Clarkson fight clip @ eLynah

[RichS]

Well, I'll just add this.  If anybody was butt ending, seems to me that merits as serious a penalty as a punch.  Don't know if the rule reads that way but can't the ref exercise judgement and issue a DQ for whatever he deems appropriate?

Among hockey players, butt ending is right up there with "slew footing"!  and high on the list for possible injury also.  The Flyers Bobby Clarke was a master of the sneaky, disguised butt end!

All I could see was a mass of humanity in the corner.  I'll try to view the clips later but it sounds like it might not add much for me given what's been said.

[marty\'74]

Great quality clip.  Thanks Age.

[jtwcornell91]

I'm glad to see that after a few days everyone's emotions have calmed down enough that we can discuss events reasonably.  Rich, I think Ben's point about the right penalties being called despite not being able to see who the other Clarkson player was that from where he stood, two Clarkson players deserved to be DQed, although he couldn't say for sure which two.  This is just the sort of thing they like to use video for, to determine who the participants in a fight were.

[tml5]

The player in front of the net trading slashes with Cook was *definitely* O'Flaherty.  If  you can manage to keep an eye on him, you may see whether or not he was the one that threw the extra punches, but from the pressbox angle it's tough to tell who's throwing punches and who's just pushing and shoving.  

I have also seen worse altercations that didn't result in DQs (see the Harvard game), but by the rules DQs are exactly what should've happened here.  Was it a brutally strict application of the rules?  Sure was, but the players all know those rules and can't complain much over it.

I believe that there is an instigation penalty in the NCAAs, although as far as I know it's just a 2 minute minor.  I guess it could be upped to a major/misconduct on the official's discretion.

My guess is that whatever started the fight happened long before the play and built up, just like in the Harvard game, and I doubt that any official would be willing to claim instigation just because one player lost his cool first.  That probably has something to do with the relative lack of instigation calls in general, too.

[Ben Doyle 03]

RichS, Like Al said the tight camera work on the clip Age has does not allow you to see some of the other action outside of the frame. . .hence my comment regarding the "other player" who turned out to be O'Flaherty. Saturday night, at the game I could defiantly see others throwing what appeared to be punches. . .the main parties were subsequently penalized .

As for Kotyra and the horrible officiating in both directions, I completely agree with all you said in regards to what he did not call all game. I was simply trying to say that the end of game stuff from last year may have been on his mind. If he hadn't made the calls as he did, I could easily have seen a ten or twelve man brawl breaking out. That would have been extremely bad for both teams. So. . .you were correct on all counts, I was just stating that albeit waywayway to late he was attempting to take some semblance of "control."

[jtwcornell91]

Okay, I finally had a chance to see it, and it looked like Palahicky, O'Flaherty and Poapst probably got what they deserved.  Palahicky starts the whole thing by levelling Poapst; that brings Bahen skating in to have a go at Palahicky, but Paolini puts him in a bear-hug; Palahicky then starts punching Bahen.  At this point, two things happen.  Cook and O'Flaherty, who've been duelling behind the goal, join the fracas and Poapst, who has by now gotten up, skates past and blindsides Paolini with a punch to the head.  While Kotyra tries to separate Paolini and Poapst, O'Flaherty reaches around the linesman and clubs both Palahicky and Cook in the cage with the butt end of his stick.

So based on that, DQing Palahicky and O'Flaherty definitely seems like the right call.  I could see giving Poapst 4+10 for his sucker-punch (and Paolini and Bahen each a roughing minor for their conduct), but I don't see how you could appeal the DQ as inappropriate.  (Especially since I suspect, given the ferocity with which Palahicky went after Poapst, that it must have been triggered by something that happened earlier on.)

As for Scuderi's dump into the Cornell bench, it's hard to imagine what he was trying to do if it was an accident.

[jy3]

ok a few things...just watched it...
palahicky went nuts and definitely deserves a DQ. The other two didn't do nearly as bad as he did, but by rules they also deserve a DQ. i honestly dont fault them for throwing punches. dont know what got into palahicky's head though, could have been something i didnt see or maybe he just reacted irrationally. i have no clue. strange.
as for the puck drop. that was AWEFUL. that is the worst thing I have seen in a long time in hockey. it was calculated, it was pre-planned, it was outrageous.  suspend him big time :-(

[Josh '99]

Tom Lento wrote:

I believe that there is an instigation penalty in the NCAAs, although as far as I know it's just a 2 minute minor.  I guess it could be upped to a major/misconduct on the official's discretion.

Instigation is a minor penalty in the NHL as well; I'm pretty sure that it can only be assessed on top of a fighting major.  (Which would in the NCAA also carry a mandatory DQ, presumably resulting in 2 + 5 + DQ for the instigator and 5 + DQ for the other combatant.)

Edit:  Instigation is, as far as I've seen, RARELY given, and seems to me to be reserved for when one player is clearly the aggressor, and the other player is clearly minding his own business.  Think Marty McSorley and Donald Brashear, THAT'S Instigation.  (Or, would've been if that hadn't turned out so messed up.)

[marty\'74]

No one has mentioned that Pete's broadcast comments might have been concerning butt ending that occurred before the fight broke out.  If Shane was baited into this by something that happened before the tape it would make sense.  I surely don't have a clue...just curious.

[jtwcornell91]

Given that Palahicky went after Poapst, while O'Flaherty was the one Pete said was butt-ending him, I presume he's talking about the butt-end clubbing which O'Flaherty can be seen delivering to the facemasks of Palahicky and Cook near the end of the fight, and not about anything that happened anywhere.  Otherwise, why would Palahicky have gone after Poapst and not O'Flaherty (who was already in a stick-battle with Cook at the time)?

[Give My Regards]

Butt-ending, or even a butt-end "gesture" with no contact made, gets an automatic DQ according to the rulebook.

The hell with it, I can't get the stupid link to work.  See http://www.nihoa.com/rulebook/RULE4.htm#section3 if you're interested in the actual wording.

[Adam 04]

Number 8, Chris Bahen, should have also been DQ'd. It is obvious if you watch the clip close enough. He dropped his stick, hit Palahicky with a hard right, then bent over and picked up his stick.

[jtwcornell91]

A butt-end is when a player uses the shaft of the stick above the upper hand to jab or attempt to jab an opposing player.

What's the definition of "jab" for the purposes of the rule?  Does it include hitting someone with the side of the upper shaft of the stick, or only a "reverse spearing" where the instrument of contact is the end of the knob?

[Ben Doyle 03]

Coming from an extensive lacrosse background. . .any use of the upper part of the shaft that is not directly related to the playing of the ball/puck and is directed in anyway at another player is considered a "butt-end." This rule translates directly to hockey and therefore the side of the stick or the knob on the end of the stick if used to strike an opposing player constitutes a penalty (if seen by the official, usually it is not). I've been the recipient of many a butt-end and I have also given my fair share. . .they are worth the penalty, trust me they hurt. It's cheap, I know I just confessed to having done this myself but it's just one of those things that happens in the heat of the moment. It is not right, but it happens and should be called (as it was) when it occurs in a blatantly obvious instance such as last weekend.:-)

[Josh '99]

Ben '03 wrote:

Coming from an extensive lacrosse background. . .any use of the stick that is not directly intended to play the ball/puck and is directed in anyway at another player is considered a "butt-end." This rule translates directly to hockey and therefore the side of the stick or the knob on the end of the stick if used to strike an opposing player constitutes a penalty (if seen by the official, usually it is not).

Ben, I'm a little confused...  I haven't seen much lacrosse, but I could swear that there's a Cross-Checking penalty in lax as well as in hockey.  Is that the case?