Toggle sidebar

Clowe suspended for coming off bench? (Suspended 2 Games)

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Swedish GP

Swedish GP

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
78
0
Third Eye
Clowe needs some time off, he keeps doing stuff like this and its hurting the team. I understand he was standing up for Pavs but damn time and place, time and place. I would be more than happy to move him for a prospect and picks. Hell trade him for Clutterbuck if hes not hurt. :cry:
 
Alwalys

Alwalys

Phu m.
May 19, 2010
25,894
6,140
SJeasy said:
IMO, I thought the Shaw hit was a major, no misconduct, etc. It wasn't up there with the suspendable stuff. I do agree that they have been inconsistent on suspendable stuff in the past, passing on things that should have been suspended.
Click to expand...

And if you think about it, had the refs made the right call at the time, blown the play dead (rather than assessing the penalty after the fact) and tossed Shaw out, Clowe would not have had reason to come off the bench. It was the fact that nothing was going to happen to Shaw that Clowe felt he had to do something.

But perhaps a more serious question -- what about the halo rule? Wasn't Pavs within 5 feet of the bench? A player that gets rocked is probably going to come right off so as soon as it happened, was the clowe change legal?
 
Last edited:
Quid Pro Clowe

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,354
9,241
530
It wasn't a bang-bang hit by Shaw. He recognized that Pavelski was in a vulnerable position with his back to him and he hit him. He should have been suspended, but the league suspends players based on results, not intent.
 
SJeasy

SJeasy

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
12,538
3
San Jose
juantimer said:
And if you think about it, had the refs made the right call at the time, blown the play dead (rather than assessing the penalty after the fact) and tossed Shaw out, Clowe would not have had reason to come off the bench. It was the fact that nothing was going to happen to Shaw that Clowe felt he had to do something.

But perhaps a more serious question -- what about the halo rule? Wasn't Pavs within 5 feet of the bench? A player that gets rocked is probably going to come right off so as soon as it happened, was the clowe change legal?
Click to expand...
That 5 feet thing was something that bothered me about the whole brouhaha. I don't have an answer for it.

Also, Shaw was in the range where it could have been called a charge if Pavs had not been at the bench. That is how much I deemed it to be a major, very intentional in terms of putting one's opponent at risk.
 
SJeasy

SJeasy

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
12,538
3
San Jose
Going to NYC is always optional for the player. IMO, Clowe already knew that the league's take could go either way which meant that it wasn't a matter of going to mitigate a draconian punishment. He still may not get off with as little as a 1 game sanction. They review the ref reports and he better pray that his mouth did not betray his cause in the heat of the moment.
 
nabbyfan

nabbyfan

Registered User
Oct 4, 2007
1,205
247
Santa Clarita, CA
2 Games is reasonable. I think it's funny that the 'Department of Player Safety' had nothing to say about Pavelski getting hit from behind as he was heading to the bench other than referring to it once as a Boarding minor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X