Ryan Clowe *Update* 2 game suspension

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I believe you can also consider a line change if you go on the ice for an injured player, this is also a factor. I think Clowe will get 6 or 7 games, but I hope Shaw gets 5+ for his hit.

Amazing if he gets 3x's the punishment that Hall got. Pretty sad

[MissTeeks]

2 games for Clowe:

NHL Player Safety @NHLPlayerSafety 13m Ryane Clowe suspension video: bit.ly/XX3GhF

[moon]

That seems way too light and Clowe is very lucky that they obviously called it a "line change."

[timbit]

Good explanation by Shanahan. Right decision.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by moon

That seems way too light and Clowe is very lucky that they obviously called it a "line change."

Shaw should of got atleast twice the punishment and got nothing for it. Shaw did more harm than Clowe

[moon]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Shaw should of got atleast twice the punishment and got nothing for it. Shaw did more harm than Clowe

I think that one suspension shouldn't really effect the other and it is possible that both got too few games.

It just seems like a very liberal reading of the rule by Shanahan to try and excuse a guy that clearly came off the bench to fight Shaw. If they aren't going to give 10 games for that then get rid of the rule.

[Resolute 14]

Shannahan definitely let Clowe off the hook. I can buy a reduction from the mandatory 10 gamer because of the line change, but he really should have been sitting 5+.

And what Shaw did or should have gotten is completely, totally and utterly irrelevant to the rules regarding leaving your bench to engage in an altercation.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Seems like the right number of games, and enough doubt and circumstance in that play to at least put some thought around whether Clowe actually thought he was making a line change, so I'm glad the NHL used that circumstance to make what I think is the right call on this one.

[Stay Golden]

Interesting how SJ manipulated this to be analized as a line change being the 6th man in a pulled goalie scenerio. Should have got 10 games that is the NHL's own punishment for leaving the bench for the purpose of getting into a immediate altercation.

[transplant99]

Very very odd decision IMO.

Either its 10 for leaving the bench, or nothing at all .....havent had a chance to listen to Shannys reasoning, but that may clear it up.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Very very odd decision IMO.

Either its 10 for leaving the bench, or nothing at all .....havent had a chance to listen to Shannys reasoning, but that may clear it up.

Why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why does everything have to be black and white? I think some thought needs to be put in to what the intent of the automatic 10 game suspension was. Likely it's to prevent players on the bench leaving to join a brawl in progress where all 5 players on the ice are involved to prevent the "bench clearing brawls" we used to see, or to prevent someone from the bench jumping on to interveen in a fight that is already going on in progress.

Its obviously fair to suggest that whether this was a line change or not, or if Clowe thought this was a liine change or not is completely debatable. The first time I saw the play in live action, I thought for sure Clowe had come on the ice for Pavelski but just before he made it to the bench was hit by Shaw and understood the confusion. After watching the replays, I agree, I really don't know if that's the case, or if he thought he was changing for someone else, or if simply he did just jump on the ice with no thought of a line change.

But regardless, IMO the spirt or reason behind the 10 game rule IMO was not violated in this case, and if the NHL has leveraged the "grey area" the unusual nature of this play lended them to ensure they land on a more appropriate punishment than the default 10 games, then I see no issue with it, not everything in life needs to be black and white.

[moon]

But the rule doesn't say if the NHL wants to make up bogus reasons to allow Clowe to come off the bench then they can. It is 10 game automatic for what Clowe did and it is to prevent d-bags like Clowe from leaving the bench to fight someone which could lead to 6 on 5 situation or more likely guys coming from the other bench to counter Clowe.

It is pretty clear that he came off the bench to fight Shaw whether Pavelski was coming off or not (and he didn't) if that would have been a too many men penalty Clowe can't say that it doesn't count because he thought Pavelski was coming off.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by moon

But the rule doesn't say if the NHL wants to make up bogus reasons to allow Clowe to come off the bench then they can. It is 10 game automatic for what Clowe did and it is to prevent d-bags like Clowe from leaving the bench to fight someone which could lead to 6 on 5 situation or more likely guys coming from the other bench to counter Clowe.

It is pretty clear that he came off the bench to fight Shaw whether Pavelski was coming off or not (and he didn't) if that would have been a too many men penalty Clowe can't say that it doesn't count because he thought Pavelski was coming off.

There is nothing that isn't open to interpretation. I agree with what you are saying, but if Clowe truely believed he was making a legitimate line change, then the NHL certainly has the right to use their discretion.

I don't dissagree with you, very possible that Clowe knew exactly what he was doing and didn't think he was making a legit line change. But that was his and the Sharks defence was, and I fully support the NHL in using their discretion on whether they believe them or not in making this decision. In this case, they clearly believed there was enough circumstantial evidence to make them think about it and adjust the 10 game down. I fully support them being able to use there discretion on things to try and do the right thing, and I do so in other walks in life. No different for example if you get pulled over for speeding say, and the cop decides based on your story of what happened that you may have legitimately thought something different and reduces your fine which is actually "set in stone". It's a good way for things in life to work.

As for whether this was the right decision or not, everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine being that 2 games was enough is certainly no better than yours if you believe the full 10 should have been given, but to suggest that the NHL shouldn't be allowed to review and use discretion on circumstances on any of their rules seems rediculous to me. If Clowe does something like this again, I would hope though the NHL would lean in the other direction.

[moon]

Why have an automatic rule if it isn't automatic? Seems to me that if the punishment is automatic then there isn't room for interpretation but I guess their really isn't anyone to appeal the suspension for it to be more.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by moon

Why have an automatic rule if it isn't automatic? Seems to me that if the punishment is automatic then there isn't room for interpretation but I guess their really isn't anyone to appeal the suspension for it to be more.

Did you watch what happened and listen to Shanahan explanation? I believe he addressed your concerns and showed the reason why it was not an automatic 10 games. Please share what you disagree with, in his assessment and ruling.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Glad to see painting large groups of people with the same brush didn't totally die with the 80s after all! Got any Polish or Blonde jokes for an encore? Or maybe your sarcasm just went over my head.

Or maybe he's just a d!ck...

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by moon

Why have an automatic rule if it isn't automatic? Seems to me that if the punishment is automatic then there isn't room for interpretation but I guess their really isn't anyone to appeal the suspension for it to be more.

Automatic if you believe Clowe jumped off the bench and was not on a line change. What this situation is clearly indicating is that whether a player was legitimately on a line change or not is debatable. The league obviously landed on the fact that either they fully believe Clowe was on a legit line change, or they believe there was enough evidence for them to believe that Clowe thought he made a legit line change, thus the reduction of the suspension.

[moon]

Originally Posted by timbit

Did you watch what happened and listen to Shanahan explanation? I believe he addressed your concerns and showed the reason why it was not an automatic 10 games. Please share what you disagree with, in his assessment and ruling.

Yes I did and I thought it was pretty terrible.

It seems the first question is whether he came off the bench or not. I would say that he clearly did. Shanahan comes up with some bogus he kind of did, but ultimately seems to go with he did but... which is a garbage answer.

If he did come off the bench then it is easy 10 game automatic suspension.

If not then what exactly did he do wrong in going after a guy that an instigator and 5 minute penalty wouldn't cover?

My problem is that the rule states it is a 10 game automatic suspension for coming off the bench and that is what Clowe did. It may not have been as bad as other guys have in the past but it is a 10 game automatic suspension. If they want to alter the rule go ahead but they didn't do that they came up with some bogus half hearted explanation to reduce the suspension.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by moon

Yes I did and I thought it was pretty terrible.

It seems the first question is whether he came off the bench or not. I would say that he clearly did. Shanahan comes up with some bogus he kind of did, but ultimately seems to go with he did but... which is a garbage answer.

If he did come off the bench then it is easy 10 game automatic suspension.

If not then what exactly did he do wrong in going after a guy that an instigator and 5 minute penalty wouldn't cover?

My problem is that the rule states it is a 10 game automatic suspension for coming off the bench and that is what Clowe did. It may not have been as bad as other guys have in the past but it is a 10 game automatic suspension. If they want to alter the rule go ahead but they didn't do that they came up with some bogus half hearted explanation to reduce the suspension.

Your problem is you are refusing to accept that not everyone is seeing the "off the bench" part the way you are. There is nothing wrong with your stance on this, you feel it should be 10, and that's fair. But there are enough educated hockey fans in this forum alone that are seeing it in a different fashion that would strongly suggest the matter isn't as cut and dry and you claim it to be. And that is all that matters in this case. I've watched hockey for years, as I'm sure you have, and I think it was a legit line change. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just means that given the varriance of opinions on this matter from a large number of people, you likely need to accept that it's not the slam dunk you say it is.

You don't have to agree with it, but it doesn't make the explanation "bogus" and "half hearted" when this many people that watch the game are able to also see it in the same way the NHL did. Likely your dislike for the player is clouding your ability to see how this situation could be interpreted in different fashions.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Your problem is you are refusing to accept that not everyone is seeing the "off the bench" part the way you are. There is nothing wrong with your stance on this, you feel it should be 10, and that's fair. But there are enough educated hockey fans in this forum alone that are seeing it in a different fashion that would strongly suggest the matter isn't as cut and dry and you claim it to be. And that is all that matters in this case. I've watched hockey for years, as I'm sure you have, and I think it was a legit line change. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just means that given the varriance of opinions on this matter from a large number of people, you likely need to accept that it's not the slam dunk you say it is.

You don't have to agree with it, but it doesn't make the explanation "bogus" and "half hearted" when this many people that watch the game are able to also see it in the same way the NHL did. Likely your dislike for the player is clouding your ability to see how this situation could be interpreted in different fashions.

I was asked specifically what I disagreed with Shanahan so that is why I posted that.

As for Clowe I don't really like or dislike him all that much. I think he goes after smaller guys more often than not but don't think that plays much of a role in what happened.