NHL 2010/2011

[Ruki]

No suspension, no fine.

[sahyder1]

Chara is not getting suspended. I thought he'd get a couple of games but I definitely wasn't in the "suspended for the rest of the season" camp. It was a late hit but I don't think it was a dirty hit. Suspensions should be based upon the intent of the hit and not the result of it.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Fucking.

BULLSHIT

And, sorry, do you honestly think with the way he's conducted himself so far, Colin Campbell isn't going to lean on the guys making the decisions a bit? No punishment for knocking one of the Habs' best players out of the playoff race? Fuck that.

[Guest mr. potato head]

That was nowhere near as bad as Bertuzzi/Moore.

[sahyder1]

Just so happened that yesterday was the 7 year anniversary of the the Bertuzzi/Moore hit.

[caucasianheat]

I think Campbell sets the standard and always has influence but ultimately the call wasn't his today, so piss on Mike Murphy instead. I don't think it's rational to suggest that Campbell would pull strings so his son's team has a better chance in the playoffs, it's just a matter of the disciplinary aspect of the league being in shambles. This is a status decision and Chara is totally getting the benefit of the doubt.

You can ask anyone that ever played, when someone gets run into the buckle like that it's almost always on purpose. So either he meant to do it or it's a reckless play because there's no way a player doesn't recognize he's approaching the red line and crossing into the area between the two benches.

EDIT: Bertuzzi/Moore was demonstrably premeditated and a sucker shot from behind. It's certainly more extreme and pretty difficult to deny intent and plead innocence. I'd contend Chara's hit is as dangerous and negligent. Steel breaks necks more expectedly than a fist.

[Gabriel]

This one's a tough call to make.

On the one hand, Chara has a history of getting away with late and dirty hits (either because there were no injuries on the play, or because "he's so big it couldn't be helped")... on the other hand, it didn't look like a pre-meditated attempt to injure another player. It was a late hit, and Pacioretty got hurt, but there's no way to prove that Chara purposely shoved him into the turnbuckle there.

Based on the play alone, I believe that it should have been five minutes and a game, along with a hefty fine to encourage him to be more aware of his surroundings and his size in comparison to the other players.

Based on the fact that I see Chara get away with all kinds of late hits and holding calls (seriously, no one takes their hands off their sticks while defending more than this guy), I would say that anywhere between 2 and 5 games, along with a fine, would have been satisfactory for the play.

The fact that there's no supplementary discipline at all, though, is mind blowing.

[Guest mr. potato head]

I think Campbell sets the standard and always has influence but ultimately the call wasn't his today, so piss on Mike Murphy instead. I don't think it's rational to suggest that Campbell would pull strings so his son's team has a better chance in the playoffs, it's just a matter of the disciplinary aspect of the league being in shambles. This is a status decision and Chara is totally getting the benefit of the doubt.

You can ask anyone that ever played, when someone gets run into the buckle like that it's almost always on purpose. So either he meant to do it or it's a reckless play because there's no way a player doesn't recognize he's approaching the red line and crossing into the area between the two benches.

EDIT: Bertuzzi/Moore was demonstrably premeditated and a sucker shot from behind. It's certainly more extreme and pretty difficult to deny intent and plead innocence. I'd contend Chara's hit is as dangerous and negligent. Steel breaks necks more expectedly than a fist.

See, my thinking on this - and I've only been paying attention to the issue for about an hour so it's likely already been raised - is that when you're playing hockey, when you're throwing a hit, you shouldn't have to stop and think "wait, it'd be fine for me to hit him anywhere else on the ice, but not here." In the time it takes you to make that decision, the other guy's already moved 20 feet away. It was a borderline dirty hit if you look solely at the contact between Chara and Pacioretty, but not worth a suspension or fine.

[Cactus Drags]

I'm still unsure either way. Firstly, I wish the guy a full recovery, that's the most important thing here. Secondly, having never played, I have no feel for the speed of the game and ho quick you notice you surroundings or how quick you have to make a decision. It didn't look like Chara deliberately put him into the partition on first viewing, but I couldn't honestly say there was no intent to injure or "give him a little extra" as so many media reports have put it. I am surprised that there's no suspenion, I thought he'd at least get a few games.

Also, wasn't there a thing with leaked emails a while back where it was put forward that Campbell was indeed getting lesser penalties given to guys his kid played with? Or getting them more lenient referees or something.

I don't see this as bad as the Bertuzzi thing though, that was clear cut, full-on assault by a piece of shit who has no right to still play professionally. There was no question of location or anything, it was an outright attack on another player.

[caucasianheat]

I don't discount the speed of the game, I'm just of the mind that a guy with ~1,000 NHL games under his belt knows where the danger zones are on the ice and doesn't really have to do that thought process. I see his head being up, others have disagreed in here. Establishing intent is pretty hard like I said, but regardless of all that it's an opportunity for the league to be decisive and firm about not endangering other players and they of course missed it.

The deal with Campbell I thought was that he didn't punish someone strictly for an offense on Marc Savard, and it's been suggested that was because Campbell doesn't like Savard. The emails referenced an incident Gregory Campbell and Savard had with a phantom high stick a few years before with Colin referring to Savard as a faker. Was there more to it?

[Cactus Drags]

I can't find the article right now, but there was the high stick thing and something about a particular referee either being kept away or put into games. My memory's somewhat hazy now, typical.

Having watched the clip again, I don't want to say it looks deliberate, but it's certainly reckless.

[Plubby]

The blowup on twitter is mind-blowing. They got what they want! For the first time ever they have penalised the hit and not the result/injury and they're still not happy. Staggering.

[SeanDMan]

See, my thinking on this - and I've only been paying attention to the issue for about an hour so it's likely already been raised - is that when you're playing hockey, when you're throwing a hit, you shouldn't have to stop and think "wait, it'd be fine for me to hit him anywhere else on the ice, but not here." In the time it takes you to make that decision, the other guy's already moved 20 feet away. It was a borderline dirty hit if you look solely at the contact between Chara and Pacioretty, but not worth a suspension or fine.

Have you ever played?

Chara has been playing, as pointed out, for decades. He knows when a player is in a vulnerable position. There are positions, angles of pursuit and areas of the ice, where a player is heading into the wall, and it is never okay to hit someone with momentum that puts them face first into the wall. Even if the stanchion isn't there, going face first into the glass has the potential for a lot of injury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zq7b6QhVdA

Watch this video, go to 1:06.

Chara has his arm on the shoulder/head of Pacioretty and PUSHES it into the stanchion.

Even IF the stanchion is not there, it is NEVER acceptable to push someone's head into the wall. It being a late hit is secondary; the stanchion being there is also secondary. This is a case of someone putting pressure from behind to push someone into the boards. This is how necks get broken.

There is a difference between this and the Bertuzzi hit in that this, at least, is a hockey hit, and within the general confines of what might be considered acceptable. This is still way, way over the line. The fact that it's from the backside into the boards, that it's a late hit, that it's into the stanchion, that it's from a player who has a history with the other player, that it's... I mean, add the shit up, this is a situation where the NHL had a chance to set a precedent and say "this was unacceptable".

They didn't.

Says a lot about the owner/player balance when they pass on an opportunity to protect players from a situation that could easily result in death. We're "fortunate" this guy only got a grade two concussion and a fractured vertebrae.

[Toe]

Leafs/Flyers tonight. After losing in OT on Tuesday to the Islanders, the Leafs need the two points tonight. It shocked me how lethargic and slow the Leafs looked on Tuesday. They start slow tonight and they will lose.

[NobBe Nobbs]

The blowup on twitter is mind-blowing. They got what they want! For the first time ever they have penalised the hit and not the result/injury and they're still not happy. Staggering.

Chara got less for badly injuring and seriously endangering the health of a player really just starting his career than Sean Avery did for his 'sloppy seconds' comment that badly injured and seriously endangered the feeling of poor fragile Dion Phaneuf. He got less than James Wisniewski did for miming playing the slide trombone towards Avery, that caused Avery to question his sexuality and spend years grappling with the question of who he was. Does this honestly seem fair to you?

The deal with Campbell I thought was that he didn't punish someone strictly for an offense on Marc Savard, and it's been suggested that was because Campbell doesn't like Savard. The emails referenced an incident Gregory Campbell and Savard had with a phantom high stick a few years before with Colin referring to Savard as a faker. Was there more to it?

That's the gist of it, yes, but do you really need anything else? Cooke's hit on Savard is still having effects on Savard now, it was almost indisputably dirty, but Cooke escaped punishment and it is impossible to distance this instance from what was brought up in the emails. Obviously, nobody's perfect and other candidates would likely have biases, but how Campbell stayed in power with his so starkly brought to light is mind-boggling.

[sahyder1]

There is no sense in comparing this to the Avery suspension. The two aren't related. That's like saying guys taking steroids in baseball shouldn't be suspended for 50 games because a pitcher who throws at someones head only gets 7 games. I've said it for a long time, leagues should be suspending based on the act and not the result. There are dangerous hits in hockey and football that don't get punished because the guy on the receiving end got right back on their feet and on the other end there are times where guys end up getting too hefty of a punishment for a play where they weren't trying to hurt the guy. I'm going to applaud the NHL on this one despite thinking he'd get a few games. Like others here I don't think there was an intent to injure. Did the guy get hurt? Yes, and that is unfortunate but that doesn't call for a suspension for the remainder of the season like some have called for.

Edited March 10, 2011 by sahyder1

[caucasianheat]

That's the gist of it, yes, but do you really need anything else? Cooke's hit on Savard is still having effects on Savard now, it was almost indisputably dirty, but Cooke escaped punishment and it is impossible to distance this instance from what was brought up in the emails. Obviously, nobody's perfect and other candidates would likely have biases, but how Campbell stayed in power with his so starkly brought to light is mind-boggling.

It's worth noting that Campbell coached Savard for the Rangers briefly, it could be an older bias even than the highstick thing but that's what people focus on. Nobody liked the Matt Cooke decision but they hid behind the (lack of) rules and in truth it would have been hypocritical to throw the book at Cooke after Mike Richards went unpunished for decapitating David Booth in the same way a few months prior. I guess consistently poor discipline is at least consistent in their minds. I think it's safe to say that Campbell's ignorance doesn't strictly apply to players with whom he has feelings for one way or the other.

I wonder if Jim Balsillie has taken any interesting calls lately.

[NobBe Nobbs]

There is no sense in comparing this to the Avery suspension. The two aren't related. That's like saying guys taking steroids in baseball shouldn't be suspended for 50 games because a pitcher who throws at someones head only gets 7 games.

Avery got a six-game suspension for a remark. Chara got nothing for this. They're unrelated, I'm not using them to claim Chara has to be suspended for thirty games because Avery got six and this is five times as worse, my point here is that the message this sends is that the league is less concerned with player safety than they are words.

[sahyder1]

There is no sense in comparing this to the Avery suspension. The two aren't related. That's like saying guys taking steroids in baseball shouldn't be suspended for 50 games because a pitcher who throws at someones head only gets 7 games.

Avery got a six-game suspension for a remark. Chara got nothing for this. They're unrelated, I'm not using them to claim Chara has to be suspended for thirty games because Avery got six and this is five times as worse, my point here is that the message this sends is that the league is less concerned with player safety than they are words.

Avery got 6 games because he had been warned by the league ahead of time. If I recall correctly I remember someone from the Stars saying at the tine that he was specifically warned to not talk about his ex.

I really don't think this is a double standard issue. Like I said, it is unfortunate he got hurt but I don't think there was an intent to injure.

[Toe]

Intent to injury shouldn't matter. You are responsible for your own actions. Even if Chara accidentally slammed Pacioretty into the post, he should receive punishment for his negligence and the severity of the incident.