Player Discussion David Pastrnak IV
- Thread starter TP
- Start date
- Status
Oates2Neely
Registered User
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 29,373
- 11,697
I thought 2 minutes was fine because I did think Girardi changed positions and it was just one of those "bad luck" kind of things that happen in a fast moving game. I have no problem if they decide this kind of hit needs to go on vulnerable players (like the NFL has done with WRs)...
but I do feel like there is definite inconsistency with the way they've handled these. Pick a standard and apply it consistently and I'm fine either way. This one seemed like a "new" application.
but I do feel like there is definite inconsistency with the way they've handled these. Pick a standard and apply it consistently and I'm fine either way. This one seemed like a "new" application.
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,659
- 9,232
This is what's infuriating about this situation. Same hit, seemingly 2 completely different standards applied.
What I don't understand is why an NHL player would think looking straight up and not being aware of anything around him would be smart....there's no way he shouldn't have been expecting a hit.
- Jan 29, 2003
- 26,433
- 23,175
So here is what bothers me about this suspension and others. I'm a B's fan obviously and while there will always be some level of inherent bias attached to that, does that make me entirely bling to facts?
I re-watched the hit several times this a.m., coupled with the Kulikov hit that GLoryDaze provided and I challenge any reasonable person to draw a distinction between the two, that would explain one being worthy of a 2 game suspension and the other no suspension. In fact, if you showed both hits to a hundred hockey fans that knew nothing about either, and asked which one garnered a suspension and which didn't...I'd guess the answers would be close to 50-50.
Which leads me to this......how can those in charge of meting out supplemental discipline be so widely inconsistent and unpredictable, and yet, nobody with any clout challenges them?
I'm not asking them to be challenged in defense of Pastrnak, I'm suggesting they be challenged based on their ineptitude, for the good of the game.
In some circles, hockey is already looked down upon and mocked. Why allow the league to continue to shoot itself in the foot 10-15 times a year, without asking for some level of competence?
I re-watched the hit several times this a.m., coupled with the Kulikov hit that GLoryDaze provided and I challenge any reasonable person to draw a distinction between the two, that would explain one being worthy of a 2 game suspension and the other no suspension. In fact, if you showed both hits to a hundred hockey fans that knew nothing about either, and asked which one garnered a suspension and which didn't...I'd guess the answers would be close to 50-50.
Which leads me to this......how can those in charge of meting out supplemental discipline be so widely inconsistent and unpredictable, and yet, nobody with any clout challenges them?
I'm not asking them to be challenged in defense of Pastrnak, I'm suggesting they be challenged based on their ineptitude, for the good of the game.
In some circles, hockey is already looked down upon and mocked. Why allow the league to continue to shoot itself in the foot 10-15 times a year, without asking for some level of competence?
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 29,373
- 11,697
You could have said the same think about Orpik's hit on Loui or Hartnell's hit on Andrew Alberts years ago. There are opportunities to light guys up all the time and I know some people enjoy seeing it. For me, I think it comes down to this: is the hit helping to stop the other team from advancing the puck or making a play, or is it simply: MESS HIM UP!!!
Loui was looking down and stretching out, but the puck was near him at the Pens blueline. Hitting him was a play to help stop the offensive team in your zone. Girardi was trying to get the puck. Same thing. Hitting him is about changing possession. The Hartnell hit was completely unnecessary and was just about "sending a message' or showing a guy to "know where you are".
I feel the same way about any hit made where someone says "Don't admire your pass". Please. Guys aren't "admiring their passes" they are looking at where they just sent the puck and trying to make an offensive play. If they no longer have the puck, lighting them up is only about that and not about defending the play or changing possession. It's why hits that are late, but otherwise legal, are still a penalty.
whatsbruin
Registered User
So what exactly did the DOPS do when video surfaced of that Vancouver player taking his glove and slamming the Detroit
players head into the boards. It was all over these boards.
Was there a review and suspension ?
There was clear intent on that play, and a crystal clear target
to the head.
If they were so concerned about head shots, this would have been addressed.
Last edited:
DitClapper
Registered User
- May 15, 2014
- 7,896
- 348
World of Wardlow
Unscripted Violence
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Yeah, but what do those guys know about the game at that level, especially compared to our fan base.
Lobster57
Registered User
did he even miss a shift?
not that i think injury, or lack of, should have much influence on supplemental discipline
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,659
- 9,232
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,319
- 24,242
And you don't think these guys are being instructed to play up the narrative that ever hit is a "bad hit" or "deserves discipline"?
Go back and watch the finals where at least on Sportsnet, to a man, they all gushed about Crosby and how he was the clear-cut MVP. Zero disagreement between them.
When many, many people thought the MVP should of been any Murray, Kessel (my choice) or even Letang.
These guys are just mouthpieces for the league and are going tell the story the league wants them to tell.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
If its 50/50 with 100 unbiased fans, that tells me its a pretty tough call. Not an easy job. How then can the results be called inept and inconsistent?
You looked at the hits several times with the video available to you. I'm pretty sure the NHL looks at all the video available, frame by frame. People that were former players at this level, people who have spent their whole lives in hockey, not just as observers but for a living. I've come to trust their judgement. If facts are revealed that prove a bias, I'll just admit I've been naïve. (See Alan Eagleson, Bruce McNall, Tim Donaghy, Ruby Goldstein, etc.)
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Clearly.
Point being I'm more inclined to be influenced by the people that are involved with NHL hockey for a living than the fan base of the suspended player, who in general, by definition, are biased.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
No, I do not. That makes no sense. Every hit is a bad hit? That narrative puts the league out of business. I thought the same thing they did when it happened, that's a bad hit. That's how it looked.
Playing up Crosby is a completely different story. Sure the league wants to promote their best player. So what. Not comparable to giving an opinion on a specific play in the flow of the game.
- Jan 29, 2003
- 26,433
- 23,175
No.....I don't think either was suspension worthy....the fact that 100 unbiased people would have a hard time differentiating between which hit (of two that shouldn't have resulted in a suspension)...did in fact result in a suspension, is the issue.
There is no consistency and usually very little logic applied to these rulings.
JRull86
Registered User
If the hit was worthy of a suspension, people on here would say that. We're all obviously fans of the team, but we aren't stupid blind homers. If a player on the team does something that's worthy of discipline and it happens, generally people on here would agree with it.
It doesn't matter what Eddie O thinks, he's shown time and time again he's a moron. I'd put more stock into what Kieth Jones said in the intermission, stating that he had no problem with it being a penalty, but to essentially leave it at that.
Sorry, but I don't buy your "involved with NHL hockey for a living" line. Does that mean that everything they say is to be regarded as gospel? That's a load of crap and you know it.
CharasLazyWrister
Registered User
Wow. Probably the best one-for-one comparison argument I've seen.
I don't get it.
CharasLazyWrister
Registered User
For the record, I have gotten infractions for giving chastising the Bruins fanbase for being biased on certain plays. In general, I come here looking for objective talk whether we're talking about the Bruins or Habs. The emotional, blind loyalty does nothing for me when I'm trying to talk about the sport.
So, while I am indeed a nobody, please keep in mind that someone like me has no clue as to how in the world David Pastrnak is suspended here. There are plenty of Habs fans and Rangers fans who are asking the same questions people here are asking. I totally agree with you that a large portion of this fanbase (and pretty much every fanbase in sports) has a strong bias, but questions are rightly deserved in this situation.
Good for you for riding the high horse (I have plenty of experience there
), but people have brought up some perfectly legitimate points here and it's getting old you're trying to drown it out with the "you're just all biased Bruins fans" mantra.
b in vancouver
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2005
- 7,863
- 5,720
I agree. - and I'm against predatory head-hunting blind-side hits... no matter the sweater their wearing or the name on the back.
The only part I can see being argued as a penalty is that he elevates his shoulder and inch or two as he makes contact... but that's an awfully fine line.
Not every devastating hit deserves a penalty.
- Status
