Does Andy Sutton's hit on Pascal Dupuis deserve a suspension or fine?

by FrankD on Jan 20, 2010 12:08 PM EST in 2009-10 injuries

Given the up-in-the-air approach to suspending players nowadays, it's hard to say for sure whether or not a guy will be paying out of pocket or sitting a few games as a result of some sort of on-ice hit. The only immediate circumstance you know of within the first 24 hours of any sort of injury likely suggests more about the victim of a hit than the culprit's punishment. As Hooks noted earlier, Dupuis's agent Allan Walsh announced Pascal is doing fine.

In my mind, a few other factors often play into the possibility of a suspension. Was the victim carted off on a stretcher? Did his eyes glass over faster than a passenger in a hot-boxed Civic?

To top it off, fans can argue back and forth about whether or not a hit was "dirty" or "incidental" until the collective turns blue in the face. But you know what kinda puts all that argument to rest? When the player under the microscope admits it.

Take the jump to continue reading and watch video of the hit from last night's game. (link under the poll)

"Obviously it wasn't clean. Pascal was injured. I just hope he's okay. That's about all I can say."

Andy Sutton
Empty Netters

"It wasn't clean" does leave room for interpretation, since Sutton isn't specifically saying it was "dirty" OR "accidental." But at least we can all agree it wasn't a clean hit. Anyone who believes otherwise is mistaken, seeing as how the player himself is admitting it.

Now before we all start lining up with torches and clubs screaming for vengeance and suspension, it's also worth noting that in that same EN post, Seth passed along the following:

"Just playing my usual game, tying to play hard, finish checks. I feel awful. I've played with Pascal. I've known him a long time. I obviously never intended for that happen."

Hits like this come with the territory, as we've noticed far too often in other incidents throughout the season and the constant debatable topic of head shots and suspensions.

So how do you rule something like this? Do you consider the fact that both guys played together in the past and Sutton didn't mean any ill will toward Dupuis? Or do you try and blank out all of the comments, all of the names and the identity of each player and simply look at this as Player X hitting Player Y?

I may be too forgiving, but I feel for Sutton. I sympathize with the way he must be feeling because his comments do seem genuinely honest. But I'm also not looking at this through black and gold glasses, despite the obvious focus of this blog. I see it as such: Just because a criminal apologizes for a crime doesn't make him any less guilty.

You know what came to mind almost immediately following this hit? Georges Laraque's hit on Steve Downie from two seasons ago.

Remember this?

I remember some of the comments in that game thread, most of which focused on how Laraque would likely be suspended for the hit. He received a five-minute major and was kicked from the game, but ultimately he wasn't suspended, much to the chagrin of Flyers fans. Then again, Steve Downie didn't leave the ice on a stretcher or lay behind the net in a pool of his own blood. In fact he came right back and even received a fighting major before all was said and done. This only led to further speculation that Downie threw himself head first into the boards, which if true only further contributes to the off-kilter views of an already speculative Downie.

Regardless, I suppose the real reference to this Downie/Laraque hit isn't so much the similarity of the on-ice treatment (Sutton also got kicked from last night's game, the Pens also received a 5-minute power play) but instead the post-game handling of the situation. In short, Laraque was not suspended. Does this mean Sutton will avoid it as well?

The Flyers expected it. Heck, even some of us expected it. But it didn't happen.

And so we look again at last night's hit and wonder whether or not Andy Sutton will receive any sort of suspension or fine for this incident. And of course, we ask for your votes.

Poll

How should the league handle this incident?

Fine Andy Sutton

110 votes

Suspend Andy Sutton

238 votes

Acknowledge it as an accident and take no further action

95 votes

443 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

First, I hope Dupuis is okay.

Second, I liked the fact that he was helped, both on the ice and then off the ice, by Crosby and Guerin. It’s not often you see players do that, so stick tap to those two.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 12:56 PM EST reply actions

I say fine. It’s clear that Sutton meant no harm, and Sutton (IIRC) isn’t the type of player to do such things intentionally.

However, I think that just as in real life, flagrant breaking of rules should carry some sort of punishment even if it was completely unintentional.

by JustinM on Jan 20, 2010 1:40 PM EST reply actions

It was a violent hit and unfortunately Dupuis hit his head right against the edge of the boards and that made it look worse than it was. That’s why I voted “fine”, cause we’ve seen intentional cheap shots not being suspended…

You have to see it for yourself...

by Bla Razor on Jan 20, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

I say suspend for a game or two. I know Sutton didn’t intend to hurt, but intent is o e part of it, his actions are another.

Sutton’s been suspended before for a blow to the head, this incident of boarding shouldn’t be glossed over. Send a message that recklessness like this wot be tolerated.

That said, I don’t think it should be more than a game or two

Pensburgh.com

"I'm glad I got drafted first, because no one remembers number two." -- Alexandre Daigle

by Hooks Orpik on Jan 20, 2010 2:32 PM EST via mobile reply actions

No suspension in my mind. I find intent to be very important in these instances. I really don’t want the NHL to end up like the NFL where they have to put skirts on them.

One thing I am wondering about is the reason for having the dasher anymore. If I am seeing the play correctly that is where Duper’s head hit the boards. Is there a reason to not move the glass so it is in line with the boards?

by PensFan024 on Jan 20, 2010 2:59 PM EST reply actions

The only use I see for the dasher is for the Refs to have something to grab onto to avoid the puck, players..etc. Honestly I dont really know any other reason to have it.

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

The refs was the only thing I could thing of too. If that’s the reason I think player safety trumps the ref’s lack of agility.

by PensFan024 on Jan 20, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

Only other reason for the dasher I could think of was when a player gets checked into the boards the dasher migh distribute some of the blow to the lower body. If the dasher wasn’t there it seems like a lot of the force from a check would be on a players shoulders and arms. With the dasher and the boards below sticking out a few inches it helps the upper and lower body hit at the same time.

Those are the only reasons i could think of, if anyone out there knows the true reason the dasher is there please fill me in.

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

In the dasher there is a way to open the doors to get off of the ice.

by jevans on Jan 20, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

yea but all the doors are opened from outside the ice. Theres no way to open the door to the bench from the ice without reaching around to the back of the door anyway. The penalty box has people inside to open the doors. The same with the zamboni doors and what not.

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

I think Sutton should get a game or two, but its a tough call. If that hit is on Crosby, Sutton is suspended no doubt. Then again if Sutton hit Crosby like that I dont think Crosby would have gone flying into the boards like that. Anyway Its a really tough call, but you cant hit a guy when you see his numbers. They teach you that when your little, they put little stop signs on the back of every jersey in amateur hockey.
I’ve read some other blogs and a lot of people were saying Dupuis put himself in a vulnerable position. I dont agree with that, Dupuis was playing the puck and wasnt expecting to get crushed in the back like he was. I vote for suspension, but I dont think it will happen for any reason other that Campbell is making that decision.

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 2:59 PM EST reply actions

The dashers can be replaced by a product made of soft rubber, which would eliminate this kind of injury. It’s available in Canad ( Don Cherry showed it on Coaches Corner not too long ago). It is soft enough to prevent injuries like this, and hard enough to produce a bounce of the puck. I guess the reason is not considered, is, you guessed it $$$.

by Outcast on Jan 20, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions

Sacrificing players safety for $ what is this the NHL?………….

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

If you don’t drive a guy from behind into the boards, it doesn’t matter.

I know plays develop quickly, sometimes there are bad accidents, etc, etc but if players showed a little more respect for one another that could avoid a lot of these incidents in the first place.

Pensburgh.com

"I'm glad I got drafted first, because no one remembers number two." -- Alexandre Daigle

by Hooks Orpik on Jan 20, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions

Thats very true, theres no excuse for hitting a guy from behind like that. Ive just seen a lot of players get f’d up because of the dasher over the last few years. I havent heard a real reason to even have one other than the reasons I wrote earlier. If thats why the dasher is there, thats a pretty lame reason to have one in the first place

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:43 PM EST up reply actions

come on!

it can’t be that expensive

You have to see it for yourself...

by Bla Razor on Jan 20, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions

Knowing the NHL its probably not made by the same company that they get their boards from so they wont allow it. Like when Pechurskiy had to cover all of his Itech stickers the other day because Itech doesnt pay the NHL.

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

League has ruled: Sutton gets 2 games.

Fair to me.

Pensburgh.com

"I'm glad I got drafted first, because no one remembers number two." -- Alexandre Daigle

by Hooks Orpik on Jan 20, 2010 3:38 PM EST reply actions

Ouch. I didn’t think it was suspension worthy. The penalties handed out were fair. The boarding was a major not a minor because of the violence of the hit, and the injury led to the 10 minute misconduct. I hate to see every questionable hit end with suspension. It only grays the lines further.

And Gonchar didn’t get suspended last week. Cue the tinfoil hat brigade.

by Max Powers on Jan 20, 2010 3:44 PM EST reply actions

For sure, Geno had a hit from behind in Van too that was pretty bad. Not as bad as this one, but it just adds to the conspiracy theories. The NHL’s rulings honest to god make no sense at all. Gonchars hit on Clutterbuck was just as bad. In Campbells mind reputation counts for more than anything. Thats not right. I did think Sutton deserved a game or too, but the same could have been said for Gonchar

by genomachine-O on Jan 20, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions