Brendan Shanahan explains Rene Bourque's five-game suspension for elbowing Nicklas Backstrom in the...

Brendan Shanahan explains Rene Bourque's five-game suspension for elbowing Nicklas Backstrom in the head Tuesday night.

5 months ago Becca H 44 comments 0 recs |

Comments

I am completely shocked that NOBODY from the Caps retaliated for that flagrant elbow. Baxter wasnt even looking in his direction after sliding the puck up the ice, and is lucky more contact was not made to his head. That could have been devastating. Dirty, dirty play. Bourque is a POS.

Et lux in tenebris lucet

by burgundyNgold on Jan 4, 2012 7:41 PM EST reply actions

If Nicky had been sprawled out on the ice unconscious, a fucking melee would have ensued. He went back in right away, and I don’t think many people knew what happened, like when Steckel ~~intentionally lined up then freight trained~~ side swiped Crosby

by S h a g g y on Jan 4, 2012 7:46 PM EST up reply actions

Asking not as a moderator but just as myself — can we not have this discussion a third time here?

"Fais gros comme moi!" - Alex Ovechkin

by Gould Old Days on Jan 4, 2012 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I can’t believe Shanny threw Bourque a bone by acknowledging that Bourque’s action was instinctive AND unintentional.
Bourque knew what he was doing, no doubt at all. Bastard.

Happy 5 games in the hoosegow.

by S h a g g y on Jan 4, 2012 7:42 PM EST reply actions

If throwing an elbow up is “instinctual” then he should have given him enough of a ban that cures him of that instinct. I don’t think 5games will do that.

by Beakers Lab on Jan 4, 2012 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Five games is the max without the option of an in-person hearing. I’m pleasantly surprised he got all five. If that hit was “instinctual”, he’d better figure out how to alter those instincts.

"The Caps fan doesn't say, 'is the glass half full' or 'is the glass half empty'. He wonders when the glass is going to spill."

by gfcaps fan on Jan 4, 2012 7:55 PM EST up reply actions

I didn

by RedLife on Jan 4, 2012 8:03 PM EST up reply actions

I had five games in the Clips. What do I get?

Nice guys finish first, but sometimes the season is awfully long.
Follow me on Twitter.

by STLSpidey on Jan 4, 2012 8:14 PM EST reply actions

A healthy, lucid Backstrom.

Roman Hamrlik is so bad that I've forgotten how bad Jeff Schultz is.

by Alex Reed on Jan 4, 2012 8:23 PM EST up reply actions

All contestants on Name That Suspension receive:

Occasionally reporting from Section 421 of the Verizon Center...

by MikeL-Pivonka on Jan 4, 2012 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

Little bit of a tinfoil hat, but here’s what I think happened:

Based on Backstrom coming back into the game, it wasn’t immediately obvious that he was hurt. Further, based on the Caps lack of retribution and the fact that Bourque only got 2, it’s pretty easy to dismiss the hit as “one of those that looks worse in slow-mo than it really is.”

Based on that information, the league set up a phone interview rather than an in-person hearing, planning to give Bourque 4, given a non-serious but illegal action by a repeat offender.

Today, when concerns about Backstrom’s health began to surface, the league bumped it to 5, which is the max without an in-person hearing. Had the health news come out sooner, perhaps Bourque would have gotten six or maybe even more. Make sense to anyone else?

"You do that, you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame" -Denis Lemieux

by leacha on Jan 4, 2012 8:29 PM EST reply actions

As it’s said in the video that “although Backstrom temporarily remained in the game, he eventually removed himself after his condition worsened,” seems like health was taken into consideration.

"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg

Did you know DC United pays almost double the amount of rent at RFK than the MLS average? Help Keep United in DC to receive a fair deal on a lease and help develop a path to build a stadium with local investment and incentives.

by Bald Pollack on Jan 4, 2012 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

5 seems the minimum I would have given, simply because it was so blatant an elbow to the head. Elbows don’t accidentally raise themselves 2 feet into the air towards peoples heads. Our brains tell them to do that. Unfortunately, 5 was exactly what I expected they’d give. I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

by feeya7 on Jan 4, 2012 8:55 PM EST reply actions

This is more or less the right result. The explanation, however, is nonsense. The hit was anything but “unintentional”. Backstrom’s injury (or any player’s for that matter) should have no bearing on the suspension. The elbow was suspension-worthy regardless if NB19 came back and scored on the ensuing PP. If the League won’t let the players police the game on the ice, then it better do a much better job cracking down on knuckleheads like Bourque.

Long-time reader (back to the pre-SB Nation days), but first-time poster. Keep up the good work, Japers’ Rink.

by rps on Jan 4, 2012 8:56 PM EST reply actions 6 recs

Welcome sir.

"My favorite fan base in D.C. Is United's. Period. The end." - Steinberg

by Bald Pollack on Jan 4, 2012 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

Welcome! And outstanding way to introduce yourself

Pledge Drive 2011-2012: CARSON KOLZIG FOUNDATION! Season Pledge total--$908.82!

by RedBirdie on Jan 4, 2012 9:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Welcome. Great post.

And I’m going to disagree with you. I think the injury can be useful in assessing quite how bad something was, especially if other evidence is unclear.

If an elbow gives someone a concussion, then it was definitely the kind of elbow that give someone a concussion, and it should be punished that way.

If an elbow doesn’t give someone a concussion, but it was the kind of elbow that often gives someone a concussion, then it should be punished the same way — as the kind of elbow that gives someone a concussion.

If an elbow doesn’t give someone a concussion and it wasn’t really the kind of play that is all that dangerous, then treat it like whatever it was.

Basically, if someone was hurt, then you know it was reckless and you can take that into account. The tough ones are the ones where someone wasn’t hurt but should have been. Those should be treated the same way as the ones that do cause injury. But if there is an injury, then it’s an easy decision.

"Fais gros comme moi!" - Alex Ovechkin

by Gould Old Days on Jan 4, 2012 9:38 PM EST up reply actions

Agree completely. Injury should be taken into account. How much is the hard part, but it definitely should. Especially when it comes to things like elbows, knee on knee and reckless checks into the boards. If you hurt someone badly on something extremely avoidable by simply not being a douche, you should be punished.

by feeya7 on Jan 4, 2012 9:42 PM EST up reply actions

Re: "Knee on Knee"

I really wish they would enforce that penalty correctly. Kneeing is leading with the knee; it says absolutely nothing in the rulebook about what part of the other guy’s body comes into contact with the hitter’s knee.

Just a personal pet peeve….

Photography: I Rock the Red
Twitter: @IRockTheRed
E-mail: irockthered {at} gmail {dot} com

by IRockTheRed on Jan 4, 2012 10:13 PM EST up reply actions

I gotta respectfully disagree because it was an elbow

If you are considering injury then I think it should be limited to a “legal” type of check, such as a body or shoulder leading check. Then where such an innocuous check is landed illegally, such as from behind or to the head, then injury should be considered. An elbow is dramatically more dangerous and should be five game worthy without consideration of injury. Much like spearing someone, you have to think to stick your elbow out like that. And that’s enough premeditation for me.

A danger to myself and others on the ice

by can't skate on Jan 4, 2012 9:53 PM EST up reply actions

Oh, I agree. There should certainly be a minimum for such reckless actions. The consideration of injury should be above and beyond whatever would have been considered for the hit. Such as, the elbow gets 5, maybe 7 games. Elbow + injury gets 10-15+, and no figgy pudding for a year!

by feeya7 on Jan 4, 2012 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

Injuries should only be considered when there is intent to injure

I like your idea that you only consider injury in the positive (i.e. an injury obviously indicates an injurious play) and not in the negative (hopefully I’m paraphrasing your point properly) but I fear that would drive a tendency towards you only caring as much about hits that cause injury (and before you know it your back to Colin Campbell – albeit with less idiocy). I think that if you suspend as though all dangerous hits COULD HAVE caused injury then you are much more likely to root out the “oops, it was accidental” element of these dangerous/dirty hits. (The accidental language from the video was very disappointing to me – who cares if it was accidental)

I will suggest that I feel extremely strongly about any dangerous action that is deemed intent to injure (tough to assess, I will admit), but for anything that is deemed as such, I believe your suspension should begin the first day the injured player is healthy enough to return. You knock somebody out for 6 months, your 20 game suspension begins the day they are health. You end somebody’s career… it was nice knowing ya.

It disgusts me that Steve Moore’s career is over and Todd Bertuzzi is still cashing multi-million dollar checks in the NHL.

Great. Now I have to change my name to "Jaromir meet Alex".

by Chris meet Alex on Jan 5, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t even agree that injuries should be used as proof that a hit was bad. Injuries can be very fluky, and a guy could get seriously hit from a not so dangerous hit. Take AO’s hit on Campbell. It was a borderline dangerous play, but if Campbell doesn’t toe pick then he’s not injured nearly as bad (and it’s probably not even called a penalty). The severity of the injury was not in line with the hit. Pretty much any hit has the ability to cause an injury, so I don’t buy using injuries to judge the severity of hits.

That’s also why I don’t believe in suspending players for as long as the victim is out. Who determines when a player is healthy enough to return? The team doctors. Obviously Bertuzzi-Moore is an extreme case, but what if the injury weren’t as severe? Steve Moore was a borderline NHLer, why wouldn’t COL just keep saying he can’t return just to keep a key player from a division rival out of the lineup? Or how about a guy who has had several knee injuries/concussions/shoulder surgeries, etc. Should the last guy to hit him and end his career have their career ended as well just because the guy they hit is fragile?

NHL punishment should aim to deter future transgressions, and thus it should be based on intent, not results. I think injuries are a very poor proxy for intent or even how dirty a hit is and thus I think that using injuries at all to determine punishments undermines the deterrent effect.

Release the Mackan!

by Killer_Carlson on Jan 5, 2012 4:32 PM EST up reply actions

Makes sense, though I do believe that in the case of flagrant intent-to-injure incidents, it would be acting as a deterrent for the next knucklehead.

I know there’s a lot of grey area there, so I wouldn’t leave it to the teams to determine, I would leave it with the league to determine a reasonable expectation of when somebody is healthy enough to return (i.e. if he had only broken his arm then you would let the league determine after 4-6 weeks when to hear his petition to return to the league). Yes, I understand that’s a WHOLE lot of authority (and it gives me a cold shiver down my spine to consider the idea of Colin Campbell with that authority), but I think I’m willing to live with that fear for the extreme cases. And that’s the only situation I would consider this punishment, in the extreme cases where somebody was really trying to hurt somebody else.

Great. Now I have to change my name to "Jaromir meet Alex".

by Chris meet Alex on Jan 5, 2012 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the welcomes. Its good to be a more active part of the Caps community and part of a healthy debate about the game.

I recognize that the League will always put its thumb on the scale in proportion to the damage that the play inflicted. I’m still not convinced that it is right, but there have been plenty of decisions in the Bettman Administration that fit in that category.

by rps on Jan 7, 2012 9:34 AM EST up reply actions

Someone who can make Twitter work should tweet AO, Carlson, and whoever else is on Twitter and note our collective disappointment that no one made Rene Bourque answer for his cheap shot.

Patron saint of quality footwear.

by fat_daddyo on Jan 4, 2012 9:14 PM EST reply actions

And then someone else should tweet that said tweeter is not speaking for all Caps fans.

by DonnieKnutts on Jan 4, 2012 11:34 PM EST up reply actions

gormley has a piece on it.

sic transit gloria “The Code”

by j762 on Jan 5, 2012 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Sic semper dickheads.

Capitals goal scored by #22, Mike...

by KNUUUUUUUUUUBLE on Jan 4, 2012 9:32 PM EST reply actions

While I think the whole business of basing a suspension on the degree of injury caused by an infraction is horse manure, shouldn’t by logic the league reserve the right to review suspensions based upon those facts?

Shouldn’t this suspension be a minimum of five games pending Backstrom’s successful return to the ice? So if Backstrom misses a game or two in the upcoming West Coast trip then Bourque gets a first class ticket to N.Y. for an in person hearing.

Like I said I don’t think effects should affect the suspension outcome, but if you are going to argue they do, then you might as well allow for the full effect.

by sailchef1 on Jan 4, 2012 9:37 PM EST reply actions

From the NHL via PD:

Calgary Flames forward Rene Bourque has been suspended for five games and will forfeit $203,252.05 in salary… [Bourque] is classified as a repeat offender under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Accordingly, he forfeits his salary based on the number of games in the season (82), rather than the number of days (185). The money goes to the Players’ Emergency Assistance Fund.

Holy shit, that’s a lot of money. I’d sure notice if someone took 6% of my salary away. Not saying I wouldn’t like to have seen a bigger penalty, but damn — a $200,000 fine to a private person. It’s a crazy world we live in.

"Fais gros comme moi!" - Alex Ovechkin

by Gould Old Days on Jan 4, 2012 9:40 PM EST reply actions

That’s an expensive elbow.

Capitals goal scored by #22, Mike...

by KNUUUUUUUUUUBLE on Jan 4, 2012 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

I hope he feels that pinch

I’m glad he’s taking a dramatic hit in the pocket book. Compared to the NFL though missing a game check in the NHL isn’t the same. They only get paid 16 times in football. Of course I think the money might be a bit better.

A danger to myself and others on the ice

by can't skate on Jan 4, 2012 9:55 PM EST up reply actions

Hockey players actually only get paid 13 times a season, I believe (twice in October through March and once in April).

Occasionally reporting from Section 421 of the Verizon Center...

by MikeL-Pivonka on Jan 4, 2012 11:08 PM EST up reply actions

wow

I did not know that.

A danger to myself and others on the ice

by can't skate on Jan 4, 2012 11:10 PM EST up reply actions

If they’re Brooks Laich, only 11

by discuit on Jan 5, 2012 12:14 AM EST up reply actions

Its not really a fine at all. Hes just unable to earn money because hes not working.

by feeya7 on Jan 4, 2012 10:06 PM EST up reply actions

no, that money is forfeited to the league, which probably puts it in some sort of worthy fund

by j762 on Jan 4, 2012 11:53 PM EST up reply actions

players’ emergency assistance fund, that is.

reading the original post helps. i should try it some time

by j762 on Jan 4, 2012 11:54 PM EST up reply actions

rot in nacho-land, asswipe

by j762 on Jan 4, 2012 11:54 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Create Pressure from somewhere other than the NHL Office

FOR REPEAT OFFENSES ONLY:
Instead of just fining the player, fine everyone on the team. Or fine all the other players that were on the ice at the time. This should create some internal team pressure to cut ths s#$*t out.

Also, the coach and GM should also be fined – at least as much, or perhaps double, whatever the player fine is.

And instead of just a suspension, penalize the team/coach by reducing the number of players allowed to dress for a number of games. So if the standard is to dress 20 players for a game, they would only be allowed to dress say 18 or 17 for the entire period of the suspension.

The idea is to create pressure from some other source than just the NHL office.

by PaperBag on Jan 5, 2012 1:47 PM EST reply actions

Instead of just fining the player, fine everyone on the team

I think we should take out their wives and kids’ kneecaps with a crowbar in front of them.

by Brainumbc on Jan 5, 2012 4:49 PM EST up reply actions

After reading your first paragraph I’m thinking of the soap/sock beating scene from Full Metal Jacket.

I can see Carcillo going all private Pyle, though.

by Brainumbc on Jan 5, 2012 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

As much as this idea sounds good, it’s just not logistically realistic (a 40 game suspension from Ovie would be far more than the coach and GM make for the whole year combined.)

Teammates not dressing also would never get through the CBA…

Great. Now I have to change my name to "Jaromir meet Alex".

by Chris meet Alex on Jan 5, 2012 6:34 PM EST up reply actions