Is this Dustin Byfuglien hit suspension-worthy? (NBC sports)

Chips

Registered User
Aug 19, 2015
8,309
7,053
he was knowingly engaging in risky behavior. I mean hockey is inherently risky the way it is. you engage in something outside the realm of the rules (idgaf if people do it all the time--see the speeding post) and your risk goes up. no, it doesn't mean it wasn't a pos move but you sort of expose yourself to an escalating scale of POS moves by engaging in post whistle shenanigans.
Just saying, there’s a reason this specific incident isn’t common for scrums. There are levels of risk and this was excessive.

Saying it’s the same, like one level of risk, is like saying Sundqvist shouldn’t have skated the puck into the zone cuz he was inviting Wilson (or anyone) to blow him up. It was completely avoidable and there was no excuse for it.

Buf could have pulled Carrick down, or face washed him, or a variety of other options that wouldn’t seriously risk Carricks health. There’s no excuse for it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bedards Dad

JetsHomer

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
10,941
3,146
Then what is the point of "Intent to injure" in the rule book if people like you are going to play dumb when you know damn well what their intention was? His intention was to send him head first into the boards because he is a ****ing dirty player.
If Byfuglien wanted to hurt Carrick he would have hurt Carrick. You are massively over exaggerating the power behind the cross check
 

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
Illegally crosscheck the guy into the boards. It wasnt accidental and it wasnt a hockey play. It was intentional. That's what intent is. Can't believe I had to spell that out for you.
I was just asking what you thought his intention was for clarity's sake. No need to be rude...

He obviously intended to cross-check the guy, that's not up for debate and that wasn't my question. I was asking if you thought he cross-checked him with the intent of causing him injury. From my perspective, he illegally cross-checked a player, that's a penalty. He was given a penalty on the play and the punishment fit the 'crime'. I just don't see this particular instance as rising to the level of suspension-worthy, and I believe the NHL will agree.
 

hockeyes

Registered User
Jun 15, 2013
5,002
2,893
Carrick has a nack for getting under players skin, he's gotta watch his back though (literally) with an emotional man child on the ice though.
 

Eyeseeing

Fagheddaboudit
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2015
22,090
36,557
I’m a Jets fan and Buff is my favourite player.
Just watched this for first time as I missed game.
Dumb and reckless and probably worth 1-2 games.
That stuff isn’t necessary
 

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
Then what is the point of "Intent to injure" in the rule book if people like you are going to play dumb when you know damn well what their intention was? His intention was to send him head first into the boards because he is a ****ing dirty player.
If you want to continue our discussion that you and I were having, then that's fine. But I think @maacoshark can speak for himself.

To answer you, though: You seem to have some sort of negative bias against Byfuglien that existed before this sequence anyway. Someone you can read, not only MY mind, but you can read Byfuglien's mind too? Is this some kind of twisted "What Women Want" situation here? I really and truly don't know what Byfuglien's intent was... I'm not "playing dumb". What purpose would that serve for me? I couldn't care less about Byfuglien, or Winnipeg, or Dallas, or anyone involved in this kerfuffle. Byfuglien was barely gliding in, he was practically stationary... it's not like he he took 3 strides into him. You're really exaggerating the force with which he cross-checked the guy. Do you really think that if 6foot5 260-pound Dustin Byfuglien was truly intending to injure Carrick that he would have been able to pop right back up and engage in the scuffle?

He committed a foul, he was given a penalty. I believe that the punishment fit the crime. Again, stop acting like you're somehow morally superior because you see this as more dramatic of a situation than I do.

Edit: For full disclosure, I'm pretty much always on the side of punishing a player who makes egregious plays, but this just doesn't fit the bill for me.

2nd Edit: Sorry, didn't realize you were a Dallas fan. Makes a lot more sense now.
 
Last edited:

maacoshark

Registered User
Jul 22, 2017
9,629
3,723
I was just asking what you thought his intention was for clarity's sake. No need to be rude...

He obviously intended to cross-check the guy, that's not up for debate and that wasn't my question. I was asking if you thought he cross-checked him with the intent of causing him injury. From my perspective, he illegally cross-checked a player, that's a penalty. He was given a penalty on the play and the punishment fit the 'crime'. I just don't see this particular instance as rising to the level of suspension-worthy, and I believe the NHL will agree.
Very few illegal plays the guy is trying injure his opponent. I believe it is suspension worthy because it is the most dangerous hit in hockey. This is a hit that can cause spinal damage.
 

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
Very few illegal plays the guy is trying injure his opponent. I believe it is suspension worthy because it is the most dangerous hit in hockey. This is a hit that can cause spinal damage.
That’s kind of my whole point.... I was asking if you thought he was intending to injure him, not if he intended to cross-check him...you replied with a snarky comment about the definition of the word “intent”.

Asserting that a player should get suspended because they made a dangerous hit out of recklessness/carelessness is a far cry from saying they should be suspended because they were intending to injure their opponent...

I wouldn’t exactly protest if Buff got suspended for this, but I certainly don’t believe he was actually intending to injure Carrick, as some on this thread have asserted.
 

OVO16

#WeTheNorth
Apr 16, 2017
9,705
9,222
I never understood all NHL players mentality of jumping in when the other guy is already being surrounded 2- 3 of your teammates. Like what exactly are you trying to showcase?

I understand jumping in if your teammate is being outnumbered but when its your own teammate just mixing it up with one dude, then stay out of it.

Its essentially why most brawls start. (Not that I dont like the brawls. Its exciting for me lol)
 

maacoshark

Registered User
Jul 22, 2017
9,629
3,723
That’s kind of my whole point.... I was asking if you thought he was intending to injure him, not if he intended to cross-check him...you replied with a snarky comment about the definition of the word “intent”.

Asserting that a player should get suspended because they made a dangerous hit out of recklessness/carelessness is a far cry from saying they should be suspended because they were intending to injure their opponent...

I wouldn’t exactly protest if Buff got suspended for this, but I certainly don’t believe he was actually intending to injure Carrick, as some on this thread have asserted.
Since when are suspensions handed out on intent to injure? The league is trying to crack down on dangerous hits. This is as dangerous a hit there is. Are you one if those people that think the guy is OK so a suspension isn't needed.
 

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
Since when are suspensions handed out on intent to injure? The league is trying to crack down on dangerous hits. This is as dangerous a hit there is. Are you one if those people that think the guy is OK so a suspension isn't needed.
Again, that’s kind of my point... I was simply confirming that you weren’t using “intent to injure” as a justification for any suspension.

I never said anything about the guy being okay. I am just saying that I don’t believe there was any intent to injure there. I already said I wouldn’t protest a suspension if he were to be given one for this situation...
 

kook10

Registered User
Jun 27, 2011
4,656
2,787
Scheifele was mixed up with Faksa when Carrick decided to get involved and give him a shove. Unfortunately for him, Big Buff decided to get involved too and is just a bit more effective at shoving. No suspension.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
Hit was after the whistle and to someone who had their back turned. Coward ****. Suspended him and take away his man card. Maybe he will get upset with me for saying that and throw my clothes int he shower like a real man does. Oh wait he was a coward about Kane too.

Haha gotta love when keyboard warriors talk about how manly someone is. Buff would eat your lunch and make you clean up the excrement.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
If Byfuglien wanted to hurt Carrick he would have hurt Carrick. You are massively over exaggerating the power behind the cross check

Yeah Buff just shoved the guy. If he wanted to hurt Carrick he would of put him through the boards. That was just a warning shove to stop f***ing around after the whistle.
 

Morlu

Registered User
Nov 4, 2011
2,772
1,076
I’d be okay with 1 game. Was pretty dangerous. Just to send a message not to pull that crap league wide.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Yeah Buff just shoved the guy. If he wanted to hurt Carrick he would of put him through the boards. That was just a warning shove to stop ****ing around after the whistle.
The whole thing was Scheifele's fault.
 

JerseyMike34

Registered User
Dec 29, 2017
5,026
2,648
No.

I think this is the NHL policing itself. Carrick joined in, so Buff pushed him away, was it stupid, sure, but this happens all the time. If you call this (and maybe it should have been) then you've just cut the balls off of hockey. It would be worse then the roughing the passer calls that are going on in the NFL.
 

larmex99

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2013
3,794
5,218
It was Buff’s version of a baby cross check. If he wanted to injure him Carrick would be out of commission and Buff would be suspended. There was a message in that hit. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 204hockey

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->