Mr.Shanahan will see you now

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : They don't start with the Zetterberg hit because there was no Zetterberg hit.  Zetterberg was simply there.  I'm not convinced that Zetterberg had anything to do with it.  Ference was the direct cause. More importantly, who cares what "they" say or do? 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Again...you new to this site?  

    We always seem to wanna find something someone else did rather than just look at the issue.  AF pushed buddy from behind who was vulnerable(love that word- its a new catch phrase) into the boards.  Dirty play. AF should know better bc he is more often than not the one chasing the puck when its dumped in.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : Again...you new to this site?   We always seem to wanna find something someone else did rather than just look at the issue.  AF pushed buddy from behind who was vulnerable(love that word- its a new catch phrase) into the boards.  Dirty play. AF should know better bc he is more often than not the one chasing the puck when its dumped in.
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    But shupe, wouldn't you say the precedent and consistency are absolutely paramount in giving suspensions and doing Shanahan's job?

    So, naturally, you compare the hits you see to other hits.  With the Marchand hit and the Ference hit, there are unquestionably very, very similar hits that are not being reviewed by the league.  So...you point them out, right?

    In those cases, I'm not trying to say "my guy is innocent!", but rather stating a preference for consistency in the league.  Maybe that's hopeless...

    BTW, I agree with you on the frustration that we are even discussing this game after game...I hate it.  Bring on the Flyers...

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

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : So, is every illegal hit suspendable?  I think you have a tiered approach where a hit like that can be 1. a two minute penalty; 2. a five minute penalty; and then 3. a suspension for the worst kind of hits.  A five minute major should not automatically mean a suspension.  That's the whole point of league review -- to look at the factors that might not be apparent to the on-ice officials.  Like the Chara hit last year. There is no bigger price than winning-losing games.  Ference essentially lost the game for the team yesterday.  That's a big price to pay.  It all depends on how bad you thought the hit was.  Since I didn't think it was that bad, I think the 5-minute major was adequate punishment.  If you think the hit was horrible, you might think a suspension is needed.  Not me.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    My point is that because a player gets a 5 minute major that cost his team the game , should that be punishment enough as you state ? No IMO, that's old school thinking . If it's deemed questionable then it should go to the next step. League review.  I think bad hits and suspensions should remain separated from the results of the score and which team won. 

    FYI , there is no 2 minute minor for 'checking from behind'.

    43.2 Minor Penalty - There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind.

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

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : I've heard this a few times, but I don't understand. Why do people think the league dislikes the B's?  What about the Bruins would the league dislike?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    NAS, i don't think it's league wide. but three of the largest (most influential) markets in hockey certainly have no love for the bruins. montreal- obvious.... plus the patch skating himself into a stancion incident. hehe. toronto- the whole kessel thing, and the bruins winning a cup. vancouver- do i really need to explain this? these 3 cities, their players , fans, media, and even management,  are the reason why it "seems" everyone dislikes the b's. you don't hear anything from ottawa. apparently now we can add torts and ruff to the list of babies that cry and cry to be heard.     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : But shupe, wouldn't you say the precedent and consistency are absolutely paramount in giving suspensions and doing Shanahan's job? So, naturally, you compare the hits you see to other hits.  With the Marchand hit and the Ference hit, there are unquestionably very, very similar hits that are not being reviewed by the league.  So...you point them out, right? In those cases, I'm not trying to say "my guy is innocent!", but rather stating a preference for consistency in the league.  Maybe that's hopeless... BTW, I agree with you on the frustration that we are even discussing this game after game...I hate it.  Bring on the Flyers...  
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    I would agree that there has to a standard or something to judge on.  BUT, most of these hits mentioned have a lot of differences in them...I mean we could compare this to what Lapierre did to Nichol if we wanna just throw thoughts out there.  To me its a wreckless play by a veteran player in this league who shoots his cake hole off whenever he can Kettle-Black. 

    Fletch- this board used to be about hockey.  Its not.  We continue to chat about stuff that is the ugly side of the sport.  It's too bad that all we have turned into is armchair shanny's. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : NAS, i don't think it's league wide. but three of the largest (most influential) markets in hockey certainly have no love for the bruins. montreal- obvious.... plus the patch skating himself into a stancion incident. hehe. toronto- the whole kessel thing, and the bruins winning a cup. vancouver- do i really need to explain this? these 3 cities, their players , fans, media, and even management,  are the reason why it "seems" everyone dislikes the b's. you don't hear anything from ottawa. apparently now we can add torts and ruff to the list of babies that cry and cry to be heard.     
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    Pretty sure you can add all 29 cities.  We have the cup, they want it. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : My point is that because a player gets a 5 minute major that cost his team the game , should that be punishment enough as you state ? No IMO, that's old school thinking . If it's deemed questionable then it should go to the next step. League review.  I think bad hits and suspensions should remain separated from the results of the score and which team won.  FYI , there is no 2 minute minor for 'checking from behind'. 43.2 Minor Penalty - There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    He didn't get 'checking from behind', he got "charging", correct?  Tons of different calls have 2-minute and 5-minute penalties that could be called, as I described in my scenario.

    Review of the hit is just fine.  After that review, I beleive that they should not suspend him, because I didn't think the hit was that bad.  That isn't "old school thinking", it is an opinion.  You an I just have a different take on the hit Chowdah -- doesn't mean one of us is enlightened and one is "old school".  If I thought it was such a bad hit I might be in favor of a suspension too.  I have supported most of the suspensions given to Bruins in recent years.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : Do you see Ference's hand on the Ranger's back?  That's what caused it.  It wasn't a hit as much as a push, but they certainly weren't side-by-side.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Perhaps I should clarify.  They are side-by-side with relation to their motion to the boards.  Ference did shove the guy on the back, but the push was not towards the boards.  I think there is a big difference in dangerousness of a hit that shoves someone into the boards, and a hit that throws someone already heading into the boards off-balance.
    It's still something he shouldn't have done, but not some horrible flagrant foul.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : I would agree that there has to a standard or something to judge on.  BUT, most of these hits mentioned have a lot of differences in them...I mean we could compare this to what Lapierre did to Nichol if we wanna just throw thoughts out there.  To me its a wreckless play by a veteran player in this league who shoots his cake hole off whenever he can Kettle-Black.  Fletch- this board used to be about hockey.  Its not.  We continue to chat about stuff that is the ugly side of the sport.  It's too bad that all we have turned into is armchair shanny's. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    Armchair Shanny's....classic!

    It's true, but I tend to agree with Fletch.  The video explanations for suspensions have been a very positive development. Whether you agree or not, Shanny puts his reasoning out there.

    The problem is questionable hits that either receive no supplemental discipline or even a league review.  That is the part that is most frustrating. I get that Shanny can't make a video for everything he reviews, but it sure would help clear things up. Why wasn't McLeod suspended or fined? Did the play even get reviewed. That is what I find most frustrating. 

    Add the "Lucic Rule", where you don't really get suspended for the play in question, but for your trend and body of work and it just looks like there is no clear/consistent process.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : Pretty sure you can add all 29 cities.  We have the cup, they want it. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]
    yes they want the cup. but i have to dissagree with you that they are hate mongers. remember when mcquaid knee to knee'd that ottawa guy(?). he said, "no biggie, i like mcquaid, no hard feelings". this hit happens against ant of those three above mentioned cities... and mcquaid gets ripped by the opposing coach during the press conference, the players start chipping in their two cents to the media, ect. id have to say that 90% of the negative press that the bruins get, comes from one of these 3. the other 10% is spread out between the other 24 teams. seriously, go to the avalanche or capitals site, and see how little they care about what the bruins do. the majority of canada hates the bruins. they are finally besting their beloved habs, and kept the cup from returning to canada in june. need i say more?  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : I agree that the Zetterberg is not a good comparison, as he seemed to do nothing.  Did you see the McLoed hit? I think the other factor that fuels a bit of the paranoia is Shanahan departing from looking at the hit and just the hit.  Shanny pretty much admitted in the Lucic and Marchand suspensions that past hits, reputation, and general effort to 'reign people in' factors into the decisions.  That's pretty subjective stuff that has no relation to the rulebook.  I'd prefer that Shanahan stick to what he sees in the replay, judge it based on the rulebook and precedent, and not get into trying to even out past debts.  I'm not sure if this always happens.  I'm a little worried about it.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]


    Fletch,  Shannahan started well with good intentions and stuck only to the event itself till the Lucic-Miller collision. Then he got blasted by it at the GM meetings and this is where IMO he started judging situations differently.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : They don't start with the Zetterberg hit because there was no Zetterberg hit.  Zetterberg was simply there.  I'm not convinced that Zetterberg had anything to do with it.  Ference was the direct cause. More importantly, who cares what "they" say or do? 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Wrong wording,  I also shouldn't be calling it a hit nor was Ference's so called hit, more like a push.  I'm not disputing or comparing Ference and/or  Zetterberg's intentions.
    My point was how they'll initiate and isolate a Bruins event happening in agame .  There were 3-4 other events during the week that they could've introduced but they chose to use the Bruins , again. That brings me to what Fletch was talking about.  Negativity and hatred towards the Bruins.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : Fletch,  Shannahan started well with good intentions and stuck only the event itself till the Lucic-Miller collision. Then he got blasted by it at the GM meetings and this is where IMO he started judging situations differently.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    I think you're right.  I'm sure at the GM meetings, a lot of guys expressed their concerns about their franchise goalies being hit, which is fair.

    I would have preferred that Lucic get a game or two for the Miller thing, than to go down this road of debt settling and 'body of work' reviews on particular hits.  Be consistent! 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : yes they want the cup. but i have to dissagree with you that they are hate mongers. remember when mcquaid knee to knee'd that ottawa guy(?). he said, "no biggie, i like mcquaid, no hard feelings". this hit happens against ant of those three above mentioned cities... and mcquaid gets ripped by the opposing coach during the press conference, the players start chipping in their two cents to the media, ect. id have to say that 90% of the negative press that the bruins get, comes from one of these 3. the other 10% is spread out between the other 24 teams. seriously, go to the avalanche or capitals site, and see how little they care about what the bruins do. the majority of canada hates the bruins. they are finally besting their beloved habs, and kept the cup from returning to canada in june. need i say more?  
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]
    This is the biggest piece of kief written on this board!!!! In Canada from a stat back in 2005. The following teams are the most loved 1. Montreal 2. Toronto & 3 The Boston Bruins!  Get your facts together before you spout off!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now :. It's still something he shouldn't have done, but not some horrible flagrant foul.
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]

    I agree.  It's not Jones/Bergeron.  I doubt any malacious intent existed, but actions are actions. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : He didn't get 'checking from behind', he got "charging", correct?  Tons of different calls have 2-minute and 5-minute penalties that could be called, as I described in my scenario. Review of the hit is just fine.  After that review, I beleive that they should not suspend him, because I didn't think the hit was that bad.  That isn't "old school thinking", it is an opinion.  You an I just have a different take on the hit Chowdah -- doesn't mean one of us is enlightened and one is "old school".  If I thought it was such a bad hit I might be in favor of a suspension too.  I have supported most of the suspensions given to Bruins in recent years.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    I'm with on this 1000 % Fletch. The other thing that a lot of people don't take into account. What we the viewer sees doesn't always mean the player sees the same thing. Just because we saw all of RM's numbers for say 2 seconds. Doesn't mean that Ference saw them for that length of time. He may have never seen the numbers until a millisecond before contact. This is what got Lucic off was it not? Time, or no time to slow up?
     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now


    This is why I come hereon this forum, objectivity. 
    Ference should know leaning into someone , at the speed they're going  is dangerous and should've laid off because of this he deserves maybe 2 games.
    I agree 100% with everyone else here expressing their frustration on how similar (McLeod , Phaneuf ) don't get hearings and then there's what Crowls very well states, "The Lucic rule"  .
    You can't get this stuff on TSN.ca nor on the HF Boards. There it's attack attack and attack poster A and poster B .
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : He didn't get 'checking from behind', he got "charging", correct?  Tons of different calls have 2-minute and 5-minute penalties that could be called, as I described in my scenario. Review of the hit is just fine.  After that review, I beleive that they should not suspend him, because I didn't think the hit was that bad.  That isn't "old school thinking", it is an opinion.  You an I just have a different take on the hit Chowdah -- doesn't mean one of us is enlightened and one is "old school".  If I thought it was such a bad hit I might be in favor of a suspension too.  I have supported most of the suspensions given to Bruins in recent years.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    I don't know where I said this....but okay. I hate this type of hit and feel that the league needs to clean it up. For me it's the same idea as cleaning up the hitting during an icing call which changed this year. How is this play any different then the old icing plays where players used to get hurt other then Ference dumped it in from the NYR side of the redline. Same scenario. 

    My opinion is it was dirty and suspendable ( which he may or may not get ), the refs gave him a major and game misconduct , Ference regrets the hit and now he's being reviewed.

    Yep Fletch , we disagree. Let's move on.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : I agree.  It's not Jones/Bergeron.  I doubt any malacious intent existed, but actions are actions. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Which is why I won't be wailing or gnashing my teeth if he gets a game or two.  I'll just be annoyed that it is another one of those things that some people will point to as evidence that the Bruins are out to hurt people, much like Lucic's "head shot" on Miller.

    Two and a half hours before puck drop.  I guess this will be a last minute decision.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : I'm with on this 1000 % Fletch. The other thing that a lot of people don't take into account. What we the viewer sees doesn't always mean the player sees the same thing. Just because we saw all of RM's numbers for say 2 seconds. Doesn't mean that Ference saw them for that length of time. He may have never seen the numbers until a millisecond before contact. This is what got Lucic off was it not? Time, or no time to slow up?
    Posted by nitemare-38[/QUOTE]
    Why does anyone care about the numbers when Ference was booted for charging? It doesn't matter if he got him from the side or front on that one. He clearly charged him.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    To me though Dez not hitting someone in the numbers does mean something in favor of the accused. Because AF shoved with his glove on top of the hip not a cross check with a stick in the back means something in the evaluation of supplementary discipline IMO.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]To me though Dez not hitting someone in the numbers does mean something in favor of the accused. Because AF shoved with his glove on top of the hip not a cross check with a stick in the back means something in the evaluation of supplementary discipline IMO.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
    Agree.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Swerengen. Show Swerengen's posts

    Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now

    In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mr.Shanahan will see you now : Why does anyone care about the numbers when Ference was booted for charging? It doesn't matter if he got him from the side or front on that one. He clearly charged him.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    I have to disagree with you and the ref about this being charging

    Before you roll your eyes, I'm not saying it wasn't a reckless hit and deserving of the penalty.  It was.  But it wasn't charging

    The latter half of that game, the Bruins made a pretty clear strategic change with their D-Men, where they had them pinching in, chasing the puck deep and even carrying it in deep in to the offensive zone.  Chara, Boychuck and Ference in particular.  Ference wasn't coming across the ice, seeking McDonough out.  He was chipping the puck in and then chasing it behind the net

    He was coming in hard, wanted to get to the puck, McDonough got in between him and the puck and Ference in that instant made the wrong decision.  You can argue that the way McDonough played that and put himself in such a vulnerable position may not have been the smartest thing in the world, but the onus was still on Ference there to change his angle or hold up and try to muck for the puck, instead of blasting the guy off it, when that guy had his back to him and was a few feet in front of the boards

    It was boarding, not charging.  The ref got that part wrong....but got the minutes right.  Hopefully Shannahan gets it right too and doesn't go for more than a game or two here, as I saw no malice on that hit
     

Share