Possible Lupul suspension

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I remembered earlier in the year where a player wasn't suspended and the commentators were saying it would be hard to justify other suspensions in light of a lack of one in that instance.

After searching I think it's this one: Stuart on Landeskog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HGdXqc7ISU

If Lupul's hit is worth 2 games and this 0 then I fail to see what the NHL is trying to say about hits.

Stuart gets his arms (elbow?) up into Landeskog's head. He suffers a concussion. Either the Stuart hit is worse or they're equal. Sending a message that Lupul's hit is a lot worse than the Stuart hit is something I don't understand.

Stuart is right in front of him, for what it's worth.

A head shot is a head shot is a head shot. One caused a serious injury, the other didn't. As I said, I'm ok with them being treated equal but to have a confusing set of rules that see injurious play not suspended and relatively harmless play suspended sends a bizzare message.

 

[Kin]

A head shot is a head shot is a head shot. One caused a serious injury, the other didn't. As I said, I'm ok with them being treated equal but to have a confusing set of rules that see injurious play not suspended and relatively harmless play suspended sends a bizzare message.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying you think the NHL should outlaw all hits to the head or are you saying they already have?

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

A head shot is a head shot is a head shot. One caused a serious injury, the other didn't. As I said, I'm ok with them being treated equal but to have a confusing set of rules that see injurious play not suspended and relatively harmless play suspended sends a bizzare message.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying you think the NHL should outlaw all hits to the head or are you saying they already have?

I don't actually know what their agenda is. It's my impression that they're trying to get rid of dangerous shots to the head. If that's not the case then it should be IMO.

 

[Kin]

A head shot is a head shot is a head shot. One caused a serious injury, the other didn't. As I said, I'm ok with them being treated equal but to have a confusing set of rules that see injurious play not suspended and relatively harmless play suspended sends a bizzare message.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying you think the NHL should outlaw all hits to the head or are you saying they already have?

I don't actually know what their agenda is. It's my impression that they're trying to get rid of dangerous shots to the head. If that's not the case then it should be IMO.

Oh, well, my understanding of it is that blindside hits to the head are a no-no but straight on checks that hit the head are ok. I agree that there's a little bit of hair splitting there and that it doesn't make a big difference to the guy with the concussion but those are the rules. That may send a mixed message but that's on the GM's, not so much the league.

 

[sneakyray]

A head shot is a head shot is a head shot. One caused a serious injury, the other didn't. As I said, I'm ok with them being treated equal but to have a confusing set of rules that see injurious play not suspended and relatively harmless play suspended sends a bizzare message.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying you think the NHL should outlaw all hits to the head or are you saying they already have?

I don't actually know what their agenda is. It's my impression that they're trying to get rid of dangerous shots to the head. If that's not the case then it should be IMO.

Oh, well, my understanding of it is that blindside hits to the head are a no-no but straight on checks that hit the head are ok. I agree that there's a little bit of hair splitting there and that it doesn't make a big difference to the guy with the concussion but those are the rules. That may send a mixed message but that's on the GM's, not so much the league.

I was pretty sure that they got rid of the blind side peice.  I think that if you hit a guy and the principle point of contact is the head and the head was "targeted" (fairly subjective) then they can do whatever they want for supplemental discipline.

 

[Coco-puffs]

A head shot is a head shot is a head shot. One caused a serious injury, the other didn't. As I said, I'm ok with them being treated equal but to have a confusing set of rules that see injurious play not suspended and relatively harmless play suspended sends a bizzare message.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying you think the NHL should outlaw all hits to the head or are you saying they already have?

I don't actually know what their agenda is. It's my impression that they're trying to get rid of dangerous shots to the head. If that's not the case then it should be IMO.

Oh, well, my understanding of it is that blindside hits to the head are a no-no but straight on checks that hit the head are ok. I agree that there's a little bit of hair splitting there and that it doesn't make a big difference to the guy with the concussion but those are the rules. That may send a mixed message but that's on the GM's, not so much the league.

I was pretty sure that they got rid of the blind side peice.  I think that if you hit a guy and the principle point of contact is the head and the head was "targeted" (fairly subjective) then they can do whatever they want for supplemental discipline.

The first year they instituted a "no checking to the head" rule it included the word "blindside" in the description of what was outlawed.  Since then they have changed it so that ANY hit to the head, where the head is the principal point of contact AND the head is targeted is illegal.

In the Stuart on Landeskog case, I don't think he targeted the head at all.  He was going for a clean body check but unfortunately his elbow came up during delivery- meanwhile, Landeskog was kind of crouched down, making it pretty hard to avoid his head.  Furthermore, the principal point of contact could also be considered the body- or in the least, body and head all at the same time. 

In the Lupul case, while Lupul says he didn't "target the head", the fact that he left his feet makes it hard to believe he wasn't.  Hedman also wasn't crouched down, so its not like a hit to the head was unavoidable.  After looking at the list of illegal hits to the head suspensions in the last year, 3 games was the most often given punishment (until the playoffs arrived).

 

[Bates]

Larry Brooks has tweeted that Nash will not have a hearing for his hit last night.  I assume this is not correct or the |NHL is about to look very silly in discipline dept.

 

[Deebo]

Larry Brooks has tweeted that Nash will not have a hearing for his hit last night.  I assume this is not correct or the |NHL is about to look very silly in discipline dept.

Bob McKenzie confirms.

I really don't get it, Perry 4 games, Lupul 2, and Nash 0.

 

[Jay-Mar]

How is Nash's hit not more serious than Lupul's?
Nash
1) Leaves his feet
2) Was from behind and Kopecky never saw him coming
3) It was an elbow to the head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9jZDEQ_a3Y

 

[louisstamos]

How is Nash's hit not more serious than Lupul's?
Nash
1) Leaves his feet
2) Was from behind and Kopecky never saw him coming
3) It was an elbow to the head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9jZDEQ_a3Y

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Joffrey Lupul suspension video: http://bit.ly/Z3r2Wz

Shanahan forgot to add "and since i'm a former Ranger, I'm trying to help my boys make the playoffs by hurting the Leafs a bit"

 

[Redleaf]

How is Nash's hit not more serious than Lupul's?
Nash
1) Leaves his feet
2) Was from behind and Kopecky never saw him coming
3) It was an elbow to the head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9jZDEQ_a3Y

I agree. The Nash hit actually looks worse, as far as having the potential to inflict serious injury.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Joffrey Lupul suspension video: http://bit.ly/Z3r2Wz

Shanahan forgot to add "and since i'm a former Ranger, I'm trying to help my boys make the playoffs by hurting the Leafs a bit"

Yup, that pretty much applies in this case too.  Brutal, Nash's play was at least as bad as Lupul's, if not worse.

 

[Zee]

Joffrey Lupul suspension video: http://bit.ly/Z3r2Wz

Shanahan forgot to add "and since i'm a former Ranger, I'm trying to help my boys make the playoffs by hurting the Leafs a bit"

Yup, that pretty much applies in this case too.  Brutal, Nash's play was at least as bad as Lupul's, if not worse.

Did Nash get a suspension for that?

 

[AvroArrow]

Larry Brooks has tweeted that Nash will not have a hearing for his hit last night.  I assume this is not correct or the |NHL is about to look very silly in discipline dept.

Bob McKenzie confirms.

I really don't get it, Perry 4 games, Lupul 2, and Nash 0.

...and NHL supplementary discipline remains a joke...

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

And we have to lose Lupul for another game (against Boston no less) but they can't get it consistent, or at least close.

 

[Zee]

I think Wendel Clark should take Shanahan's job.

 

[freer]

Shanny is now playing favorites. Tired of this crap.

 

[TML fan]

At least Shanahan attempts to explain his incompetence. That's something, right?

 

[Kin]

Sorry, the idea that his Nash decision is related to the two years he spent as a Ranger at the end of his career is a joke I'm not getting, right?