helicecopter said:
The point is the match penalty was undeserved and to suspend Malkin for an Olympics semifinal for what happened on the ice is a ridiculous decision, embarassing for the whole IIHF.
He tried to kick Lecavalier. How can you say the penalty was undeserved?
It's not embarassing for the IIHF. They didn't suspend him, the rulebook did.
blamebettman said:
Wow, I guess this is Russia's punishment for beating Canada. Not only was is a phantom call, it's a phantom suspension as well. Was anybody watching the way Koharski called the US-Russia game and then the US-Finland game. There's been a ton of pro north american bias going on.
blamebettman said:
through bitter canadian loser glasses it is.
wildone26 said:
Sorry but that is a ridiculous decision, what he did warranted a 5 minute penalty, not a game misconduct
Go read the ****ing rulebook. A referee cannot give a 5-minute major for kicking. It has to be a Match Penalty, which bring an automatic one-game suspension that cannot be overruled. It's that ****ing simple.
helicecopter said:
I can understand the referee, without analyzing the situation on the replay, could get it that way, but no reasons for the suspension after re-watching on TV..(unless staying consistent with the undeserved match penalty called live by the referee..)
I thought I was clear before...
The IIHF cannot rescind the call, and the IIHF cannot overrule the rulebook. The rulebook says Malkin sits one game for the Match Penalty. There is no judgment here by the IIHF, just enforcement of its own rules. Case closed.
Pepper said:
Whether the ref made the right call or not is debatable; the Ruutu hit was an example of ref making the call without the aid of slow-mo video replays which show the hit to be clean technically.
Unlike in the NHL, you cannot connect your shoulder with an opponent's head in IIHF competition. It is blatantly against the rules. Ruutu got what he deserved.
artilector said:
I said it was weak because the reason we have refs is to be able to moderate the rulebook in close, pressure-packed games. This was not a kick to injure, the resulting suspension is too harsh for what happened. Don't whine about "whatif he kicked harder or his skate was closer to Vincent's face"... it was not a kick meant to injure, it did not injure, it was a reaction in the heat of battle, so I'm never going to agree that it is the appropriate punishment, to suspend a player for Olympics' semis.
It's like talking to a brick wall trying to explain this.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE KICK WAS INTENDED TO INJURE. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO KICK. THE RULES DO NOT ALLOW A REFEREE TO USE JUDGMENT HERE. HE MUST ASSESS A MATCH PENALTY. THAT PENALTY CARRIES AN AUTOMATIC ONE GAME SUSPENSION, WHICH THE IIHF CANNOT OVERRULE JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE OLYMPIC SEMI-FINAL HE WILL MISS.
Is that clear enough?