NHL Standard of Discipline fails once again with Todd Bertuzzi letting off easy
by GoPens! on Mar 29, 2011 3:20 PM EDT
Email
PrintWith the suspension of Matt Cooke for the remainder of the season and first round of the playoffs, many, including myself, thought the league was serious about eliminating head shots from the game. I haven't heard any Penguins fan defend Matt Cooke's hit on Ryan McDonagh, mainly because the hit was indefensible, and exactly the type of play that needs to be eliminated from the game. After speaking out on the danger of head shots, and why the NHL needs to move beyond them, Mario and Ray Shero told Cooke he has two options: change or get out. Suffice it to say this is more than any other NHL team has ever done when it comes to addressing one of their players after a controversial hit.
The NHL was afforded a golden opportunity last night to demonstrate they aren't inconsistent, misleading, and downright stupid. Todd Bertuzzi provided the league with some fertile suspension soil:
Todd Bertuzzi destroys Ryan Johnson (via NHLArchive)
That is a hit to the head. His arm and elbow are raised as he comes in, and he ends up hitting Ryan Johnson so hard that he was unable to continue the play on the ice. Referees stopped play, and trainers came out to check on him. Bertuzzi wasn't simply a careless offender: no player's arm or elbow is raised that high when he is coming in for a hit, unless he intended to have his arms there. In sum, this was an intentional hit to the head. It was dangerous, and no different from the dangerous and reckless hits we've come to know Matt Cooke for.
So what does the league do? Decide that a five minute major and ten minute game misconduct is enough. This isn't an instance where the league should be weary of a heavy penalty because the player in question is a first time offender. Bertuzzi is well known for his disciplinary issues. As an aside, I don't see any logic in the NHL's constant obsession over one's status as a repeat offender. The league has gone on record too many times to count saying it is only concerned with one thing: protecting player's safety. With that in mind, an elbow to the head is no less dangerous because it comes from a player who hasn't done it before. Crosby wasn't hurting any less, and the Penguins weren't less disadvantaged, because David Steckel doesn't have a history of dirty htis. Concussions are concussions, and hits to the head are hits to the head. If the league was serious about enforcing these rules and protecting player's from bad hits, they would stop this buffoonery and punish people severely for hits to the head, regardless of whether they have done this before.
There really is no way to explain this other admitting that s liam was right: Matt Cooke was unfairly targeted as the only "dirty" player in the league, and received a suspension that is disproportionate to the other punishments the league has handed out for similar incidents. This is the same inconsistency we've seen from the NHL for so many years. The only reason Cooke was suspended so long was because he was the flavor of the day; he's had a public year in terms of hits, and it was cliche to use him as the poster boy for all the bad things about the NHL. In other years it might have been Alex Ovechkin, Steve Downey, or Sean Avery. But this year it was Matt Cooke, and he unfortunately drew the part of playing the sacrificial lamb.
The content expressed in fanposts does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff here at Pensburgh.com. FanPosts are opinions expressed by fans of various teams throughout the league but may be more Pittsburgh-centric for obvious reasons.
126 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m still a bit upset about this. Bertuzzi’s history is even worse than Cooke’s. Johnson needed part of his ear sewn back on, according to reports. Even my Red Wings fan, and a couple others we know well, were saying that Bertuzzi needed to be out until the playoffs for that hit. The fact that there wasn’t even a hearing shows just what a selective thing NHL “discipline” can be. I never, ever again want to read another Red Wings fan’s conspiracy theory about how Bettman just loves the Penguins online, because I will have a quick and angry response.
"This would have been a goal if it went in."--Paul Steigerwald, 2/10/11
I agree. Bertuzzi not getting suspended for a similar hit shows that the NHL might actually be using a wheel to determine suspensions.
In Lou We Trust/Twitter
I wish there was something I could do. But What?
by Kevin Sellathamby on Mar 29, 2011 3:29 PM EDT reply actions
This hit is not similar to Cooke's attack on McDonough in any way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emTQpD8jmuw
Vid of Cookie’s hit above.
Cooke goes at McDonough, who’s standing upright, and reaches out with the elbow, specifically targeting the opposing player’s head.
Bertuzzi’s hit was on a guy whose head was down, and maybe not have involved the elbow at all (can’t tell where it is inside the sweater). The intent wasn’t there, unlike Cooke’s blatant extension of the elbow to make contact to the head.
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
I agree not the same at all. I do believe Bertuzzi should have gotten at least 2 games though. I think there are two things that the NHL needs to address one is this type of hit where a player goes in backwards on a hit. It’s stupid and reckless. It could hurt yourself just as much as the player you are targeting. The other is when players go after a hit when someone is already engaged with another player. Like when a defenceman comes along and destroys the attacking player who is fighting for position with the back-checker. It’s great entertainment and leads to a big hit, but I think someone is going to get seriously injured from it.
/looks for youtube video.
"Let the Rabbits wear glasses"
I agree with you about the backwards hit. However, since I don’t really see where Bert’s elbow made contact at all, I don’t see much that warrants a suspension here. It pains me to say that because I wish hits like this were banned.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
since I don’t really see where Bert’s elbow made contact at all, I don’t see much that warrants a suspension here
I’m going to wager that Bertuzzi’s elbow and arm made contact with his head, which is evident from the video, and the fact that he was on the ice with trainers afterward. Claiming this didn’t involve a hit to the head seems pretty silly given the evidence.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I never said his arm didn’t make contact with his head. Something obviously made made contact with his head. I just don’t see where his elbow made contact at all. This is a head shot for sure, but because I don’t see where an elbow made contact and since it was a north-south hit, I don’t think a suspension is warranted.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I see the right elbow in that video, but I won’t continue onward because I know you’re not changing your mind. Either way, any hit to the head like that should be severely punished.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I think that’s a wise idea—we’re both gonna see what we want to see. Neither you nor I is going to have our minds changed.
I agree, though. It’s time for a head shot ban.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
In addition, Johnson’s helmet was knocked off. How does Bertuzzi not make contact with his head but somehow find a way to knock his helmet off?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I don’t think you can judge intent like that (especially on Bertuzzi). Why did he turn and then lead with any part of his arm? To what he knew was a vulnerable player.
To simply think you can judge his intent is a mighty big step, and one he doesn’t deserve the benefit of, in my mind.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
by Hooks Orpik on Mar 29, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Clear intent is definitely cause for a greater suspension (IE Gillies), so it needs to be judged to some extent, but I’m with you at the same time.
In the NHL, it is still A-OK to throw a dangerous hit as long as your elbow just barely missed the head of your opponent, or if you make it look like an accident. Things are therefore the same. You can play as wreckless as you like, but you won’t get suspended until you’re successful at it. And when you finally do, you’ll miss two games…. maybe.
The NHL made a call that is correct in the sense that it is in accordance with their rules and similar to many established precedents. Their rules and precedents just so happen to be kind of dumb.
But it was reckless and stupid. And Bertuzzi is a repeat offender.
In Lou We Trust/Twitter
I wish there was something I could do. But What?
by Kevin Sellathamby on Mar 29, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Actually Bertuzzi isn’t even a repeat offender:
Status as a "first" or "repeat" offender shall be re-determined every eighteen months, on a rolling basis, i.e., where a player does not have another suspension for 18 months, his next suspension will be treated as a "first" offense.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
His actions in the past should still count anyways.
In Lou We Trust/Twitter
I wish there was something I could do. But What?
by Kevin Sellathamby on Mar 29, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree, but they don’t and that’s the point.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
That doesn’t mean that the NHL’s policy isn’t stupid, and thus shouldn’t be criticized. Any system that somehow finds a way to label Bertuzzi not a repeat offender needs to be changed.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Like I said, I agree.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, the NHL’s policy deserves to be criticized, but to me, the NHL’s hands are tied in this one. There’s no rule against north-south hits to the head and according to the CBA, Bert isn’t even a repeat offender. I agree with this ruling only because it follows the NHL’s protocol. However, I think that protocol is flawed and that it is in desperate need of a change.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The hit was penalized as an elbow on the ice, and it looks from that video that Bertuzzi uses his elbow and then arm to make contact with Johnson’s head. Johnson appeared to be injured quite a bit afterward. I don’t think the NHL’s hands are tied at all; quite the opposite. All they have to do is acknowledge the call on the ice and say it isn’t beyond all doubt wrong from the video, meaning they can go ahead and determine punishment. They’re just too afraid to act.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
All they have to do is acknowledge the call on the ice
See, that’s the thing. I think the NHL is seeing what I’m seeing—no elbow. Even if it’s not as clear as I think it is, it’s still pretty fuzzy. I don’t think you can definitively say that Bert’s elbow made contact with Johnson’s head. It was a head shot, but the elbow part of it is, at the very least, a bit fuzzy.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
If it’s fuzzy, I don’t understand how it’s more defensible to ignore the call on the ice, as opposed to assuming it was right unless video evidence proves otherwise. That seems to be how every professional sports league treats on ice calls when evaluating them with video evidence. In this case, I think there is definitely enough evidence for the league to say Bert’s elbow got him, at some point during the hit, and we’re going to punish.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Agreed.
The NHL might have bargained away the time-line of “repeat” but clearly he has a troubled history — 2 suspensions. The Moore incident and once he left the bench to get in a fight.
Bertuzzi has adjusted his game, but he clearly has proven moments where he “snaps” and is capable of deliberate violence. That, IMO, should always be taken in consideration.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
I firmly believe that you can’t judge intent on almost every hit. But, I agree on the part about Cooke’s hit being much different than the Bertuzzi one.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Close enough for at least 2 games. At least a hearing!
"This would have been a goal if it went in."--Paul Steigerwald, 2/10/11
by GreenEyedLilo on Mar 29, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really.
I can’t see where the elbow made contact whatsoever. Obviously, the NHL didn’t either. If there’s no elbow, what are you gonna suspend him for? Don’t get me wrong, I wish this was a suspendable offense, but there’s not much the NHL can nail Bert for here.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
There doesn’t need to be an elbow for the NHL to rule that supplement discipline is necessary.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
So, on this play, what would you suspend him for if there was no elbow?
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 30, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Cooke goes at McDonough, who’s standing upright, and reaches out with the elbow, specifically targeting the opposing player’s head.
Johnson has already passed the puck and is almost standing upright. Either way, Bertuzzi’s arm and elbow unambiguously make contact with Johnson’s head. There’s no reason for a guy’s arm to be that raised and extended when he knows he’s about to make contact with a guy.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Elbow? That's not conclusive at all.
Watch the replay again, and Johnson’s head is hit, perhaps closer to Bertuzzi’s shoulder than elbow. I’m trying to figure that out myself, if it was an elbow hit, but I’m leaning against. Watching that clip, it seems like the elbow is where the white stripe is on the jersey, and if that’s the case, Johnson didn’t get hit with the elbow.
We can argue intent all day, but you can’t claim that the elbow makes unambiguous contact with the head in this case.
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
Agreed.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
What you’re missing is that about half a second after initial contact, Bertuzzi’s elbow makes contact with Johnson’s head, proceeding to knock his helmet off. Whether or not the initial contact was generated by the elbow isn’t the point: Bertuzzi’s elbow made contact with Johnson’s head.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
not the way I'm seeing it
In my view, the elbow stays to the left of the head through the entire hit. Johnson’s head is closer to Bert’s armpit than it is to the elbow, and the helmet is knocked of by the fact that Bertuzzi’s arm rakes across Johnson’s head. There’s a lot of contact there, but the elbow isn’t part of it, in what I’m seeing.
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
I would agree with most of the OP.
But this year it was Matt Cooke, and he unfortunately drew the part of playing the sacrificial lamb.
I would argue Cooke didn’t “draw” this by chance— several, repeated hits to the head, hits from behind, targeting knees, that put him on the radar. Cooke played way too recklessly, and he needed the attitude adjustment before he seriously injured an opponent.
But Bertuzzi’s hit, to me, was just as reckless and was intentional to the head. To me, it’s no different than Gilles on Clutterbuck or Cooke or McDonaugh.. That the NHL saw it differently, is disappointing, but not unexpected.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
by Hooks Orpik on Mar 29, 2011 3:35 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Matt Cooke got his suspension because he pulls the same act every 7* games
He’s a repeat offender, with multiple offenses this year. The outrage over Bertuzzi is largely built not on the fact that Johnson got hit in the head, but because it’s Todd Bertuzzi, whose infamous attack on Steve Moore was 7 years ago (the reason I used 7 in the subject, I’m not sure how many games Cooke went between suspensions). As was pointed out in another thread on this site, Bertuzzi isn’t a repeat offender in terms of suspendable behavior, so there’s a huge difference between the cases of Bertuzzi and Cooke, regardless of what you think of Bertuzzi personally (I’m not a fan).
The hit, though it looks bad isn’t as clear case of headhunting as people are making it out to be. Unlike Matt Cooke, there isn’t an extension of the arm/elbow, specifically to hit the head. Johnson has his head down and when bertuzzi turns his back to the check (for whatever reason) it looks like his arm rides up Johnson’s shoulder into his head. I keep looking at the portion of the video from 42 to 48 seconds, and I don’t see the intent there.
Of course, intent isn’t necessary for there to be a suspension for a headshot. Given the arbitrary nature of NHL justice, I’m as surprised by this outcome as others on here are…but from an entirely different perspective. I’m shocked that there wasn’t a knee jerk reaction and a suspension handed out, just because the NHL professed to getting tough on headshots, and there was contact with the head here.
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
For the record
I really can’t believe I’m defending Bertuzzi…this is very weird…
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
It’s not that you’re defending Bertuzzi, it’s the laundry he’s in. Pens fans did similar to Cooke (in the beginning), Isles fans do it for Gillies, etc.
Fans of teams inherently let their guys off the hook and are willing to cut some slack.
If that same incident was John Scott on Dan Cleary, you’d likely have a different take. As it has been said (and I agree) these hits are largely like inkblot tests, a fan sees what he wants to see out of it.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
I'm not above that, obviously, but I try my best
And in Bertuzzi’s case, it’s not difficult for me to look at it with dispassionate eyes. I’m really not a fan of the guy, and was really pissed off the first time Detroit signed him (07), and while slightly less so the second time around (passage of time and all that), I’m never happy that he’s on my team.
This is a case where I see a guy whose arm doesn’t fly up until after contact with the opposing player’s arm is made, at a level that isn’t very far up from where an elbow usually is. I’m guessing that I’d probably be arguing the same if a Red Wing was on the receiving end.
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
To be sure, didn’t mean to level that personally, but it’s no coincidence that most Red Wings fans share your viewpoint and most other hockey fans share mine.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
I'm actually surprised by how not typical the reaction is
Obviously, small sample size, but over at Winging it, the collective “we” figured it was going to be a 2 game suspension, and that was acceptable. Add that to GreenEyeLilo hubby and her friends, and the Red Wings fan reaction was anything but uniform on this one. And similarly, I’m seeing plenty of dissenting voices from fans of other teams, including a couple on here (Allie and Stros Bros…ok, maybe that’s it, but still. :)
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
And similarly, I’m seeing plenty of dissenting voices from fans of other teams, including a couple on here (Allie and Stros Bros…ok, maybe that’s it, but still. :)
=D
Can’t believe I’m on the Wings side with this one….I guess I see what I see. And I don’t see much of anything that warrants a suspension. The NHL needs to just ban all head shots because I hate agreeing with their rulings on violent hits that warrant no suspension.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
For the Record
I did not believe Matt Cooke was head-hunting when he hit McDonagh. But I supported the NHL when it punished him with his 10-17 game suspension. The reason: Harsh discipline is required if the NHL wants to successfully reduce the number of head-shots to their minimum.
s.zielinski
Watch the vid I linked
Cooke comes in perpendicular to McDonough, and might have missed him entirely, but he reaches out, and UP with his elbow. Headhunting in its purest form.
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
Clearly it was an attempt at the head.
People need to take off their Penguin glasses and look at it again. If it was Crosby who got hit like that then you can bet the Pens fans who don’t think Cooke had intent would be the same people calling out the guy who hit Crosby in the exact same manner. It’s as plain as day that Cooke went for the head on purpose. How people continue to defend this guy is beyond me. Cooke’s hit was more intentional than Steckels.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Mar 29, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
People need to stop using the term "clearly"
There’s no way to say that it was clearly intent to injure, just like there’s no way to say it wasn’t…
you can give your damn opinion but don’t act like it’s fact
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
This.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Clearly, my opinion is better than yours
wait…it’s the same as yours…well…now what?
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
My claim — “There is nothing in any of those videos that provides clear evidence of Cooke’s intent to hit McDonagh in the head.” — has nothing to do with my wearing Pens Glasses. I called then for harsh punishment for Cooke. I once again call for harsh punishment for Bertuzzi.
What I doubt is this: the capability of anyone to adduce the intention of a player on a hit like Cook’s McDonagh hit. Gilles hit on Tangradi is another matter. His post-hit actions strongly indicate an intent to injure on his part.
s.zielinski
And Bertuzzi’s action isn’t headhunting? Why is Johnson down on the ice for minutes afterward? More importantly, why is Johnson’s helmet knocked off if there is no contact with his head?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
So anytime a player gets knocked to the ice and loses his helmet
it’s a hit to the head and/or head hunting?? I disagree with anyone who says there was no contact with the head…
but I disagree with your reason for calling it head hunting..
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
He loses his helmet well before he falls on the ice, which means it was a product of the hit, which provides evidence that this was a hit to the head.
Stop creating a strawman. I never said there was intent to injure or head-hunting, but that this was a hit to the head. That should be punished.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
There was a Pens/Islanders game from earlier this season where Kris Letang hit an Islander (can’t remember who) under the arm, and his helmet popped off. Letang got a match and thrown out of the game for nothing.
by Hatt the Moople on Mar 29, 2011 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d have to see a video to see if that’s the case. There was clearly a hit to the head here. It also looks like elbowing to me.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Yeah, I remember that hit. It was shoulder to shoulder and Letang got the gate. It was a terrible call, made largely because the Islander’s helmet flew off like it was shot out of a cannon.
Completely agree with you. I think Cookie just missed his check and stuck his elbow out because he was trying to finish it.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
As was pointed out in another thread on this site, Bertuzzi isn’t a repeat offender in terms of suspendable behavior, so there’s a huge difference between the cases of Bertuzzi and Cooke, regardless of what you think of Bertuzzi personally
While that may be so in the letter of the law, good luck arguing that. Aside from Marty McSorley, Bertuzzi is responsible for the grossest misconduct in recent NHL memory. The NHL doesn’t classify him a “repeat offender” under the terms of the CBA, I get that…But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a history of losing his mind and doing something foolish.
It’s hard to argue intent, but dude barreled in, turned around, stuck his arm out and made contact to the head. After the puck was played. It caused immediate injury. It doesn’t matter what he did 5, 10, 20 years ago, that — in this day and age — should be cause for taking a seat. Granted, he basically got a 1 game suspension with the misconduct and everything, but I don’t think that’s enough.
Even message wise, that wasn’t a good hockey play (particularly the turn) and it was a bad hit. To the head. Period.
That ought be a suspension if it’s Matt Cooke, Todd Bertuzzi or any other NHL player.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
He’s a repeat offender, with multiple offenses this year. The outrage over Bertuzzi is largely built not on the fact that Johnson got hit in the head, but because it’s Todd Bertuzzi, whose infamous attack on Steve Moore was 7 years ago (the reason I used 7 in the subject, I’m not sure how many games Cooke went between suspensions). As was pointed out in another thread on this site, Bertuzzi isn’t a repeat offender in terms of suspendable behavior, so there’s a huge difference between the cases of Bertuzzi and Cooke, regardless of what you think of Bertuzzi personally (I’m not a fan).
The fact that Bertuzzi committed the most recent head-shot infraction is not the reason this incident has received close scrutiny. The reason the Bertuzzi head-shot has received close scrutiny can be explained by the amount of noise the League made over head-shots during and around the GM meetings and the quality of the punishment it gave to Matt Cooke.
Bertuzzi’s history sharpened the lens many used to look at the NHL in this case. But the whole incident would not have amounted to much had the NHL not taken the course it did take with Matt Cooke.
s.zielinski
Watching that replay last night, I figured two game suspension
Curious if you (not you in particular, Steve, but all you guys) would have been satisfied with that level of punishment?
Can the Red Wings make it 5 in 15 years? Here's hoping!
I would have been
then again, I am not upset that he didn’t get anything… I would have thought that going as high as 5 games would have been too much… but 2 games(even though I don’t think there was intent) would have been okay, since he did get the guy in the head(even though that’s not illegal.. yet)
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
A two-game suspenion would have been inadequate
The goal of these suspensions is deterrence. Both the players and the teams that employ them must feel the sting of the punishment. Two games — that’s just Bertuzzi resting before the playoffs.
s.zielinski
I would’ve, but, like I said, I’m okay with no suspension too and can see why there is no suspension. I think it’s a reckless hit and although I don’t see much of an elbow, I would’ve been perfectly fine with 2 games.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Honestly, even if he didn’t elbow him, it was a hit to the head. If the NHL is trying to eliminate hits to the head, they should have suspended him. If they are serious about that, he had to be. The amount of time doesn’t matter (for me), but with the news that suspensions are essentially being “doubled” for this infractions, the end of the season would have been right. And at least shown some consistency from the League.
I’m not even going to touch what part hit Johnson, whether or not there was intent, etc because the evidence is either too cloudy or unavailable (such as Bertuzzi’s thought process).
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-Roberto
by blackjackfishtaco on Mar 29, 2011 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Excellent analysis
The Bertuzzi decision makes the NHL disciplinarians appear to be contemptible fools. And they are contemptible fools. I don’t know if it is physically possible for anyone person to generate the amount of contempt required to adequately evaluate the NHL and its on-ice officials.
From the unpunished abuse Crosby took during his rookie season to decisions like this one….words fail me.
s.zielinski
I’m right with you. The moment I heard Bertuzzi was ejected for an elbow to the head, I instantly laughed at the thought of what the NHL gets to work with, having just set the bar…in their minds anyways…for a similar incident. I still hold the Gillies hit as the worst of them all, as he intentionally chucked an elbow to the head and went into fighting mode right after the hit. That was nine games, which was a joke. This Bertuzzi decision is just pathetic for the league. They suspend one guy brutally, and that’s their evidence of protecting the integrity of the league and safety of players? How asinine can the NHL get with league punishment?
PensBurgh penalty - Lavender - 4 Minute, Double Minor, for singing, "Lovejoy to the World."
I disagree
Already made my points in the previous entry so I’m not going to go into detail on them again, but , I wouldn’t have argued with a couple games due to the fact that he got the guy in the head, but I don’t believe there was intent to injure or anything like that.. the only comparison between what Cooke did and what Bertuzzi did is the receiving players got hit in the head..
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
Agreed. But I really wish the NHL would just ban hits to the head already.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think they should ban hits to the head..
or at least, I don’t think they should put automatic suspensions to them..
If they want to give a hit to the head a 5 minute major and a 10 minute misconduct(that could be upgraded to a game misconduct and review by the board), I would be good with that..
But an across the board suspension for headshots is over the line IMO.
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
You don’t think they should ban hits to the head after what happened with Crosby?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
He said he did.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
To me banning all head shots means that they would no longer be tolerated, as in at least a penalty would be given for all head shots.
That’s the way I interpreted it. The response to you above was given before Stros Bro comment below.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
If your interpretation is what is considered a ban
then I am for it.. Ban all headshots
I am just not for automatic suspensions…
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
Neither am I. Head shots happen all the time, but the violent ones need to be taken out.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think it should be an automatic suspension
So if that’s what you mean by ban, then no I don’t..
It should be penalized at a minimum a major and a 10 minute misconduct. Can go up from there depending on the case.
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
Well I’ll disagree, and cite the numerous talented players (Crosby, Savard, etc.) who have had their careers and their lives threatened by this.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
More players have problem gotten their lives/careers ended
by taking a puck to the head or driving home from the game, than headshots… so we should ban that as well.
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
*More players have probably gotten their lives/careers ended
should have been the title..
And Malkin will miss more time than Crosby because a guy fell on his leg… we should ban that as well.
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
I would wager any medical professional would tell you the long term risks for your health and your life from getting a concussion in a hockey game is much worse than tearing an ACL.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
"clearly" I was being sarcastic concernng Malkin
my point is that there needs to be some discretion, you can’t blanket a rule and be done with it
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
I think the seriousness of concussions merit an inelastic rule. In the long run, discretion or some suspensions aren’t as harmful as concussions and all of their consequences.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I would agree with that. Your rules put a lot of discretion on the referee, but I agree with your rules, nonetheless. I think that a head shot should get a 5 and a game and then it’d be up to the NHL to determine whether or not that action is suspendable.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Who cares if there is an intent to injure??? I never said there had to be. What there was was a hit to the head. And that hit was intentional (not necessarily the injury, but the hit) because no hockey player’s arms or elbows are that raised if they don’t intend them to be, especially when a guy is going in for a hit.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I really agree with Mark Madden here. Hockey is the greatest sport in the world, but it’s managed by the worst league.
by SlayerGhaleon on Mar 29, 2011 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Zetterberg
Gee I wonder what he has to say about this? Afterall he complained heavily about Cooke I wonder if he would do the same about Bertuzzi or is it okay for him to be a hypocrite since it was his teammate.
Intent or not he should have received a suspension. Does it surprise anyone that once again discipline in the NHL is pathetic? Just throw a dart and that’s the answer as to whether or not a guy will be suspended.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Mar 29, 2011 5:03 PM EDT reply actions
A Lemieux? Are you trying to call Mario a hypocrite? FYI the Pens, as an organization, publicly applauded Cooke’s suspension.
Mario Lemieux is better than you.
My Thoughts on the Pens & Twitter
by AllieLXXXVII on Mar 29, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Misconstrued...
The intention was to put it this way: Lemieux was silent (I don’t think he personally decried Cooke in public, but must have had (I think he did) a conversation with him..explaining the Pens Org applauding the sentence meted out to Cooke). I think that would probably what Zetterberg would do…Like I said, he cannot go all Andrew Ference on Bertuzzi and mention something outlandish to the media….
Lemieux did reportedly have a talk with Cooke, but the Penguins (Ray Shero) released a statement fully accepting and lauding the NHL’s decision for such a heavy suspension. Which is a much different tone than most teams with guys who get suspended usually take.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise
Having seen this song and dance with the NHL so many times in the past, I can’t be surprised. Let’s all say this together one more time: “the NHL does not care about player safety”. They were facing discontent about head shots this season, and they suspended Cooke to appear to be responding to it. Now that they’ve gotten it out of their system, things will go back to normal. With “normal” defined as minimal discipline for star players or players on Original Six or east coast teams.
P is for Latrobe.
by holiday park on Mar 29, 2011 8:40 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yea, this wasn’t an intent to injure like Cooke. It was just an awful attempt at a hip check. 5 and a game was enough for being careless and failing at throwing a big hit. Maybe 1 game suspension based on history, but that’s about it.
TANG FOR NORRIS!
by lostprophetRJX on Mar 29, 2011 10:18 PM EDT reply actions
Pretty amazing that this did not warrant a suspension at all. I agree it doesn’t appear to be an intent to injure, but as many have argued before when faced with Cooke, intent or not, you still have to face the music.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com, twitter and now on the official Pensburgh Facebook page
Even Gretzky said...
Take the instigator penalty out of hockey. Then the players will decide themselves if it was a cheap shot to the head. Backe in the day there was no such term as “repeat” offender.
The problem with that though is even the cleanest of hits is treated as a “cheap shot” by some guys. Its been said so many times by plenty of people: “Can we please stop with the brawls after big, clean hits?” Talbot’s hit on Comeau wasn’t dirty, look how that turned out…..
TANG FOR NORRIS!
by lostprophetRJX on Mar 30, 2011 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. I’m kind of sick of the “blame the instigator penalty” line of thinking as well. I don’t see how goons injuring pests after questionable plays makes everybody better off. Trading headshots for suckerpunches isn’t exactly a ton of progress. I don’t trust the Islanders to decide what justice entails. Apparently they thought apt punishment for a hit that’s within the rules of the game was to concuss and show no respect to a rookie who hadn’t been part of the initial wrongdoing.
Also, no such thing as a repeat offender before the instigator penalty? As in nobody ever left their feet to slam somebody into the glass, checked somebody while they were low near the endboards, hit a guy square in the numbers, or put their elbows up on a hit more than once in their entire career? Hah.
by illbottleya on Mar 30, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually,
since Bertuzzi turned his back, shouldn’t this count as a blindside hit and therefore fall under rule 48?
by PensAreYourDaddy on Mar 30, 2011 9:17 AM EDT reply actions
Because Bertuzzi hit Johnson from Bertuzzi’s blindside?
That would be an interesting way to frame it. A pedantic and intentionally-misconstrued way, but interesting to say the least.
by J.J. from Kansas on Mar 30, 2011 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
So you’re saying I’m qualified to work for the NHL? ;-)
by PensAreYourDaddy on Mar 30, 2011 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Quick question for the group
What, if any, affect would you say Ryan Johnson’s own postgame comments had/should have had on the NHL’s disciplinary decision?
"I knew I was going to have to kind of take a hit to make the play there, but I don’t think it was anything malicious," Johnson said. "He was very apologetic, came walking right in here and said ‘Sorry’ as soon as it happened."
"I knew it was a high hit, but I didn’t see it," Johnson said. "I didn’t think it was malicious or anything. He’s a pretty big guy and I skate pretty low to the ground.
Quenneville adding a bit of context (from the first linked article:
Asked if Tampa Bay defenseman Pavel Kabina’s elbow to Dave Bolland was worse, Quenneville said, "absolutely."
I know the last one is moving the goalposts a little, but it’s worth it to look at other hits as well. As far as comparables go, I wouldn’t say the Bertuzzi hit was very much like Kubina’s, Heatley’s, Marchand’s, Gillies’, Erat’s, or Cooke’s. If anything, I would say it was very similar to Patrik Hornqvist’s elbow on Tyler Seguin, where he got five minutes, a game, and a $2,500 fine.
Video (skip to around the 1:00 mark for the hit)
Trying to take off the homer glasses, I still think the Hornqvist elbow was worse.
For full disclosure, I’d be ok with a rule change that would mandate a suspension for Bertuzzi here, but I think it would take a rule change to get that done.
by J.J. from Kansas on Mar 30, 2011 9:51 AM EDT reply actions
As far as comparables go, I wouldn’t say the Bertuzzi hit was very much like Kubina’s, Heatley’s, Marchand’s, Gillies’, Erat’s, or Cooke’s
He barreled in and contacted the head. That’s similar enough for me. I realize it’s not the current standard to suspend that every time, but I’m starting to think it should be.
And why do you think Bertuzzi was so apologetic? Because he knew he made a bad hit- high and late.
I don’t think it’s the worst hit in the world, but in my book it’s suspendable. NHL saw it differently, and for a league trying to preach looking out for player safety, allowing that to happen is troubling.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
by Hooks Orpik on Mar 30, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
And why do you think Bertuzzi was so apologetic? Because he knew he made a bad hit- high and late.
Also because he was sorry.
Also-also, partly because he knows he still has pending civil litigation against him for breaking a guy’s neck and saying sorry was the right thing for him to do for a few different reasons.
I don’t want to get too far into the “was Bertuzzi really sorry?” rabbit-hole that I just opened, because I do believe he’s a changed man, but I’m not so naive to believe that there’s not a good chance there was at least some financial motivation for the apology.
If we’re talking that every single hit to the head, whether accidental or malicious, should result in a suspension, that’s fine. I’m not quite in that camp, but I’m hanging right outside the wire and wearily leering at the side which thinks your camp is a bunch of P-words who want to ruin the manly sport of hockey. I’m just also glancing wearily back at the members of your camp who want to throw the word “intent” completely out the window and punish the malicious hits the same as the stupid ones, for I fear that those are the people who truly would take hitting out of the game completely. Like I said, if you want to suspend for stupidity, great; I just think that you should also suspend much more for viciousness.
Bottom line is if you want to suspend Bertuzzi for a stupid hit, then ok – I just don’t see this as evidence that he’s back to his dirty, angry ways. I don’t think this was intentional and I don’t think it fits a pattern like the one that plenty of the league’s current dirtiest players fit. As far as Bertuzzi’s history, I get the concept that he shouldn’t deserve any breaks as far as “repeat offender” status, but I don’t think this incident was anywhere near comparable to his brutal assault on Moore. If Bert ever loses his cool and takes a cheap shot at somebody, I think the Moore incident should definitely be used to nail him to the wall with his own three remaining teeth; the incidences are just too dissimilar.
by J.J. from Kansas on Mar 30, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m in the inbetween zone. I can’t say it should be as simple as a blanket “you touched his head, you’re suspended” rule. Not yet at least. It seems like it runs the risk of making innocent actions we haven’t even looked twice at before become punishable offences.
At the same time I don’t think its good to judge an offense by freeze framing the thing to see if it was an elbow that hit or the part of the arm an inch away from the elbow. For me it’s more like, hitting a guy with your arms up with excessive speed, contacting the head/neck area blindside, leaving your feet into the boards…. those things need to be taken seriously whether the other player gets injured or not. I don’t think intent must be taken out altogether. I just don’t think we should judge intent to hit the head specifically. We should judge intent to make a violent and dangerous play.
Your third paragraph I actually do agree with. Giving players a second chance means not immediately assuming they’re malicious based on the previous incident. You’d need evidence of malice in his play to assume intent. What he did before was a terrible thing, but also an action completely different than this. Ones a planned assault, this is just a dangerous play that could have gone awry. Also, no matter what the reason he had for doing it, I’m glad to see Bert apologize.
by illbottleya on Mar 30, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
McDonagh’s comments after the Cooke hit were very similar, stating that he didn’t think it was that bad and that Cooke didn’t mean any harm.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
17 - 0
i just don’t see how Matt Cooke gets 10 games + a FULL round of playoff games
and Bertuzzi gets…NOTHING
there’s inconsistency
and then there’s idiocy
this is the latter
you forgot the 3rd
there’s people who don’t agree with you
doesn’t make them inconsistent or idiots
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on PensBurgh
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Conan O’Brien joins long list of LA media that don’t really know what’s going on with the Kings
- For Los Angeles Kings, when does rest become rust for Stanley Cup Final?
- Dominik Hasek wants NHL return; Tortorella on Game 6; Nash to Boston? (Puck Headlines)
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Game Show Friday, Bobby Holik, Game 6 preview, NHL ratings debate
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Simon Gagne enjoying LA Kings' success, returns to practice after concussion absence
- Gagne back at practice, enjoying Kings' success
- First-place Knights go sight-seeing while awaiting Memorial Cup final
- NHL Network and NHL.com unveil comprehensive coverage plans for the 2012 Stanley Cup Final
- Canadiens hire Rick Dudley as assistant GM
