Morgan Rielly cross check to the head of Ridley Greig (DOPS UPDATE: In Person Hearing - 6 games or more possible)

[NyQuil]

BTW it's over for Greig. He has screwed his career. You heard it here first.

Well, he producing at half a point a game as a rookie being deployed throughout the lineup, and he’s a team high +19 on a team that is -10.

Incidentally that is a higher mark than any player on the Toronto Maple Leafs.

This isn’t just some scrub, but I get how hard it is to find out about anything outside of the Leaf Nation bubble.

 

[McFlyingV]

Thats gonna be somewhere in the 4-6 game range I'd think.

 

[Peasy]

Lol okay CSI. Pause it a few frames forward and you’ll see Morgan get his hands up higher.

You can do that for me if you'd like.

We'll see what the DOPS has to say about it and if there was any riding up or not.

 

[Saltcreek]

Yeah, they are playing the politics poorly. They gotta be talking about "his stick rode up the shoulder", "Rielly isn't like that", "Grieg's play is not what hockey is about" ... Don't defend the play, defend the suspension that's probably coming. They're playing connect four instead of chess.

Ive already post a clip that shows that the stick did not ride up the shoulder and you most certainly cannot go in and say Grieg scoring a goal is not what hockey is about. You say those 2 things and you will get laughed at and then slammed.

You can play the character card but every team will be watching this suspension. Anything less than 6 games will open the flood gates and bad PR.

 

[BullyHockey]

Ive already post a clip that shows that the stick did not ride up the shoulder and you most certainly cannot go in and say Grieg scoring a goal is not what hockey is about. You say those 2 things and you will get laughed at and then slammed.

You can play the character card but every team will be watching this suspension. Anything less than 6 games will open the flood gates and bad PR.

You're misunderstanding my post completely.

 

[Micklebot]

The point of a suspension is to prevent further behavior. When you and your coach believe your actions were right, that means that a much harsher punishment is needed.

Can't really punish Rielly because his coach and teammates are idiots... I assume when Rielly has his hearing, he's going to say he didn't mean to target the head, his stick rode up, ect, ect.

Just like Perron did in his appeal, just replace Perron with Rielly and Zub with Greig.

1. The conduct did not involve an intentional cross-check to the head and that: (a) Mr.
Perron was intending to strike Mr. Zub’s arm; (b) the primary point of contact was, in fact, Mr.
Zub’s arm; and (c) Mr. Perron’s stick rode up from the arm to make contact with Mr. Zub’s head.
(Tr. 13, 19, 28)
2. Mr. Perron has no significant history of supplementary discipline.
3. Mr. Zub did not suffer a serious injury.
4. The six (6) game suspension imposed by DPS was excessive in light of
supplementary discipline imposed for similar infractions by other Players in the past.

And just like in the Perron case, the league will highlight that the crosscheck was against the rules, did strike the head, the incident happened after the play was over, and with enough time that it could in no way be viewed as a continuation of a hockey play, and that Rielly's singular motive was to extract revenge. Where they differ is Rielly has a better case for the stick ridding up, and Greig had a bit more reason to expect the attack.

 

[NyQuil]

Sens Fans,

Hockey is not for the faint of heart.

Avert your eyes children!

It’s a SLAPSHOT AT AN EMPTY NET!

 

[Peasy]

I start this with the statement that I do not think Rielly is a bad person and I do believe he regrets the headshot however I am fairly confident at the time of this hit he had completely lost his temper and intended to hit the head.

I agree with the rest of your post, if he would have just made it a light check, face wash and a couple light jabs then no one would have really cared.

Crazy you can be so confident about a person actions that youve never met or interacted with before lmao. I'm sure you'll change your tune if the DOPS says the stick rode up

 

[SpezDispenser]

Sens Fans,

Hockey is not for the faint of heart.

lol, what does that even mean? We should look away when a guy two hands someone in the face from here on?

 

[NyQuil]

lol, what does that even mean? We should look away when a guy two hands someone in the face from here on?

Now we’re going to see the real Toronto Maple Leafs who are tough and everything.

Hey man, it's not our fault our team sucks!

Hey, we resemble that remark, only more so!

 

[DJJones]

This is the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a crosscheck to the face after the play

 

[Nostradumbass]

Sens Fans,

Hockey is not for the faint of heart.

Leafs fans,

With these antics, enjoy the golf course after the first round again.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Can't really punish Rielly because his coach and teammates are idiots... I assume when Rielly has his hearing, he's going to say he didn't mean to target the head, his stick rode up, ect, ect.

Just like Perron did in his appeal, just replace Perron with Rielly and Zub with Greig.

1. The conduct did not involve an intentional cross-check to the head and that: (a) Mr.
Perron was intending to strike Mr. Zub’s arm; (b) the primary point of contact was, in fact, Mr.
Zub’s arm; and (c) Mr. Perron’s stick rode up from the arm to make contact with Mr. Zub’s head.
(Tr. 13, 19, 28)
2. Mr. Perron has no significant history of supplementary discipline.
3. Mr. Zub did not suffer a serious injury.
4. The six (6) game suspension imposed by DPS was excessive in light of
supplementary discipline imposed for similar infractions by other Players in the past.

And just like in the Perron case, the league will highlight that the crosscheck was against the rules, did strike the head, the incident happened after the play was over, and with enough time that it could in no way be viewed as a continuation of a hockey play, and that Rielly's singular motive was to extract revenge. Where they differ is Rielly has a better case for the stick ridding up, and Greig had a bit more reason to expect the attack.

I personally think a stick riding up should have no barring on something like this. You don't chase down a player when the play is dead and start attacking him with your stick period. They need to make an example out of him.

 

[Ol' Jase]

This is the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a crosscheck to the face after the play

bUt THe cODe!!!!!!111

 

[ElysiumAB]

Well done, thank you.

The issue with flipping the sides of the coin is that no one on the Leafs would have clap bombed or hotdogged into an empty net and Brady Tkachuk would have fought instead of cross-checking.

To be clear, you're referring to a team with Tyler Bertuzzi and Max Domi on it? While saying they're incapable of doing something outrageously stupid or absent of tact?

Not sure you wanna die on that hill.

 

[swiftwin]

This is the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a crosscheck to the face after the play

This is also the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a player scoring an empty net goal.

 

[Holden Caufield]

What Grieg did was funny, trolling, non violent, and good for the game in my opinion. (Gets the blood boiling for fans and players alike)

What Reilly did was assault him with a weapon while the game wasn’t even going on. It’s pretty much that simple.

There are lots of ways you can physically exact revenge on a player in the game of hockey.
You can skate 30 miles an hour at him and use your body weight to smash him into the boards. Heck you can throw your gloves on the ice and try and punch the player in the head. It’s established that is somewhat acceptable and only warrants a 5 minute penalty. What Reilly did has never been acceptable.

 

[DJJones]

This is also the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a player scoring an empty net goal.

Not really, roughing the guy up is very much in play. I'd be fine with that. Shit the flames gave a beat down to someone who did it to ys a few years ago

Cross checks to the head are not. If he didn't mean to do it whatever, he still did it

 

[Irishguy42]

This is also the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a player scoring an empty net goal.

Well, one is good (scoring an ENG) and one is bad (crosschecking someone in the head several seconds after the whistle).

Pretty easy to defend one of these...

 

[Saltcreek]

I personally think a stick riding up should have no barring on something like this. You don't chase down a player when the play is dead and start attacking him with your stick period. They need to make an example out of him.

I just do not buy the riding up the shoulder one bit. Grieg puts up his hand to defend himself and then gets smoked in the head, you simple do not have to aim that high to cross check someone in the arm. Even watching the play in slow motion you just do not see any deflection on the cross check.

 

[Peasy]

This is the strongest I've ever seen a fan base defend a crosscheck to the face after the play

Dont think many are defending it. More so just arguing semantics. I don't really see many people at all saying he shouldnt be suspended.

 

[swiftwin]

Well, one is good (scoring an ENG) and one is bad (crosschecking someone in the head several seconds after the whistle).

Pretty easy to defend one of these...

/thatsthejoke

 

[member 74440]

I personally think a stick riding up should have no barring on something like this. You don't chase down a player when the play is dead and start attacking him with your stick period. They need to make an example out of him.

It doesn't. If you accidentally high stick someone you get a penalty. If you accidentally trip someone you get a penalty. Not sure why people are using the stick riding up as a defense. You are responsible for your stick regardless of what happens.

 

[Irishguy42]

/thatsthejoke

 

[Micklebot]

I personally think a stick riding up should have no barring on something like this. You don't chase down a player when the play is dead and start attacking him with your stick period. They need to make an example out of him.

Well, I think if it was a significant deflection that wouldn't have resulted in it hiting the head if not for Greig's action (raising his arm to try and defend himself) then maybe you weigh that in a bit, but it's not the winning argument some think. In this case, there a non-zero chance that even if Greig didn't raise his arm the stick still rids up into the head, it was reckless regardless.

Of note, the NHL did address the claim that other incidents got off lighter when the player had no prior history, and they brought up Thornton from way back, and Spezza recently, they'll now be able to add Perron.

In the end, this seems like a pretty easy 4-6 games, looking like the latter given the in person hearing. Had the stick not rode up the arm and been a more direct to the head hit, I think we might have seen double digits get considered, so maybe 7-10, but likely landing at 8.