Torts has to get suspended for his antics, and 6 games sounds reasonable, as does the financial aspect of it that 15 days without pay dictates.
As for Hartley, not sure why people are up in arms. Of course there are no rules broken by starting the fourth line. However, an incident ensued and the league is determined to ensure that all are parties are held accountable.
Last edited by Enoch Root; 01-20-2014 at 08:12 PM.
Honestly, the best thing about this whole incident, other than making a January game awesome, was that Hartley baited Tortorella and Torts swallowed the whole thing.
Then, when Torts went nuts, Hartley totally ignored him, knowing that would drive Torts off the deep end.
Pure gold by Hartley.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
As for Hartley, not sure why people are up in arms. Of course there are no rules broken by starting the fourth line. However, an incident ensued and the league is determined to ensure that all are parties are held accountable.
Why punish a guy for doing absolutely nothing wrong? Hartley started his 4th line, so what? The fine is plain stupid.
Right call. Hartley is a smart guy and he knew what he was doing, especially given their history. Torts needed to get suspended, and I think 6 games (and 15 days pay) is appropriate.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
Didn't Sussudio start fights at the start of games last week? Was Torts fined then?
Coaches should be allowed to start any player on the roster. If they explicitly told them to fight, then there could be a fine. A real slippery slope here. Who defines what is a fourth line player?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Didn't Sussudio start fights at the start of games last week? Was Torts fined then?
Coaches should be allowed to start any player on the roster. If they explicitly told them to fight, then there could be a fine. A real slippery slope here. Who defines what is a fourth line player?
One of my favorite Flames games ever, was the one where Neil Sheehy took the opening faceoff.
"you know, the Badger Bob era, the guy, he thought way too much, and he was so far ahead of his time with thinking. You mentioned the line brawl. I remember it was one of the last games we were playing the regular season in Edmonton, and, of course, the visiting team has to put in their starting lineup.
He liked to mess with Sather's head and tick him off by delaying as long as possible before giving a starting lineup, and who does he start? Up front: Tim Hunter, Neil Sheehy, Nick Fotiu. That's the starting three forwards, and I think we had Terry Johnson and Charlie Bourgeois on defence, our five toughest by far guys.
So from the story I hear when they handed that over to Sather, Sather went ballistic when he saw because he delayed giving it to him. So Sather got it and went ballistic. Of course, he starts all his toughest guys, and what do they do? They dance right away. But that kind of stuff, can you imagine a coach doing that now? You'd be suspended."
Looooob sez " of course Berezan's memory is likely a bit fuzzy here as Johnson and Bourgeois were traded for one another, I suspect someone knows who the other dman was on that play ...."
Last edited by looooob; 01-20-2014 at 10:03 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to looooob For This Useful Post:
Didn't Sussudio start fights at the start of games last week? Was Torts fined then?
Coaches should be allowed to start any player on the roster. If they explicitly told them to fight, then there could be a fine. A real slippery slope here. Who defines what is a fourth line player?
Yeah, unless they have proof that Hartley specifically asked for something unsportsmanlike to happen, I don't see how they are justified in fining him. Seems weak. It's really just to give the decision the appearance of some kind of "balance".
I think a lot of energy has been spent on muddying the issue to make it seem like there were two equal culprits, Tortorella and Hartley. And unsurprisingly it kind of worked, judging by how the incident is now being discussed. Rather than focusing on Tortorella's obvious anger issues, people are engaged in an 'on one hand, one the other hand' type of debate where Hartley started something and Tortorella simply went a little too far in protecting his team.
...."
