John Scott's Cheapshot

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Scott was offered the opportunity for an in-person hearing as required"

    Interesting how it is worded or expressed. My take is "we really don't want to see you or want you to come hear" to take your medicine.

    [/QUOTE]


    I thought that was odd as well.  Maybe his agent had a good defense for the move, or maybe they said that they're going to f'ing hammer him and wanted to give him better due process?

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Glad to see that a high percentage of the comments on TSN see this the right way.

    Even from habs fans.

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=434887

    Most of the negatives are sarcasm that was misunderstood, and only a few of the negative commented lunatics appear to be serious.

    And of those negative comments, a few clearly don't understand the game and/or did not even see the hit.  As NAS's picture above clearly indicates there was an elbow to the head.

    And very few comments of the variety of "The Bruins live by the sword and die by the sword" type of comment.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Or an NHLPA attorney wanted that language in the CBA I suppose. Waste of a flight for Scott is what it reads...really.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    The "given the opportunity" wording is standard.  Scott has to be offered it, per CBA, but has the option to decline and have a phone hearing.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    That would have been cool in my grade school days instead having to go down into an office and put up with all my Principals bad breath.

    This just in!

    Kevin Paul Dupont @GlobeKPD

    "Kaleta's 10-gamer sticks. Soon will have cellmate."

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Who is Buffalo gonna sign with both Kaleta and Scott out?

    Link Gaetz?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know it won't happen, but the league needs to make a distinction between the following:

    1. Goon vs. hockey player crime, and

    2. Hockey player vs. hockey player crime.

    Punishment for infractions in category 1 should be heftier than those in category 2.  Time to get the "Hit Men" out of the league.  Most "enforcers", including Thornton, wouldn't headhunt the oppositions skill players.  The Scott hit is just wrong on so many levels.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    While it's not fair, it's true.  While a legal challenge would be put forth for any inconsistencies in player punishment, perhaps there is a way the League could punish teams/coaches for employing goon hitmen.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm sure it will get removed quickly, but I edited the wiki page to tell the truth.

    <br/><a href="http://oi41.tinypic.com/1z3cu14.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

     

     

    <br/><a href="http://oi43.tinypic.com/6pxd0y.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

    <br/><a href="http://oi42.tinypic.com/2rzpgso.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

    If the print is too small, you can see the images here:

    Page 1

    Page 2

    Page 3

    [/QUOTE]


    Love it!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Or an NHLPA attorney wanted that language in the CBA I suppose. Waste of a flight for Scott is what it reads...really.

    [/QUOTE]

    The way it works as I heard from Dennis Potvin this morning.  Player is offered an in person hearing. IF that player refuses the in person- he automatically gets 6 games, or more. So far he's getting at least 5. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The way it works as I heard from Dennis Potvin this morning.  Player is offered an in person hearing. IF that player refuses the in person- he automatically gets 6 games, or more. So far he's getting at least 5. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure that's nonsense.  All this is is the CBA guaranteeing that a player facing a potential 6+ game suspension has the right to defend himself in person.  His decision to do so - or not - has no automatic effect on his suspension.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Awesome quote from Scott “I don’t think I’m a dirty player,” Scott said. “I try to play within the code, within the rules. This is my first suspension. I don’t think I’m dirty. I don’t try to be a dirty player. I kind of feel really upset."

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Awesome quote from Scott “I don’t think I’m a dirty player,” Scott said. “I try to play within the code, within the rules. This is my first suspension. I don’t think I’m dirty. I don’t try to be a dirty player. I kind of feel really upset."

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

    [/QUOTE]


    Thinking about this, is he really a dirty player?  He hasn't been suspended before.  Kaleta is dirty.  Cooke is dirty. Torres is dirty.

    As for trying to fight Kessel, well, Kessel is the one who put his hand on Scott first. 

    I'm not saying that I'm a John Scott fan.  I'm not saying this hit on Eriksson wasn't dirty.  I'm not saying Scott isn't anything more than a pure goon.  But, when you think of his body of work before this hit, would you call him dirty?

    I don't think I would.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    A useless goon - hut he's Chara's size, if he was routinely dirty on top of being a skating clown, there'd have been a lot more stretchers rolled out by now.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Awesome quote from Scott “I don’t think I’m a dirty player,” Scott said. “I try to play within the code, within the rules. This is my first suspension. I don’t think I’m dirty. I don’t try to be a dirty player. I kind of feel really upset."

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?




    Thinking about this, is he really a dirty player?  He hasn't been suspended before.  Kaleta is dirty.  Cooke is dirty. Torres is dirty.

    As for trying to fight Kessel, well, Kessel is the one who put his hand on Scott first. 

    I'm not saying that I'm a John Scott fan.  I'm not saying this hit on Eriksson wasn't dirty.  I'm not saying Scott isn't anything more than a pure goon.  But, when you think of his body of work before this hit, would you call him dirty?

    I don't think I would.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, i cant think of a dirty hit hes done other than last night. But what 'code' is he referring to?

    Hitting defenselss players in the head?

    Trying to fight star players that are a foot shorter?

    He's talking BS. Just bc he hasnt been dirty doesnt mean i dont think hes full of it saying that.

    But yeah i agree, i dont think he's nec a dirty player. But a worthless one and doesnt deserve to skate on the same ice as most other players in the league.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Last night was certainly dirty, and the Kessel thing (while not 'dirty') is certainly a violation of 'the code' he speaks of.

    The bothersome thing with him is that the only way he can have an impact is to be dirty.  Cooke and Torres throw dirty hits, but they also throw a lot of clean ones, and score some goals, and forecheck effectively, and kill penalties, etc.  Scott can't do any of that.  His only possible impact in a game comes from hurting people.  So that doesn't help.

    He's no angel off the ice either, as he was arrested (and was very nearly sent away for a long time) for trying smash into other fleeing Michigan Tech students with his car, while driving drunk, because of a verbal spat.

    So, I don't know if he's comprehensively 'dirty' or not, but that's really the only direction his hockey career could go.  He can be irrelevant, or dirty.  I don't think the Sabres are paying $750k for irrelevant.  I don't think he was sent out there vs. Kessel or last night to be irrelevant.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from G4ck5. Show G4ck5's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Scott is such a peice of s*h**it. Like really hit a guy like Eriksson? I have said this many times its not the fighting in the game thats giving players concussions its P*O*S's like this, Lapierre and so forth.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:[QUOTE] Or an NHLPA attorney wanted that language in the CBA I suppose. Waste of a flight for Scott is what it reads...really.[/QUOTE]

    The way it works as I heard from Dennis Potvin this morning.  Player is offered an in person hearing. IF that player refuses the in person- he automatically gets 6 games, or more. So far he's getting at least 5. [/QUOTE]


    Interesting thanks Nite!

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Who is Buffalo gonna sign with both Kaleta and Scott out?

    Link Gaetz?

    [/QUOTE]


    At least Link has a cool sounding name.....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    The league upheld Kaleta's suspension of 10 games, magnifying the fact that he's a repeat offender.  I think Scott will get five.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Do this:

    Embedded image permalink

     

    Get this:

    [/QUOTE]

    This would make a great poster.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    That's just a great save by Rask. Sharks all over them be fortunate to get out of there 0-0.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Awesome quote from Scott “I don’t think I’m a dirty player,” Scott said. “I try to play within the code, within the rules. This is my first suspension. I don’t think I’m dirty. I don’t try to be a dirty player. I kind of feel really upset."

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

    [/QUOTE]


    Thinking about this, is he really a dirty player?  He hasn't been suspended before.  Kaleta is dirty.  Cooke is dirty. Torres is dirty.

    As for trying to fight Kessel, well, Kessel is the one who put his hand on Scott first. 

    I'm not saying that I'm a John Scott fan.  I'm not saying this hit on Eriksson wasn't dirty.  I'm not saying Scott isn't anything more than a pure goon.  But, when you think of his body of work before this hit, would you call him dirty?

    I don't think I would.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Kessel's own words. Kinda:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TR9oIiF4SE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUbrOpxWGY5sJ5Eh1xXFwQlA

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

    [/QUOTE]


    UFC?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot


    This is right. Scott is not a repeat offender, and just because it happened to a Bruin does not factor in. Love how McQuaid jumped right in. In that instance, I hate the instigator rule.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Awesome quote from Scott “I don’t think I’m a dirty player,” Scott said. “I try to play within the code, within the rules. This is my first suspension. I don’t think I’m dirty. I don’t try to be a dirty player. I kind of feel really upset."

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

    [/QUOTE]


    Thinking about this, is he really a dirty player?  He hasn't been suspended before.  Kaleta is dirty.  Cooke is dirty. Torres is dirty.

    As for trying to fight Kessel, well, Kessel is the one who put his hand on Scott first. 

    I'm not saying that I'm a John Scott fan.  I'm not saying this hit on Eriksson wasn't dirty.  I'm not saying Scott isn't anything more than a pure goon.  But, when you think of his body of work before this hit, would you call him dirty?

    I don't think I would.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Looks like part of the interview I saw on NHL NET prior to B's game. Scott looking pretty smart going for the angelic angle. Claiming how he got sick to his stomach and couldn't sleep last night. Also bailed out his coach big time. 

     

Share