[OOT] Melee between Toronto and Buffalo

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Haven't watched it recently (but I did a few times last night), but I'd be forgiving of the first Kessel slash while Scott was moving towards him. The second one Scott was already tied up with another player and Kessel hacks him on the side to back of the leg with a pretty good two-hander. Kessel is then tied up with another player in his own scrap.

Much later, far longer than the 3 seconds you intimate, Scott is tied up with the linesman when Kessel skates by and spears him. Was it a vicious spear that could rupture his spleen... no. But it was still an intentional spear to a player already engaged with the linesman.

How Kessel doesn't get a suspension would be beyond me. 2 minutes for the first slash, 5 and a game and possibly a suspension for the second, and for sure a suspension for the spear. I'd probably give him 2 games to think about his idiocy.

Scott should get nothing extra. Ya, he tried to start a fight with another player who didn't want to go. That's 2 for unsportsmanlike, and if you want 2 for instigating and the game. Then he was jumped by multiple Leafs and fought his way out. 5 for fighting.

I agree, Scott really shouldn't get any suspension, maybe 2 and 5 for fighting but Kessel should get at least 5 games for the multiple 2 handers and the spear.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I've watched it. Nothing has changed. The whole thing goes down in 3 seconds.

And yet, people over analyse a hit to the head which is based off of a split second decision, and sometimes isn't even on purpose.

Doesn't matter how long you spend being reckless with an intent to injure, Kessel arguably had more intent to injure than Scott did. Scott wanted a fight, he's an enforcer, it's terribly unlikely he would just beat the living hell out if Kessel without any interference by anyone else.

You can look at this two ways: Kessel used his stick to further prod Scott into an altercation, or Kessel sought to deter Scott from an altercation through injury. In no right mind does the thought "well maybe if I just gently tap him he'll leave me alone", especially when taking full swings.

In fact, using your logic, it's easy to argue that Scott only continued pursuing Kessel BECAUSE of the slash.

I find it unbelievable anyone is defending Kessel. You might as well defend Marty McSorely. While his infraction was 10 times worse, they both assaulted someone with a weapon.

If you can't defend yourself with your own two hands and you choose to use a weapon against another player then you have no place in hockey. Was Kessel's THAT bad? No, but there is zero justifiable reason to defend his use of his stick as a weapon.

This board constantly rips on Burrows for biting (rightfully so) despite his reasoning was that he felt suffocated and was only reacting because he thought he was in danger. Why? Because you don't BITE in hockey, even if you're a small punk like Burrows. You also don't use weapons against other players.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Looked more like his ankles than his shin pads to me.



Oh, you're a mind reader now? Scott didn't seem like he was out there to Bertuzzi Kessel. He was sent out to send a message but that doesn't mean he's looking to destroy a soft star player.




He doesn't have to lineup directly next to him. He can back up and give himself space before the puck is dropped.

Oh, so another heavily protected area, yeah really dangerous move by Kessel. He hits him in the legs, don't try to pretend like he's out to end a career or do serious damage. And I'm sure Scott was just going to give Kessel a hug, no intentions of driving his fist through his face. After all, that's not the ONLY skill that Scott possesses or anything.

As for your final point, oh great, we're now advocating that players who can actually play hockey lineup out of position just in case some neanderthal on skates decides that he's going to take the opportunity to punch him in the head repeatedly. Swell game you've crafted there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Kryzsky

Seems like a few people are under the impression that a shin guard protects the front, sides and back of the leg. They protect from straight on shots but there is little protection on the sides and none on the back.

Kessel's hacks were not directly to the front of the shin guard.

Shopped for shin guards lately? Many models have significant side and rear protection, and these are consumer models, not the stuff pros tinker with and add to.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by strombad

And yet, people over analyse a hit to the head which is based off of a split second decision, and sometimes isn't even on purpose.

Doesn't matter how long you spend being reckless with an intent to injure, Kessel arguably had more intent to injure than Scott did. Scott wanted a fight, he's an enforcer, it's terribly unlikely he would just beat the living hell out if Kessel without any interference by anyone else.

You can look at this two ways: Kessel used his stick to further prod Scott into an altercation, or Kessel sought to deter Scott from an altercation through injury. In no right mind does the thought "well maybe if I just gently tap him he'll leave me alone", especially when taking full swings.

In fact, using your logic, it's easy to argue that Scott only continued pursuing Kessel BECAUSE of the slash.

I find it unbelievable anyone is defending Kessel. You might as well defend Marty McSorely. While his infraction was 10 times worse, they both assaulted someone with a weapon.

If you can't defend yourself with your own two hands and you choose to use a weapon against another player then you have no place in hockey. Was Kessel's THAT bad? No, but there is zero justifiable reason to defend his use of his stick as a weapon.

This board constantly rips on Burrows for biting (rightfully so) despite his reasoning was that he felt suffocated and was only reacting because he thought he was in danger. Why? Because you don't BITE in hockey, even if you're a small punk like Burrows. You also don't use weapons against other players.

So Scott's intent in that fight would be to do what? I'm going to say throw his fist into Kessel's face. What is the likely result of that? Perhaps, I don't know, injury?

You can also look at it a third way. Kessel used his stick to keep Scott at bay and avoid getting his ass kicked. Your first angle is absurd, you're attempting to paint Kessel as the instigator? Hilarious.

Guess what else you don't do in hockey. Go after guys who don't fight, don't want to fight and have no reason to fight. Especially if you're a goon who serves no purpose but to fight.

[northcrunk]

Kessel should have learned not to poke the bear too. He could have skated away after his team mates jumped in, instead he slashed and spear scott. Scott will not forget this and will be hunting Kessel the next game just because of the cheap slashes and spear.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by valo403

So Scott's intent in that fight would be to do what? I'm going to say throw his fist into Kessel's face. What is the likely result of that? Perhaps, I don't know, injury?

You can also look at it a third way. Kessel used his stick to keep Scott at bay and avoid getting his ass kicked. Your first angle is absurd, you're attempting to paint Kessel as the instigator? Hilarious.

Guess what else you don't do in hockey. Go after guys who don't fight, don't want to fight and have no reason to fight. Especially if you're a goon who serves no purpose but to fight.

I think it's safe to say they both had the intention to injure. Scott definitely got the ball rolling though. I think kessel's first swing was terrified self-preservation but his second swing wasn't necessary.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by valo403

So Scott's intent in that fight would be to do what? I'm going to say throw his fist into Kessel's face. What is the likely result of that? Perhaps, I don't know, injury?

You can also look at it a third way. Kessel used his stick to keep Scott at bay and avoid getting his ass kicked. Your first angle is absurd, you're attempting to paint Kessel as the instigator? Hilarious.

Guess what else you don't do in hockey. Go after guys who don't fight, don't want to fight and have no reason to fight. Especially if you're a goon who serves no purpose but to fight.

This is exactly my point, you're defending Kessel by condemning Scott because he 'broke the code' and went after a guy who doesn't fight. Kessel used his stick as a weapon. That's against the code, and against the actual RULES (which what Scott did is not).

The point that you can't seem to grasp is that Scott is a bad dude, he shouldn't be playing the game, he's a waste, BUT KESSEL USED HIS STICK AS A WEAPON. It doesn't matter if Scott is the Devil, you don't use your stick as a weapon in hockey. You're defending Kessel as some helpless kid with defended himself the only way he knew how, I'm saying they should experience the repercussions of their actions. Kessel should be suspended, and seeing as Scott broke the code, he should atone for what he's done by fighting a guy his own size. It's simple.

Quit defending the use of a stick as a weapon, it's probably one of the most disgusting and cowardly acts in hockey. It's not even comparable to going after a smaller guy than you. You're being absolutely ridiculous.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by strombad

This is exactly my point, you're defending Kessel by condemning Scott because he 'broke the code' and went after a guy who doesn't fight. Kessel used his stick as a weapon. That's against the code, and against the actual RULES (which what Scott did is not).

The point that you can't seem to grasp is that Scott is a bad dude, he shouldn't be playing the game, he's a waste, BUT KESSEL USED HIS STICK AS A WEAPON. It doesn't matter if Scott is the Devil, you don't use your stick as a weapon in hockey. You're defending Kessel as some helpless kid with defended himself the only way he knew how, I'm saying they should experience the repercussions of their actions. Kessel should be suspended, and seeing as Scott broke the code, he should atone for what he's done by fighting a guy his own size. It's simple.

Quit defending the use of a stick as a weapon, it's probably one of the most disgusting and cowardly acts in hockey. It's not even comparable to going after a smaller guy than you. You're being absolutely ridiculous.

Well actually I was countering some of the ridiculous points you made, which went far beyond your argument in this post, but anyways...

I don't particularly like Kessel swinging his stick, and the follow up swings are out of line, but I don't have a huge problem with him using his stick the first time to keep Scott away from him. Engaging him without using his stick is out, he'd get his head beat in. Turning his back and taking off may have worked, but there wasn't exactly a lot of breathing room there so doing something to create some makes sense. He slashed at his legs, not his head or body (which makes your previous mention of McSorley comical), and at least with that first slash didn't deliver anything that could reasonably result in an injury, and did so in order to prevent suffering one himself.

I'm not defending Kessel by arguing Scott broke the code, I'm defending Kessel by saying he acted in self defense, at least with the first slash.

[Bertuzzied]

and LOL at the people calling Kessel a coward. he fought and busted up another guy 15 seconds later.

I bet Kessel could kick the crap out of 98% of us on here.

wTF! why the crap am i defending Kessel so much? I dislike him and his droopy dog look.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by strombad

This is exactly my point, you're defending Kessel by condemning Scott because he 'broke the code' and went after a guy who doesn't fight. Kessel used his stick as a weapon. That's against the code, and against the actual RULES (which what Scott did is not).

I just want to chime in on this as it is something that always bothers me.

Fighting is and always has been (as far back as I can tell) against the rules of hockey. There is a penalty for it no different than slashing. And while it may be argued that the penalty is moot for a number of reasons (both players tend to get penalized, it's not a very big deterrent, instigator rule, etc..), it IS against the rules.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by bomber317

http://video.tsn.ca/?dl=nhl-latest/l...-latest/latest


The first slash happens at the 28 second mark, and the 2nd slash happens at the 31 second mark. The spear happens at the 2:31 mark of the video.

The first 2 slashes are within your 3 second window of themselves.


However the spear is a full 2 minutes after.

You are right, I totally missed the "spear". I had to go back in and find it again as I stopped watching after the goalie fight (2:17 on the youtube vid). No one should be calling that a spear though, maybe an unsportsman minor for poking a bear. Definitely a dick move on Kessel's part but hardly a suspension worth act that many are trying to make it out to be.

Originally Posted by strombad

This is exactly my point, you're defending Kessel by condemning Scott because he 'broke the code' and went after a guy who doesn't fight. Kessel used his stick as a weapon. That's against the code, and against the actual RULES (which what Scott did is not).

MattyC beat me to this already but fighting is against the rules in the exact same way that using your stick as a weapon is. Both are actions that result in a penalty. Fighting is usually a major and a misconduct though so I still think what Scott did (or tried to do) is worse than what Kessel did.

Scott had obvious intent to injure Kessel. His intent was to get his hands on Kessel so he couldn't run away and then beat him senseless with his fists, using his size advantage to make it a totally one-sided beating. In every way possible this is worse than Kessel hitting his attacker with his stick or coming back and taunting him 2 minutes later. Especially since if Scott had just chilled out and waiting for another goon to play with nothing else in that video would have happened.

If a small guy has to use his stick to tell a big guy to "F-off, stop trying to punch me", then I'm okay with that. Its probably just a matter of time before Kassian tries to beat up Sven and in that situation I hope Sven uses his stick to keep Kassian at bay until McGratton can show up and deal with him.

That is one thing I have to say for Clarkson. Scott is a much bigger guy than Clarkson is but he was still willing to jump the boards and take on the giant. It may have been a poorly thought out action that gets him suspended but I still respect his intent.

[doctajones428]

Kessel's spear was childish and pathetic. It reminded me of a kid with a squirt gun trying to piss off his brother

"Hehe you're in twouble! *spray* HEHE YOU CAN'T GET ME!"

[clancy]

Lost in all of this is that if Scott really wanted to pound Kessel he would have. He dropped his gloves and grabbed him, but didn't even attempt a punch. Imagine if he would have actually punched him.......
Anyway, kessel was justified on the first slash, but the second will get him a suspension of 2 games

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Scott had obvious intent to injure Kessel. His intent was to get his hands on Kessel so he couldn't run away and then beat him senseless with his fists, using his size advantage to make it a totally one-sided beating.

There is no way you know what his intent was. He didn't throw a single punch at Kessel. If he wanted to hurt him, he would have.

In every way possible this is worse than Kessel hitting his attacker with his stick or coming back and taunting him 2 minutes later.

No, it's not. Players swinging their sticks ala baseball style is very, very dangerous.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

There is no way you know what his intent was. He didn't throw a single punch at Kessel. If he wanted to hurt him, he would have.



No, it's not. Players swinging their sticks ala baseball style is very, very dangerous.

Neither do you, but it's pretty clear his intent wasn't to give him a hug. The fact he didn't get the chance to throw a punch doesn't change that.

What's more likely to cause injury, a massive guy like Scott landing punches to your face or taking a 2 handed chop across the legs while wearing shin pads? I know which one I'd pick.

[pylon]

Tennis.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by valo403

Neither do you, but it's pretty clear his intent wasn't to give him a hug. The fact he didn't get the chance to throw a punch doesn't change that.

What's more likely to cause injury, a massive guy like Scott landing punches to your face or taking a 2 handed chop across the legs while wearing shin pads? I know which one I'd pick.

Back in minor hockey a team mate of mine was on a breakaway, and a kid gave him a 2 handed chop on the side of the shin pad. His stick broke and sliced into my friends calf and cut him pretty good. No permanent damage but he missed a lot of the season.

So really the argument of a harmless hack to the shin pad isn't the best, because you never really know what could happen.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Back in minor hockey a team mate of mine was on a breakaway, and a kid gave him a 2 handed chop on the side of the shin pad. His stick broke and sliced into my friends calf and cut him pretty good. No permanent damage but he missed a lot of the season.

So really the argument of a harmless hack to the shin pad isn't the best, because you never really know what could happen.

i don't think he's saying it can't cause harm, or as much. But the likely hood of what your described or something similar is pretty small comparitively.

IE.

If someone hacks you on the shinpad or the leg anywhere with your stick, the vast majority of instances will leave you with barely noticing what happened or maybe a minor bruise.

If someone punches you in the face, you have been punched in the face.

There are possible extremes in both cases, but the minimal possible damage/pain from the slash is much less than the miniml damage/pain from a punch in the face. And thus, if given the choice, I'll take the hack on the shin pad all day.

[Enoch Root]

1) there was no punch to the face

2) swinging a stick is using a weapon - to suggest the risk of injury is lower than from a punch is pretty ridiculous

As to the incident, the first hack I could somewhat forgive, as a reactionary, self-defense thing.

However, the second hack, and then the spear, are completely different - no self-defense there whatsoever.