Driving from Boston to Hanover in snowstorm. Terrible conditions with lots of accidents along road. Let's hope the Big Red make the trip worthwhile!
Quote from: dbilmesDriving from Boston to Hanover in snowstorm. Terrible conditions with lots of accidents along road. Let's hope the Big Red make the trip worthwhile!
Driving and posting in a snow storm?::drive::
I hope everyone arrives safely.
Tonight's video is outstanding it's up on the big screen. Last nights feed from Harvard was so bad we could not see the puck. Go Big Red.
Fuck dartmouth! A few seconds after OT ends, a player clobbers one of our guys who had let up. Totally still for a minute or two, thankfully gets up on his own.
Fuck. Dartmouth.
Bob Gaudet. There is no substitute.
Quote from: TrotskyBob Gaudet. There is no substitute.
Throw your clipboard...
Quote from: BMacFuck dartmouth! A few seconds after OT ends, a player clobbers one of our guys who had let up. Totally still for a minute or two, thankfully gets up on his own.
Fuck. Dartmouth.
From Twitter it sounds like Eric Neiley got a DQ.
Who was our player who got hurt?
Quote from: BMacWho was our player who got hurt?
Bardreau.
Bardreau
FUCK Dartmouth.
Anyone who saw the injury want to give their thoughts? Is this the second year in a row we lose Bardreau to a complete cheap shot?
Quote from: BearLoverAnyone who saw the injury want to give their thoughts? Is this the second year in a row we lose Bardreau to a complete cheap shot?
We will have to wait to see if Cole will miss any time, but yeah...a cheap shot. My memory isn't able to determine exactly how long after the final buzzer the hit took place, but it was probably at least several seconds, possibly more. I wasn't watching that part of the ice to see anything that happened before the hit (if there was shoving or gestures), but I happened to turn my head just in time to see Neiley's arms come up to deck Bardreau high and hard at the Cornell blue line. The hit was at the head. The nearest ref instantly reacted by shouting and putting a bear-hug on Neiley, probably partly in anger himself and partly because he knew the retaliation was about to come. And it did. Within a few seconds, a group of CU skaters had Neiley down on the ice in a scrum, with a few other Dartmouth players joining the fray. Cole was being tended to by the trainer only a few feet away, and he was face down on the ice for maybe 2-3 minutes. No real haymakers were thrown as players circled each other, and credit the officials for separating the teams quickly and containing that powder keg about as much as anybody could. One ref reacted physically and proactively with Ferlin as the benches were being emptied; it looked like Ferlin was about to go after someone. Both teams were obviously directed to the locker rooms without handshakes, and Dartmouth drifted to center ice for a second or two for a weak stick salute to the fans that was met with boos from our Cornell corner.
It's ironic now that late in the third, I had thought to myself how this was the cleanest game I had ever seen from a Gaudet team. The only issue was a bit of jawing & shoving near the benches at the end of the 2nd period that resulted in offsetting roughing penalties to start the 3rd (Freschi & McNally). And then this happened. I see from the box score that Neiley got a 5 + DQ, and the emotional homer in me wants to see extra games tacked on, considering it was a head shot to a player who had recovered from a broken neck.
Good job by the officials Dumas & St. Lawrence all weekend, but especially at the end of this game. I imagine whichever ref crew gets assigned the Dartmouth-Cornell game in Ithaca will have their hands full.
The game itself was poor on both sides. It was more like watching pinball than hockey. Neither team had any sustained 5x5 attack at all.
Gaudet remains a disgrace to this league.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: BearLoverAnyone who saw the injury want to give their thoughts? Is this the second year in a row we lose Bardreau to a complete cheap shot?
We will have to wait to see if Cole will miss any time, but yeah...a cheap shot. My memory isn't able to determine exactly how long after the final buzzer the hit took place, but it was probably at least several seconds, possibly more. I wasn't watching that part of the ice to see anything that happened before the hit (if there was shoving or gestures), but I happened to turn my head just in time to see Neiley's arms come up to deck Bardreau high and hard at the Cornell blue line.
The game is still available on the Ivy League Digital Network. I say "still available" because I think I remember people here talking about it taking them a couple of days to have the games available as archived games. I didn't find it there, but rather exactly where I would have found it last night if I logged in and selected "Cornell" as my school of choice.
Watching the replay, the hit happened 4-5 seconds after the buzzer. And the only thing that happened immediately before that was that another Dartmouth player had a little inconsequential shoulder to shoulder contact with Bardreau a second earlier. If anything, the Dartmouth player was the one at fault there too, but it was really not much of anything.
I hope the powers that be take a look at this and assuming the rules allow for it do add on additional game suspensions. A rough hit during a game is one thing. This really was something else entirely.
Quote from: RichHIt's ironic now that late in the third, I had thought to myself how this was the cleanest game I had ever seen from a Gaudet team. The only issue was a bit of jawing & shoving near the benches at the end of the 2nd period that resulted in offsetting roughing penalties to start the 3rd (Freschi & McNally).
Neilly and Knisely were going at it all night, with little slashes, slaps, hooks, and various aggression en passant. I thought at one point (about 5 minutes before the end of the second) that they might drop all pretense and just have at it. And all this was just what I could see on the video; god knows what was going on out of frame.
I wish Gaudet would just go to a juniors team where his guys could fight and head hunt all they want. Everybody would be happier.
Gaudet's response:
QuoteGaudet said his wing was himself injured by an opponent's hit during a shift shortly before the confrontation and allowed his simmering anger to get the best of him.
"I can't condone what he did, obviously, but I watched it on video and he didn't hit (Bardreau) in the head or anything," Gaudet said. "It was one of those plays where he still had the energy of the game" after the whistle.
Cheap Shot by Eric Neiley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPr4zdQBW8A)
Neiley earns a DQ.
Just to make sure I understand: Neiley was "himself injured by an opponent's hit during a shift shortly before" then recovered, and retaliated against a different player 5 seconds after the final buzzer? Is that right?::wtf::
His DQ should be for our game. I'd hate to lose one of our guys to a DQ the night before we play Harvard.
Quote from: sah67Gaudet's response:
QuoteGaudet said. "It was one of those plays where he still had the energy of the game" after the whistle.
Wouldn't it be great if after the Dartmouth game at Lynah if instead of shaking Gaudet's hand Schafer just leveled him, and then, looking down at him on the ice, said, "Sorry. I just still had the energy of the game."
I would pay real dollars to see Schafer throw a haymaker at Gaudet.
But of course, I don't actually want that. Then we'd be in the news for the things I'm glad we're never in the news for.
Quote from: BMacI would pay real dollars to see Schafer throw a haymaker at Gaudet.
But of course, I don't actually want that. Then we'd be in the news for the things I'm glad we're never in the news for.
A win will be revenge enough, particularly since that will be the final weekend push for a bye.
Any guesses regarding Bardreau's health? I guess it's impossible to say, but that's what I was really asking about.
This is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
I know generalizing is bad, but: man, Dartmouth are a bunch of bleeping poopyheads.
(Self-sanitized for family-friendliness.)
Quote from: kaelistusThis is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
I agree. I think part of the problem is that this doesn't happen all that often in college hockey, so there isn't as much of a precedent for how to deal with such a hit. Thornton's ambush was worse, but not necessarily by all that much, and that game was much more out of hand in both directions (that Neal knee to Marchand's head was awful, and I'm a Pens fan).
Quote from: kaelistusThis is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
With some deep thinking, perhaps the refs could have come up with two or three infractions.
Quote from: NCAA rule bookA player may be assessed more than one disqualification penalty in a game.
The progressive game-disqualification structure shall be:
1. First disqualification penalty—that game plus one.
2. Second disqualification penalty—that game plus two.
3. Third disqualification penalty—that game plus three.
4 Fourth disqualification penalty—that game plus four.
(The progression shall continue after the fourth disqualification penalty.)
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: kaelistusThis is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
With some deep thinking, perhaps the refs could have come up with two or three infractions.
Quote from: NCAA rule bookA player may be assessed more than one disqualification penalty in a game.
The progressive game-disqualification structure shall be:
1. First disqualification penalty—that game plus one.
2. Second disqualification penalty—that game plus two.
3. Third disqualification penalty—that game plus three.
4 Fourth disqualification penalty—that game plus four.
(The progression shall continue after the fourth disqualification penalty.)
Ref as judge jury and executioner. I don't think it is realistic to expect two DQs for one infraction determined by the referee.
I do think it is realistic to expect that the ECAC will up the penalty. We are waiting but I'm not into oxygen deprivation in the interim.
Quote from: martyI do think it is realistic to expect that the ECAC will up the penalty. We are waiting but I'm not into oxygen deprivation in the interim.
There are certainly precendents in the past year:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/10/30_armys_plageman_suspended.php
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/10/28_hockey_east_suspends_northeasterns.php
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/10/17_atlantic_hockey_suspends_pair.php
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/01/22_hockey_east_suspends_bus.php
Most notably, this item specifically mentions ECAC's "supplemental discipline process" for the CU-QU playoff game 1 events: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/03/16_quinnipiacs_van_brabant_suspended.php
Quote from: martyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: kaelistusThis is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
With some deep thinking, perhaps the refs could have come up with two or three infractions.
Quote from: NCAA rule bookA player may be assessed more than one disqualification penalty in a game.
The progressive game-disqualification structure shall be:
1. First disqualification penalty—that game plus one.
2. Second disqualification penalty—that game plus two.
3. Third disqualification penalty—that game plus three.
4 Fourth disqualification penalty—that game plus four.
(The progression shall continue after the fourth disqualification penalty.)
Ref as judge jury and executioner. I don't think it is realistic to expect two DQs for one infraction determined by the referee.
I do think it is realistic to expect that the ECAC will up the penalty. We are waiting but I'm not into oxygen deprivation in the interim.
I think the refs did the right thing. The hit was egregious enough that he clearly deserved a DQ for it. But let the league office decide whether any additional punishment is warranted after reviewing the tape.
https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224
Quote from: scoop85https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224
Is that two on top of the 1 from the DQ?
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: scoop85https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224
Is that two on top of the 1 from the DQ?
Per the CHN article, "The supplemental discipline adds one game to the suspension. He is eligible to return Feb. 1 against Princeton."
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: scoop85https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224
Is that two on top of the 1 from the DQ?
It sounds like just the next 2. He may have a prior, in which case that'd be the ordinary result of a DQ.
Edit: or not, as per comment above. Interesting. Is this the first case of supplemental discipline actually resulting in a longer penalty?
Great that the league did *something*.
Much more importantly, it would be great to know that our best player, who missed most of last season due to a neck/back injury, is healthy.
I don't think the punishment is enough. Nothing in college hockey is worth (reaggravating) an injury like that. It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.
Should Neiley be punished additionally for reaggravating an injury that he didn't know about? Probably not. (And I'm assuming he didn't know). But at the same time, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.I think 3-5 games would be more appropriate.
Anyone up in Ithaca have any word on how Bardreau is doing?
Quote from: BMacIt would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.
Well, the maximum possible would probably be a lifetime ban and criminal charges filed. I don't think this was warranted.
Removing my own emotions from this as I watch the video, and the punishment is probably fair. I've seen much more violent and dangerous hits go unpunished. 1 game for the cheap hit, 1 game for it being after the final buzzer. I'm OK with that.
Quote from: BMacGreat that the league did *something*.
Much more importantly, it would be great to know that our best player, who missed most of last season due to a neck/back injury, is healthy.
I don't think the punishment is enough. Nothing in college hockey is worth (reaggravating) an injury like that. It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.
Should Neiley be punished additionally for reaggravating an injury that he didn't know about? Probably not. (And I'm assuming he didn't know). But at the same time, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.I think 3-5 games would be more appropriate.
Suspend him until Bardreau comes back. Pretty simple.
Quote from: RichHRemoving my own emotions from this as I watch the video, and the punishment is probably fair. I've seen much more violent and dangerous hits go unpunished. 1 game for the cheap hit, 1 game for it being after the final buzzer. I'm OK with that.
Agree completely.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BMacGreat that the league did *something*.
Much more importantly, it would be great to know that our best player, who missed most of last season due to a neck/back injury, is healthy.
I don't think the punishment is enough. Nothing in college hockey is worth (reaggravating) an injury like that. It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.
Should Neiley be punished additionally for reaggravating an injury that he didn't know about? Probably not. (And I'm assuming he didn't know). But at the same time, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.I think 3-5 games would be more appropriate.
Suspend him until Bardreau comes back. Pretty simple.
So if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended? Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit". My opinion anyway.
Quote from: KeithKSo if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended? Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".
Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau? It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted. Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: KeithKSo if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended? Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".
Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau? It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted. Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.
I'm generally opposed to this sort of suspension idea. But in the case of cheap shots that happen during stoppages or after the game ends, it may be fitting.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: KeithKSo if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended? Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".
Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau? It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted. Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.
I'm generally opposed to this sort of suspension idea. But in the case of cheap shots that happen during stoppages or after the game ends, it may be fitting.
I don't understand why you would be opposed to suspensions. Do you think it's OK to maim the opponents as long as the game clock is running? Bardreau was more vulnerable in this instance but intentional goonery isn't supposed to be part of the NCAA hockey experience.
Fair point, I was careless with my phrasing. Though not by much.
How's this: the league should be extremely concerned with minimizing preventable injuries.
My point here is that the preventability of this incident is what merits a very severe response. I'll argue that the rules are generally meant to punish according to the likelihood of injury.
I assume that there's a probability of injury during fair play.
I assume that there's a larger probability of injury during dirty/unfair play. This is exactly what the punishments in the rules are meant to cover. Hitting someone from behind, contact to the head, boarding, cross-checking, spearing, etc are all punished, and more severe infractions (meaning infractions with a higher probability of injury) are punished more.
There's an even higher probability of injury when something like this occurs- after the buzzer- because the opposing player is defenseless and does not have a reasonable expectation of defending himself. By the same logic as above, a higher probability of injury merits more severe punishment.
However, this didn't happen during the game. It's way, way worse. There's no chance it was uninentional, and it's much more dangerous. Therefore, it should be punished more severely than a bad infraction that happened during the game.
Since there are in-game infractions that can be punished with 1 or 2 game suspensions, I reason that this case merits some significant amount more.
So to indulge your rhetorical question: what *would* happen if they banned this kid for life and filed charges?
Would it be unfair? Yes, I think it would. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's unprecedented to ban someone for life in college hockey like that.
But it would very likely prevent anyone from ever hitting an opponent meaningfully after the buzzer in ECAC hockey ever again. And I'd be very happy with that outcome.
To be clear, I'm not advocating banning the kid for life. But a 5 game suspension would sure catch every other NCAA player's attention. It's exactly like the NBA's rule against leaving the bench during a brawl, instituted after the Pistons/Pacers fight. It's ridculously inflexible and harsh, but after a couple more people got dinged by it and saw that the league was serious about never seeing a full-team fight again, it has worked perfectly. I was sad when the application of this rule caused the Suns to lose to the Spurs in the western conference finals several years ago, but the results of the rule have been exactly as intended.
Quote from: martyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: KeithKSo if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended? Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".
Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau? It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted. Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.
I'm generally opposed to this sort of suspension idea. But in the case of cheap shots that happen during stoppages or after the game ends, it may be fitting.
I don't understand why you would be opposed to suspensions. Do you think it's OK to maim the opponents as long as the game clock is running? Bardreau was more vulnerable in this instance but intentional goonery isn't supposed to be part of the NCAA hockey experience.
BMac just covered it pretty well. To me, there's a big difference between a goon knocking someone out, even with a cheap hit, during play and the goon doing the same during a stoppage. You get hit during play. You expect to get hit during play. If someone takes you out with a cheap hit, it's usually hitting from behind, or slashing, or contact to the head, or hooking, or crosschecking, or whatever other penalty it is. Plus more, if it's bad enough.
A hit like Neiley's isn't any of those penalties, because those penalties happen during the game. What Neiley did isn't a penalty at all. It's more akin to waiting for Bardreau after the game and clubbing him in the knees or something.
A cheap hockey shot is a cheap
hockey shot. What Neiley did had nothing to do with hockey. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the "suspend the guy until the guy he injured returns" concept, but it makes more sense when a guy injures someone outside of a game of hockey than inside it.
Quote from: BMacI assume that there's a probability of injury during fair play.
I assume that there's a larger probability of injury during dirty/unfair play. This is exactly what the punishments in the rules are meant to cover. Hitting someone from behind, contact to the head, boarding, cross-checking, spearing, etc are all punished, and more severe infractions (meaning infractions with a higher probability of injury) are punished more.
However, this didn't happen during the game. It's way, way worse. There's no chance it was uninentional, and it's much more dangerous. Therefore, it should be punished more severely than a bad infraction that happened during the game.
To be clear, I'm not advocating banning the kid for life. But a 5 game suspension would sure catch every other NCAA player's attention. It's exactly like the NBA's rule against leaving the bench during a brawl, instituted after the Pistons/Pacers fight. It's ridculously inflexible and harsh, but after a couple more people got dinged by it and saw that the league was serious about never seeing a full-team fight again, it has worked perfectly. I was sad when the application of this rule caused the Suns to lose to the Spurs in the western conference finals several years ago, but the results of the rule have been exactly as intended.
First of all, there already ARE (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26481) harsh penalties (http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/07/ahl-suspends-blackhawks-shaw-six-games-for-leaving-bench-to-fight/) in ALL levels of hockey to leave the bench to join an altercation. I'm pretty sure they were instituted well before whatever NBA rule there is.
Second, a high percentage of cheap hits & punches thrown by Cornell and their opponents are after the whistle. I hate to admit it, but Cornell is one of the dirtier teams in the league. Do you argue that the punches CU throws in defending their goaltender after opposing players crash the net a little too hard are less defensible because the whistle blew therefore it's not a "hockey hit?" I can think of a lot of shots and brawls that happened after whistles/buzzers between us and Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Clarkson, Colgate & RPI through the years. Punches and cheap hits thrown after the puck is dead aren't
necessarily more dangerous than those checks & charges 5 feet from the boards, for example. BU's Travis Roy was paralyzed *during play*. Todd Bertuzzi sucker-punched Steve Moore *during play*. Just because the whistle hasn't been blown yet doesn't mean the crime (and therefore punishment) is better or worse.
Quote from: DafatoneA hit like Neiley's isn't any of those penalties, because those penalties happen during the game. What Neiley did isn't a penalty at all. It's more akin to waiting for Bardreau after the game and clubbing him in the knees or something.
A cheap hockey shot is a cheap hockey shot. What Neiley did had nothing to do with hockey. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the "suspend the guy until the guy he injured returns" concept, but it makes more sense when a guy injures someone outside of a game of hockey than inside it.
Oh come on. It happened seconds after the buzzer. It was dangerous and stupid because Bardreau was vulnerable, not expecting a hit. But it's nothing like assaulting him after the game. This was almost certainly a case of a kid who was amped up after a hard fought hockey game doing somethign stupid to take out his agression/frustration. Should he be punished for it. Absolutely. But lets keep some perspective here.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: DafatoneA hit like Neiley's isn't any of those penalties, because those penalties happen during the game. What Neiley did isn't a penalty at all. It's more akin to waiting for Bardreau after the game and clubbing him in the knees or something.
A cheap hockey shot is a cheap hockey shot. What Neiley did had nothing to do with hockey. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the "suspend the guy until the guy he injured returns" concept, but it makes more sense when a guy injures someone outside of a game of hockey than inside it.
Oh come on. It happened seconds after the buzzer. It was dangerous and stupid because Bardreau was vulnerable, not expecting a hit. But it's nothing like assaulting him after the game. This was almost certainly a case of a kid who was amped up after a hard fought hockey game doing somethign stupid to take out his agression/frustration. Should he be punished for it. Absolutely. But lets keep some perspective here.
Ok, lets ask the following question? If this happened in the parking lot after the game it would pretty clearly be criminal assault.
If it happens as the buzzer sounds it is part of the game and the Referees had out the justice.
At what point after the final buzzer sounds do we cross the line.
I am not a big fan of the thuggery in Hockey. It is going to end at some point because 100's of ex professional players who are now drooling in their shoes due to concussions and their lawyers are going to make it unprofitable to continue.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: DafatoneA hit like Neiley's isn't any of those penalties, because those penalties happen during the game. What Neiley did isn't a penalty at all. It's more akin to waiting for Bardreau after the game and clubbing him in the knees or something.
A cheap hockey shot is a cheap hockey shot. What Neiley did had nothing to do with hockey. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the "suspend the guy until the guy he injured returns" concept, but it makes more sense when a guy injures someone outside of a game of hockey than inside it.
Oh come on. It happened seconds after the buzzer. It was dangerous and stupid because Bardreau was vulnerable, not expecting a hit. But it's nothing like assaulting him after the game. This was almost certainly a case of a kid who was amped up after a hard fought hockey game doing somethign stupid to take out his agression/frustration. Should he be punished for it. Absolutely. But lets keep some perspective here.
Agree with this.
I'm completely speculating, but the confrontation, after watching the video several times, seems to stem off of Cornell forwards busting up the ice as if to make a rush after the buzzer had already sounded. Similar to taking exception to a forward shooting at the net well after the buzzer. "Where do you think you're going? We just tied your ranked ass. It's over, stop skating." It still was not right, it was still ridiculously dirty & bush-league, but that's what it seems like to me.
Quote from: RichHI'm completely speculating, but the confrontation, after watching the video several times, seems to stem off of Cornell forwards busting up the ice as if to make a rush after the buzzer had already sounded. Similar to taking exception to a forward shooting at the net well after the buzzer. "Where do you think you're going? We just tied your ranked ass. It's over, stop skating." It still was not right, it was still ridiculously dirty & bush-league, but that's what it seems like to me.
You could be right, but if you are it's just one more error in judgment Neiley made. Bardreau never touched the puck after the buzzer, instead letting it glide away in front of him, as he slowed down. He was skating hard at the buzzer, but stopped about as fast as someone could respond to the buzzer, taking one last hard stride a split second after the buzzer, and then just gliding. He absolutely let up, and was turning to the bench when he got leveled.
Again, you could be right that somehow in Neiley's mind Bardreau was somehow still rushing up ice, but he clearly was not.
Yes, a real class act!
Duck Fartmouth!!
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t147/Coelacanth64/DuckFartmouthDuckYou_3x4.jpg)
::flipa::
Quote from: RichHQuote from: KeithKQuote from: DafatoneA hit like Neiley's isn't any of those penalties, because those penalties happen during the game. What Neiley did isn't a penalty at all. It's more akin to waiting for Bardreau after the game and clubbing him in the knees or something.
A cheap hockey shot is a cheap hockey shot. What Neiley did had nothing to do with hockey. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the "suspend the guy until the guy he injured returns" concept, but it makes more sense when a guy injures someone outside of a game of hockey than inside it.
Oh come on. It happened seconds after the buzzer. It was dangerous and stupid because Bardreau was vulnerable, not expecting a hit. But it's nothing like assaulting him after the game. This was almost certainly a case of a kid who was amped up after a hard fought hockey game doing somethign stupid to take out his agression/frustration. Should he be punished for it. Absolutely. But lets keep some perspective here.
Agree with this.
I'm completely speculating, but the confrontation, after watching the video several times, seems to stem off of Cornell forwards busting up the ice as if to make a rush after the buzzer had already sounded. Similar to taking exception to a forward shooting at the net well after the buzzer. "Where do you think you're going? We just tied your ranked ass. It's over, stop skating." It still was not right, it was still ridiculously dirty & bush-league, but that's what it seems like to me.
I guess we just see it differently, since to me I don't see Neiley continuing play at all. Bardreau and some other guy were jawing at each other a little, Bardreau goes to skate away from him, and Neiley crashes in. I don't think any of the three of them were concerned with the puck.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: kaelistusThis is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
I agree. I think part of the problem is that this doesn't happen all that often in college hockey, so there isn't as much of a precedent for how to deal with such a hit. Thornton's ambush was worse, but not necessarily by all that much, and that game was much more out of hand in both directions (that Neal knee to Marchand's head was awful, and I'm a Pens fan).
Neal should have gotten every bit as much time as Thornton for intentionally skating into a guy who was easily avoidable. The fact that he's Marchand notwithstanding. No place in the game for what either of those two did and the fact that Neal only got 5 games was a joke. This Dartmouth player should probably be suspended for the rest of the season, targeting a guy after the game and blindsiding Bardreau like that.
Quote from: css228Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: kaelistusThis is one of those few times where I truly think a DQ is not enough. If you compare this type of thing with the NHL's penalties as of late (Thornton for example), a multiple game penalty should be awarded.
I agree. I think part of the problem is that this doesn't happen all that often in college hockey, so there isn't as much of a precedent for how to deal with such a hit. Thornton's ambush was worse, but not necessarily by all that much, and that game was much more out of hand in both directions (that Neal knee to Marchand's head was awful, and I'm a Pens fan).
Neal should have gotten every bit as much time as Thornton for intentionally skating into a guy who was easily avoidable. The fact that he's Marchand notwithstanding. No place in the game for what either of those two did and the fact that Neal only got 5 games was a joke. This Dartmouth player should probably be suspended for the rest of the season, targeting a guy after the game and blindsiding Bardreau like that.
I would have given Neal 10 and Thornton 20, if I were in charge of everything.
I'd also kick Neiley out of hockey and/or college, but I'm completely without objectivity and reasonableness here.