If anyone watched the Habs vs. Sens game on Nov. 11, they were treated to a tremendously paced game with exciting end-to-end action. They were also witness to another glaring example of the NHL's inability to properly discipline its players.
Down 3-0 in the third period, Jarkko Ruutu hit Maxim Lapierre with a high elbow that, despite Jarkko Ruutu's claim, displayed clear intent to injure. Almost immediately after the hit, Lapierre got up and Francois Bouillon stepped in to defend his teammate. After reviewing the hit, the NHL has suspended Ruutu for two games for the altercation.
Does this confuse anyone else as much as me?
Fresh off slapping Tom Kostopoulos with a three-game suspension for the Mike Van Ryn hit, what was the determining factor in giving Ruutu only two games? For that matter, why was perennial offender Ryan Hollweg given the same three-game suspension as Kostopoulos? Shouldn't repeat offenses merit harsher responses?
- B/R Ticket Guide
Let me first say that I do not think Kostopoulos is a dirty player or was attempting to injure Van Ryn—whom I hope has a speedy and full recovery—and I believe that he is truly remorseful for the hit.
Despite this, I agreed with his suspension. While at least some of the responsibility lies with the player to protect himself, the forechecker should be in better control of his check.
With that said, how can you possibly justify giving Hollweg the same punishment and Ruutu less punishment? Ruutu's hit had clear intent to injure and, considering Ruutu's reputation and post-game interview, it's difficult to believe he feels any guilt whatsoever. Additionally, Hollweg's reputation is far from impeccable.
These suspensions raise a disturbing question. Is an injury required for serious repercussion? That's what it's beginning to look like. Intent should be the determining factor in a suspension, not the result.
Unless this issue is addressed and suspensions are of a considerable length, players such as Ruutu and Hollweg will continue to cross the line only to be met with minimal punishment.
Until then, these infractions will continue to be a slap in the face. Not only to the players at risk, but to the fans as well.
comments (12) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
I agree with you James.
Van Ryan saw Kostopoulos coming and actually turned the wrong way. But it was a dangerous hit and he deserved a suspension.
Ruutu went out of his way and hit Lapierre directly to the head on purpose. He should have been dealt a much longer suspension.
The NHL missed the boat again...
from about 1 month ago
thanks for the comment Rob. The only good thing about the Ruutu mishap is that the two game suspension allows him to come back for the Canadiens game next thursday. I've never been a person who hopes for a fight, but let's just say I wouldn't exactly be distraught if one happened.
about 1 month ago
Disagree. Intent to hurt is not intent to injure. Every hit in the game is intended to hurt.
If you try and rule that out of the game, then you might as well watch Fussball. On the upside, the lame MTL Nananana thing would make sense at least.
from about 1 month ago
Do you disagree with my statement that intent should be punished, or that Ruutu was intending to injure Lapierre?
from about 1 month ago
Double disagree with T.
I think if the intent was to hurt every time, bodychecks would banned from the game. I think(and hope!) that the INTENT of checking exists to get the opposing player out of the play, cleanly and fairly.
Even rugby players don't "intend" to hurt opponents, they go for a tackle. The hurt, as in hockey, is not by intention but by incidence.
In rugby's case, a lack of protection is the culprit.
There are players in the NHL who, on occasion, deliberately try to hurt someone. They are not popular, and definitely not the norm.
If i wanted to watch athletes hurt themselves, I would watch pro wrestling. At least faking to hurt is their intention.
If you disagree with Ruutu's suspension then you probably disagree with Bertuzzi's as well. If the NHL wouldn't suspend players for those kind of hits, we'd have a lot more players paralyzed or worse...
from about 1 month ago
Double disagree on my side too! Ruutu is nasty player who is a bad loser....His act was clearly intentional and well-deserved two games...I seriously thought that the NHL wasn't going to do anything coz Lapierre wasn't injured....but I guess the league is fair enough to review and punish....kind of a warning to others...
from about 1 month ago
Rob,
There is definitely an intimidation factor involved in all contact sports. When players go for the "big hit", they're trying to make it hurt. In football, you don't want to just tackle the quarterback for the sack, you want to lay him out so that for the rest of the game, the hit is in the back of his mind.
Same thing in hockey. It's possible, and acceptable, for a clean and fair hit to leave a mark. That's why you're allowed to check a player immediately after he gets rid of the puck. A common tactic on the forecheck is to wear down the defensemen by finishing your check, even if the puck has already been moved. You're not trying to injure the player, but you're trying to bruise him up and throw him off his game. The next time he chases a puck into the corners, he'll be thinking about the consequences.
about 1 month ago
Hollweg and Ruutu, aren't they both Chris Simon victims?
I have said this before and will say this again, all that is needed is to adopt the international rule regarding checking from behind. An AUTOMATIC 10 minute misconduct is assessed for even a 2 minute boarding.
If you really want to protect the players you make boarding an automatic 5 minute penalty. No 2 minute minors.
Remember when it was automatic major and game misconduct if you drew blood on a highstick? It really cut back in high-sticking in the league. Just do the same for boarding. The shoulders to the head need to be eradicated as well. Steve Ott may be a good teammate and all, but he is a vicious headhunter that can do it legally if he leads with his shoulder.
I also love how neither referee in a recent Kings-Stars were going to call a penalty on Dustin Brown for a hit on Mike Ribeiro. Not until there was blood on the ice did they assess a 5 minute boarding to cover their own butts with 1 minute to go in a tie game.
hits to the head and boarding should be automatic 5 minute major penalties. It will be the only detriment. Obviously the pathetic suspensions aren't working.
about 1 month ago
There would be less dirty hits to hurt and injure if the league fines heavily both the team and player.
about 1 month ago
Let me make an observation,here. The "pads" in football and hockey are not protective! Let me illustrate my point by observing that no one was ever killed in bare knuckle fighting. Only when wraps and gloves began with the Marquis of Queensbury rules did serious injuries begin. If this league ever wanted to change the rules to limit injuries they need look no further than the equipement allowed. Bob Gainey almost had it right when he said blocked shots need to be looked at. Eliminate hard pads and you will never see another blocked shot.Hahaha! Seriously, I think that if they are willing to monkey with Goalie pads and regulate them then they should also address shoulder pads and elbow pads.
First they should oust Bettman. I nominate Burke as his successor. He gets it.
about 1 month ago
Junior,I agree with you. Get rid of Bettman.
about 1 month ago
It is SO sad and really upests me that a guy from Anaheim has to explain to a Montreal fan how hockey, never mind other contact sports, works.
You should be ashamed, mon vieux.
write a new comment