Duncan Keith is a goon *Official Thread*

[cprice12]

I am just at a loss at how many Hawk fans want Coyle suspended for his actions before Keith high sticked Coyle.

I mean...this is some of the dumbest stuff I have read online....ever...and it's not just a few guys.

The victim blaming and the attempts to justify what Keith did are so insanely stupid.

[gaijin]

Here is a good rundown from CBS Sports, which I largely agree with. Good video of Keith's actions too, both against Coyle and Carter in the 2013 WC Finals.

Short version: 6 games is too short because it only makes him miss one playoff game. If you want players to take this stuff seriously, you can't shy away from suspending them for playoff games.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hoc ... suspension

If Round 1 is Blues/Blackhawks, the crowd (and the Blues players for that matter) need to let Keith have an earful.

[Kerfuffle]

I am just at a loss at how many Hawk fans want Coyle suspended for his actions before Keith high sticked Coyle.

I mean...this is some of the dumbest stuff I have read online....ever...and it's not just a few guys.

The victim blaming and the attempts to justify what Keith did are so insanely stupid.

Eh - one can search and find whatever one is looking for. Many of the posters on the Hawks site are kids now - we picked up a lot after the 2010 cup win and it got worse over the years to the point where many of the adults and those with hockey knowledge left and formed their own Hawks forums. It's one of the reasons I don't post there anymore and it's why I'm not surprised at some of what you're finding over there. We've also had 'trade Kane' and 'trade Toews' discussions/threads at some points when their production slowed and it was so ridiculous that many asked the mods to shut it down and they did.

'Homerism' goes both ways. Discussions I've had on some other boards have been mixed on this issue - but basically most don't care unless they have a vested interest in an extended Keith suspension. I know most of the so-called 'outrage' here is really just a veiled attempt to wish for a Blues advantage in our first round matchup. It's okay - I understand it and it's your board so it is what it is.

[cardsfan04]

I am just at a loss at how many Hawk fans want Coyle suspended for his actions before Keith high sticked Coyle.

I mean...this is some of the dumbest stuff I have read online....ever...and it's not just a few guys.

The victim blaming and the attempts to justify what Keith did are so insanely stupid.

Eh - one can search and find whatever one is looking for. Many of the posters on the Hawks site are kids now - we picked up a lot after the 2010 cup win and it got worse over the years to the point where many of the adults and those with hockey knowledge left and formed their own Hawks forums. It's one of the reasons I don't post there anymore and it's why I'm not surprised at some of what you're finding over there. We've also had 'trade Kane' and 'trade Toews' discussions/threads at some points when their production slowed and it was so ridiculous that many asked the mods to shut it down and they did.

'Homerism' goes both ways. Discussions I've had on some other boards have been mixed on this issue - but basically most don't care unless they have a vested interest in an extended Keith suspension. I know most of the so-called 'outrage' here is really just a veiled attempt to wish for a Blues advantage in our first round matchup. It's okay - I understand it and it's your board so it is what it is.

I probably care more than average joe hockey fan because not only is he on a team I loathe, he's a player I have a ton of pre-existing disdain for. But, that only shapes how much I care, not what my opinion is. I think what he did was indefensible and it's not the first time. My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with a potential matchup in the first round. TBH, I like our chances vs Chicago with or without Keith, and it's far from a done deal that we'll take 2nd place.

[cprice12]

I am just at a loss at how many Hawk fans want Coyle suspended for his actions before Keith high sticked Coyle.

I mean...this is some of the dumbest stuff I have read online....ever...and it's not just a few guys.

The victim blaming and the attempts to justify what Keith did are so insanely stupid.

Eh - one can search and find whatever one is looking for. Many of the posters on the Hawks site are kids now - we picked up a lot after the 2010 cup win and it got worse over the years to the point where many of the adults and those with hockey knowledge left and formed their own Hawks forums. It's one of the reasons I don't post there anymore and it's why I'm not surprised at some of what you're finding over there. We've also had 'trade Kane' and 'trade Toews' discussions/threads at some points when their production slowed and it was so ridiculous that many asked the mods to shut it down and they did.

'Homerism' goes both ways. Discussions I've had on some other boards have been mixed on this issue - but basically most don't care unless they have a vested interest in an extended Keith suspension. I know most of the so-called 'outrage' here is really just a veiled attempt to wish for a Blues advantage in our first round matchup. It's okay - I understand it and it's your board so it is what it is.

You don't have to search at all for what I found. It's all over. Pretty much anywhere Hawk fans are. And let me say that most Hawk fans aren't like this that I have seen, but there are far more than there should be. You expect a few idiots anywhere you go, but it seems like there are a LOT of idiots surrounding this particular situation. It goes beyond homerism...it's idiocy and ignorance on a larger scale than it should be.

The fact that the Hawks are who we are likely to play has absolutely nothing to do with the thought that he got a couple games too few. Please don't try to discredit the opinions here because of the upcoming matchup. The VAST majority of folks that you talk to (any fans, not just Blues fans...and even some Chicago fans) that i have seen that have no vested interest feel Keith should have got a little more and that Keith was very lucky he isn't going to miss more time. That is a pretty widespread opinion.

If you watch the DOPS video that explains it, they talk about Keith's suspension history, they don't mention Coyle's high stick to Keith prior to the takedown, they said Coyle only gave a "light shove" to Keith and they said Coyle's stick got tangled up in his teammates skate (it wasn't his skate, it was his leg...but whatever) essentially excusing the trip.
They talked it up like a hefty suspension was coming as they basically villianized Keith in the video (which they should have)...but then they say he only gets 6 games.
WTF?
Based on what they say in the video and how they say it, you'd have expected a 10 game suspension for Keith.
It just doesn't make any sense at all. It's a gutless suspension...for whatever reason they're afraid to suspend star players from a significant number of playoff games. 1 playoff game simply doesn't send much of a message at all.

Keith said after the decision that he needs to play smarter and not do shit like that.
Uh huh.
Where was that attitude after the last incident which was VERY similar to this one? It wasn't there because why should it be? Only suspending a player for 1 playoff game for intentional blows to the head with a stick is a joke. It doesn't send the message it needs to and that is the whole problem. This is the 2nd time now has only got 1 playoff game for an intentional stick swing at the head.

How many games does Reaves get if he does that to Toewes? He gets 10-15 games, easy.

[gaijin]

The other side of the coin: Defending the Duncan Keith Suspension

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 25550.html

Short version: the length of Keith's suspension is in line with the Department of Player Safety's recent suspensions for similar infractions.

Personally, I disagree with Wyshynski. If the league really wants to reduce deliberate attacks like these, you need to come down hard on offenders, especially repeat offenders.

[cprice12]

The other side of the coin: Defending the Duncan Keith Suspension

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 25550.html

Short version: the length of Keith's suspension is in line with the Department of Player Safety's recent suspensions for similar infractions.

Personally, I disagree with Wyshynski. If the league really wants to reduce deliberate attacks like these, you need to come down hard on offenders, especially repeat offenders.

I think the problem is that some people try to justify suspensions because they are "similar to what has been handed down in the past", but the length of suspensions has traditionally always been a joke, so it's just the same damn thing over and over again.

Repeat offenders, especially those who do the exact same God damn thing, need to have stiffer suspensions...and the fact that they are a star player shouldn't factor in whatsoever...but we all know that it does. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

[theohall]

Even the douchebag Eddie O thought the suspension would have been longer. IMO, that CBS Sports article with the video links showing the nature of the offense and the repeat nature of it (using the stick as a weapon to whack somebody in the head while in no way making a hockey play) got it right.

One of these times someone is going to file the civil suit for assault (kind of like the Bertuzzi assault charge, although that was a criminal charge) if the league keeps not really punishing players for their assault with a weapon like actions.

[ecbm]

YOu know, if you're ever up against criminal prosecution or defending someone rom same-you all should keep in mind that the "he started line" is utterly irrelevant. If you rabbit punch the guy who skips in line at the movies you're going to spend a night in the clink, as you should.

Big kudos to the NHL's PR dept for keeping Marty McSorley out of this discussion. The main difference between those two for me? McSorley only did it once.

[cprice12]

Just found out that Coyle kind of cross checked Keith in the face when they came together along the boards a couple seconds before he was tripped down by Coyle.
Not that it justifies what Keith did, but it may help people understand what Keith was thinking. He was pissed...and then he got tripped down by the same guy and he got more pissed, then overreacted and tried to take Coyle's face off.

I bet that factors into the suspension. I don't think it should, but I bet it does.

Correction on this...the angle showed on the DOPS video showed that there was no cross check at all to Keith by Coyle..not even close. And if there was a high stick, it barely grazes the top of Keith's helmet. Crazy what an angle change can do.

So this just makes the Keith stick to the head of Coyle that much more unprovoked and worse. But whatever.

Here is the video:
https://www.nhl.com/video/duncan-keith- ... c-43155403

[glen a richter]

The concept of any kind of lawsuit associated with injuries incurred as a result of an opponents actions seems kind of weird to me. I mean yeah, you're not supposed to use the stick as a weapon, but isn't there some sort of assumption of risk when you play a professional sport that uses sticks and sharp blades? If you're going to sue an opponent for a violent slash, how come every boxing match doesn't end in a lawsuit when someone gets knocked out? It's assumption of risk associated with the sport.

The whole thing could be rectified by just having a fixed suspension schedule. Say a first time offender who's penalized for an intent to injure is suspended 10 games, second time offender is 20 games, third time offender is an entire season--82 games plus playoffs, if applicable. It's fairly easy to define intent to injure: any deliberate attack on a defenseless player involving the use of the stick, skate or body whether or not it results in an actual injury. Not that I can really recall a time when a player took their skate off and attacked an opponent, aside from Happy Gilmore.

[cardsfan04]

The concept of any kind of lawsuit associated with injuries incurred as a result of an opponents actions seems kind of weird to me. I mean yeah, you're not supposed to use the stick as a weapon, but isn't there some sort of assumption of risk when you play a professional sport that uses sticks and sharp blades? If you're going to sue an opponent for a violent slash, how come every boxing match doesn't end in a lawsuit when someone gets knocked out? It's assumption of risk associated with the sport.

The whole thing could be rectified by just having a fixed suspension schedule. Say a first time offender who's penalized for an intent to injure is suspended 10 games, second time offender is 20 games, third time offender is an entire season--82 games plus playoffs, if applicable. It's fairly easy to define intent to injure: any deliberate attack on a defenseless player involving the use of the stick, skate or body whether or not it results in an actual injury. Not that I can really recall a time when a player took their skate off and attacked an opponent, aside from Happy Gilmore.

I don't think Coyle would have a legit case here because a broken nose and some blood probably doesn't add up to much in damages. But, I don't think boxing is a good example. The point of boxing is to beat the shit out of each other (more or less). Swinging a stick at somebody's head is not an inherent part of hockey.

Take the Bertuzzi situation, for example. That was much worse than this, but it resulted in a lawsuit. I don't think it's crazy for a lawsuit to occur if something is A) not a "hockey play" B) clearly malicious intent and C) results in damages that could be ~rectified by some form of restitution.

[Kreegz2]

Not that I can really recall a time when a player took their skate off and attacked an opponent, aside from Happy Gilmore.

He didn't take it off, but Chris Simon intentionally stomped on a guy 9-10 years ago.

[ecbm]

The concept of any kind of lawsuit associated with injuries incurred as a result of an opponents actions seems kind of weird to me. I mean yeah, you're not supposed to use the stick as a weapon, but isn't there some sort of assumption of risk when you play a professional sport that uses sticks and sharp blades?

An interpretation this black and white would allow someone to do whatever they want to anyone on a sports field with the thinnest fig leaf of "he assumed the risk". That would mean Bertuzzi and McSorley couldn't be punished with anything more than a suspension. Some things are reasonably interpreted as not sporting incidents but simple crimes that happen to take place during a sporting event. What Keith did is much more analogous to a guy breaking a pool cue over another guy's head in a bar than any legitimate hockey play.

You assume risk when you drive too. But even negligence by motorists can rise to the level of crime because of the injuries it causes-or even just may cause to others.