NHL rescinds 1-game suspension to Burrows but instigator remains on his record. In any case, short term net is same, Burrows plays in G4.
How does the NHL deem Burrows actions were not score related, retalitory, or message sending?
Boarding the Flames best player after the Canucks have been iced out of the game and going after another player to fight sure seems like the motives were all of those things.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
NHL rescinds 1-game suspension to Burrows but instigator remains on his record. In any case, short term net is same, Burrows plays in G4.
This is garbage. The rulebook states that it's an automatic 1 game suspension, no? Here, the NHL is saying that Burrows did in fact instigate but that he shouldn't be suspended. That's BS. The rule says what it says and if they don't like the results they should change the rule.
Engelland's situation was different because he didn't actually instigate the fight. Here, the NHL is confirming that Burrows did, but they aren't going to enforce the rule that calls for the automatic one game suspension. BS.
Okay: Did some more research:
46.12
Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in
Overtime)
- A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an
altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at any time
in overtime shall be assessed an instigator minor penalty, a major
penalty for fighting, and a game misconduct penalty, subject to the
conditions outlined in
46.22.
...
46.22
Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of
Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime)
- A player who is
deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5)
minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime (see
46.12), shall
be suspended for one game, pending a review of the incident.
When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be
fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.
The suspension shall be served unless, upon review of the
incident, the Director of Hockey Operations, at his discretion, deems
the incident is not related to the score, previous incidents in the game
or prior games, retaliatory in nature, “message sending”, etc. The
length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This
suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic
suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more
instigator penalties.
No team appeals will be permitted either verbally or in writing
regarding the assessment of this automatic suspension as all
incidents are reviewed by the Director of Hockey Operations as
outlined above.
Basically, league can step in and lift the automatic suspension if they "deem the incident is not related to the score, previous incidents in the game or prior games, retaliatory in nature, “message sending”, etc. " -- hence the language in the twitter post. Team cannot appeal the decision either.
Also scratching my head over the "not related to... previous incidents in the game or prior games". Did the league not watch Game 2?
I strongly disagree that Hamhuis aimed for Bennett's head. There is a difference between aiming for someone's head and being reckless with whether or not you hit their head. The first suggests the player is evil and actively trying to end careers. The latter suggests the player is making violent unsafe plays, acknowledging that hockey is a very fast game.
They are both suspendable, but lets not impute intention when we have no idea what is going on in Hamhuis' mind.
Edit: Brendan Shannahan, when we was director of player safety, also didn't seem to know the distinction.
I don't know man, I look at that hit and especially the slow mo at the end. Hamhuis isn't looking at the puck, he's looking right at Bennett and that head position was obvious. So there's no doubt that he knows that Bennett is in a vulnerable position, he doesn't adjust for the hit at all, he drives his shoulder pretty much through his head. He basically can see he's going shoulder to head and he takes that extra stride into it.
Man that's a dirty hit, and when I played the game we called it an opportunity hit.
Even if the Flames have to wait for the first exhibition game next year, Hamhuis needs to be pummeled and pummeled badly.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
No surprises here, nucks are the kings of exploiting officiating for their benefit. Flames will have to be real careful not to get sucked into their game.
How does the NHL deem Burrows actions were not score related, retalitory, or message sending?
Boarding the Flames best player after the Canucks have been iced out of the game and going after another player to fight sure seems like the motives were all of those things.
la la la la la, can't hear you there are fingers in my ears, la la la.
The wheel of justice pretty much just broke off and is rolling down younge street.
Usually when people say "put him through the boards", they mean "take a run at the guy", which is charging. That's just common usage of that phrase in hockey. Anyway, the point was that if you prioritize revenge for past games, the other guys will be busy winning the current game in the meantime. It's a recipe for disaster.
Never heard the that term used to refer to charging in my 30+ years of hockey but fair enough. I agree with you are saying I was more referring to Hamhuis being a little afraid on the ice than the Flames seeking retribution. He'll be off his game from the moment he steps on the ice. All I want is the Flames to put in a repeat of game 3.
Hartley might have his hands full the next game. We know this locker room is extremely tight. We know that veteran players will take young players under their wings and protect them. The Canucks deliberately targets two very young very good players and it looks like it was pretty intentional to injure.
the Flames are probably very happy with the win, but I bet there is a lot of stewing going on today and a lot of anger, especially after this joke of an announcement by the league.
An announcement that basically says we don't care about the safety of Flames players.
Hartley is going to have to find a way to harness that emotion, but the Canucks now know they're untouchable by the officials, and you can bet Desjardins who I now think of as a clown is going to be telling his Canucks to amp up the agitation.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
How does the NHL deem Burrows actions were not score related, retalitory, or message sending?
Boarding the Flames best player after the Canucks have been iced out of the game and going after another player to fight sure seems like the motives were all of those things.
Yeah, thats a bit of a head-scratcher...
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Engelland had his instigator rescinded because he actually didn't instigate that bloody fight at the end of game 2. Nobody did him any favors, it was just a stupid incorrect call being corrected.
So why has that POS Burrows had his rescinded??
Gimme a break.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
I am curious how people feel about Ferlands hit on Sbisa compared to burrows on Gaudreau. In my eyes, and those I have chatted with, they were both similar. In that the people I have chatted with either thought both were dirty or neither were.
It's clear that the NHL suspends the result of an action, not the action itself. If Bennett got a concussion, Hamhuis would have gotten 1-2 games. No injury = no suspension.
The fact that Burrows had his instigator lifted when he actually instigated a fight is a sick joke.
The thing is you don't know that he didn't get a concussion, that's the whole point. He very well could have one, there's a definite possibility. This was a common theme before he ever played a game for us, he'll be reckless and will put his body on the line too eagerly without protecting himself.
He'd still be playing with a broken arm if he could sneak it past the doctors, that's the reason why penalizing based on result is so overwhelmingly stupid. On a team with a bunch of young players fighting just to stay with the club they won't go down, you'd have to disconnect Bennett from consciousness to get him to go down therefore the league obviously should be stepping in. Penalizing based on result won't work, hasn't worked and will never work. But hey, let's keep the concussion train rolling, choo choo.
The league and their refs have to get together and figure things out. The refs are making some bad calls and non-calls, but even when they make the right call the league doesn't back them up. It's pretty messed up.
About as blatant of an instigator as you'll see. I had no idea until now the instigator rule is now connected to the score, thought it was about instigating a fight.
Both teams have been talked to and warned? lol talk to the refs.
To paraphrase Burke, I didn't know Ferland was Metis for Punch in the Head Repeatedly.
I am curious how people feel about Ferlands hit on Sbisa compared to burrows on Gaudreau. In my eyes, and those I have chatted with, they were both similar. In that the people I have chatted with either thought both were dirty or neither were.
I personally think both were fine hits.
Don't see anyone really complaining about the hit on Gaudreau, it's about the instigator afterwards.
Thought both were mean nasty playoff hits, no problem either way.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
I am curious how people feel about Ferlands hit on Sbisa compared to burrows on Gaudreau. In my eyes, and those I have chatted with, they were both similar. In that the people I have chatted with either thought both were dirty or neither were.
I personally think both were fine hits.
I think Burrows was more of a blind side and more of a elbow, both looks like they could be serious though... I have nothing against Sbisa, glad he is ok. I was fine with both calls though.
Ferland I think plays a mean game.... the Canucks, OTOH I thought were definitely going out of their way to go head hunting.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Lots of fans of each team complaining about both hits; at worst I thought each probably warranted 2mins for boarding. I'm sure the Canucks fans were hoping Sbisa would be knocked out for the series, though; he's really, really bad.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
How does Bieksa on Ferland not fit all those criteria, other than the incompetent officials somehow didn't deem it instigating? If the league can rescind instigator penalties, surely they can enact them after the fact...or probably not.
Related to score? Clearly
Related to previous incident in game or previous games? Clearly (Bieksa even talks about Ferland in press conferences)
Retaliatory in nature? Clearly (see above point)
Message sending? Clearly
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
