RSS
No suspension for Malkin
Colin Campbell, director of hockey operations for the NHL, just ruled that there will be no suspension for Evgeni Malkin because of the instigator penalty he received in the final minute of Game 2.
"Non of the criteria in this rule (for suspension) applied in this situation," said Campbell. "Suspensions are applied under this rule when a team attempts to send a message in the last five minutes by having a player instigate a fight. A suspension could also be applied when a player seeks retribution for a prior incident. Neither was the case here and therefore the one-game suspension is rescinded."
"Non of the criteria in this rule (for suspension) applied in this situation," said Campbell. "Suspensions are applied under this rule when a team attempts to send a message in the last five minutes by having a player instigate a fight. A suspension could also be applied when a player seeks retribution for a prior incident. Neither was the case here and therefore the one-game suspension is rescinded."
posted by Chuck Pleiness at
11:52 PM
12 Comments:
Not that this was unexpected, but this just confirms that this league is a complete joke.
Oh well, it will only make the Wings win that much sweeter. Because the Pens will not crack Detroit's defense.
I would like to know where it says anything about there being criteria for suspension in the instigator rule. While I am not a fan of the rule, they should still enforce it like they do with all the other silly rule changes post-lockout, particularly if there is no question that the rule was broken. It can be argued that so-and-so didn't actually hook such-and-such on a play, but if the referees ruled an instigator penalty on the ice then it should not be something that can be rescinded after the fact.
The rulebook doesn't actually say anything about "criteria" IIRC. It says a player will be suspended pending review. Which means suspensions aren't actually automatic - they'll only be given out if Colin Campbell decides to give one out. Really, the so-called criteria is completely aribitrary and ambiguous and can be whatever Campbell wants it to be.
Oh and dakka, the confirmation that Colin Campbell and the NHL's stance and views on discipline are big jokes came long ago. This is nothing new.
Regardless what the call is, these situations keep making things more clear to me...
There is no hiding that Bettman, The NHL, and the majority of Media outside Detroit, have a deep seeded hatred for anything "WINGS".
Many have blatantly tried to make the organization look bad with lies and innuendo.
We can argue the "why" forever, but
the leagues "Golden Child" should have it all and we (the league) will even slant refs, calls, caps, endorsements etc...and even schedule back to back SCF games to try to embarrass the wings and ensure that the "Golden Child" gets HIS cup...will the NHL in future years change the name of this beloved trophy to the "Crosby Cup"? (How sick is that thought?...)
And so the story goes...The wings do well and stay competitive even when their own mother (The league) spank them with a belt.
JCW
I really thought that Zetterberg might get the suspension for defending himself against the golden child's special little brother.
So, here's the facts:
Instigator rule is automatic game misconduct.
Fight strap rule is automatic game misconduct.
two game misconducts are automatic suspension.
The head guy of the NHL officifarcing announced it. game misconducts are awardable during review even when not awarded by the referee.
what is the penalty for swinging at zetterberg's head with his stick in his hand? How many games did McSorely get? ok, it wasn't as vicious, or coordinated, but it was still intent to injure. even if it was in the heat of the moment. Even bertuzzi cried when he realized he intentionally maimed moore. So he didn't mean to do it later... he meant to do it then. How can we be safe in this sport when we can't hire officials who care?
If that had been Downey or McCarty or ex-guin Christian Ruutu, how many games would they have gotten for that incident? 1 for jersey, 1 for instigating, 3 for intent to injure?
Under USA hockey rules, the player would have been banned for up to a year and maybe even arrested for assault with a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Clearly Malkin has no sportsmanship in him to just drop the gloves and go like a man. Plus.. Z... who never fights... won that one... once he remembered to drop his gloves... I like watching pav and z try to fight with their gloves on... neither one remembered to drop them until the linesman tried to intervene and they couldnt get their hands through.. then they dropped them so they could reach!
It's still incredibly disappointing to see that Campbell, Daly and Buttman will do anything to give the penguins an advantage.
Also, politely refrain from the renaming the cup thing.
jcm.
The actual rule (it's always good to use "etc." when defining a rule. Makes it so clear.):
47.22 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more instigator penalties.
Oh, my bad. But look at that line: "The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc." Etc.? You can't get more ambiguous than that. Translation: "...the score, previous incidents, and whatever else Colin Campbell feels like making a criterion."
doesnt the word "automatic" mean something? if you can go back and not suspend the person for doing something that you have a specific rule against, then why would you say "automatic suspension?" my brain really just doesnt comprehend.
That's a good point. Kind of dumb to have an automatic penalty that one person and one person alone can subjectively un-enforce.
Great work on the official statutes, I don't have time to do the research and double check it all. Some one want to pull up the 2nd game misconduct suspension rule and see if that one too offers a "oops i don't feel like suspending that guy" clause?
Hey JCM...sorry about the cup naming sarcasm, I have a permanent tongue in cheek/monty python-esque humor.
I do have to say that the class coming from the entire Detroit organization, is pure character.
It is unfortunate that the Wings will have to endure more of this type of shameless lack of honest calls both ways and dishonorable sportsmanship from, and for the few "special children".
The Wings prevail regardless of this type of adversity because of work ethic, experience, and character.
It would be terrific to see a Penguin spanking in their house tonight. Makes watching the games way down here in the south of the US so much fun around a BBQ.
GO WINGS!!!
JCW
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home