Ovechkin Avoids Suspension for Slew-Foot Trip
According to Sportsnet.ca, Alex Ovechkin will not face a suspension for his slew-foot on Rich Peverley last night, but will most likely be fined for the incident.
28 days ago
PaintDrinkingPete
67 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
So how bad was this?
When I saw it live I thought is was a weak call, but obviously I know nothing about hockey, if the comments on that article mean anything.
by benjik on Oct 23, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why bother?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Oct 23, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To draw attention to the ridiculous NHL disciplinary process, of course.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does the NHL take PayPal?
IS PAЯTY NOW
by Your Nation's Capital on Oct 23, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently, Colin Campbell’s Wheel O’ Justice landed on “Make an example out of him, but not so much that it will affect TV ratings.”
by RedBirdie on Oct 23, 2009 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You can tell how he works, if someone says: hey Colin, what do you want to do about [this guy]?
if Colin says “who?”
suspension. Otherwise, small fine.
by snowburnt on Oct 23, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
But where does Slava Kozlov, who got off with absolutely nothing outside of in-game penalties for a blatant hit from behind, fit into that equation?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Oct 23, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was a headscratcher…I thought for sure he’d get a game for that.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Oct 23, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought for sure he deserved a game, which is the first sign that he wasn’t going to get one.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
maybe it was because Gomez socked him the face three or four times right after Kozlov kind of draped himself over SG to brace his own quasi exaggerated fall into the boards
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Oct 23, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s no excuse. If ever there was a time for the NHL to condone face-punching that was it. Just because Gomez exacted some manner of revenge (or even if you think he exaggerated his fall, which I don’t, and I hate Gomez) that doesn’t change the fact that Kozlov committed a flagrantly dangerous act that was totally unjustifiable. That could easily have ended Gomez’s season, and possibly career. The NHL is, unfortunately, going to wait until catastrophic injury before they start cracking down on these BS hits from behind.
Until recently my sig line was “If you’re after getting the honey, then you don’t go killing all them bees.” Well, the NHL is after getting the honey, but they keep watching the bees attempt to kill themselves. This won’t end good. For anyone.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And come to think of it, the current one fits as well. How much you wanna bet Kozlov sits a game or a few if Gomez got hurt?
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you missed the snrk…I wasn’t supporting Kozlov’s actions, just making light of the fact that he got busted in the face a few times before getting the gate. He deserved it and I would have done the same thing.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Oct 24, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad. I guess I’m sensitive to the NHL making up bogus reasons not to suspend people that should be suspended.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just curious, but Malkin, King of the Slewfoots……..has he ever been fined?
by RedBirdie on Oct 23, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I remember that. Didn’t he do that twice in the same game?
by gfcaps fan on Oct 24, 2009 7:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed he did and didn’t get suspended for either.
by b.orr4 on Oct 24, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. It’s also never even been seriously discussed by the media either. And his slewfoots in the playoffs were way more blatant than either AO’s or Artyukhin’s.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 24, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder why Malkin’s name never comes up when discussing “dirty players.” Is it because he’d rather slew foot people than actually hit them?
by RedBirdie on Oct 24, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can think of at least one other reason that keeps his name low-profile.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
color me shocked to learn that Colin Campbell used to be a Waddle Bird…..explains a lot.
by RedBirdie on Oct 24, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am shocked a suspension was even being considered. Granted I was watching at a bar last night without the sound but I didn’t even realize it was a slewfoot until today. Didn’t look bad enough to me to warrant any of the fuss it has generated
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Oct 23, 2009 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
seconded. HS call
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Oct 23, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t believe this dumb stuff. Ovi gets fined for this and for example, Kunitz didn’t get fined for slashing Varly in the neck. (he didn’t, right?)
by hockeyman33 on Oct 23, 2009 5:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Kunitz was fined, not suspended.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kunitz got fined $2,500 for his cross-check on Varly.
by B19 on Oct 23, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
o my bad. i didn’t remember anything from it
by hockeyman33 on Oct 24, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the main thing to consider here is “intent”. Did Ovie intend to “slew-foot” Peverley? No, I don’t think so, especially judging by his reaction when the penalty was called…but it happened none the less. I’m sure that even he wouldn’t argue that fact after watching the replay.
I saw no intent to harm, no real malicious behavior on Ovechkin’s part, it was just an unfortunate incident where his aggressiveness at the end of the game got the best the of him (although I have NO way of knowing what was really going through Alex’s head at the time, obviously).
The fine is absolutely necessary because you need to send a message to make sure guys are aware when on they are on the ice—they need to know that behavior that could cause injury to another player will not be tolerated, even if that wasn’t the intent of the player drawing the penalty.
I also truly believe that if Campbell, et al, felt that Ovechin was in any way trying to inflict harm then a suspension would have been warrented—but I think the fine is perfectly reasonable in this situation. You HAVE to make sure guys no what will be tolerated, either intentionally or accidentally, and also know that all situations will be evaluated and fines and/or suspensions will be levied if indicated by the current rules in place.
I’d like to think that the caliber of the player and the context of the game (playoffs vs. regular season) doesn’t play a part in judgment, but of course it does, as we all can see. To be honest though, I’d rather see a sliding scale than a complete black and white one.
by PaintDrinkingPete on Oct 23, 2009 6:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the main thing to consider here is "intent".
And that’s a huge problem. You and I don’t see an intentional slew foot, but I guarantee some of the commenters over at Pensburgh see this as absolutely pre-meditated. How do you punish an action based on intent when that intent is so easily interpreted in a myriad of different ways?
The fine is absolutely necessary because you need to send a message to make sure guys are aware when on they are on the ice—they need to know that behavior that could cause injury to another player will not be tolerated, even if that wasn’t the intent of the player drawing the penalty.
I’d be 100% on board with this if there was any evidence at all that the NHL was, in fact, making decisions according to this criteria. Even a casual observer knows this isn’t the case. See Slava Kozlov, or the Callahan (Dubinsky?) hit on Green before the “biting incident” in the playoffs last year. The NHL does not give a shit about “could have injured” plays.
To be honest though, I’d rather see a sliding scale than a complete black and white one.
And that is the real problem with NHL discipline. This fine is about saving face. It’s not heavy enough to send any kind of message to AO or the Caps (or anyone in the NHL, really). But with the Artyukhin slew foot the night before (much more egregious) the NHL couldn’t really look the other way when a star “slew foots” someone, can they? So they give a token fine because they don’t want to suspend him. This is basically just a public flogging that has no real impact. It’s the NHL’s MO and everyone knows it.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with all of these points (and commend your debating skills), but still stand by all the points I made…wha?!?
I’m not saying they’re always right, or always make the right decisions…
And that is the real problem with NHL discipline. This fine is about saving face. It’s not heavy enough to send any kind of message to AO or the Caps (or anyone in the NHL, really). But with the Artyukhin slew foot the night before (much more egregious) the NHL couldn’t really look the other way when a star "slew foots" someone, can they? So they give a token fine because they don’t want to suspend him. This is basically just a public flogging that has no real impact. It’s the NHL’s MO and everyone knows it.
That’s the real point though, isn’t it? Ovie’s hit gets national attention, that’s why it CAN’T be ignored. If it makes even ONE player think before he acts (and it prevents an injury of a player, regardless of who he may play for), then is it worth it? I think yes, even if you disagree.
For the record, I really do think that Kunitz deserved a suspension for the slash on Varly in last year’s playoffs, and I really do think that the “sliding scale” isn’t correctly calibrated…but I still think it’s better than a complete black&white viewpoint.
I am always the guy who likes to play devil’s advocate, that’s just what I do.
by PaintDrinkingPete on Oct 23, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree Kunitz should have been suspended. I think Cammalleri should have been suspended. I don’t like the “NBA rules” that the NHL is following regarding the stars and the grinders. The NHL doesn’t send messages enough for them to actually work. Incentives are not effective when they are only enforced sporadically.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but I guarantee some of the commenters over at Pensburgh see this as absolutely pre-meditated.
Yeah, of course they do…that’s what we do with Crosby related stuff…doesn’t make it right though. Just makes us passionate fans who will always stand behind our players!
by PaintDrinkingPete on Oct 23, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like to think Crosby get’s his credit when it’s due around here. But maybe I’m just a biased Caps fan. I honestly don’t see the kind of comments thrown around about Crosby on the Rink like I see about AO on Pensburgh. What can I say? We’re just elite.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 23, 2009 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just wait until it comes up again and we jump on someone for advancing “Cindy Crysby” as an argument.
You know it will happen and you know the response will turn green.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 23, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes – my hatred for Crosby is now more “Mario Lemieux” than “Ulf Samuelsson.”
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 24, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Ulf Samuelsson” is a way cooler name than “Mario Lemieux” or “Sidney Crosby”
by RedBirdie on Oct 24, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Deserved or not, it’ll shut people the Hell up about it. Also, he spends more on Jeans than I have spent on my college education. He likely doesn’t care too much.
I don’t mind when people suspend people different amounts of time depending on injury, by the way. You knock out a player for a week? You’re out for a week. Of course, you’d need doctor’s approval and to trust the doctors, but yeah. Out until Doctor approves you to return.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Oct 23, 2009 11:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t mind when people suspend people different amounts of time depending on injury, by the way. You knock out a player for a week? You’re out for a week. Of course, you’d need doctor’s approval and to trust the doctors, but yeah. Out until Doctor approves you to return.
That’s just silly and such a policy would have no deterrent effect on bad behavior because nobody ever expects the guy to get hurt. When you endanger another player illegally you should be punished. Would you hold a guy out indefinitely if he caused a concussion that took a long time to recover?
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. The emphasis on injury is the reason why Hollweg continued to only get token suspensions for incredibly dangerous and repeated hits from behind. He should have been suspended for a loooooooooooooong time after hitting Pietrangelo from behind in his first game back from suspension, but instead he got the repeat offender minimum of 3 games. Fortunately GMs did Colon Campbell’s job for him and got him out of the NHL by not signing him.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 24, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But if he could, you know, play hockey he’d still be signed. And ending careers.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying no harm no foul. I’m saying if you check from behind, and the player is injured, you should be suspended for X games + however many games injured player misses.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Oct 24, 2009 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is that injury is not necessarily a good indicator of how bad a hit was. Players can get injured on seemingly innocuous hits and other players can take a vicious run from behind and get up just fine.
Let’s take AO’s hit on Gonchar in the playoffs. Should AO have been suspended for as long as Gonchar was out? Is that hit more suspension worthy than a much more blatant knee on knee hit that doesn’t happen to hurt anyone? Or how about a guy with a long history of concussions who has his career ended on a borderline hit. Should the offender then be kicked out of the league? Too many things factor into an injury besides the severity/intent of an offense to base suspensions on the presence of an injury.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 24, 2009 3:14 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ovi lead with his shoulder there, and his knee followed. Gonch tried to get out of the way, and ran into the knee. I didn’t think that was suspension-worth at all.
by hockeyman33 on Oct 24, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And most of us agree. But it was still an illegal hit by the rules, and injury followed. Matt Cooke knee-on-kneed Erik Cole later in the playoffs and took him out for at least the rest of that game. There are other examples but I think K_C used the AO one because it’s familiar with this crowd.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You missed where I said I didn’t believe in no harm no foul. Also, Ovechkin’s hit on Gonchar was Gonchar’s fault, he tried to dodge the hit and knees collided. He didn’t force the knee in on the knee.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Oct 24, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand you aren’t saying no harm no foul. That’s not what I am taking issue with. What I disagree with is your assertion that harm=foul.
I agree AO’s hit wasn’t a blatant knee on knee hit (though it was still not a legal hit). That’s exactly why I used it as an example. It wasn’t a vicious hit, but if you used a system where the offender is suspended for as long as the offendee is injured then AO would have been suspended, and that is a clear example of why that system does not work.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 24, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that example, as F&B pointed out was just used for it’s familiarity. There are plenty of other examples or hypothetical situations (such as my concussion scenario) that can be used to show why extra punishment based on the extent of an injury is not a good solution.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 24, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other Examples
How different is the Slava Kozlov hit on Gomez from the Ruutu hit on Tucker? Not very except the result. How different were either of those from the Callahan hit on Green last playoffs?
How different is the Steve Downie hit on Dean Macammond from almost every hit Colby Armstrong has ever thrown? Other than the result?
How different was the Brown hit on Filpulla from the Brash hit on Betts?
Almost every hit Kronwall throws is identical, yet the only ones people get their panties in a knot about are the ones when the guy stays down.
Darcy Tucker takes out Michael Peca’s knees and Peca is hurt for a long time. But when Steve Ott hits Taylor Pyatt’s knees there is no injury so no suspension. Or when Steve Ott hits Yelle in the knees (check the :25 mark) there is no injury so no suspension.
WM presumably wants Bertuzzi suspended for life. I think you may be able to make a case for that, but not simply because Moore never played again. And really, doesn’t Bertuzzi’s behavior after that incident demonstrate that he did rehabilitate himself to some degree?
Injuries are far too subject to chance to be a determinate factor in punishments.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This is where I come out. You ought to punish the conduct, irrespective of the result. NHL has a long way to go to satisfy this.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 24, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
funny, I just went to a meeting about conduct and punishment and how so often its dependent on the outcome, and not the conduct (or behavior, or outright negligent choice, even if it doesn’t result in injury or death), that determines the punishment. If it wouldn’t take me 20 minutes to hen-peck out the summary with one hand, I’s explain it better.
by RedBirdie on Oct 24, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruutu on Tucker yesterday: thoughts?
If Ovi deserved a fine, Ruutu deserves a whipping.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 24, 2009 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I somewhat doubt that the NHL will tie Ruutu to the mast and whip him.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 24, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m betting 5 games because of his rep.
by b.orr4 on Oct 24, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better happen fast, because all 30 teams are playing tonight.
by gfcaps fan on Oct 24, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which Ruutu are we talking about? I’m assuming right now it’s the one on CAR but really the one on OTT is the guy that needs to be messed up. That guy is a category 1 douche.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re talking about Tuomo, the ’Cane. But yes, Jarko needs to get cold-cocked by Darren McCarty.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 24, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missed it. Gotta link?
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Via Puck Daddy – Ruutu gets three games for hit on Tucker.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 24, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a brutal hit. Definitely dirty. But it couldn’t have happened to a better guy (not necessarily advocating violence against Tucker but I’d be about a billion times more upset if that was Statsny or anyone with talent).
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Kozlov Hit
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 24, 2009 6:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
21 | 13 | 4 | 4 | 30 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
19 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 23 |
|
Atlanta
|
18 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 22 |
|
Florida
|
19 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 18 |
|
Carolina
|
21 | 4 | 12 | 5 | 13 |
(updated 11.20.2009 at 9:16 AM EST)
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
