mechaphil wrote:
Hmm, you're right. Should've been a match penalty.
you mean at the loosest definition of the rules? or do you think i was trolling?
it's really really hard to call a match penalty. seeing intent on a hard hit happening that fast is really difficult. unless a stick is used as a weapon or a guy uppercuts someone who isn't paying attention, it's not obvious. we've all got to remember these are full grown, fully trained athletes who are playing vicious because they're backed into a corner. these decisions are also made in a split second.
i definitely would have had a 5 minute called and probably a game misconduct. i mean, i hate to use the term hockey play because of how it's used now, but that hit was born out of a hockey play. before you flip, read what i mean by that.
when i say hockey play, i mean it's a play you see in hockey. it is not uncommon to see people get pushed from the back because the refs don't call it. so at the beginning, it is a play you see consistently. however, the push/hit was not a hockey play. that is not something that should be allowed in the NHL, and Campbell apparently agrees when Jarret Stoll does it, but that's beside the point here.
so what i'm getting at is that it's hard to call a match penalty on something born out of a hockey play. charging is not a hockey play, attacking with a stick is not a hockey play, suckerpunching is not a hockey play. it's hard to justify someone trying to cause deliberate injuries when the beginning of it is something common.
definitely deserved a 5 minute penalty and a ten minute misconduct, to me. i would have been ok if he just served the 5 that made sense...the league would have definitely had to taken a look at it...2 five minute majors in one series is bad news bears.