He actually does just exactly what CV said in that clip w/Laraque.

But I'll never forget him pounding the shit out of Lecavalier.

I know, but it was such a nice move I had to include it.

And as much as I think the fighting is a big distraction from the game, you gotta love how he beat the shit outa Gil's face.

chara was officially suspended for game 6. it was handed down. it was then overturned.

so, it wasnt just a possibility. it was official. bummer.

_________________

The suspension was automatic given the infraction he was hit with and the amount of time remaining. It's not as if it was reviewed and somebody said "hey, we need to suspend this guy". All that had to be decided was whether there was grounds for rescinding it. Boston's coach had immediately filed with the league for that action, which prompted a review of the incident and consideration of mitigating circumstances. The criteria for rescinding the suspension was met and it was extinguished.

"Instigator" means you started something over nothing. That's not what happened here.

Game on.

He was automatically suspended, but it needs to be for a reason he's not. Yet, the NHL never revealed that. Good job Bettman, why don't you fuck him if you love Chara so much, you douche.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Ruff, who said he was aware the suspension was rescinded before he left HSBC Arena Friday night, said, "It really doesn't matter what I think. It really doesn't. I don't think that little slash hurt him, though. An instigator's an instigator, and the referees deemed he was the instigator. I can find lots of little slashes in the game if you want me to find that."

Ruff was referring to Paul Gaustad's slash that Chara responded to with punches with 0.5 seconds left in the game.

Lindy Ruff, you're amazing.

_________________

Per NHL rule 47.22, the Bruins cannot appeal the automatic suspension in any manner. They cannot ask the league to review it, and they cannot protest the outcome. It's been reported that the Bruins asked the NHL to review the play and rescind the suspension, but that should never have factored in since that's not allowed by rule.

On your second point, look at the definition of the instigator, emphasis mine.



By the wording of the rule, Chara violated both bolded sections. The penalty as assessed was correctly handed out. If Chara doesn't toss his gloves and throw a right, it's a non-issue.

Now, I think that the instigator rule is trash, and I want it gone like you don't even know. However, based on the rules of the game right now, the correct call was made.

I'm way too lazy to dig it up, but I know there's a rule somewhere that states resisting an official is a pretty hefty penalty, and Chara fought his restraint by an official last night twice.

_________________
mechaphil

Yeah but so did Monty in game one, doesnt matter.

There is, but you REALLY have to earn that one. I'd be interested to see if that has been called since the 70s.

OK, I actually had a sudden burst of motivation, but I couldn't find the rule for the life of me. Must be tripping balls right now.

_________________
mechaphil

Not sure if anyone said this yet, but sorry if ya did. The rule is loaded with schism. Hard to say it any differently.

The last bolded point, to do with previous incident, refers to the "instigator" seeking retribution for an earlier occurence, not an immediate reaction to something that took place half a second earlier. If you think about the intent of the rule, this will be clear.

A big part of the intent of the instigator rule is to stop a player from "getting even" with another player, especially as a game winds down. You know: puck is dropped with 20 seconds left and one player clocks another out of the blue for something that happened 2 periods ago---or 2 games ago! Can't have that shit.

You can argue the ins and outs of the this and the letter of the rule all day long, but if you go by the intent of this rule, the spirit of it if you will, Chara was not guilty of this, even if the on-ice spur-of-the-moment call (and we know how THOSE can be) designated his behavior as such. You could even say the refs HAD to make this call, the same way a cop sites you no matter how good your story is. Tell it to the judge. In this case, even apparently without the right to protest, the league saw to it that the suspension was reversed.

Just toss this rule already, fer crissakes.

_________________
mechaphil

I actually think it's a good rule, but it has to be applied as is appropriate. No matter how much you may hate Chara and how much his absence would help in game 6, I believe the league got it right.

I wonder if Lindy is gonna bench Rivet for agreeing with this point!

The NHL worked perfectly fine without this rule for 80 years before it was brought into play.

And a big reason for that was because of enforcers. No one would dare touch a superstar because of the retribution they'd get from that enforcer.

You can go back to the pre-instigator rule and see no one clocked someone out with 20 seconds left in a game just because they would have gotten their ass beaten and handed to them for that shit.

_________________

The big intent of the instigator rule was to curb fighting in general. That was the biggest purpose. The additional penalties for doing it inside of 5 minutes is the 'get even' prevention.

Chara dropped his gloves and throw a punch before Gaustad had time to do anything. That in and of itself is enough justification to hand out an instigator penalty.

I'm not a big fan of having things determined by the 'spirit of the rule'. Rules should be written how they should be adjucated. People shouldn't have to guess later what they meant by a particular phrase or statement. This is a contributing factor to the inconsistant rulings and officiating decisions over the years.

Honestly, my biggest problem with the supplemental discipline on the instigator rule doesn't even apply here.



So remember kids, get your goonery out of the way in your conference finals, because it's a clean slate in the Cup Finals!!

Some have argued that Bertuzzi's attack on Moore was a direct consequence of the instigator rule. Moore didn't want to fight Bertuzzi, and he didn't want to get an instigator, so he took his cheap shot.

Hatcher broke Roenick's jaw with an elbow once because Roenick wouldn't fight him.

The rule sucks, isn't handled the same way twice, and is just downright back for hockey.

The instigator wasn't applied until after the lockout, I thought.

_________________
mechaphil

That is true Phil, the Instigator came into effect in 05-06.

_________________