[News] Brad Marchand suspended 2 games for not being Sidney Crosby

[Resolute 14]

There is only a double standard if one can demonstrate that Marchand did not get away with a few incidents prior to being fined or suspended himself. But for right now, Crosby still enjoys the benefit of the doubt while Marchand does not, because Marchand's history is that of a far dirtier player.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Mike F

My word! A player with a long history of dirty play and suspensions being treated differently than a player with no such history!! It's positively givin' me the vapours!

Two players commit the same offense and only one is suspendible because of player history? That's like saying if you murder someone in cold blood without a prior criminal record you should not get punished. Punish the act end of story!

[CalgaryFan1988]

There is a double standard because even if someone like Iginla speared someone like Crosby did (not his first time either), then slashed someone's finger off, I believe they would have at least received a warning.

I'm a huge Crosby fan, but his stick work over the years needs to be addressed.

[Flash Walken]

For me, the problem with the suspension length etc, is that off the top of my head I don't think there is a single player in the league with more incidences of supplemental discipline than Marchand.

So if that's the case, at what point do the standards need to change for him? He is either incapable of playing within the rules of the game innacted largely/solely for player safety, OR, he is leveraging the impact of his discipline worthy actions against the likelyhood of being suspended for a meaningful amount of time/games. Either scenario is not a wonderful reflection on the player or the league who employs him.

He's not like a player like Perry, or even Kesler, he's an altogether dirtier, more injurious and more flagrant player. He routinely injures guys with discipline worthy actions on the ice. His skill notwithstanding, he's dangerous to the careers of other NHLers on the ice purely for actions outside the bounds of the game.

There are few more examples more cut and dry in my opinion.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There is only a double standard if one can demonstrate that Marchand did not get away with a few incidents prior to being fined or suspended himself. But for right now, Crosby still enjoys the benefit of the doubt while Marchand does not, because Marchand's history is that of a far dirtier player.

What doubt ? On video review Crosby nut shots a guy, chops a guys finger off so when does he get ANY kind of warning or is he just going to always have no prior incidents?

[FanIn80]

I'm not questioning Marchand's suspension. My concern is that there was no call on the Crosby play. No review at the Player Safety level. No first-offence discussion with Crosby. No media coverage of Crosby, etc etc.

Also, this isn't the first time Crosby's done something like this over the years. If he was treated like everyone else, this would be at least his second or third suspendable offence (not even counting when he chopped a guy's finger off just a few games before this, and then got pissed off when people were asking him about it).

The reason Crosby doesn't have a prior history is literally because of the double standard, so using his lack of history to defend him not getting suspended is a significantly flawed approach to this conversation.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Two players commit the same offense and only one is suspendible because of player history?

Yes. Exactly.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's like saying if you murder someone in cold blood without a prior criminal record you should not get punished. Punish the act end of story!

It's like saying two people commit an assault: one with no prior convictions gets parole and one with a laundry list of prior convictions gets jail time. What you're arguing for is a mandatory sentence that takes no context into account... Why does it make sense to give a person with no priors just as harsh a sentence as a multiple convict or to never up the sentence regardless of how many times a person commits an offense?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Yes. Exactly.



It's like saying two people commit an assault: one with no prior convictions gets parole and one with a laundry list of prior convictions gets jail time. What you're arguing for is a mandatory sentence that takes no context into account... Why does it make sense to give a person with no priors just as harsh a sentence as a multiple convict or to never up the sentence regardless of how many times a person commits an offense?

The NHL rules are written in a way that state a players history only comes into effect after a play is deemed illegal.

So essentially they say Crosbys slash was ok.

[Fan in Exile]

I think Crosby's play was dirty and cheap but the two incidents aren't at all similar. One was a spear and one was a tap to the balls. Don't condone it but one is much more serious than the other. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

I also think Crosby, Staal et al should be suspended when they cause an injury from a slash. Don't know what the league is doing letting those go uncalled and unsuspended.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

So a repeat offender spears someone in the junk and has to sit out 2 meaningless games before the playoffs.

Well done, NHL. That'll show 'em.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

It could be argued that Crosby was going for his arm? Really??

WOw, some of these Crosby apologists are on another level.

Did you watch the Crosby play?it was a slash, not a spear. Stick was moving (mostly) laterally and caught him in the behind.

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that's not where arms are.

I'm not sure why you're confused. i didnt say he slashed him in the arm.


Crosby slashed his guy, Marchand speared his guy. Massive difference. Not to mention the force used by each player. Marchand used way more force.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The Crosby slash was an obvious attempt to slash someone in the scrotal region, but it wasn't with the same degree of force that was seen with Marchand who has a very lengthy history of cheap shots. They were two very different plays from two players with significantly different backgrounds, Crosby can be chippy but Marchand can be dangerous.

[codynw]

I have a Brad Marchand World Cup jersey no regrets.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Weitz

The NHL rules are written in a way that state a players history only comes into effect after a play is deemed illegal.

So essentially they say Crosbys slash was ok.

No, you've taken a leap too far... Just because a play is deemed illegal, that doesn't mean it's suspension worthy. To put it another way, if a player isn't suspended, that doesn't mean the league deemed his play legal; they could have deemed it illegal, but only worthy of an in-game penalty (2, 5, 10, etc.) rather than supplementary discipline given a player's history.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Did you watch the Crosby play?it was a slash, not a spear. Stick was moving (mostly) laterally and caught him in the behind.



I'm not sure why you're confused. i didnt say he slashed him in the arm.


Crosby slashed his guy, Marchand speared his guy. Massive difference. Not to mention the force used by each player. Marchand used way more force.

Crosbys stick was moving upwards and caught him in the groin. Back in the day slashes were downwards, so I called it a spear. Sticks to the nuts are usually called spears.

Not sure how you can judge force from a video, but who cares which used more force? One was deemed a 2 game suspension (should have been more), while the other wasn't even worth a warning. They were both very dirty plays and both obviously intentional.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mike F

No, you've taken a leap too far... Just because a play is deemed illegal, that doesn't mean it's suspension worthy. To put it another way, if a player isn't suspended, that doesn't mean the league deemed his play legal; they could have deemed it illegal, but only worthy of an in-game penalty (2, 5, 10, etc.) rather than supplementary discipline given a player's history.

The problem is that if a player never gets suspended or fined they never have a history. Crosby should have been fined at a minimum to get it on his record so next time you can't say he doesn't have a record.