Let's Go Blues

NHL really needs to send a message here. He has a well-deserved reputation for using his stick too much. Now he's gone way too far. This wasn't McSorley level in execution, but the intent was every bit as bad. 10 games is my first thought, but really, I wouldn't have a problem if they really hammered him because of how clearly malicious his intentions were. And, I'm not just saying that because I already disliked him. That's only part of the reason I'd enjoy seeing something huge.

cardsfan04 wrote: This wasn't McSorley level in execution, but the intent was every bit as bad.

My first thought was that it isn't very different at all to what McSorley did. It's not hockey-just armed battery that happens to take place on a rink.

Duncan Keith really is a first-rate dickwad coward. Yeah, carve guys up and taunt them when they're down, tough guy. I hope they through an extremely heavy book at him.

Hopefully he misses playoff time. He's a multiple offender and has done similar before:



He makes me wish there were still guys in the league like Twist, Probert or Simpson.

ecbm wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote: This wasn't McSorley level in execution, but the intent was every bit as bad.

My first thought was that it isn't very different at all to what McSorley did. It's not hockey-just armed battery that happens to take place on a rink.

Duncan Keith really is a first-rate dickwad coward. Yeah, carve guys up and taunt them when they're down, tough guy. I hope they through an extremely heavy book at him.

I think it's the most obvious comparison of dirty plays in recent-ish memory. When I say it wasn't the same level in terms of execution, I mean that McSorley snuck up on Brashear, whacked him in the ear hole and knocked him unconscious. Keith's intent was bad, but the result wasn't quite the same.

That touches on a pet peeve of mine in the NHL though. I wish they would punish the action, not the result. Keith intentionally swung his stick at Coyle's head in a malicious manner as vengeance for the hit he took. It's fortunate that he was on the ice and couldn't get a ton on it, but his intentions weren't less malicious just because he wasn't in position to swing his stick harder. I'm worried that they will factor in the result here more than I think they should.

He will get 2 games at the most.

NHL loves the Blackhawks, so......

Now I see that he was offered an in-person hearing, so he should get at least 5 games.

So he will get the minimum 5.

ibldbl wrote:He will get 2 games at the most.

NHL loves the Blackhawks, so......

Virtanen just got 2 games for this:

https://www.nhl.com/video/jake-virtanen ... c-43092703

What Keith did was quite a bit worse. If they want to send a message they should suspend him at least 7 games, especially since he is a prior offender. Probably will only be 5 though because it's a Hawks' top pairing defenceman.

I hope the fact that Coyle didn't miss much time in the game doesn't factor in and make the suspension less than it should be.
I've always hated that stipulation.

He SHOULD get about 10 games, minimum, for that slash. And since they weight playoff games to equal two regular season games, I can see him missing a couple playoff games in addition to the remaining 5 regular season games. So I say he gets 7-8 games. But it wouldn't shock me at all if he only gets 5 games, since Keith is a star player...and we all know star players don't get punished with near the severity that lesser players do...which is insane.

Keith is a great player...but he has made some stupid decisions on the ice that have resulted in suspensions. And don't forget, he was the one who said, "Wakey wakey Backes" a couple years ago in the playoffs when Backes obviously had a concussion and was struggling to stand up. That just shows what kind of a douchebag he is. The respect level just isn't where it needs to be with other players...and that's unfortunate because he doesn't have to do that stuff.

You know, a number of Hawk fans were LIVID about the Reaves hit on Erhoff...


Keith's slash was way, way, way worse than what Reaves did.

I've also heard Hawk fans talk about how dirty Backes is (without anything substantial to back that up). Backes has never, not once been suspended or received a major penalty (other than fighting) that wasn't overturned by the league later because it was the wrong call. Mr. Duncan Keith has two suspensions, and about to have a third for some pretty dirty stuff...yet Keith isn't thought of as being a dirty player, but somehow Backes is.

cardsfan04 wrote:

ecbm wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote: This wasn't McSorley level in execution, but the intent was every bit as bad.

My first thought was that it isn't very different at all to what McSorley did. It's not hockey-just armed battery that happens to take place on a rink.

Duncan Keith really is a first-rate dickwad coward. Yeah, carve guys up and taunt them when they're down, tough guy. I hope they through an extremely heavy book at him.

I think it's the most obvious comparison of dirty plays in recent-ish memory. When I say it wasn't the same level in terms of execution, I mean that McSorley snuck up on Brashear, whacked him in the ear hole and knocked him unconscious. Keith's intent was bad, but the result wasn't quite the same.

That touches on a pet peeve of mine in the NHL though. I wish they would punish the action, not the result. Keith intentionally swung his stick at Coyle's head in a malicious manner as vengeance for the hit he took. It's fortunate that he was on the ice and couldn't get a ton on it, but his intentions weren't less malicious just because he wasn't in position to swing his stick harder. I'm worried that they will factor in the result here more than I think they should.

Just to make it clear: I completely agree with you. The only difference between McSorley's and Keith's was that McSorley was standing and caught Brashear completely unaware. That shouldn't effect the punishment though. It'd be like charging a guy who shot someone in the head but didn't kill him with attempted murder and charging a guy who shot someone in the chest but didn't kill him with assault.

cprice12 wrote:I hope the fact that Coyle didn't miss much time in the game doesn't factor in and make the suspension less than it should be.
I've always hated that stipulation.

He SHOULD get about 10 games, minimum, for that slash. And since they weight playoff games to equal two regular season games, I can see him missing a couple playoff games in addition to the remaining 5 regular season games. So I say he gets 7-8 games. But it wouldn't shock me at all if he only gets 5 games, since Keith is a star player...and we all know star players don't get punished with near the severity that lesser players do...which is insane.

Keith is a great player...but he has made some stupid decisions on the ice that have resulted in suspensions. And don't forget, he was the one who said, "Wakey wakey Backes" a couple years ago in the playoffs when Backes obviously had a concussion and was struggling to stand up. That just shows what kind of a douchebag he is. The respect level just isn't where it needs to be with other players...and that's unfortunate because he doesn't have to do that stuff.

You know, a number of Hawk fans were LIVID about the Reaves hit on Erhoff...


Keith's slash was way, way, way worse than what Reaves did.

I've also heard Hawk fans talk about how dirty Backes is (without anything substantial to back that up). Backes has never, not once been suspended or received a major penalty (other than fighting) that wasn't overturned by the league later because it was the wrong call. Mr. Duncan Keith has two suspensions, and about to have a third for some pretty dirty stuff...yet Keith isn't thought of as being a dirty player, but somehow Backes is.

I thought of that Reaves hit too and how annoyed I was with Hawks' fans reactions after that. And yet none of them were going after their own player when he used his stick to swing at a guy's face. I get that emotions in these games are high, but c'mon, that's what shoving after the whistle and dropping the gloves are for. There's just no defending a player who would do something like this.

He's going to get popped for this one. He has too. Utter BS if he doesn't.

It's a shame such a skilled, decorated player just can't help himself from being a hot headed coward. Don't like the clean hit? Get on your skates and go toe to toe. He could have ended Coyle's career; ruined his life.

I hope he has to miss the playoffs, but he won't. In Chicago's case, it could be a blessing in disguise for him to sit out the rest of the season, maybe a couple first round games and get his legs fresh.

The only way for him to (maybe) regret it, though, is to hammer him and take away the postseason.

Bill brought up a good point on the podcast tonight as we talked about this at length.
The NHL has to come down hard on him and suspend him for some playoff games. If they don't, they are just giving him time to rest up so he can play 40 minutes a night in the playoffs.

That can't happen. A 5 game suspension isn't really a punishment that carries any weight.

If this had happened mid-season, he might have gotten 10+ games. I think he gets 7 or 8 games because of the weighted playoff games. He has to get at least that much or else the suspension means nothing.

Toasted Oates wrote:It's a shame such a skilled, decorated player just can't help himself from being a hot headed coward. Don't like the clean hit? Get on your skates and go toe to toe. He could have ended Coyle's career; ruined his life.

I hope he has to miss the playoffs, but he won't. In Chicago's case, it could be a blessing in disguise for him to sit out the rest of the season, maybe a couple first round games and get his legs fresh.

The only way for him to (maybe) regret it, though, is to hammer him and take away the postseason.

It wasn't a clean hit. Yes, I'm making a small - read miniscully small argument, because Keith was can-openered before the high stick.

1) Keith deserves a 10 game suspension due to being a repeat offender for a similar stick swinging incident with clear intent to injure. This is beyond doubt or argument.

2) Yes, Keith was can-openered and and it should've been a tripping call. The refs clearly missed the can-opener trip, but that doesn't give the offended play license to whack the opponent in the face with his stick which video clearly shows. 10-game suspension minimum for clear intent to injure with history of similar infractions,

The joke is Keith yelling at the refs he was "falling on his back as he hit Coyle" when the video clearly shows the delay between the trip and his blatant retaliation which the refs clearly did not miss.

So how long before Kerfuffle shows up to claim Keith did nothing wrong in this thread?

Any takers? The Chicago radio call was seriously offended Keith received a match penalty even after they could clearly see the blatant stick to the face on replay.

Panger, Kelly, Chase and Kerber are never as homerific as the 'Hawks call was on this.

They "couldn't believe" Keith deserved a match penalty, because he was on his back and "reacted."

I'd love to hear their call if Kane or Toews were whacked in the face after either of them can-openered someone and the opponent "reacted" with a stick to the face of Kane or Toews. HORRIBLE HOMERIFIC announcing when the intent to injure is some damn clear on video.

FYI - Kerry Fraser commented prior to this night's games on the lack of calls on clear penalties, like can-openers. The problem in Keith's case, he didn't even know if a penalty was being called and reacted with a blatant stick to the face. And it's not the first time with a stick to the face of an opponent after what he deemed to be a missed call. It's not in the player's hands to risk potential injury to opponents with stick to the face injuries. Based on Keith's past, he doesn't get this..... 10 games minimum, because of the clear intent to injure in this case.

Yep, you're right. I didn't notice Coyle's stick.

theohall wrote:

Toasted Oates wrote:It's a shame such a skilled, decorated player just can't help himself from being a hot headed coward. Don't like the clean hit? Get on your skates and go toe to toe. He could have ended Coyle's career; ruined his life.

I hope he has to miss the playoffs, but he won't. In Chicago's case, it could be a blessing in disguise for him to sit out the rest of the season, maybe a couple first round games and get his legs fresh.

The only way for him to (maybe) regret it, though, is to hammer him and take away the postseason.

It wasn't a clean hit. Yes, I'm making a small - read miniscully small argument, because Keith was can-openered before the high stick.

1) Keith deserves a 10 game suspension due to being a repeat offender for a similar stick swinging incident with clear intent to injure. This is beyond doubt or argument.

2) Yes, Keith was can-openered and and it should've been a tripping call. The refs clearly missed the can-opener trip, but that doesn't give the offended play license to whack the opponent in the face with his stick which video clearly shows. 10-game suspension minimum for clear intent to injure with history of similar infractions,

The joke is Keith yelling at the refs he was "falling on his back as he hit Coyle" when the video clearly shows the delay between the trip and his blatant retaliation which the refs clearly did not miss.

So how long before Kerfuffle shows up to claim Keith did nothing wrong in this thread?

Any takers? The Chicago radio call was seriously offended Keith received a match penalty even after they could clearly see the blatant stick to the face on replay.

Panger, Kelly, Chase and Kerber are never as homerific as the 'Hawks call was on this.

They "couldn't believe" Keith deserved a match penalty, because he was on his back and "reacted."

I'd love to hear their call if Kane or Toews were whacked in the face after either of them can-openered someone and the opponent "reacted" with a stick to the face of Kane or Toews. HORRIBLE HOMERIFIC announcing when the intent to injure is some damn clear on video.

FYI - Kerry Fraser commented prior to this night's games on the lack of calls on clear penalties, like can-openers. The problem in Keith's case, he didn't even know if a penalty was being called and reacted with a blatant stick to the face. And it's not the first time with a stick to the face of an opponent after what he deemed to be a missed call. It's not in the player's hands to risk potential injury to opponents with stick to the face injuries. Based on Keith's past, he doesn't get this..... 10 games minimum, because of the clear intent to injure in this case.

The hit itself was clean in the sense there was nothing dirty about it. The problem is that Coyle's stick was between Keith's legs when he hit him and as Keith turned, and he went down hard on his back. Now, I don't know if the trip was intentional or not. But my guess it that it doesn't look intentional...but either way, it still should have been a trip and would carry a max of a 2 minute minor.

I just listened to the Hawks tv broadcast of the play, and Olczyk said he agreed with the call 100% after seeing the replay. Foley really didn't say much about it...other than when it happened he sounded shocked Keith was thrown out, but I don't think he even saw it when it happened, hence the shock factor.

I'd love to hear the radio call...I'll see if I can find it.

Speaking of homers... I really like Pang, but he is a huge homer as well. I can't tell you the number of times he blindly defends a Blues player who interferes with a goalie or another player. A play that is an obvious penalty and he acts like a player had no choice or tries to pass the blame on the other player. That gets on my nerves...like I'm stupid or something and would buy into what he is saying when it's so obviously wrong. And again, I really like Pang...but it's when he is too much of a homer on penalty calls, that's what bugs me. I expect a certain level of homerism with local broadcasts...I'd actually be disappointed if they weren't homers, but he can take it to the extreme sometimes when analyzing penalties, which he shouldn't do. All it does is misinform fans who might be relying on him to fully understand the game. It's actually a major disservice.

Coyle's a douche and the hit was, how to put it, opportunistic? Still, doesn't matter for considering what Keith did. McSorley made a similar claim regarding Brashear (who very much was a dirty player) about an incident earlier in the game. It's irrelevant.

12 games is what I want to see. 5 games for rest of regular season + 7 games ensures entire first round of playoffs. Not really expecting that, but I think that's the appropriate length here. If they lose in less than 7 and it gets reduced on appeal so that it doesn't carry over to next season, I'm ok with that. But, I think he needs to miss the entire first round.

This is totally different (in a really bad way) than somebody that didn't line a hit up properly or was a little late or missed high. This wasn't dangerously negligent. This was malicious which is significantly worse. I think I'm setting myself up to be really disappointed when he gets 6-7 games.

cardsfan04 wrote:12 games is what I want to see. 5 games for rest of regular season + 7 games ensures entire first round of playoffs. Not really expecting that, but I think that's the appropriate length here. If they lose in less than 7 and it gets reduced on appeal so that it doesn't carry over to next season, I'm ok with that. But, I think he needs to miss the entire first round.

This is totally different (in a really bad way) than somebody that didn't line a hit up properly or was a little late or missed high. This wasn't dangerously negligent. This was malicious which is significantly worse. I think I'm setting myself up to be really disappointed when he gets 6-7 games.

I'll be shocked if he gets 7+ playoff games missed.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is deserved...but I can't see the NHL doing that to a star player. That's the way they operate.
I do think he will miss 2-3 playoff games...if he doesn't, it's a crime and the system is corrupt.

cardsfan04 wrote:12 games is what I want to see. 5 games for rest of regular season + 7 games ensures entire first round of playoffs. Not really expecting that, but I think that's the appropriate length here. If they lose in less than 7 and it gets reduced on appeal so that it doesn't carry over to next season, I'm ok with that. But, I think he needs to miss the entire first round.

Keep in mind it's a first time offense in terms of the CBA so 12 games seems excessive for a first time offender. But if there's anything clear in the NHL discipline department it's that inconsistency rules the day. So it could be 7 or 30 depending on what side of the bed the shanahan (or whoever decides now) wakes up on