Confirmed with Link: Marchand Suspended 2 games for Slew-Foot

[Seidenbergy]

who the hell are you talking to? literally one guy in the thread tried to argue that it wasn't dirty.

or 3 out of the first 4 posts

 

[Scotto74]

I like Marchand playing on the edge.


This however steps over the edge. Needs to sit a few games that could have ended really bad.

 

[Artemis]

He's dirty, he dives, but hey, let's defend him because of his jersey.

I assume you aren't aware that both of the diving calls on Marchand this season were rescinded by the NHL.

Has Marchand dived in the past? Certainly. Has he stopped doing so? Again, certainly.

As for this hearing, I won't warrant a guess as to punishment as you never know, but I believe technically Marchand isn't a repeat offender as the Salo hit was long enough ago that his slate is now clean.

 

[DKH]

I hope he gets a game or two- he historically plays his best hockey after some type of incident. We can benefit from this.

 

[ODAAT]

LOL pure rep for him. Yes hes done it but has PK ever had a hearing for his various slew foots?

Rep call??? Please, he`s earned that rep with bonehead plays like last night, the rep calls are one`s where there is clearly a borderline at best penalty and he gets dinged, last nights penalty was about as clear cut of a slew foot as one can give

 

[jgatie]

I assume you aren't aware that both of the diving calls on Marchand this season were rescinded by the NHL.

Has Marchand dived in the past? Certainly. Has he stopped doing so? Again, certainly.

As for this hearing, I won't warrant a guess as to punishment as you never know, but I believe technically Marchand isn't a repeat offender as the Salo hit was long enough ago that his slate is now clean.

To clarify the "repeat offender" status once again: The "repeat offender" status applies only to fines. Any and all infractions in the player's past can be (and are) used when assessing suspensions.

 

[Artemis]

To clarify the "repeat offender" status once again: The "repeat offender" status applies only to fines. Any and all infractions in the player's past can be (and are) used when assessing suspensions.

OK. I had thought it was used regarding both, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Artemis]

And regardless of Marchand, has Subban really never faced discipline for his slewfoots? Just curious.

 

[Ladyfan]

Marchand deserves at least a game or two. Can't cry that PK has never had a hearing...Marchand has a history.

But at the same time I hope the league looks at the boarding call...it was much worse...

I won't be happy if they don't look at that boarding call. Yeti is lucky he wasn't hurt.

BTW...LOVE seeing you back !

 

[jgatie]

OK. I had thought it was used regarding both, but I'll take your word for it.

Nope. The language is kind of technical, but it definitely only applies to the amount they can be fined; i.e. a repeat offender gets a higher rate of fine than a non-repeat.

 

[jgatie]

And regardless of Marchand, has Subban really never faced discipline for his slewfoots? Just curious.

Never. Neither has Crosby. Both have made an art out of the slewfoot.

 

[Therick67]

To clarify the "repeat offender" status once again: The "repeat offender" status applies only to fines. Any and all infractions in the player's past can be (and are) used when assessing suspensions.

Are you sure about that? Why would any fan care about a players fine?

Seems to me something happened recently and a player wasn't deemed a repeat offender because of new CBA.

 

[Hali33]

It was a slewfoot and a dangerous play.

He'll likely get a suspension and will deserve it.

 

[jgatie]

Are you sure about that? Why would any fan care about a players fine?

Seems to me something happened recently and a player wasn't deemed a repeat offender because of new CBA.

Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, 100% sure. The repast offender status, according to the CBA, only applies to the amount a player can be fined. It has actually been stated in a couple of Shanny's videos that the repeat offender status is only used when levying fines. All incidents in a player's career are figured into a suspension. Search for the Cooke thread from last year's playoffs for a detailed, line by line break down.

 

[jgatie]

Are you sure about that? Why would any fan care about a players fine?

Seems to me something happened recently and a player wasn't deemed a repeat offender because of new CBA.

Here it is spelled out:

But, there's a bit of a misconception here in definitions I want to clear up because I've seen it several times over the last few years. The term "repeat offender" here only has meaning as far as it comes to calculating the salary lost. What it does *not* mean is that a player's slate is wiped clean every 18 months. A player who viciously head-shots an opponent every 19 months is going to see harsher punishments come down the line because his history of suspensions never goes away as far as whether the league can look to punish more severely.

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2013/8/30/4665682/getting-to-know-the-cba-episode-12-articles-18-18-a-supplementary

 

[talkinaway]

To clarify the "repeat offender" status once again: The "repeat offender" status applies only to fines. Any and all infractions in the player's past can be (and are) used when assessing suspensions.

This is not true.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=995&id=204867

Fast forward to 4:15. Prior history and injuries do not change non-suspensions to suspensions (or vice versa).

However, they can change the length of a suspension.

EDIT: Oops, I realize now I agree with you.

 

[TP]

He's dirty, he dives, but hey, let's defend him because of his jersey.

Mr. Dirty was one of the MAJOR reasons we won the cup in 2011, so me, I am defending him forever.


but it was a slew foot and he deserves to get something.

 

[don]

And regardless of Marchand, has Subban really never faced discipline for his slewfoots? Just curious.

Never. Neither has Crosby. Both have made an art out of the slewfoot.

Has no bearing on this case. Marchand did it and will probably sit for a few.

 

[jgatie]

Nope. The language is kind of technical, but it definitely only applies to the amount they can be fined; i.e. a repeat offender gets a higher rate of fine than a non-repeat.

Just to pick a nit, change 'fine' to salary lost. Same thing, but different.

 

[TCL40]

I always thought repeat offender applied to all discipline.

I'm also amazed that Subban has never been called in the carpet for slewfooting.

I think the fact that there's no injury on the Kreider hit makes it not reciewable given the fact that it was penalized (even though the penalty didn't give the Bruins any advantage). The fact that Soderberg wasn't injured is our luck-he was launched pretty violently towards the boards.

I think Marchand gets 1 or 2 games. No injury but dirty. I wish the league was more aggressive about discipline for slewfoots but they aren't ever going to go after Crosby (or Skinner another player who slewfoots a lot).

 

[jgatie]

Has no bearing on this case. Marchand did it and will probably sit for a few.

Yes, no bearing on this case. But a sad statement on league discipline. Marchand deserves to sit, but so do Subban and Crosby, multiple times in the past.

 

[jgatie]

I always thought repeat offender applied to all discipline.

It does. If you repeatedly cross the line, you will receive harsher discipline. What doesn't apply to everything is the "repeat offender" status which is wiped out if a player does nothing for 18 months. That particular status only applies to how much salary you lose when suspended,

 

[bruins repeat time]

I assume you aren't aware that both of the diving calls on Marchand this season were rescinded by the NHL.

Has Marchand dived in the past? Certainly. Has he stopped doing so? Again, certainly.

As for this hearing, I won't warrant a guess as to punishment as you never know, but I believe technically Marchand isn't a repeat offender as the Salo hit was long enough ago that his slate is now clean.

I didn't know they were rescinded but am glad to hear that . Please tell the one on Smith was as well because that was also a complete joke.

 

[Artemis]

Has no bearing on this case. Marchand did it and will probably sit for a few.

Yes, which is why I said "regardless of Marchand."

 

[jgatie]

I didn't know they were rescinded but am glad to hear that . Please tell the one on Smith was as well because that was also a complete joke.

It was on 'Behind the B'. The guys visited the NHL offices and got a tour of the big review room. One of the higher up muckity-muck types told Marshy that his two diving calls were rescinded after the fact.