Seabrook Suspended Three Games for Hit on Backes

[Baby Got Backes]

Players are so much bigger and faster than they were in the old days. The consequence of hitting someone is more drastic. It seems like the league is trying to cut the baby in half. It has it's agenda that it mandates but then it has ex players dolling out punishment. It's kind of dumb really. What they really need to do is make the consequences for dangerous hits so severe that they won't do it. And this shouldn't be administered by ex players with their own era specific biases. It's kind of incongruent.

The injuries are too much more frequent and severe to default to the old days.

I think you may have misunderstood my point...
Yes players are bigger and faster so the hits are harder and I agree that punishments for this type of thing are not as severe as they need to be and they probably should not have guys like Shanahan making those decisions (not that he will be anymore).
I was not saying that everytime a player gets injured a teammate should go out for blood. I was saying if a player makes a dirty play he needs to be held accountable for those actions and back up his ability to make them. Player size and speed do not factor in to that at all. Take Duncan Keith for example, he took several liberties with his stick last night and no one, not even the officials held him accountable. And if someone like, say, Reaves, would have tried Kieth would have avoided that confrontation or Bolig or someone would have stepped in. All I am is if players knew that tougher guys were going to take care of their teammates (and were allowed to, stupid instigator bull crap) there would probably be less crap like that going on.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

I'm of the opinion that the penalty should be 10 game suspension on top of however many games the "receiving player" is out without pay. In other words, if a player gets a concussion and is out a season. The "contributing player" is out the season + ten games. If the player doesn't come back, then said contributing player doesn't come back. Out one game, player misses 11 games without pay. Drastic, but it would put a stop to it...

Especially if the instigator rule isn't removed.

 

[Baby Got Backes]

Whatever happens, we absolutely have to play clean. You know damn good and well that if we do anything that's even remotely borderline, that player is getting the book thrown at them because the league will want to keep things under "control." Let Keith worry about playing dirty and just beat these guys. Then we can rub it in their faces afterward.

Couldn't agree more. I was never saying we should take cheep shots or target anyone like some people are suggesting we do to Towes. I was merely stating I feel like we would see less of these dirty plays if players had more freedom to police themselves a bit more.
Fact is our guys really need to watch themselves tonight and play the clean tight checking game we are capable of. Even with all the focus on Chicago hacking and wacking, I have seen plenty from our boys as well...and this will not cut it.
You said it best yourself, "if we do anything even remotely borderline" or that the ref "feels" is a retaliatory action to last games events, even if it is clean, could easily wind up being called a penalty. The refs will be watching this game hard and we really cannot afford to give them a reason to put us on the kill, even if they are not going to give us a powerplay either.

 

[Baby Got Backes]

I'm of the opinion that the penalty should be 10 game suspension on top of however many games the "receiving player" is out without pay. In other words, if a player gets a concussion and is out a season. The "contributing player" is out the season + ten games. If the player doesn't come back, then said contributing player doesn't come back. Out one game, player misses 11 games without pay. Drastic, but it would put a stop to it...

Especially if the instigator rule isn't removed.

Totally agree. With the exception of the auto 10 game thing. That should still be determined based off some of the factors they do now(previous suspensions, and the like). However, I was just commenting to someone the other night that in a scenario where a player injures another in a suspendable play they should be out AT LEAST as long as the injured player.

 

[BluesTraveller]

If you keep a player out for the length of time the player they hurt is out, it can be abused too easily.

Lets say for example Seabrook took out Chris Porter with that hit instead of Backes. You are the Blues head coach, would you keep Porter "injured" longer after he was ready to play if it meant that Seabrook was going to be suspended longer? As much as like how Porter has played, the answer would be hell yes. Us losing Porter vs Seabrook, no comparison.

 

[542365]

If you keep a player out for the length of time the player they hurt is out, it can be abused too easily.

Lets say for example Seabrook took out Chris Porter with that hit instead of Backes. You are the Blues head coach, would you keep Porter "injured" longer after he was ready to play if it meant that Seabrook was going to be suspended longer? As much as like how Porter has played, the answer would be hell yes. Us losing Porter vs Seabrook, no comparison.

Exactly what I thought of when I read that. It's far too easy to abuse. Players union would absolutely never go for that. The worst case scenario would be a guy getting injured on a relatively minor hit. It doesn't have to be the huge hits like Seabrook threw to cause an injury. It would never work.

 

[Averick*]

I'm of the opinion that the penalty should be 10 game suspension on top of however many games the "receiving player" is out without pay. In other words, if a player gets a concussion and is out a season. The "contributing player" is out the season + ten games. If the player doesn't come back, then said contributing player doesn't come back. Out one game, player misses 11 games without pay. Drastic, but it would put a stop to it...

Especially if the instigator rule isn't removed.

The problem with this is that if the player injured is a lot better than the person taking him out, the team with the injured player is still the team that's penalized the most.

Conversely, let's say some pest like Marchand starts going at Crosby, Crosby eventually retaliates and Marchand happens to fall and injure himself. Boston could have a doctor say Marchand isn't fit to play for a period of time longer than he's actually injured in order to keep Crosby off the ice.

 

[BluesCanada]

The refs are going to be looking for an excuse to call a penalty on something like that. If Reaves touches Keith, Toews, or Kane, he's getting a minor penalty. Send them golfing, and just brush off Keith as a team.

This is where logic prevails. Originally, I was hoping Reaves would catch Toews with his head down coming across the blue line and even the score, but saner heads prevailed. Just sweep 'em out in their own home.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

If you keep a player out for the length of time the player they hurt is out, it can be abused too easily.

Lets say for example Seabrook took out Chris Porter with that hit instead of Backes. You are the Blues head coach, would you keep Porter "injured" longer after he was ready to play if it meant that Seabrook was going to be suspended longer? As much as like how Porter has played, the answer would be hell yes. Us losing Porter vs Seabrook, no comparison.

Exactly what I thought of when I read that. It's far too easy to abuse. Players union would absolutely never go for that. The worst case scenario would be a guy getting injured on a relatively minor hit. It doesn't have to be the huge hits like Seabrook threw to cause an injury. It would never work.

You guys make a very good point. I do, however, think there is a way to make it work. I think you have a panel made up of either outside doctors, or a collaboration of doctors not associated with the two teams involved. Basically what you have is a neutral party determining if they think the injured player is fit to return to action. If they clear the player, the suspended player can return to action. Now this doesn't mean the injured player HAS to come back. If the injured player's team wants to hold him out longer as a precaution they can. Essentially it lets the league issue that kind of suspension, but keeps teams from holding guys out if they are healthy.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

You guys make a very good point. I do, however, think there is a way to make it work. I think you have a panel made up of either outside doctors, or a collaboration of doctors not associated with the two teams involved. Basically what you have is a neutral party determining if they think the injured player is it to return to action. If they clear the player, the suspended player can return to action. Now this doesn't mean the injured player HAS to come back. If the injured player's team wants to hold him out longer as a precaution they can. Essentially it let's the league issue that kind of suspension, but keeps teams from holding guys out if they are healthy.

Right on! Let's do it! I think 10 games is very reasonable for blatant head cheap shot. Do you want it out of the game or not? However....plan on losing your captain at some point. Being honest...He can be a cheap player too. Just watch...

 

[Big Papa Dapa]

I heard some where that Backes is in Chicago with the team and that if his concussion was bad he wouldn't even have flown with them. Apparently its what John Kelly said on K-She.

 

[LGB51]

I wanted him to get at least 5, figured he would get 0, thrilled he got 3!

 

[BergMan]

I am happy with 3 games. everything taken into account (playoffs, chicago, star players) it was a fair suspension.

Blues need to take this and make the most out of this series. if they still have bad blood the biggest insult is to win the series and refuse to shake their hand and then in the regular season play then tough.

 

[Dbrownss]

I was listening to NHL network and they were interviewing Barry Melrose. He said it's good news backes isn't playing and it's something chicago can hang it's hat on....

Some of these comments are just unreal

 

[bleedblue1223]

Well Melrose is a dumb***.

 

[542365]

I was listening to NHL network and they were interviewing Barry Melrose. He said it's good news backes isn't playing and it's something chicago can hang it's hat on....

Some of these comments are just unreal

I doubt he meant it like that. He's probably just saying that it's beneficial to Chicago because we lost our 1C. I don't think he's saying they should be proud that they injured someone.

 

[Note Worthy]

I doubt he meant it like that. He's probably just saying that it's beneficial to Chicago because we lost our 1C. I don't think he's saying they should be proud that they injured someone.

I would agree.

I mean, I've never been a Melrose fan but you can't even say your happy a player got injured on HF, do you really think you can get away with it on the NHL Network?

 

[ozpensfan]

Pens fan here throwing support your way. I think its absolutley disgusting and a complete joke that Seabrook gets 3 games. Should have easily been 15 games. If you took Seabrook of the back of the jersey and replaced it with Ott or Torres they would have been gone for 20

This league is a joke. Too me the punishment should fit the crime and if 3 games is the going rate to take out the captain then heck with it send Reeves out to destroy Kane / Toews and make sure they leave on a stretcher.

Dont give us the speech of taking away these kind of hits from the game and then make a joke of it when you have a chance to make a statement and make an example of this hit.