BigMouthBilliken Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I'd still be surprised if the league came down on Shaw, though, based on the treatment the Blackhawks have been getting from the officials and the league. I mean, if they're willing to go to this extent to defend a Hawks player who very well may have raped someone, are they going to conjure up moral outrage when another Hawks player acts like a horrible person? Different scenarios, I know, but it would be consistent with the league's attitude toward its current golden boys. Ok lets get it straight. “The totality of the credible evidence - the proof - does not sufficiently substantiate the complainant’s allegation that she was raped by Patrick Kane and this so-called ‘case’ is rife with reasonable doubt,” Sedita said. Sedita said DNA from a rape kit “lend no corroboration whatsoever to the complainant’s claim,” and that “the physical evidence and the forensic evidence, when viewed in tandem, tend to contradict the complainant’s claim that she was raped on Kane’s bed.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I'd still be surprised if the league came down on Shaw, though, based on the treatment the Blackhawks have been getting from the officials and the league. I mean, if they're willing to go to this extent to defend a Hawks player who very well may have raped someone, are they going to conjure up moral outrage when another Hawks player acts like a horrible person? Different scenarios, I know, but it would be consistent with the league's attitude toward its current golden boys. I guess it is a question of whether the NHL really cares since maybe it is just the fringe fans who never played the game who find this kind of behavior odd. Shaw completely going off the rails was just strange to watch and to see him allowed back on the ice to start a fight and continue to go crazy the final second was even stranger. If players are essentially allowed to yell whatever they want at their opponent and officials and this sort of language is fairly common, it does become an interesting decision for the NHL. Certainly a bad look, but maybe they consider it part of the game and guys losing control and yelling offensive things isn't a concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 It is weird, if you step back and consider it relative to other sports. The stuff that is routine in hockey and doesn't get penalized often is the same stuff that gets you ejected, fined, and/or suspended in literally every other sport. It's crazy. I never really thought of it until my wife has watched games with me and asks questions about things she doesn't understand (she grew up here in Cincy, where hockey just isn't part of the culture). It's the stuff after the whistle that really is nuts. 10 guys shoving each other with refs in the middle getting the collateral damage, and sometimes they just head to the next faceoff without even a 2-minute minor for anyone. This Blackhawks team, by the way, has to be the least likeable team of all time. They're infuriating to watch. Hockey continually baffles me, and I've been watching it for most of my life. It's an odd sport, and the league is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 It is weird, if you step back and consider it relative to other sports. The stuff that is routine in hockey and doesn't get penalized often is the same stuff that gets you ejected, fined, and/or suspended in literally every other sport. It's crazy. I never really thought of it until my wife has watched games with me and asks questions about things she doesn't understand (she grew up here in Cincy, where hockey just isn't part of the culture). It's the stuff after the whistle that really is nuts. 10 guys shoving each other with refs in the middle getting the collateral damage, and sometimes they just head to the next faceoff without even a 2-minute minor for anyone. This Blackhawks team, by the way, has to be the least likeable team of all time. They're infuriating to watch. In the NBA when players get into a scrum, they are "thugs" "punks"... if it happens in hockey, it's just "part of the game" a bunch of hard-working, blue collar good guys blowing off some steam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 In the NBA when players get into a scrum, they are "thugs" "punks"... if it happens in hockey, it's just "part of the game" a bunch of hard-working, blue collar good guys blowing off some steam. Mo Alie-Cox should've learned to skate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soderball Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 In the NBA when players get into a scrum, they are "thugs" "punks"... if it happens in hockey, it's just "part of the game" a bunch of hard-working, blue collar good guys blowing off some steam. This is pretty real honestly. None of this would fly in any other sport. Blackhawks have been getting rigged-level favorable treatment the whole series. It should be 4-0 and over. Shaw was completely beyond the pale for both his words and actions, but the NHL apparently lets anything fly for their beloved blackhawks. Loved how Crawford mugging a guy nets Chicago a PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Does it really? I know the NBA has, but this is news to me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can_Play NHL has been the first to do a lot of things, but situations like shaw are kinda the "put up or shut up" time. NBA has been very quick to react in the Kobe and Rondo incidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 In the NBA when players get into a scrum, they are "thugs" "punks"... if it happens in hockey, it's just "part of the game" a bunch of hard-working, blue collar good guys blowing off some steam. Except that fighting has been a part of the game and the culture for how long? It was never part of basketball. Way to try and make something a race issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 The Blackhawks are supposed to be one of the NHL's model teams in relation to the "You Can Play" partnership. Shaw should be suspended at least one game for that alone. I'd even argue that you could suspend him for the rest of his antics last night. My guess is they'll lay down a moderate to upper level fine which will piss all parties off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Except that fighting has been a part of the game and the culture for how long? It was never part of basketball. Way to try and make something a race issue. Sounds like you're arguing against yourself here. It's pretty backward that the sport with a long-established culture of this sort is the one that gets a pass on being called things like "thuggish." Terms like that are reserved for a sport with a far less frequent scattering of incidents like this. Maybe not entirely race-directed, but pretty nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Sounds like you're arguing against yourself here. It's pretty backward that the sport with a long-established culture of this sort is the one that gets a pass on being called things like "thuggish." Terms like that are reserved for a sport with a far less frequent scattering of incidents like this. Maybe not entirely race-directed, but pretty nonsensical. I wasn't arguing with anyone. Hockey has had fighting for as long as I've been alive and probably longer, basketball hasn't. You tackle in football but not in basketball, therefore tackling is accepted in football but not in basketball. Are you struggling with the difference? Ace's comment seemed to be trying to make the acceptance of fighting in hockey but not in basketball a race issue. If I'm wrong let Ace respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 No, I'm not struggling with the difference between violence in hockey and violence in basketball. Hockey is more violent. And yet basketball and its players have more of a reputation for being "thuggish" and "punkish" and whatever else. Are you saying you disagree, or that you don't see the weirdness there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Are NFL players and coaches allowed to yell that stuff at officials? I was trying to figure out a comparison and overlooked football which is the obvious one now that I think about it. Most of that certainly applies to football (fairly regular scuffles, endless trash talk, etc.). I guess the only difference is that in football you wouldn't have a situation where you could easily read a player's lips as he yells at an official or opponent. And in the NFL, they can get away with almost anything off of the field as well as long as you can play. -I've never sat close enough to hear the actual words to determine what is being said, but I would contend certain college basketball coaches yell at the refs a lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 No, I'm not struggling with the difference between violence in hockey and violence in basketball. Hockey is more violent. And yet basketball and its players have more of a reputation for being "thuggish" and "punkish" and whatever else. Are you saying you disagree, or that you don't see the weirdness there? The fighting in Hockey is within the rules of the game or the culture of the sport. It's against the rules in basketball and has never been part of the sport. Football is pretty violent and they aren't consider thuggish or punkish for their on field violence. Why not? Change hockey to football ... violence is accepted in one sport and not the other, You say you aren't struggling with the difference yet you seem to be having some difficulty comprehending. My response was to Ace who's post seemed to be suggesting it was a race issue. Are you saying you think it's due to race? To be clear I don't see the weirdness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Fighting and protecting your goalie (1 or 2 free hits or bumps to get the other team's forward away and out of the crease) has always been part of the game. If your goalie is injured, your team is done. To make the game more appealing to the general sports fan, the "ugly" spectacle of fighting has been curtailed significantly. Years ago, the benches would empty (just like at a baseball game although baseball guys really don't fight or know how to fight Now, that doesn't happen in the NHL b/c of the penalties imposed if a player leaves the bench. Further, the penalties involved for being the third man into a fight also now keep most fights and altercations just between the 2 players. The primary reason why fighting should still be part of the game is because it allows the players to enforce the rules themselves. Now, without the fighting, there is an increased amount of injury caused by slashing, stickwork, cheap hits, late hits and other contact now that the players know that chances of getting beat up have diminished. There simply is no comparison with baseball or basketball because neither team is allowed true hitting and checking (yes, I know there is alot of physical play in lane with basketball) and the guys are not in protective gear. Football is similar but the whistle blows and the players are separated after each and every play. When the football guys have an altercation, the yellow flag is thrown and it is usually offsetting penalties which mean nothing. Further, the football guys are protected with all their gear and face masks -- the face is exposed in hockey. But abuse of a referee is not allowed in any sport -- same in hockey. Whether or not the NHL takes action against the hallowed Blackhawks is another issue. But again, my son's teammate gave "the bird" to a ref and sat in the box for 10 minutes for "unsportsman like conduct." Thankfully, because of this incident occurring at the end of regulation and leading into sudden death of the national semifinal game, no additional 2 minute penalty was given to our team which would have put my son's team in a short-handed situation. Last night, IMO, Shaw should have received a 2 minute penalty for cross check (believe they gave it to him for interference) as well as a 10 minute PERSONAL game misconduct effectively ending the game for Shaw (unless there would have been overtime) in that the incident was called with 2:04 minutes remaining. Had the refs given Shaw a 2 minute penalty and a 10 minute personal game misconduct, then someone else would have sat in the box in place of Shaw for the 2 minutes, Shaw would have been sent to the locker room and not allowed to play for 12 minutes (2 plus the 10) and then this other person serving the penalty would have come out of box for the final 4 seconds - and likely would not have started a fight after the game game was over like Shaw did. Also, the refs could have given a 2 minute interference, a 2 minute unsportsman like conduct and a 10 minute personal game misconduct so that the Blackhawks would have been short a man for 4 minutes -- being the final 2:04 second plus 1:56 into OT if necessary. IMO, the Blackhawks team did not need to be punished that much and the 2 minute plus the personal 10 seemed right to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 -I've never sat close enough to hear the actual words to determine what is being said, but I would contend certain college basketball coaches yell at the refs a lot They do yell at the refs, but as someone who has sat close to college basketball coaches, they would be t'd up fairly quickly if they used language like that to a referee (at least in my experience which would not include the more mainstream "legendary" coaches who may be afforded more leniency). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 You people really make me laugh. You seem to be forgetting about a certain Ryan Reaves and his several "from behind" checks and spears to the face. He has been ejected and and fined. Don't pretend like fighting is the work of the devil and fail to mention injury causing play. You might say "well what about Duncan Keith or Seabrook." Well I'm not as near sighted as you fans. Yes they have had dirty plays and they have paid the consequences. Don't act like the league is protecting anyone, if anything they will protect the east coast teams like Pittsburgh or The Rangers. There is a difference between being feisty and dirty. I would consider Reaves a scrub like Shaw. They both have 0 talent and get paid to annoy the other team. Both are dicks that fans of the team love and fans of the opponents hate. He's also black! GASP! Would I consider him a thug? No. So there goes your argument ACE. Thugs have multiple suitors and many kids and don't pay child support and are usually involved in gangs. White or black. This is not a race matter. Go home Al Sharpton. I also do not condone what Shaw said but I do not think the NHL has a rule in place suspending players for foul language. I could be wrong but there isn't an extensive history of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo027 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 If fighting is part of the game in hockey, then why is it a major penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 If fighting is part of the game in hockey, then why is it a major penalty?Well because in any other sport you'd most likely be ejected and suspended. See baseball. In hockey you get 5 min. Pretty simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 If fighting is part of the game in hockey, then why is it a major penalty? There's a penalty for holding in football, it's still part of the game. I'm through with the discussion. Think whatever you like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 If fighting is part of the game in hockey, then why is it a major penalty? Because a minor penalty is defined as a 2 minute penalty whereby the player in the penalty box can get out before the end of the 2 minutes if the team on the power play scores whereas a major penalty is defined as 5 minutes for which the player serving a 5 minute major penalty cannot get out of the penalty box early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Wait - hockey players are always called thugs and goons. Guys like Raffi Torres are always called that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Also for the folks that think there is some sort of organized vendetta against the Blues and for the Blackhawks. This league and its administration make Jim Crews and Jim Platt look competent. There is no possible way they could pull off some David Stern level stuff. And we all know Bettman was a plant by Stern to kill off the NHL as competition for the NBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/m_news.htm?id=879647 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Fighting and protecting your goalie (1 or 2 free hits or bumps to get the other team's forward away and out of the crease) has always been part of the game. If your goalie is injured, your team is done. To make the game more appealing to the general sports fan, the "ugly" spectacle of fighting has been curtailed significantly. Years ago, the benches would empty (just like at a baseball game although baseball guys really don't fight or know how to fight Now, that doesn't happen in the NHL b/c of the penalties imposed if a player leaves the bench. Further, the penalties involved for being the third man into a fight also now keep most fights and altercations just between the 2 players. The primary reason why fighting should still be part of the game is because it allows the players to enforce the rules themselves. Now, without the fighting, there is an increased amount of injury caused by slashing, stickwork, cheap hits, late hits and other contact now that the players know that chances of getting beat up have diminished. There simply is no comparison with baseball or basketball because neither team is allowed true hitting and checking (yes, I know there is alot of physical play in lane with basketball) and the guys are not in protective gear. Football is similar but the whistle blows and the players are separated after each and every play. When the football guys have an altercation, the yellow flag is thrown and it is usually offsetting penalties which mean nothing. Further, the football guys are protected with all their gear and face masks -- the face is exposed in hockey. But abuse of a referee is not allowed in any sport -- same in hockey. Whether or not the NHL takes action against the hallowed Blackhawks is another issue. But again, my son's teammate gave "the bird" to a ref and sat in the box for 10 minutes for "unsportsman like conduct." Thankfully, because of this incident occurring at the end of regulation and leading into sudden death of the national semifinal game, no additional 2 minute penalty was given to our team which would have put my son's team in a short-handed situation. Last night, IMO, Shaw should have received a 2 minute penalty for cross check (believe they gave it to him for interference) as well as a 10 minute PERSONAL game misconduct effectively ending the game for Shaw (unless there would have been overtime) in that the incident was called with 2:04 minutes remaining. Had the refs given Shaw a 2 minute penalty and a 10 minute personal game misconduct, then someone else would have sat in the box in place of Shaw for the 2 minutes, Shaw would have been sent to the locker room and not allowed to play for 12 minutes (2 plus the 10) and then this other person serving the penalty would have come out of box for the final 4 seconds - and likely would not have started a fight after the game game was over like Shaw did. Also, the refs could have given a 2 minute interference, a 2 minute unsportsman like conduct and a 10 minute personal game misconduct so that the Blackhawks would have been short a man for 4 minutes -- being the final 2:04 second plus 1:56 into OT if necessary. IMO, the Blackhawks team did not need to be punished that much and the 2 minute plus the personal 10 seemed right to me. Well said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.