that can't do anything on the ice other than break their hands on somebody else's helmet or skull. Increasing the # of hits that way will NOT make NHL hockey a more entertaing game, as the reduction in skill will more than offset the entertainment of seeing more Peters-Boulton bouts. Seeing more Jamie McCoun's 2 hand across another guy's jaw isn't really the type of hitting I'm looking to see, bringing the hip check back to the game would be far more entertaining. (And there is no way in heck that a guy as slow as Andrew Peters could line up an effective hip check, much less throw one.) The league doesn't need more Steve Downies, which is exactly what the league will get if it gets rid of the instigator rule.

 

As for the instigator rule causing players to show little respect to each other, that's been going on forever. How much respect did Dale Hunter (Dave Forbes, Wayne Maki, your favorite chucklehead here, etc.) show his opponents? The league and players both need to police it. W/ the expected introduction of new head-hunting rules, the league is belatedly taking one more step towards policing it. W/ the instigator rule in place, the players DO police it when it is truly warranted; w/out it, you probably won't be able to tell the cops from the robbers.

[wjag]

Watching the game I didn't think it was cheap. Campbell's right skate comes off the ice and he can't push back/hold himself up. If he had his skate down on the ice he wouldn't have fallen into the boards. That said, it's nothing more than other players do every night. I don't think it warrants any lossed time. (As much as I want it too).

I agree. The result was bad, sure. But we've seen worse, far worse.

[shrader]

With all this talk of the instigator and the players policing themselves one thought comes to mind. If the league would actually police itself, the idea that the players have to would be pointless.

[Taro T]

Watching the Eulers-BJ's game.

 

Apparently Ovie got 2 games for this latest hit.

[spndnchz]

If Campbell had gotten up uninjured, it wouldv'e been zero.

[Taro T]

Meh, nevermind. :oops:

Thanks PA.

If Campbell had gotten up uninjured, it wouldv'e been zero.

You are quite likely right as Ovie might very well have only received a minor for boarding had Soupy been ok. I guess maybe he shouldn't have decided to 'push' Soupy. Sometimes even actions that aren't given much thought have consequences.

[Stoner]

The rulebook doesn't have a 'reset' button that clicks on at 41 games. That doesn't mean that a double-secret memo is also lacking it.

 

"When a player or goalkeeper has played in 41 consecutive regular League games without being assessed a boarding and/or a checking from behind major and a game misconduct according to Rules 42 and 44, he will have the previous game misconduct penalties removed from his current record."

 

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26306