Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Knucklehead wrote:Complete and total bullshit here!!!

This deserved at least 2 games if not 5 because of the repeat offender status.

I used to like Keith but since his cheap shot on Daniel I've lost all respect for him.

Hope the shithawks lose this series and that's saying a lot considering how much I dislike any team with a dutter as a coach.

Topper wrote:Un fucking believable.

Eddy Punch Clock wrote:

Topper wrote:Un fucking believable.

Sad thing is it really isn't.

FRASER: A LOOK AT 'INTENT' OF KEITH'S HIGH STICK ON CARTER
Kerry Fraser
6/5/2013 2:09:20 PM


The fact of the matter is that a different standard of enforcement is most often applied in the NHL and other professional leagues. Before everyone starts jumping all over this reality statement, I would like to share the thought process used to differentiate between varying degrees of stick related infractions up to a match penalty for a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent. It might be like shifting and change at the end of this business day but I provide anyway.

As I'm sure you would agree, proving "intent" can be a difficult task. Several factors are taken into account for this purpose. I want to focus on the degree or severity of contact along with the time element taken to deliver a blow in retaliation as two of the primary considerations.

In the setup of this confrontation between Duncan Keith and Jeff Carter, it began in front of the Chicago net when the two players initially came together. Carter brought his hands and stick up into the face of Keith and then clamped his arm down stripping the Hawks defenceman of his stick. Somewhere during the play, Duncan Keith lost his left glove where it came to rest in the middle of the Hawks' end zone. As Keith bent down to pick up the glove, Carter chopped down on the glove in close proximity to Duncan Keith's bare hand. While it is obvious the glove absorbed the brunt of Carter's stick contact, Keith's hand may have felt some residual effect. At this point we
examine Keith's reaction and method of retaliation.

With an absence of time delay Keith immediately straightened up and brought his stick up and around in a 'reflex' of retaliation with a one handed strike contacting Carter in the mouth. I say immediate because Keith had not yet taken the time to return the glove to his left hand. The one handed blow was certainly careless and demonstrates a poor decision made by Keith but the contact did not fall into the severe or excessive category that would typically result in a match penalty being assessed by a referee in the NHL. Keith's immediate reaction of remorse further demonstrates a lack of intent in an attempt to injure Jeff Carter through a premeditative strike.

Let me further demonstrate the "time factor" from a play that occurred in Game 6 of the Rangers-Capitals series when Mike Green deliberately cross-checked Derek Dorsett in the mouth resulting in a cut to the Rangers mouth. A minor penalty was called on Green at 13:36 of the third period. I believe Green's actions fell into the match penalty category with a deliberate attempt to injure Dorsett given the length of time for Green to deliver the blow and the well placed location of the strike.

Mike Green was not suspended as the series moved to Game 7. On the play you might recall Derek Dorsett took Green into the boards with an attempted slew foot causing Green to hit the boards awkwardly but he remained upright on his skates. Dorsett on the other hand fell to the ice onto his back. In the time it took for Dorsett to get off his back and onto his knees, Mike Green turned and looked at the referee standing in the corner to see if a penalty was being called against Dorsett. When he saw the Ref's arm was not raised Green then turned his focus downward toward Dorsett, who was kneeling with his face fully exposed in front of the Caps defenceman. Mike Green then brought his stick up and deliberately cross-checked Derek Dorsett in the mouth with a downward blow. The time delay in this retaliation constitutes a deliberate attempt to injure as opposed to more of a 'reflex' action that Referee Eric Furlotte correctly judged in Duncan Keith's one handed high-stick motion.

Note: Following the publication of this article, Keith was suspended for one game by the NHL.

Eddy Punch Clock wrote: I don't see how any repeat offender can get only one game on a suspendable offence. Whats that saying? It wasn't bad enough for a suspension but because your a RO we have to give at least one game? Or the fact that you're a RO really didn't play into the decision.

Strangelove wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:If I'm gonna be outraged it would be the non call on Mick Jagr.

This is what's wrong with the NHL.

How can they justify allowing that goal to stand and basically gift wrap the series over a play that would be a no brainer the rest of the year?

Okay maybe gift wrap is a bit much but they definitely held the string with their finger while Boston tied the bow...

Rumsfeld wrote:As an aside, how effective has Marchand been this series? He's making shit happen every shift.