Maple Leafs

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,435
5,656
113
Actually, in what you quoted shack never said Malkin should be charged. He said that if he did the same thing off the ice he'd be charged. If you disagree with him on that I'd suggest you conduct an experiment: grab a hockey stick and take a walk and cross check the first person you see on the sidewalk in the face with it and see what happens.

There's a standard for what happens on the ice/field/court that's different than the one that exists off the ice/field/court. Players consent to a high degree of risk, whereas none of us consent to being assaulted in the course of normal life. Only extreme cases end up in the courts with criminal charges laid - like the Bertuzzi incident.

Malkin's got a bit of a history but nothing horrible. The 4 games was probably what should be expected and if anything similar happens again I expect it would be up to the 15-20 game mark.
I did ask him outright if he should be charged and his reply was to look at previous posts and thats what I did...

The example that other people use about street/ice is ridiculous...someone walks down the street or thru a mall and cross checks people is a lot different than doing it in a game...Bertuzzi jumped a guy from behind and went way way too far.

Malkin getting 4 games was fine...others seem to want more.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,683
10,112
113
Toronto
Trying to reason with that guy is a slippery slope.
Right on cue, the guy who is afraid to defend his own statements when challenged by anybody, comes out of hiding. Only when there's somebody else helping do you suddenly find bravery. You are a joke.

Go away little boy and run back behind your mama's skirt.

1650038641693.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roadhog

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,683
10,112
113
Toronto
Actually, in what you quoted shack never said Malkin should be charged. He said that if he did the same thing off the ice he'd be charged.
Thank you. As you've noted, my statement was very clear and simple to understand....for most people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Wick

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,683
10,112
113
Toronto
I did ask him outright if he should be charged and his reply was to look at previous posts and thats what I did...
Whether I think he should be charged is irrelevant. My preference is to see the league properly enforce actions like that. It needs to be eliminated.

I was pointing out that he acted like a thug and using that "if it happened off the ice" statement as an example to prove my point of how vicious his actions were.

As I said, an intentional stick to the face deserves at least 20 games. Watch how fast guys will stop doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Wick

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,435
5,656
113
Whether I think he should be charged is irrelevant. My preference is to see the league properly enforce actions like that. It needs to be eliminated.

I was pointing out that he acted like a thug and using that "if it happened off the ice" statement as an example to prove my point of how vicious his actions were.

As I said, an intentional stick to the face deserves at least 20 games. Watch how fast guys will stop doing that.
Ok, so now you're saying 20 games...why didn't you say that the first three times you were asked?
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,683
10,112
113
Toronto
Ok, so now you're saying 20 games...why didn't you say that the first three times you were asked?
You asked me once and I referred you to my earlier post.

When you didn't grasp my point, you asked me again in post #1,045 and I said 20 games in post #1,046. I'll try to be more prompt next time.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,435
5,656
113
You asked me once and I referred you to my earlier post.

When you didn't grasp my point, you asked me again in post #1,045 and I said 20 games in post #1,046. I'll try to be more prompt next time.
I asked you in posts #1045 and #1041 and pointed it out to you in #1047...
 

smuddan

Well-known member
Mar 7, 2007
2,305
303
83
If the league is serious about getting rid of stick violence, it should start with any two handed cross checks to the body regardless of velocity. With almost every puck battle along the boards or in front of the net, there’re always two handed cross checks and the refs never call a penalty unless there’s enough velocity to force the other player to go down. The problem is in the heat of a battle players tend to lose control and it’s easy to cross the line when trying to retaliate.

The calling for slashing to the hands a penalty is a good rule and that has cut down a lot of hand injuries. They should call every two handed cross check a penalty (double minor or major depending on velocity) and players will learn to refrain from using the stick to attack the body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mellowjello

mellowjello

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2017
2,680
1,189
113
If the league is serious about getting rid of stick violence, it should start with any two handed cross checks to the body regardless of velocity. With almost every puck battle along the boards or in front of the net, there’re always two handed cross checks and the refs never call a penalty unless there’s enough velocity to force the other player to go down. The problem is in the heat of a battle players tend to lose control and it’s easy to cross the line when trying to retaliate.

The calling for slashing to the hands a penalty is a good rule and that has cut down a lot of hand injuries. They should call every two handed cross check a penalty (double minor or major depending on velocity) and players will learn to refrain from using the stick to attack the body.
This would be ideal, the reality as you alluded to is that they want to keep a certain element of violence and aggression in the game.
The league allows a certain amount of self policing to deal with this.
This combined with ambiguous NHL officiating means shit will hit the fan once in a while.

I hate the gratuitous unprovoked stuff, but I'm good if a player is responding to abuse or constant badgering away from the play.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,435
5,656
113
If the league is serious about getting rid of stick violence, it should start with any two handed cross checks to the body regardless of velocity. With almost every puck battle along the boards or in front of the net, there’re always two handed cross checks and the refs never call a penalty unless there’s enough velocity to force the other player to go down. The problem is in the heat of a battle players tend to lose control and it’s easy to cross the line when trying to retaliate.

The calling for slashing to the hands a penalty is a good rule and that has cut down a lot of hand injuries. They should call every two handed cross check a penalty (double minor or major depending on velocity) and players will learn to refrain from using the stick to attack the body.
You just answered why there is so much diving/embellishing/acting in the games, better chance of getting a call when they hit the ice.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,435
5,656
113
This would be ideal, the reality as you alluded to is that they want to keep a certain element of violence and aggression in the game.
The league allows a certain amount of self policing to deal with this.
This combined with ambiguous NHL officiating means shit will hit the fan once in a while.

I hate the gratuitous unprovoked stuff, but I'm good if a player is responding to abuse or constant badgering away from the play.
They could make the game non-contact like womens and childrens hockey…or…call every single thing they see no matter how petty it is.
 

superstar_88

The Chiseler
Jan 4, 2008
5,630
1,194
113
The league already addressed the cross checking. It was gratuitous up until last year. How do you think Montreal was able to make it to the Finals. Players like Matthews couldn't get to the front of the net to do his thing. Montreal was giving out nasty cross checks like it was candy. This year it's different. Cross checks like what Montreal was doling out are now penalities. This is cross check to the back where the player is defenseless.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: bullitt

mellowjello

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2017
2,680
1,189
113
The league already addressed the cross checking. It was gratuitous up until last year. How do you think Montreal was able to make it to the Finals. Players like Matthews couldn't get to the front of the net to do his thing. Montreal was giving out nasty cross checks like it was candy. This year it's different. Cross checks like what Montreal was doling out are now penalities.
We'll have to see, that was in the playoffs, we haven't seen the how they're going to call it in this year's playoffs.
They always put the whistle away no matter how tight they call it in the regular season.
 

smuddan

Well-known member
Mar 7, 2007
2,305
303
83
You just answered why there is so much diving/embellishing/acting in the games, better chance of getting a call when they hit the ice.
I love tough physical hockey but hate stick work. Some cross checks may look petty enough but if landed on the wrong spots could cause pain and injuries. With the non calls, the anger and frustration could get built up to a boiling point in the players who don’t dive or embellish. That’s why you see superbly skilled guys like Malkin or Matthews retaliated the way that they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mellowjello

superstar_88

The Chiseler
Jan 4, 2008
5,630
1,194
113
Leafs will sit out Matthews and Muzzin and play their rookie goalie vs TB tonight to help TB to secure 3rd place for a first round matchup.
Last game of the season could very well require Boston to win that game if they want a first round with the Leafs or play the mighty Rangers instead
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts