[News] Engelland's instigator has been rescinded. No supsension. Hartley fined $50k

[heep223]

Times like this I'm glad Burke is part of the organization. I'm sure he's all over the league about this BS and they'll have to listen to him.

Can't wait for tomorrow night

[868904]

The players better play their god damn assess off tommorow night to pay Hartley back.

If the skill guys weren't ####ting the bed so bad, none of that would have happened.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Calgary Flames Head Coach Bob Hartley has been fined $50,000 for his responsibility for the incident that took place with 1:17 remaining in regulation of the first-round playoff game in Vancouver on Friday, April 17, the National Hockey League announced today. The fine was issued in accordance with By-Law 17.3 (a) for conduct prejudicial to or against the welfare of the League.

Number of fights during the regular season:
Dorsett = 17
Hamhuis = 2
Sbisa = 2
Richardson = 2
Matthias = 0

TOTAL = 23
Bollig = 8
Engelland = 7
Ferland = 2
Stajan = 0
Potter = 0

TOTAL = 17

What is with all the 17's? Maybe it's a sign...;-)

Hopefully its a sign that Bouma will be back.

edit: If I had only read on one more post.

[DiracSpike]

Is there an explanation coming about why Hamhuis is not suspended? Because I would LOVE to hear it.

[CroFlames]

It's good the Engelland isn't getting suspended.

But it shouldn't have even gotten to that point? What did he do that was even questionably suspend-able? What a joke.

And that fine for Hartley is dumb. He didn't send out a goon line. Engelland is our #2 defenseman!!

PS: Oh and why isn't Hamuis gone for 3rd man in infraction? Even Jim 'Circle-jerk' Hughson was like uh oh third man in, that's a problem!

[stemit14]

Flames are going to crush the Canucks tomorrow and Engelland is going to get the helmet.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Is there an explanation coming about why Hamhuis is not suspended? Because I would LOVE to hear it.

FFS...

Hamhuis is not suspended because third man in is not a suspension. It is a game misconduct.

[CaptainYooh]

Oh, the whining...




#51 LuckyLuciano

• Comets Regular
• 
• Members
• 
• 460 postsJoined:04-November 13

Posted 30 minutes ago


Suspend this bully

[cracher]

The flames are in doodoo without Engelland. He has done well with his increased minutes. Very glad he's in for game 3.

Also had a small chuckle at the couple of people suggesting that Murray Edwards is the real-world Santa. If only I had permission to discuss my uncle's recent severance from CNRL...

[Enoch Root]

Rescinding the suspension was the correct call.

The fine seemed excessive and inappropriate. But I would rather they screw up with a fine than with a suspension.

[Igottago]

Great that the right decision was made regarding Engelland.

But the Hartely fine is total BS. What a crock of crap.

[CroFlames]

That rule 17 is so broad and general, anyone could get fined. Burke could get fined for looking homeless. That is prejudicial to or against the welfare of the league as much as Hartley standing behind a bench while his players are fighting.

Stajan is hardly a goon. Engelland has been our #2 d-man for 20+ games. Bollig was actually one of the few Flames who created anything in the offensive zone. Ferly has been having a great last few games.

That fine is such a joke and it pisses me off.

Man I hope we win. That's the only elixir for the figurative pain I feel.

[Otto29]

Now the Flames have a little fuel to go destroy the casucks in game three. MOD EDIT: Don't ask for that info on our forum.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

That rule 17 is so broad and general, anyone could get fined. Burke could get fined for looking homeless.

I remember when you got 2 minutes for looking so good.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

I remember when you got 2 minutes for looking so good.

Or that one time Gary Roberts got too much man:

[Vulcan]

Third man in

Rule 46.16 (Third Man In)states: A game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who is the first to intervene (third man in) in an altercation already in progress...
The reason behind this rule is simple, when a fight occur or when a strong altercation between two players happen, when a third man gets involved, generally speaking, the flood gate opens and more players get involved trying to re-establish the man power for their teammates! So instead of having a controlled chaos (a fight or a strong altercation between two players) the referees have now multiple simultaneous fights or an altercation involving most of the players on the ice at that time. The strong punishment (game misconduct) and the possibility of a suspension for such actions usually prevent the players from doing so!

So, let’s go over a text book situation involving a “third man in”:

SITUATION #1
Two opposing players become involved in a mutual fight. A teammate of one of the two fighting players comes in and intervenes. What penalty(ies) are assessed to the intervening player?
ANSWER
The intervening player is to be assessed a game misconduct penalty for being the third man into an altercation (plus any additional penalties he my incur). Note that this rule is most often applied when a fight is in progress. Any subsequent players who elect to intervene in the same or other altercations during the same stoppage of play would also be assessed a game misconduct penalty in addition to any other penalties incurred at the same stoppage of play.


http://www.nhlofficials.com/es3635/c...an-in-welcomed

Ok, well this was common knowledge for most of you! Now let’s bring a little twist to this rule. Can a player be granted the right to intervene as a third man in under the same rule? Well, rule 46.16 also states: this game misconduct shall be imposed on any player who is the first to intervene (third man in) in an altercation already in progress except when a match penalty is being imposed in the original altercation. Really?

[Hockey]

I'm clearly a Canuck fan and I believe this is the right call. I really didn't think England should have gotten a suspension

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Hockey

I'm clearly a Canuck fan and I believe this is the right call. I really didn't think England should have gotten a suspension

Do you think Hartley should've gotten the $50k fine? BE HONEST.


PS: I used to live just off Austin in Coquitlam

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Is there an explanation coming about why Hamhuis is not suspended? Because I would LOVE to hear it.

Oops, already answered above.

Nothing to see here - except I wish I'd had Engelland in Fanduel!

[acerbic_1]

Crumple up 10,000 $5.00 bills into balls, mix them up in a bag full of ball bearings and send it to the league collect via Australia.