Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
They are calling them as they are written. The problem is that written in the rule book is a ton of grey area like “unless the league reviews and decides against it”, such as the example I posted.
|
Whoops! Missed that post (and had different context
)
But yeah, this "[...]deems the incident is not related to the score, previous incidents in the game or prior games, retaliatory in nature, “message sending”, etc" must be pretty far-reaching to ever be used.
It just came down to "Bennett started it, and had it coming" - which... is the same for Lomberg. Him coming off the bench is the only difference between the two, and Lomberg served a seperate game for doing that. If Lomberg was already out, it's identical IMO.
Unless, of course, the turtling vs. squaring off influences this as well... in which case we have a Tkachuk example to talk about.
And hell, speaking of Tkachuk... an example only brought up as we see the Red Wings tonight reminded us of when someone else came onto the ice and wasn't suspended. So many (ideally) black-and-white rules that cause more confusion than they ever will deter what they were intended to.
Very easy fixes that seem to be only hampered with the refusal to acknowledge there's a problem