2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

[OvahInDovah]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining to me how Ovechkin only got two games and Lapierre got four, I'd love to hear it.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining to me how Ovechkin only got two games and Lapierre got four, I'd love to hear it.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha LOL Ha Ha Ha Ha LOL Ha Ha ROTFLMAO Ha Ha

[bueller]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining to me how Ovechkin only got two games and Lapierre got four, I'd love to hear it.

Campbell got drunk, stood on his head, chucked a dart at a list possible suspensions and lobbed another one at a list of lame excuses.

[OvahInDovah]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Pretty much what I thought. So ridiculous.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Are we talking about Lapierre's hit on Nichol?

******* width="425" height="344">****** name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/plsD3deR6TU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0">****** name="allowFullScreen" value="true">****** name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">****** src="http://www.youtube.com/v/plsD3deR6TU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Is someone saying that 4 games for that was too heavy? I feel like I might be missing some sarcasm here.

[Rimbaud]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining to me how Ovechkin only got two games and Lapierre got four, I'd love to hear it.

Nichol is clearly a superstar whereas Brian Campbell is just a bottom pairing dman scrub.

[OvahInDovah]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Are we talking about Lapierre's hit on Nichol?

******* width="425" height="344">****** name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/plsD3deR6TU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0">****** name="allowFullScreen" value="true">****** name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">****** src="http://www.youtube.com/v/plsD3deR6TU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Is someone saying that 4 games for that was too heavy? I feel like I might be missing some sarcasm here.

No sarcasm. 4 games was too much for that, especially for someone who had no previous disciplinary record. 2 games would have been fine (and others seem to agree).

And my point is - I don't see a ton of difference between the two hits. Yet a guy with no previous record gets 4 games, and the guy with a record of supplemental discipline (and a long list of questionable hits) gets 2. Makes no sense.

[OvahInDovah]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

On a lighter note, I stumbled across a show on HBO tonight called "The Life and Times of Tim". They had a funny quote regarding hockey:

Tim (surpised): Oh, hockey, oh Long Island has a hockey team?

Friend: That's like Delaware having a nuclear bomb.

[The Rube]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Not to disrespect GLM, but this could also come into play:

*****http://i2.***********.com/albums/y23/Behtsee/NHLsuspensionflowchart.gif******

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining to me how Ovechkin only got two games and Lapierre got four, I'd love to hear it.

Ovechkin: 44-52-96
Lapierre: 6-6-12

[quiddlet]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

As a Caps fan I'm obviously more than a bit bias but I thought the suspension was about the right about of time... Of course it isn't consistent with anything else that's ever happened because it's the NHL.

Here's some consistency: How did Ovechkin get 2 games for that hit when Downie got no suspension for blatantly trying to take Crosby out for the rest of the season? I mean.. obviously I dislike Crosby plenty, but that hit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHeh3tyUL10 was downright DIRTY.

I hope at some point the NHL gets serious about this stuff...

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

And my point is - I don't see a ton of difference between the two hits. Yet a guy with no previous record gets 4 games, and the guy with a record of supplemental discipline (and a long list of questionable hits) gets 2. Makes no sense.

I took another look at the Ovechkin hit. Especially now that I've been able to see it a few times in a row at full speed, I can definately buy the argument that the two hits are very similar, as you say. By that thinking, you'd be right on. That is to say: the hits themselves are very similar. However, I think there's a major difference in the timing of the two hits- and to me that explains the difference in suspensions- moreso than Ovechkin's star power.

Lapierre's hit was considerably longer after the puck was played and much more deliberate than Ovechkin's. Nichol fires a shot from the hashes, and is casually turning at the red line when Lapierre gets him from behind. Lapierre can't for the life him come up with any sort of justification for that hit. There is absolutely deliberate intent behind that hit. It's worth mentioning again: Nichol shot from the hash marks, and was casually turning at the red line when Lapierre hit him.

Ovechkin's hit- while ultimately just as bad in terms of speed, body position and the fact that he pushed Campbell into the boards- can at least be disguised as finishing a hit on a forecheck. Make the slightest change of variables (Ovechkin delivers the hit .5 seconds earlier, or does it when Campbell is two feet closer to the boards, and doesn't have the space to really fall into them like he did), and you wouldn't be able to tell Ovechkin's hit from a normal finished forecheck. Of course, it still ends up being a CFB penalty at that point, but its otherwise a lot more innocent and a lot more similar to the kinds of plays you see in every game.

Granted, Campbell wasn't close enough to the boards so that he wouldn't fall into them, and Ovechkin didn't deliver the check while Campbell had the puck- which is why he got the misconduct and the suspension in addition to his Boarding/CFB penalty. But even with that in mind, you can look at Ovechkin's hit and think that maybe he was trying to do make a hockey play and he mistimed it. In my opinion, there's no way you can possibly do that with Lapierre's hit.

Does that explain it well enough, perhaps?

[OvahInDovah]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

EODS -

It's about the closest anyone's come to having it make more sense. I think a key point where we see things differently is around your statement about Lapierre's timing and Nichol casually turning at the red line. It's not what I see. I see a guy who just rang one off the crossbar trying to bat a puck out of mid-air, and the defender checking him to prevent that. Unfortunately, it was a shove in the back that sent the player into the end boards - definitelty boarding. Penalty? Absolutely. 4 game suspension? No way.

In my mind Lapriere's play was much more a hockey play than Ovechkin's.

[state of hockey]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Well, the NHL better figure it out soon. The last few weeks have been ridiculous with this crap. Someone's career is going to end, or worse.

[quiddlet]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Someone's career is going to end.

Hopefully Colin Campbell's