Let's Go Blues

The fight at the end was right up there with an NBA fight.

Automatic suspension for Malkin??

he got an instigator penalty in the last 5min of the game. that is the rule isn't it?

Portland Blues wrote:The fight at the end was right up there with an NBA fight.

lol...

Malkin attacks Z Russian style with his stick.

Hullie wrote:

Portland Blues wrote:The fight at the end was right up there with an NBA fight.

lol...

Malkin attacks Z Russian style with his stick.

Not really the two players I expected to "fight" in the series. Probably the least likely would be Cooke and Maltby.

Hullie wrote:Automatic suspension for Malkin??

he got an instigator penalty in the last 5min of the game. that is the rule isn't it?

league already rescinded it. good.

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.

philco_3 wrote: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

Didn't look like either one had their jerseys tied down. I guess that is just a game misconduct, though. Isn't it?

I hate this series.

I am trying to post the quote, but for some reason the site or my computer is not letting me. So here's the link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=424480

Everything of that play screams sending a message and suspension for Malkin IMO. That's horse s*** yet again by Campbell and its just another time when the NHL covets its stars.

ProngerBlues44 wrote:I am trying to post the quote, but for some reason the site or my computer is not letting me. So here's the link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=424480

Everything of that play screams sending a message and suspension for Malkin IMO. That's horse s*** yet again by Campbell and its just another time when the NHL covets its stars.

First off- what Malkin and Zetterberg did BARELY qualifies as a fight IMO. Secondly, the fight was the result of a scrum in front of the net and much less Malkin pointing out Zetterberg and like chasing him down or anything. They were going at it in front of the net and the gloves came off. It happens.

Last- if the NHL suspended Malkin, they might as well just hand Detroit the Stanley Cup right now. It's akin to calling a 2 minute penalty against you on a questionable call late in a game when your team in down by a goal. Do you still technically have a chance to win? Yes. Likely? No. Same thing here. So in a sense, you ARE right when you say Malkin got special treatment- I just feel its for different reasons than what you and others are alluding to.

nhl.com wrote: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."

The bolded, underlined part is what's important. The suspension is only in place until a review is held and determination is made as to whether or not a suspension is warranted. IMO, Campbell did the right thing and explained it very clearly.

theohall wrote:

nhl.com wrote: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."

The bolded, underlined part is what's important. The suspension is only in place until a review is held and determination is made as to whether or not a suspension is warranted. IMO, Campbell did the right thing and explained it very clearly.

I understand what everyone is saying, I just hate that the "reputations" get in the way of suspensions. If Pronger does this, he gets a game suspension.

Going back to the 1st round with the Camalleri-Carcillo controversy, I feel that Camalleri should have gotten the same punishment as Carcillo. End of the game or reputation or not, he did something that warranted a suspension. There should be no other factors involved.

If Pronger acts the same as Malkin, some pretty good punches land. That's why I'm fine with the way it worked out, if you have a "reputation" it's likely you've earned it, good or bad. Malkin doesn't have a long rap sheet, doesn't do any damage in the fight, so he avoids the suspension.

Colin Campbell makes some questionable judgement calls, but this is a situation where I have no problem with factoring reputation into the decision.

WaukeeBlues wrote: Honestly man- shut the f*ck up. The Wings are gonna probably win the cup regardless and I'll likely break something when it happens.

If both teams have to do it, it's fair. And don't give me this age differential crap. Tired is tired and last I checked, your team has young legs too. The TV announcers sounded about ready to jump on the ice to suck the cocks of the "young and powerful and studly Wings 4th line that is just super awesome." I threw up in my mouth about 5 times towards the end of that game cause they just would not shut the f*ck up about the Wings' young talent.

God I hate the Red Wings.

Of course the Wings are still going to win. They always were. That was never the issue.

Don't give me this "it's fair bc every team has to do it" garbage. The Wings may have young legs, but the Pens have a lot more. Half the Detroit roster is over 30. Normally the schedule change would benefit the younger team. It hasn't in this case bc the Wings are much deeper and can regularly roll out 4 lines a 3 solid defensive pairings. On the other hand, it certainly looks like Datsyuk won't play in this series, while if they had sticked to the original schedule, there's a good chance he would have.

Seriously dude, take a ritalin. What the hell is wrong with the announcers giving some props to the Wings 4th line? They've been stepping up big time at the biggest stage in hockey, especially Abdelkader. Edzo and Pierre blow Crosby and Malkin every chance they get. Why the hell aren't you complaining about that?

WaukeeBlues wrote:

philco_3 wrote: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?

WaukeeBlues wrote:First off- what Malkin and Zetterberg did BARELY qualifies as a fight IMO. Secondly, the fight was the result of a scrum in front of the net and much less Malkin pointing out Zetterberg and like chasing him down or anything. They were going at it in front of the net and the gloves came off. It happens.

Last- if the NHL suspended Malkin, they might as well just hand Detroit the Stanley Cup right now. It's akin to calling a 2 minute penalty against you on a questionable call late in a game when your team in down by a goal. Do you still technically have a chance to win? Yes. Likely? No. Same thing here. So in a sense, you ARE right when you say Malkin got special treatment- I just feel its for different reasons than what you and others are alluding to.

They might as well hand Detroit the Stanley Cup anyway. We all know how this story is going to end. It really doesn't matter if they suspend Malkin or not.

WestCoastWingsFan wrote:First off- what Malkin and Zetterberg did BARELY qualifies as a fight IMO. Secondly, the fight was the result of a scrum in front of the net and much less Malkin pointing out Zetterberg and like chasing him down or anything. They were going at it in front of the net and the gloves came off. It happens.

Last- if the NHL suspended Malkin, they might as well just hand Detroit the Stanley Cup right now. It's akin to calling a 2 minute penalty against you on a questionable call late in a game when your team in down by a goal. Do you still technically have a chance to win? Yes. Likely? No. Same thing here. So in a sense, you ARE right when you say Malkin got special treatment- I just feel its for different reasons than what you and others are alluding to.

They might as well hand Detroit the Stanley Cup anyway. We all know how this story is going to end. It really doesn't matter if they suspend Malkin or not.[/quote]

The gloves did not come off Zetterberg until the last few attempts to hit.

The way I see people trying to make a case of this is because there are rules setup and in place but yet some get special treatment over others. Forget who the names are and the teams colors are. Just look at the incident and what happened is what people are trying to say. At least that is my drift that I am getting from others

WestCoastWingsFan wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote:

philco_3 wrote: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:

nhl.com wrote: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.

Damn, dude, overeract much?

For the record, I'm glad Malkin wasn't suspended. The last thing I would want is for those douchebags in Pittsburgh to have any excuse as to why they lost the series.

I was just trying to show you what a colossal toolbag you were being, which is why I responded to your post using EXACTLY the same words that you used to respond to one of mine earlier in the thread.

I'm not surprised you didn't pick up on it, though. Logic doesn't appear to be your strong point.

For the record, other players have been suspended for doing what Malkin did. So yes, he did get special treatment, regardless of what Colin Campbell said.

Do I read that right? Are you really using COLIN CAMPBELL as the crux of your argument? Colin Campbell, seriously? Right, bc we all know what paragons of honesty Colin Campbell and his butt boy Gary Bettman are!