Possible Lupul suspension

[Bates]

Maybe explain the decision for us Nik as no one seems to understand the standard for suspension so bias makes as much sense as anything.

 

[Kin]

Maybe explain the decision for us Nik as no one seems to understand the standard for suspension so bias makes as much sense as anything.

The NHL system of discipline is and always has been clownshoes? With little rhyme or reason at the best of times?

 

[maplesyrup]

@JLupul: If someone can explain the decisions on what warrants a suspension and what doesn't, please let me and the rest of guys know..

@DamoSpin: Somebody owes Joffrey Lupul an explanation. And his money back.

Edit:

Now HUGE venom coming from Cox in support of Lupul;

@DamoSpin: Say what you will about Colin Campbell's reign as NHL hanging judge. But he wasn't derided as a total joke by his second season. 

@DamoSpin: NHL dept of safety now less credible than Hall of Fame selection committee. And that's saying something

... I'm guessing Cox won't be getting any interviews from Shanahan for a while...

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

not a Shanny fan anymore..........

 

[freer]

Well I am not just being a pissed off Leaf fan here. I just spent the last 20 mins reading all the posts on the TSN web pages about Shanny's lack of consistency with his call on this one. It is going to cause a revolt among the NHL fans all around the league. Good luck in the future Shanny.

 

[Jay-Mar]

There could be more backlash depending on what happens with Edler's case, although not similar in any way to Lupul or Nash's play. Will the book be thrown at him now after all the media jumped on Shanny for Nash's "non" incident.

 

[Bullfrog]

Well I am not just being a pissed off Leaf fan here. I just spent the last 20 mins reading all the posts on the TSN web pages about Shanny's lack of consistency with his call on this one. It is going to cause a revolt among the NHL fans all around the league. Good luck in the future Shanny.

Good luck with what?

 

[Hampreacher]

I agree there is a great inconsistency here. Lupul probably should have been punished for his dangerous hit. But looking at Nashs hit it was as bad if not worse in that he came towards the player to make a hit and late at that and Nash's hit would have been in a much more dangerous spot for whiplash injury. Plus what is Nash's past history like compared to Lupuls. He should have got at least the 2 of Lupuls all things being equal.

 

[leafplasma]

I agree there is a great inconsistency here. Lupul probably should have been punished for his dangerous hit. But looking at Nashs hit it was as bad if not worse in that he came towards the player to make a hit and late at that and Nash's hit would have been in a much more dangerous spot for whiplash injury. Plus what is Nash's past history like compared to Lupuls. He should have got at least the 2 of Lupuls all things being equal.

Yep, absolutely atrocious that did not warrant a suspension when you consider how close this hit came in relation to the Lupul hit.  It wasn't like he had any time in between the two to change his gut feeling on certain hits.  I thought Lupul had what was coming to hiim but I think the Nash hit was worse and not even by a tiny margin.

 

[bustaheims]

I mean, I guess an argument could be make that Nash didn't really intend to hit Kopecky, and he just kind of appeared in Nash's path - and, to be fair, it does sort of look like Nash is trying to avoid a collision there and things just went sideways - but, still, even without intent, that's a dangerous play and warranted at least a hearing.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I mean, I guess an argument could be make that Nash didn't really intend to hit Kopecky, and he just kind of appeared in Nash's path - and, to be fair, it does sort of look like Nash is trying to avoid a collision there and things just went sideways - but, still, even without intent, that's a dangerous play and warranted at least a hearing.

Just in case you haven't read it, their reasoning is that the head wasn't the principle point of contact in the Nash case.

 

[bustaheims]

Just in case you haven't read it, their reasoning is that the head wasn't the principle point of contact in the Nash case.

I didn't read it, because I knew they'd come up with some baloney excuse. Dangerous hits are dangerous hits, regardless of where the principle point of contact is - though, I feel like I'm probably preaching to the choir here.