A lot of people can't take off their homer glasses and see this for what it is. A dirty play with a high risk of injury potential. It doesn't matter if it was retaliatory.
A lot of the comments on here are eerily similar to Canucks fans defending Bertuzzi when he hit Moore. Granted, the outcome was more drastic, but the logic was the same. Moore was running around being a punk, crashing the goalie and eventually was sucker punched for it.
The only thing separating this event from that one is that this one happened more in the spur of the moment and didn't have the lengthy premeditation and the end results were not as bad (thankfully). But those factors are also why it is only a 2 game suspension and not a 40 game.
And of course Treliving is going to support his player. The last thing he wants is Lucic to come back and play soft.
So the only difference is everything
The Following 32 Users Say Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
A lot of people can't take off their homer glasses and see this for what it is. A dirty play with a high risk of injury potential. It doesn't matter if it was retaliatory.
A lot of the comments on here are eerily similar to Canucks fans defending Bertuzzi when he hit Moore. Granted, the outcome was more drastic, but the logic was the same. Moore was running around being a punk, crashing the goalie and eventually was sucker punched for it.
The only thing separating this event from that one is that this one happened more in the spur of the moment and didn't have the lengthy premeditation and the end results were not as bad (thankfully). But those factors are also why it is only a 2 game suspension and not a 40 game.
You obviously know very little about the Moore incident. It was retribution for a hit on Naslund the previous game between the Avs and Canucks. A hit which was ruled clean by the league and for which Moore had already "paid the price" by fighting Matt Cooke. So there's a difference in the premeditation, the severity, and the original play.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
You obviously know very little about the Moore incident. It was retribution for a hit on Naslund the previous game between the Avs and Canucks. A hit which was ruled clean by the league and for which Moore had already "paid the price" by fighting Matt Cooke. So there's a difference in the premeditation, the severity, and the original play.
I'm quite surprise he didn't know the exact sequence on the Moore incident, it was like on the tube for like forever. I'm not sure if he is just being a donkey and twist that incident around. If it was, it's very poor taste IMHO.
I think one of the biggest problems with the NHL rulebook is the penalty structure.
The same penalty is applied for getting your stick tangled up with the puck carrier in the neutral zone as tackling a guy about to jump on a loose puck in front of the net. Accidentally flipping the puck out of play from your own end earns the same penalty as cross-checking a guy face first into the boards.
It's even more ridiculous when you consider that more 'minor' and minor penalty is, the more likely it is that there will be a decent amount of 6 on 5 time; think overzealous forechecks or too many men vs. hauling a guy down on a rush (where defensive team is more likely to gain possession immediately)
IMO, there should be 1 min, 3 min, and 5 min penalties.
1 Min (accidental) – puck over glass, minor penalties outside your defensive zone (+ ‘free-path rule’ – ie. infraction in neutral zone on a developing odd man rush can be 3 mins), too many men, minor post-whistle scrum stuff, etc.
3 Min (aka careless) – defensive zone/removal of a scoring chance, dangerous play w/o intent to injure (boarding, charging, nasty slashing), drawing blood,
5 Min (aka reckless) – Fighting, intent to injure, etc.
I'd add a 1 min penalty after any missed penalty shot. For incorrect challenges, I'd consider 1 minute for 'insufficient evidence to overturn' and 3 minutes for 'call on the ice confirmed', but whatever.
This way, the refs could actually just call the rulebook, and the players could play to it. The toughest ambiguity here is going to be how to handle defensive zone penalties that aren't necessarily on scoring chances - I would probably keep it simple and make them all 3 minutes, as I think the increased risk would reduce the amount of 'gentle' slashes/hooks/holds.
I think one of the biggest problems with the NHL rulebook is the penalty structure.
The same penalty is applied for getting your stick tangled up with the puck carrier in the neutral zone as tackling a guy about to jump on a loose puck in front of the net. Accidentally flipping the puck out of play from your own end earns the same penalty as cross-checking a guy face first into the boards.
It's even more ridiculous when you consider that more 'minor' and minor penalty is, the more likely it is that there will be a decent amount of 6 on 5 time; think overzealous forechecks or too many men vs. hauling a guy down on a rush (where defensive team is more likely to gain possession immediately)
IMO, there should be 1 min, 3 min, and 5 min penalties.
1 Min (accidental) – puck over glass, minor penalties outside your defensive zone (+ ‘free-path rule’ – ie. infraction in neutral zone on a developing odd man rush can be 3 mins), too many men, minor post-whistle scrum stuff, etc.
3 Min (aka careless) – defensive zone/removal of a scoring chance, dangerous play w/o intent to injure (boarding, charging, nasty slashing), drawing blood,
5 Min (aka reckless) – Fighting, intent to injure, etc.
I'd add a 1 min penalty after any missed penalty shot. For incorrect challenges, I'd consider 1 minute for 'insufficient evidence to overturn' and 3 minutes for 'call on the ice confirmed', but whatever.
This way, the refs could actually just call the rulebook, and the players could play to it. The toughest ambiguity here is going to be how to handle defensive zone penalties that aren't necessarily on scoring chances - I would probably keep it simple and make them all 3 minutes, as I think the increased risk would reduce the amount of 'gentle' slashes/hooks/holds.
This way, under your rules, you can call the embellishment as a 3 minute and the original "sort of" penalty as a 1.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Objectively, I think it was a fair suspension. If someone did that to Chucky after he poked at the puck, I'd want the guy suspended a couple of games too. So I have no issues with it, considering too that Lucic is a repeat offender.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I get the suspension. Still think the 2 games is a bit harsh starting off point for the first actual suspension. I do think that the refs let it get away a bit considering rookies don't get the benefit of doubt from officials with the way the Bluejacket player was running around. They must have got caught up in the whole local boy playing for the team story.
Objectively, I think it was a fair suspension. If someone did that to Chucky after he poked at the puck, I'd want the guy suspended a couple of games too. So I have no issues with it, considering too that Lucic is a repeat offender.
Chucky got punched in the face like two games ago and it wasn't even a 2 min penalty
__________________
GFG
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
Objectively, I think it was a fair suspension. If someone did that to Chucky after he poked at the puck, I'd want the guy suspended a couple of games too. So I have no issues with it, considering too that Lucic is a repeat offender.
Everyone on the ice should expect to get punched in the face for jabbing a goalie with the puck covered. It’s happened for ever. Lucic went a bit overboard, but I don’t think it’s suspension worthy. Now players know it’s ok to dig at the goalie. And I would fully expect it to happen to Chucky if he did it. He doesn’t go in doing the things he does without knowing it will piss off the other team.
Last edited by Salt Water Cowboy #10; 11-04-2019 at 06:17 PM.
Everyone on the ice should expect to get punched in the face for jabbing a goalie with the puck covered. It’s happened for ever. Lucic went a bit overboard, but I don’t think it’s suspension worthy. Now players know it’s ok to dig at the goalie. And I would fully expect it to happen to Chucky if he did it. He doesn’t go in doing the things he does without knowing it will piss off the other team.
Players usually get rocked a bit for jabbing a goalie. They don’t usually get sucker punched in the face.
They don’t usually get sucker punched in the face.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Which didn't happen here no matter how much the media tries to spin it to get views. Even Tim and Sid criticized their own network for their headline. He saw him coming. Had he been engaged with another player and then Lucic smokes him then it's a sucker punch.
Players usually get rocked a bit for jabbing a goalie. They don’t usually get sucker punched in the face.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Can we please stop calling it a sucker punch? He saw him coming. Just because he didn't prepare himself like he should have doesn't mean it is a sucker punch. He got punched in the face and he deserved it, especially after running around all game. If you are going to play like that, expect a glove in the face during a scrum at a whistle.
The Tim and Sid clip is great and summarizes exactly how I feel about the incident.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Boblobla For This Useful Post:
