Morgan Rielly suspended for five games for cross-checking Ridly Greig in the head (Mod note in OP); upd: Rielly appealing his suspension (upheld)

[Peasy]

Terry Tate, office linebacker

Yesterday I told my aunt that it looked like she had gotten fat, but instead of talking with me about how to go to the gym and lose the weight, she just cried a lot and now my uncle keeps getting in my face. It's totally true though, she looks like she put on 20 in the last year. Since when is telling the truth against the rules? Ugh, unwritten rules and codes are so stupid.

Honestly, I'm hitting the point in most of my hobbies where I do think it's time to start gatekeeping. Seems like there's a whole lot of people who don't care about passion, team identity, or authentic competition any more. Good on Greig for doing something to piss Rielly off, and good on Rielly for responding. Obviously, you cannot cross-check a man in the face, which is why Rielly is getting suspended. But this is the exact sort of thing that makes SPORTS a compelling entertainment product. People who post garbage about how codes are stupid a) clearly aren't paying attention to the rest of their lives and b) seem hell-bound on ruining hockey or the rest of us.

At no point should cross-checking to the face be okay, but the entire meta discussion surrounding codes should be shown the door. I didn't write the code, I'm just explaining the code, and the code will change with time, but I will defend the code to my dying breath because the game is better with the code than without. Even if it's all made up, which it is, none of this is real life, it makes the game better because it gives the players something to stand for. In a day and age where no one seems to stand for anything, I want my entertainment to stand for something, even if it's pretend.

Theres unwritten "codes" everywhere in life. Some of the takes over this incident have been hilarious to read.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

I wonder if those that pined for a suspension on Perron for his crosscheck to Zubs head are the same ones who thinks Reilly’s crosscheck to Grieg deserved only a fine.

 

[Metroid]

Cheap shots are soft.

Shouldn't that make Tampa and bruins soft team then? Amount of cheap shots they do is astronomical... Yet everyone gushes over how they are tough and play the "right" way....

 

[94 Oil Drops]

He sure cost his team with that one.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

LOL. You picked an intelligent one! "Players hate giving up empty net goals because it affects their +/-." I can't believe these guys get paid to do this stuff....,.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

The NHL has zero interest in going to an independent arbitrator directly. The players have pushed for it many times, including during the lockouts and the NHL will simply not entertain it. It's basically the NHL unilaterally imposing it because they will not agree to change it.



Let's also not ignore that the NHL tries to only hire arbitrators that agree with them. They fire arbitrators that disagree with them. It's the most one-sided appeal process in sports.

Delusional. NHLPA would never allow it.

 

[Adrianopolous]

If Perron got 6 then Reilly got lucky

 

[Toby91ca]

I wonder if those that pined for a suspension on Perron for his crosscheck to Zubs head are the same ones who thinks Reilly’s crosscheck to Grieg deserved only a fine.

Highly unlikely. Are there really many people that think Reilly shouldn't have been suspended? In my opinion, Perron should have definitely been suspended longer....probably more than just 1 game longer, but I don't feel super strongly either way. I could compare Reilly's to other incidents with much lower suspensions, but doesn't really matter, like I said, don't feel strongly enough....I think 3-5 games is fair, less would have been too little and more would have been too much in my opinion. I think they actually got this one close to right, the problem might be the several others they got wrong.

 

[Sigh]

Why bother appealing? The league will just drag their feet and deny the appeal after he’s served his 4th or 5th game anyway. No idea why the PA doesn’t pitch a fit.

 

[Toby91ca]

If Perron got 6 then Reilly got lucky

Can you explain that? How so? Reilly got 5....why would Reilly deserve the same or more than Perron? To me there is close to zero argument for that. I guess the only thing you could suggest is distanced travelled, but here's my assessment, which includes trying to think of what others might suggest (haven't read this thread so I'm sure people already tried to argue some of this):

- Perron's cross check was simply more forceful and more directly to the head - I don't think this is really up for debate....but who knows, people will debate anything, but this point seems obvious too me.

- Reason for the incident - some will suggest Perron is more warranted because his teammate was laying hurt on the ice, I get that, but (1) the player he cross checked was trying to help the guy and (2) I don't see this being a reason anyway...perhaps others do

- timing - really don't see any argument here either...both were outside of gameplay. Also, there was still time left in the Leafs game technically as well....so wasn't "after the game ended" - but I still don't think that matters.

Why bother appealing? The league will just drag their feet and deny the appeal after he’s served his 4th or 5th game anyway. No idea why the PA doesn’t pitch a fit.

It's highly probable an appeal won't get you back playing before the original suspension lapses even if successful (maybe not highly probable), but the players appeal it simple to try and get money back that they are losing each game they are suspended.

 

[Ezekial]

That is what you think the core issue is. In reality he got 5 games for what should have been a fine.

You have a very high opinion of your opinions.

 

[Peasy]

Can you explain that? How so? Reilly got 5....why would Reilly deserve the same or more than Perron? To me there is close to zero argument for that. I guess the only thing you could suggest is distanced travelled, but here's my assessment, which includes trying to think of what others might suggest (haven't read this thread so I'm sure people already tried to argue some of this):

- Perron's cross check was simply more forceful and more directly to the head - I don't think this is really up for debate....but who knows, people will debate anything, but this point seems obvious too me.

- Reason for the incident - some will suggest Perron is more warranted because his teammate was laying hurt on the ice, I get that, but (1) the player he cross checked was trying to help the guy and (2) I don't see this being a reason anyway...perhaps others do

- timing - really don't see any argument here either...both were outside of gameplay. Also, there was still time left in the Leafs game technically as well....so wasn't "after the game ended" - but I still don't think that matters.


It's highly probable an appeal won't get you back playing before the original suspension lapses even if successful (maybe not highly probable), but the players appeal it simple to try and get money back that they are losing each game they are suspended.

Ones a Leaf, the other isnt.

 

[Byron Bitz]

What matters is the perspective of the assailant, from Perron's perspective, Zub was responsible or involved in his team mate lying on the ice, while from Rielly's perspective, Greig was responsible for... being a bit too antagonizing?

So sure, it's a bad comparable in the sense that what Perron thought Zub did was much worse than what Rielly thought Greig did.

No what matters is what actually happened in reality, not why happened in Perron’s imagination. The fact is Zub did literally nothing, he was just standing there.

 

[jbeck5]

In a league and a sport where you get 5 minutes for fighting then it becomes part of the game. It's shocking that fans are in denial about this. Let me say it again: 5 minute penalty for fighting.

Yeah. That's two willing combatants.

In the real world, if two guys get in an agreed fight outside the bar, the police will bring them to the station and release them within hours.

There's a clear distinction between an agreed fight, and someone charging at an unwilling combatant...on the ice or in the streets.

That's why it's way more than a 5 min penalty. Because of that distinction.

It's shocking that some fans don't understand the distinction.

 

[Micklebot]

Can you explain that? How so? Reilly got 5....why would Reilly deserve the same or more than Perron? To me there is close to zero argument for that. I guess the only thing you could suggest is distanced travelled, but here's my assessment, which includes trying to think of what others might suggest (haven't read this thread so I'm sure people already tried to argue some of this):

- Perron's cross check was simply more forceful and more directly to the head - I don't think this is really up for debate....but who knows, people will debate anything, but this point seems obvious too me.

- Reason for the incident - some will suggest Perron is more warranted because his teammate was laying hurt on the ice, I get that, but (1) the player he cross checked was trying to help the guy and (2) I don't see this being a reason anyway...perhaps others do

- timing - really don't see any argument here either...both were outside of gameplay. Also, there was still time left in the Leafs game technically as well....so wasn't "after the game ended" - but I still don't think that matters.


It's highly probable an appeal won't get you back playing before the original suspension lapses even if successful (maybe not highly probable), but the players appeal it simple to try and get money back that they are losing each game they are suspended.

The only thing I see as going in Perron's favour aside from the difference between what prompted them both to act would be Perron already service a game as a result of being ejected from the game in the first period, while that doesn't impact him financially, it has a bigger impact on the team than an extra game of suspension since the team played with one fewer player for the majority of the game. Rielly being ejected with 5 seconds in an already decided game means he and the team never had any on ice punishment for the incident.

Wrt to more forceful, I'm not sure that's a given since Rielly appeared to have more momentum going in, and the angles of the replays I've seen aren't as good for the Rielly one, making it hard to tell. There's one angle from the stands that would have been good but I've only seen a slow motion version which makes it useless for determining how forceful the crosscheck was.

 

[jbeck5]

Yes if someone punches you in the face on the street it's assault. In hockey it's a 5 minute penalty.

What if I go to file my TPS reports and someone bodychecks me into the water cooler?!? Is that fair? Then why do we allow it in hockey smdh.

Imagine thinking the same "common sense" that would apply to a stranger in your normal civilian life has any bearing on what goes on in a physical professional sport. Some of you are unbelievably weird.

You're describing plays that are agreed upon to be allowed in the game Re. Body checking.

This is not the same thing.

Imagine trying to compare agreed upon actions in a sport to illegal actions in that sport.

Some of you are also unbelievably weird.

 

[Micklebot]

No what matters is what actually happened in reality, not why happened in Perron’s imagination. The fact is Zub did literally nothing, he was just standing there.

Well, no. the intent matters. If Perron intended to knock out someone who he knew did nothing wrong, he'd deserve a stiffer judgement since he's acting like a lunatic. Because in his mind, he thought he was defending a team mate, that's a mitigating factor, the knowledge of wrongdoing matters.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Ones a Leaf, the other isnt.

I don't think so. Both are complete idiots.

 

[bigdog16]

This literally has happened in Canada.

I don't get it with some fans. It's just a game. We shouldn't be so desensitized to shit like this. There is no reason to defend a player for assaulting another player because he took a slap shot.

Reilly should show remorse and accept his punishment. Instead he's doubling down and trying to appeal. He should get more games based on that.

I’ve seen far worse in rec leagues and they get less games than Rielly got.

Its an F you to the Leafs. If someone scored and taunted players on the bench I would fully expect a reaction. Im shocked at the amount of people who dont understand this

 

[Peasy]

I don't think so. Both are complete idiots.

Nah I'm pretty sure one is a leaf, and the other isnt. Like 99.99999999% sure. Unless I recently missed a trade or soemthing.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Nah I'm pretty sure one is a leaf, and the other isnt. Like 99.99999999% sure. Unless I recently missed a trade or soemthing.

You think the jersey that Reilly wore was the reason he got a 5 game suspension?

 

[Peasy]

You think the jersey that Reilly wore was the reason he got a 5 game suspension?

Nope, but I think the jersey he wore is why that sens fan thinks he "got lucky" compared to perron lol. I'd love to hear his explanation though why one is so much worse than the other. Unfortunately I doubt we will get that.

 

[Ezekial]

You're describing plays that are agreed upon to be allowed in the game Re. Body checking.

This is not the same thing.

Imagine trying to compare agreed upon actions in a sport to illegal actions in that sport.

Some of you are also unbelievably weird.

You don't run around your workplace ripping slap shots into empty offices?

 

[All Mod Cons]

Why bother appealing? The league will just drag their feet and deny the appeal after he’s served his 4th or 5th game anyway. No idea why the PA doesn’t pitch a fit.

Get Morgan some money back

 

[Micklebot]

Why bother appealing? The league will just drag their feet and deny the appeal after he’s served his 4th or 5th game anyway. No idea why the PA doesn’t pitch a fit.

Well, even if the appeal isn't finalized until all the games are served, a game or two retroactively off would be 40-80k back in his bank. It would also amend the precedent for future similar infractions, which for some reason the NHLPA wants to be lower despite ostensibly being concerned about the safety of their players.