George also just told Michael Landsberg that if it had been him instead of Malkin at the end of last night's game - he would have been suspended?
Any thoughts on the obvious double standards in the league this year?
Update:NIPS - I agree with you 100%, but there have been a couple of other incidents in this year's playoffs where the call has been inconsistent with what the rulebook says. The Kronwall hit for example - I can't tell you how many times I have seen a player get crunched who never touched the puck (and didn't have it in their legs) and no interference - that was just a bogus call.
Update 3:LL - very interesting read. One can go back through the league and find several offences that were 'by letter of the rule' suspendable events.
From 1988 through 1992, if a player had 2 high sticking majors in a season (draw blood) then he would receive a one game suspension after the second (and each subsequent one). In February 1989, Mario Lemieux high sticked John MacLean of New Jersey and drew blood...noticeable blood. Rather than call a 5 minute major......Dave Newell claimed he never saw blood (after conferring with his linesmen) and called a 4 minute double minor...thus preventing Mario from getting a one game suspension. In 1982, Guy Lafleur had a 3rd man in penalty .which meant a game misconduct.....after discussion, Bruce Hood decided that 3 men squaring off and throwing punches (and Lafleur could fight) was really just roughing minors for all of them. This did not sit well with the Calgary fans who booed the decision loudly.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Of course he would have LITY, he is an enforcer, there is only one reason he would be on the ice in the waning moments of a game.....I remember when the NHL instituted this rule and I remember the reasoning for the rule....the spirit of the rule was to prevent the last few minutes from lasting a few hours.....sure Georges would be suspended....so would have Aaron Downey or Eric Godard.....I don't understand why people are confused by this all of the sudden......I also don't see it as star treatment because it would not have been a suspension if it was Fedotenko or Filppula.
I remember the only confusion arose when Shane Doan got hit with one in the regular season after the rule was introduced....he wasn't an enforcer per se but he would fight here and there....the NHL correctly rescinded it.
To me, it is pretty cut and dry, there isn't much of a gray area......it is also why the coach's get hit with a 10,000$ fine with it....they do not want brawls at the ends of games or liberties taken by one dimensional players......Malkin is far from one dimensional and it was emotion......not the staged type that you knew was coming.
I have problems with most suspensions anyways but if you understand the spirit of the rule then you understand why Carcillo was suspended and Malkin (or Walker) were not.
To me, it's not as much of a double standard as it is a rule that only applies to enforcers....they should issue a statement and put the proper wording in the rule and be done with it....perhaps you can make that happen.
The Kronwall hit was a bad call....but that was a bad call by the officials, not the head office. It was a good hard hockey hit.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Malkin's pregame bump of Chelios? My understanding was that this was an automatic one-game suspension (with one of the Avery Rules); didn't Donald Brashear get a game for this (and then 5 games for his hit on Betts)? If it's a rule, then it's a rule.
If I'm the officials...I'm furious because it took Campbell less than 30 minutes after the game to rescind the instigator penalty. If you believe what is in the papers, the league is telling these guys "call penalties" and they make what, by every logical application of the rule, is a penalty, and Campbell rescinds this almost immediately. Way to back up your guys, Colie.
I think if that's anyone other than Crosby or Malkin, they're getting a suspension. Period. If that had been any other skater...automatic.
Totally agree. I just enjoy seeing players like Malkin lose it against the Wings. It just shows they are in his head. If that is what Malkin needs to do to get motivated, then let him do it. It won't deter the Wings at all. The instigator penalty is there to prevent "planned" thuggery. This Malkin thing was the result of another scrum. Talbot got Osgood, then Stuart and Zetterberg gave it to Talbot. Malkin came in and evened it out. Sure he went a little overboard, I was actually kind of surprised at him. Usually it takes something big for a player to get that pissed, and he looked pissed at Z. That is what makes it seem that Malkin is just taking out frustration, because Z really didn't do anything. No way Malkin did anything suspension worthy, if he did then you would suspend players after every fight. Not exactly what is needed in hockey.
The one non-suspension I didn't agree with in this playoffs was the Scott Walker punch.
So-called star players have always (except the Rocket, as someone else pointed out) been over protected. The worst was Gretzky. I can count how many times he was hit throughout his career on one hand. Everyone was afraid to get near him in case they injured him. I really would like to know what sort of player he would have been if he got the same treatment other players did. I could go on and on about Gretzky, but that's not really an answer to your question.
Yes, there is a double standard, and it's stupid. Star players wouldn't be as lofty if they had to put up with the same stuff other players do.
By the way, Laraque's name is Georges, not George.
Colin Campbell has annoyed me endlessly with his inconsistency and double standards. What bothered me about the incident was that after Malkin elbowed Zetterberg and went after him, he threw at least two punches while holding his stick in his hand. What if that stick had cut someone? Would that result in a suspension then?
Why bother with a rule if you're not going ( or selectively going) to enforce it? I don't mind message sending, but if Rule 47.22 states that if a player ( not just an enforcer) starts a fight in the final five minutes of a game, it is an automatic one game suspension.
Interested in what your take on this article is. Not a big fan of Yahoo sports writers, but this one isn't badly written and makes a valid point.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=ApuXAPmdb0md...
there are various common common methods to get protein on a similar time as being a vegetarian. Beans, peas, chickpeas, tofu, nuts, and lentils are all magnificent components of protien which additionally are a lot fit for you than maximum meats. additionally in the event that they're frightened approximately vegetarianism and activities i will attest that that's extremely accessible to be athletic and a vegetarian a the comparable time. I somewhat have been in te infantry branch of the militia for 3 years as a vegetarian(and particular i'm a woman). There has on no account been a time while vegetarianism has made me unable to end and actual projects and overal my well-being has stronger considering I became a vegetarian at 18. as long as you be beneficial to get ll your supplements etc you need to'nt have any issues, and strong for you for choosing to be a vegetarian!
The double standard has been ridiculous so far this year. The fight last night had me in a fit of laughter though, it was pretty pathetic. I'm sure Laraque would have been suspended without a doubt, and so would most others minus maybe Sidney Crosby and a few star players who don't fight often and bring in more "fans".
The league depends on its star players to bring in the viewers which means big bucks for the league which is a business corporation, something many people forget about these days. Laraque a veggie guy? Sounds like he's had too much crow to eat. LOL!
Thats the point of the rule. It's to prevent "enforcers" from going out and sending a message at the end of the game. Its not to protect Zetterebrg from Malkin.
Wait. Does that mean George won't be eating men up on the ice during games!? hmmm....
Well, during the Pens/Caps series, after Ovie gave that slew foot that everyone talked about for weeks - Cooke said that if that was him he would have had a suspension, but when Cooke actually did it.... he didn't get a suspension... So that statement is rarely correct.