You can't have the face of the NHL's butt buddy suspended. Rules are rules and he should be suspended. But wait this is the NHL too, after all they allowed Brett Hull to win to a Stanley Cup with his foot in the crease.
I don't think its egregious to take the Stanley Cup Finals as a special case for rules interpretation when the league deems it necessary.
I for one didn't think that the "fight" amounted to much more than frustrated fist throwing. More importantly, I get the feeling the NHL just wants to "let 'em play" per se and not try to get involved in adversely affecting one team's ability to compete. If it were Zetterberg (or "Z"
) instigating, I would make the same argument; unless its very serious enough to warrant a suspension, the Cup Finals isn't the time to do it. My $.02
Honestly man- shut the f*ck up.
Rules are rules. If you do the crime, you do the time. Why should Malkin (and the Pens, by proxy) get special treatment?
If you had bothered reading anything else of this thread besides what I
wrote (seriously man- how badly do I have to be in your dome to warrant three posts without you commenting on anything about what anyone else had to say) you would have seen THIS:
Rule 47.22 states: "A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five minutes or at any time in overtime shall be suspended for one game, pending a review of the incident. The director of hockey operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not be limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc..."
Following that review, Campbell said: "None of the criteria in this rule applied in this situation. Suspensions are applied under this rule when a team attempts to send a message in the last five minutes by having a player instigate a fight. A suspension could also be applied when a player seeks retribution for a prior incident. Neither was the case here and therefore the one game suspension is rescinded."
Malkin, etc didn't get special treatment and Cambell articulates that clearly. Which is shocking given that Detroit could've gained a benefit from the decision involved and the NHL usually doesn't hesitate to do whatever it can to help out your precious Red Wings.
and I jump down the throat of the announcers and Detroit in general for all my own reasons you don't have to agree with and probably won't. The Red Wings are the NHL's precious little poster-child f*cking franchise that everyone loves, all the announcers want to suck their cocks- they are just so so so great, everyone loves them. F*CK that. They've been nothing but one, giant bandwagon since 1997, they're a bunch of f*cking pansies that don't even know how to stand up for one of their star players that gets his shit rocked. That's one of the most basic hockey tenets ever and your team doesn't even know how to do it. This new pansified hockey that the Red Wings drool over is a detriment to the game itself and it is the sh*t that Bettman, etc just LOVE and can't stop getting a boner over so they go to the ends of the earth praising the Red Wings when they should be scorned. They don't exemplify the grit or mean side that every REAL hockey player knows a team should have. And any bumf*ckville town/city/village in Canada, Minnesota, and many other parts of the U.S. are way above and beyond more of a "Hockeytown" than ghey Detroit is or ever will be. Frankly that nickname alone gives me all the reason in the world to hate Detroit and their NHL franchise. If that saying wasn't obviously so pathetically inaccurate I might actually have gotten some humor out of it but I don't because I know you retards sincerely believe it. I will hate the Red Wings forever and your team can't bottom out soon enough for my liking.</rant>
I don't care if I piss off every Red Wings fan on this board. You're on a Blues message board- deal with it.