John Scott suspension [7 games; won't appeal]

[Takeo]

Here I thought this season would be a total bore, but the sad state of this franchise right now is providing quality entertainment!

 

[heartsabres*]

NHL is a joke, the end.

 

[Team Overrated]

it's the normal body mechanics of a hard check in open ice at a dangerous and awkward angle

When I look at the gif, To me, it looks exactly like the McSorley hit on Gilmour in the 93 kings leafs playoff game 1. 5 and a game and the answer to Macquaid should be enough. I don't think it was intentional at all.

 

[Takeo]

Just saw the hit for the first time. This stuff is so overplayed and overanalyzed. The guy was trying to deliver an aggressive hit. Blame him for that, fine. But this isn't a choreographed dance routine. They're at high speed converging at varying angles with instinctive reactions at impact. If he wanted to elbow him in the face, he would have elbowed him in the face. He didn't do that.

 

[kenfury]

https://twitter.com/KevinBuffalo/status/393397271858909185

Is it bad when an NHL team has more suspensions than wins?

 

[kenfury]

When I look at the gif, To me, it looks exactly like the McSorley hit on Gilmour in the 93 kings leafs playoff game 1. 5 and a game and the answer to Macquaid should be enough. I don't think it was intentional at all.

New era. These days its a game or two for most, probably 5 for Scott. Look at all the Stevens hits, how many of those would have gotten him a game or two in todays league?

 

[Ralonzo]

I don't care in terms of it's impact on him or the team. I care that the NHL is consistent though.

Well that's the point isn't it? Who has any respect for a league office with the following policies on supplemental discipline:

1) If you haven't been suspended you won't get suspended.
2) If you have been suspended we'll suspend the **** out of you.
3) We'll arbitrarily decide initial suspensions based not on the incident, but on what team you play for and/or if you're a "big star"

 

[Ralonzo]

I commend you for the objective conversation but the bolded is ridiculous. And I'm not just calling you out for it, I'm calling the percentage of EVERY FANBASE who says this exact same thing. It's not true and is a reaction based solely on emotions and subjective, homerish thinking. There is no true, non-foolish reason Shanahan has chosen and is enforcing the Sabres as a target.

It's a fair tack to take, and I'll admit I said that to be deliberately provocative. I'm not solely a Sabres fan, I'm a fan of the game. But I have followed the team for a long time, and evidence stacks to the contrary. Going from no-goal, to puck-through-the-net, to the Drury hit, to the Miller run, to today. And going back further than that. With a scad of examples of out-of-line suspensions for, and overlooked cheap-shots against (i.e. McCoun-LaFontaine) sprinkled in like a Mister Softee cone. I've been around long enough to see the cycles where they are manifest. At some point, you figure things even out. But when it don't, you ain't paranoid, they's out ta get ya.

I'm not even asking for the franchise to catch a break here and let Scott walk. I don't want that - for the good of the game, nor do I think it's deserved. I'm just asking for him to be treated the same as if he played for any other franchise (i.e. any non-Bruins/Penguins franchise ), and gets suspended the same as if he played for any other franchise. I fully expect that not to happen. Is that "subjective, homerish" thinking based on emotions? Or is it indicative of arbitrary and ill-defined standards which cheapen and demean the league?

We'll see.

If it's the 5 games that has been the established precedent, then I will gladly stand corrected.

If it's way out of line with precedent, well, they've fed the paranoia. Again.

 

[Ralonzo]

Rolston was fined for use of players after the Kessel fiasco, that is all I meant saying he should have known better.

You mean, for not pulling his goon off the ice after the opposing goon broke the jaw of one of his non-goons instead of fighting his goon?

How dare he! He didn't take his goon off the ice when there were no opposing goons! Fine him some more!

 

[jBuds]

Suspended "indefinitely" pending the hearing.

 

[wunderpanda]

You mean, for not pulling his goon off the ice after the opposing goon broke the jaw of one of his non-goons instead of fighting his goon?

How dare he! He didn't take his goon off the ice when there were no opposing goons! Fine him some more!

nono, because he was already fined for what happened in Toronto he should have known better against Boston. Rolston had the opportunity to see who Boston had on the ice, so yes, he could have chosen not to use Scott in that situation.

Its week 4, we have already had our coach fined followed by a Kaletta suspension and appeal, the team has relinquished *benefit of the doubt*, Scott looks like a dirty player because of the actions in preseason, Sabres look like a dirty team because of Kaleta and Rolston looks like a dirty coach because of the fine.

So yes, how dare he, and yes, fine him again.

 

[jBuds]

nono, because he was already fined for what happened in Toronto he should have known better against Boston. Rolston had the opportunity to see who Boston had on the ice, so yes, he could have chosen not to use Scott in that situation.

Its week 4, we have already had our coach fined followed by a Kaletta suspension and appeal, the team has relinquished *benefit of the doubt*, Scott looks like a dirty player because of the actions in preseason, Sabres look like a dirty team because of Kaleta and Rolston looks like a dirty coach because of the fine.

So yes, how dare he, and yes, fine him again.

But reality is, he pays no mind to last change or matchups, and was putting the Scott line out whether Thornton line or Krejci line was coming out.

You can fine him for being oblivious as a bench boss. I'll allow it.

 

[wunderpanda]

But reality is, he pays no mind to last change or matchups, and was putting the Scott line out whether Thornton line or Krejci line was coming out.

You can fine him for being oblivious as a bench boss. I'll allow it.

Oblivious is a great word for it. When all signs point to discretion and keeping a low profile in the eyes of the league, he throws the biggest guy out on the ice in a situation similar enough to the event that started it all. Would just hope he would realize the league is paying attention to these incidents in general, there have been 10 or 11 suspensions already and Darcy was defending a player during an appeal earlier this week.

 

[Aapo]

Tell me thats not a wind and an elbow thrown into the chest of eriksson and I'll call you a liar. Or blind. Or a homer scott apologist. I don't buy for a second that is what "pulling his arm in to brace for the hit" looks like. Otherwise there would be no follow through.

First contact is shoulder to head. Second contact is elbow to chest. Everyone is right.

Scott goes with shoulder first, had Loui been taller it would've been shoulder to chest and that should've been the end of it. Now, Loui takes two hits as Scott first smashes his head with the shoulder. His head gets thrown back, but as Loui still has speed forward he gets another hit in the chest by Scotts elbow that's clearly coming out (as part of finishing the first check maybe? Doesn't matter). Not sure it's intended by Scott, but given his height this type of problem shouldn't be news for him.

 

[vcv]

nono, because he was already fined for what happened in Toronto he should have known better against Boston. Rolston had the opportunity to see who Boston had on the ice, so yes, he could have chosen not to use Scott in that situation.

Its week 4, we have already had our coach fined followed by a Kaletta suspension and appeal, the team has relinquished *benefit of the doubt*, Scott looks like a dirty player because of the actions in preseason, Sabres look like a dirty team because of Kaleta and Rolston looks like a dirty coach because of the fine.

So yes, how dare he, and yes, fine him again.

Are you suggesting Rolston shouldn't have played Scott at all, or just not played him that shift, because somehow he should have or did know Scott was going to deliver a borderline dirty hit?

 

[SabreBlood]

It's a fair tack to take, and I'll admit I said that to be deliberately provocative. I'm not solely a Sabres fan, I'm a fan of the game. But I have followed the team for a long time, and evidence stacks to the contrary. Going from no-goal, to puck-through-the-net, to the Drury hit, to the Miller run, to today. And going back further than that. With a scad of examples of out-of-line suspensions for, and overlooked cheap-shots against (i.e. McCoun-LaFontaine) sprinkled in like a Mister Softee cone. I've been around long enough to see the cycles where they are manifest. At some point, you figure things even out. But when it don't, you ain't paranoid, they's out ta get ya.

I'm not even asking for the franchise to catch a break here and let Scott walk. I don't want that - for the good of the game, nor do I think it's deserved. I'm just asking for him to be treated the same as if he played for any other franchise (i.e. any non-Bruins/Penguins franchise ), and gets suspended the same as if he played for any other franchise. I fully expect that not to happen. Is that "subjective, homerish" thinking based on emotions? Or is it indicative of arbitrary and ill-defined standards which cheapen and demean the league?

And there are so many more, we've probably forgotten a lot of them.

Koharski to Kasparaitus: "Don't do that again" after he literally caught the puck in the air and blatantly threw it over the glass....In a playoff game no less. In his own zone.

The amount of times Gerbe was hit from behind or in the head.

The amount of times Kaleta has been the recipient of a head shot.

The amount of times any Sabre has been the recipient of a head shot, really.

Myers being suspended for the final 3 games of the season when he had no prior suspensions. The Sabres missed the playoffs by what... 2 points that year?

The non-icing call in the '98 Eastern Conference Finals against the Caps in game 7. Hasek holding his arm up to signal an obvious icing, James Patrick (or was it Woolley?) touches the puck to get the whistle..........................then no whistle, no one knows why, a Cap player passes the puck in front, and bang, it's in the net. Every Sabres player throws their arms up as to say "WTF was that??".

I can go on and on and on. All of us can.

I love hockey. I ****ing hate the NHL.

 

[UncleBenny]

Well that's the point isn't it? Who has any respect for a league office with the following policies on supplemental discipline:

1) If you haven't been suspended you won't get suspended.
2) If you have been suspended we'll suspend the **** out of you.
3) We'll arbitrarily decide initial suspensions based not on the incident, but on what team you play for and/or if you're a "big star"

Case in point, Chara throwing a high hit last night in the Sharks game.



No history of suspensions, so you know he won't get penalized for this. Which by the way, seems much later and more blatant than Scott's hit.

 

[LSCII]

Canes fan here. I think I can be pretty objective because I certainly have zero love for either your team or Boston.

Scott clearly cocks his elbow and lets the dude have it. Pow. Right in the kisser.

That being said...isn't that what you guys got him for? Because teams like the Bruins would abuse the **** out of you (and trust me- they do it to the Canes just as much when we play them), and somebody was needed to intimidate them? After the Miller incident, it seemed like there was going to have to exact retribution at some point.

I mean on one hand I think hits like this are awful. But on the other hand, the Bruins have been routinely dirty and vicious with opponents, and one could make the argument that retaliation is appropriate.

I guess only time will tell if this strategy is effective. If the Bruins back off the next they play you guys, then maybe it will have been worth it. Or maybe Chara just goes right into Miller like a cruise missile and it's game on again.

But I am kind of shocked that the B's didn't retaliate after this outrage, except for a half hearted fight against Scott.

Using your own logic then, the Sabres are in line for a ton of retribution based on Kaleta's history alone. Using karma to justify a hit that is going to warrant a suspension from the league every time is pretty silly, IMO. But hey, good effort to say the hit was bad, but that the other team deserved it.

 

[LSCII]

Case in point, Chara throwing a high hit last night in the Sharks game.



No history of suspensions, so you know he won't get penalized for this. Which by the way, seems much later and more blatant than Scott's hit.

Well, except for the fact that the guy saw Chara coming, and he didn't have a full head of steam, AND the hit didn't result in a guy getting hurt, but yeah, that's exactly the same as what Scott did.

 

[UncleBenny]

Well, except for the fact that the guy saw Chara coming, and he didn't have a full head of steam, AND the hit didn't result in a guy getting hurt, but yeah, that's exactly the same as what Scott did.

Wingels didn't return, and just because you can see a guy coming that means he can take a shot at your head?

 

[jc17]

Well, except for the fact that the guy saw Chara coming, and he didn't have a full head of steam, AND the hit didn't result in a guy getting hurt, but yeah, that's exactly the same as what Scott did.

First, the guy was hurt.
Second, the hit was bout 15 minutes late.
Third, while yes, he did see him coming, he wasn't prepared for the hit, because he had played the puck so much earlier.

Also with the Scott hit, it was definitely lat and he made contact with the head, but just because he bent his arm doesn't mean he threw an elbow. Who checks with their arm hanging down to the side? His elbow, or forearem, made contact with what looked to be the collarbone area while his should hit the head. If they say that he elbowed the head it will be insanely stupid.

 

[LSCII]

Wingels didn't return, and just because you can see a guy coming that means he can take a shot at your head?

No, it should have still been called. What it means is that it doesn't fall into the category of blind side hits, which is what the league jumps all over in terms of suspensions.

 

[LSCII]

First, the guy was hurt.
Second, the hit was bout 15 minutes late.
Third, while yes, he did see him coming, he wasn't prepared for the hit, because he had played the puck so much earlier.

Also with the Scott hit, it was definitely lat and he made contact with the head, but just because he bent his arm doesn't mean he threw an elbow. Who checks with their arm hanging down to the side? His elbow, or forearem, made contact with what looked to be the collarbone area while his should hit the head. If they say that he elbowed the head it will be insanely stupid.

It doesn't matter if he made contact with his shoulder or his elbow. Scott came in from the blind side, with enough contact to Eriksson's head, and that's the type of hit that the league is going to make an example out of every time. It's what they do now. Especially when the hit results in the guy getting a concussion. It's a perfect storm for Scott to get a vacation. Whether it was his shoulder, his elbow, his forearm, or his chest, the league reacts to results and how it looks. That's how the league is today.

 

[vcv]

No, it should have still been called. What it means is that it doesn't fall into the category of blind side hits, which is what the league jumps all over in terms of suspensions.

The NHL took the "blindside" part of rule 48.1 out, so that's not very relevant.

 

[LSCII]

The NHL took the "blindside" part of rule 48.1 out, so that's not very relevant.

And yet they still seem to suspend on those very hits. Weird how that happens, isn't it?