Non-Minnesota NHL News XIV

[llamapalooza]

Martin Erat gets called for the cruelest slashing penalty possible:

 

[StealthClobber]

Unbelievable, people are calling for Erat's head for that on the mainboard, but because COOKE was the one who took a blatant elbow to the face, everyone says good on Benn, screw Cooke, blah blah no suspension.

****ing disgraceful.

 

[AKL]

I really don't feel that bad for Boyle, nor am I that upset at Erat. Don't sit on the ****ing puck and that won't happen.

 

[Ban Hammered]

I really don't feel that bad for Boyle, nor am I that upset at Erat. Don't sit on the ****ing puck and that won't happen.

Start at 2:27

 

[llamapalooza]

15 days (6 games) without pay for Torts. $25k fine for Hartley.

Personally I would've liked to see them held equally responsible for the cluster****––like 4 games a piece––and then an extra 2 or so for Torts' locker room shenanigans. So this seems about right for Torts, but Hartley got off pretty easy IMO.

 

[Ceiu]

How does that compare dollars-to-dollars? That is, does Hartley have to pay the fine himself, or is it some kind of team fine or some other thing where he "pays" it, but in a way that doesn't really impact him? Conversely, how much is Torts losing from the suspension?

 

[Northland Wild Man]

15 days (6 games) without pay for Torts. $25k fine for Hartley.

Personally I would've liked to see them held equally responsible for the cluster****––like 4 games a piece––and then an extra 2 or so for Torts' locker room shenanigans. So this seems about right for Torts, but Hartley got off pretty easy IMO.

I don't know why Hartley should receive equal punishment. He didn't go to the opposing team's locker room. That is what's over the top IMO. I honestly don't think much would have happened if it was just the brawl.

 

[Dee Oh Cee]

Leafs and Preds helping us out tonight.

 

[Ban Hammered]

Interestingly, according to TSN's Bob McKenzie, Ottawa's owner Eugene Melnyk and GM Bryan Murray were spotted at NHL headquarters today and the assumption is Melnyk planned to submit his forensics investigation into his contention that Cooke purposely sliced Erik Karlsson's Achilles' tendon last season.

Really? Holy crap, let it go.

 

[llamapalooza]

I don't know why Hartley should receive equal punishment. He didn't go to the opposing team's locker room. That is what's over the top IMO. I honestly don't think much would have happened if it was just the brawl.

I didn't say they should have gotten equal punishment. I said each of them should have gotten ~4 games for the brawl (whether it's their lineups, their instructions, or just their players' own idiotic conduct, they're still ultimately responsible, and they're both culpable) and then Torts should get an additional 2 games (adding up to the 6 that he got) for the locker room nonsense.

 

[MuckOG]

I need someone to explain to me why a coach can't put a forth line on the ice to start the game. What rule did he violate? Coaches no longer have the right to put certain players on the ice at certain times? What if Hartley had a reason that didn't involve starting a brawl?

 

[Minnesota]

Really? Holy crap, let it go.

Even Erik Karlsson stopped caring about that incident.

 

[Ban Hammered]

It's not that he started the 4th line that tipped this off. What did it was putting Westgarth, a wing, at center, along with having McGratten out there as well. Hartley can claim it all he wants, but that lineup was sent out to do exactly what it did.

 

[MuckOG]

It's not that he started the 4th line that tipped this off. What did it was putting Westgarth, a wing, at center, along with having McGratten out there as well. Hartley can claim it all he wants, but that lineup was sent out to do exactly what it did.

I get all that. But it seems strange that the NHL can now fine a coach for lineup decisions without any solid proof as to intent. We can all infer intent, but shouldn't coaches be permitted to put anyone on the ice at any time?

Is not like players can be forced to fight.....

 

[AKL]

I get all that. But it seems strange that the NHL can now fine a coach for lineup decisions without any solid proof as to intent. We can all infer intent, but shouldn't coaches be permitted to put anyone on the ice at any time?

Is not like players can be forced to fight.....

He got fined for the incident occurring, not for starting certain players. Like llamapalooza said above, the coaches are ultimately responsible. Whether or not his intentions were for a full line brawl to break or not (I personally believe they were), he's responsible for his players' behaviors.

EDIT: And if Hartley told his fourth liners to go out there and **** some **** up, you can bet your ass they're gonna do that. It's like your mom telling you to clean your room. No, she might not force you to clean it, but it'd be in your best interest to listen to her.

 

[tomgilbertfan]

 

[Ban Hammered]

He got fined for the incident occurring, not for starting certain players. Like llamapalooza said above, the coaches are ultimately responsible. Whether or not his intentions were for a full line brawl to break or not (I personally believe they were), he's responsible for his players' behaviors.

EDIT: And if Hartley told his fourth liners to go out there and **** some **** up, you can bet your ass they're gonna do that. It's like your mom telling you to clean your room. No, she might not force you to clean it, but it'd be in your best interest to listen to her.

I think he did tell them to do it, and the video definitely hints at that as three Flames players dropped the gloves the instant the puck was dropped.

 

[AKL]

I think he did tell them to do it, and the video definitely hints at that as three Flames players dropped the gloves the instant the puck was dropped.

Exactly, I agree.

Which is why he definitely deserves the fine.

And why the "oh it's against the rules to start certain players now?" camp needs to staaaahp.

 

[vitogor]

It needs to be noted that it wasn't the first time Hartley has pulled this bush league move. He's been known for it, going all the way back to his days in Colorado.

 

[Dampland]

I can't believe anyone thinks TORTS is the good guy in this whole thing.

He didn 't have to respond with his goons. and don't give me the "well the Sedins would have gotten beat up" crap.

You really think Westgarth is going to grab Danrick or Hennial and pound him to a pulp, while Sedin turtles. Hell no, the Flames would have dropped the gloves, the Canucks would have turtled like never been seen before, and the refs would have filled the box with Flames, while the Canucks score a boatload of PPG's.

Torts is a hot head dbag, who did the same thing against New Jersey a years ago. Hell, he's been playing SLAPSHOT hockey with the Canucks the last two weeks prior to the Calgary incident.

If Torts is the "victim" or good guy in all of this, then so is OJ Simpson, Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy and Justin Bieber.

 

[vitogor]

I can't believe anyone thinks TORTS is the good guy in this whole thing.

He didn 't have to respond with his goons. and don't give me the "well the Sedins would have gotten beat up" crap.

You really think Westgarth is going to grab Danrick or Hennial and pound him to a pulp, while Sedin turtles. Hell no, the Flames would have dropped the gloves, the Canucks would have turtled like never been seen before, and the refs would have filled the box with Flames, while the Canucks score a boatload of PPG's.

Torts is a hot head dbag, who did the same thing against New Jersey a years ago. Hell, he's been playing SLAPSHOT hockey with the Canucks the last two weeks prior to the Calgary incident.

If Torts is the "victim" or good guy in all of this, then so is OJ Simpson, Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy and Justin Bieber.

I don't think anyone is defending Torts here. The point is, Hartley is just as big of a dbag as Torts. He is just more of a level-headed type of dbag, that's all.

 

[MuckOG]

Exactly, I agree.

Which is why he definitely deserves the fine.

And why the "oh it's against the rules to start certain players now?" camp needs to staaaahp.

So, when is it OK to put certain players on the ice and when isn't it? How about the start of the 2nd and 3rd period? Can the 4th line take the drop then? I'm being serious...before Ron Rolston got fined, I've never heard of a coach being fined for his choice of lines. What if a team doesn't have a "goon line", can they start the game with their 4th line taking the drop? How is a goon line even defined? Number of PIMs each? If for some reason, Yeo started the game with the Wild's 4th line, would he get fined? I'm being totally serious with these questions, and I usually don't buy the "slippery slope" arguments, but this could really be a slippery slope.

Another thing, who says the players Torterella puts out there have to answer the bell? If the Flames players want to act like goons drop their gloves, they will take the penalties and Vancouver would've started the game with at least a 5 on 3 PP.

 

[Ladde]

From what I have read some Vancouver players chirped the Flames before the game on some media format and the Flames responded. I don´t know this is true but it certainly motivated the Flames to do what they did.

 

[Ban Hammered]

So, when is it OK to put certain players on the ice and when isn't it? How about the start of the 2nd and 3rd period? Can the 4th line take the drop then? I'm being serious...before Ron Rolston got fined, I've never heard of a coach being fined for his choice of lines. What if a team doesn't have a "goon line", can they start the game with their 4th line taking the drop? How is a goon line even defined? Number of PIMs each? If for some reason, Yeo started the game with the Wild's 4th line, would he get fined? I'm being totally serious with these questions, and I usually don't buy the "slippery slope" arguments, but this could really be a slippery slope.

Another thing, who says the players Torterella puts out there have to answer the bell? If the Flames players want to act like goons drop their gloves, they will take the penalties and Vancouver would've started the game with at least a 5 on 3 PP.

It wasn't just a "4th line" though. It's also where the guys were played that got him in trouble. Westgarth was sent out as a center, he has taken 2 faceoffs all year. The puck gets dropped, and he doesn't even attempt to play it, just chucks the gloves and grabs Bieksa. THAT'S the problem here.
Another issue for me, is Hartley said he started them because the 4th line had been playing so well lately. Well first off, that "line" hadn't been a line, Jones is coming off injury in that game, so he hadn't been playing and even after losing 2/3rd's of that line and being down to 10 forwards, the guy who wasn't kicked out, (McGrattan) played a total of 3 minutes in the game, despite the team being shorthanded. Playing well my foot, Hartley sent them out to do exactly what they did.

 

[Ban Hammered]

I can't believe anyone thinks TORTS is the good guy in this whole thing.

He didn 't have to respond with his goons. and don't give me the "well the Sedins would have gotten beat up" crap.

You really think Westgarth is going to grab Danrick or Hennial and pound him to a pulp, while Sedin turtles. Hell no, the Flames would have dropped the gloves, the Canucks would have turtled like never been seen before, and the refs would have filled the box with Flames, while the Canucks score a boatload of PPG's.

Torts is a hot head dbag, who did the same thing against New Jersey a years ago. Hell, he's been playing SLAPSHOT hockey with the Canucks the last two weeks prior to the Calgary incident.

If Torts is the "victim" or good guy in all of this, then so is OJ Simpson, Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy and Justin Bieber.

Yes I think they would have grabbed the Sedins and started punching, it's what they were sent out to do. Three Flames had their gloves off before the puck hit the ice, they were going to do that regardless of who Torts sent out there. Torts is not stupid, he knows who is behind the opposing bench and what his history is with goon players. Henrick was already banged up, so he is not going to risk it and he shouldn't have to.
You can hate on Torts, but you are going way overboard here, especially with your "comparisons"