I knew about the slewstick trip which is bad enough, but i didn't see the cross check to the face till now. I disagree with you, he 100% deserved a two hander to the face, he's lucky he only got a one hander.

CH, no way he gets as many games as you think. I wouldn't be surprised if he's back for game 1 of the first round.

_________________

5 +1 playoff game is exactly what he got.


Told you so CH!

_________________

Hawks basically start the first round with an automatic loss, guess it could be worse.

_________________

I don't think of Keith as a dirty player.

Keith should be out for the entire first round, but the league needs the Hawks to win playoff games and series.

Thats because he's not. I wouldn't even start to put him in a category with the likes of cocksuckers such as Chris Simon and McSorley.

_________________

The league needed Canadian teams in the playoffs more than they need Blackhawk playoff wins.

_________________

6 games. Only one playoff game.

These regular season don't matter, obviously. Just the first game in the opening round of the playoff matters. Probably a greater good. Especially if they pull out that game. He gets to rest and be back stronger then ever.

If they lose that first game of the playoffs 4-0, we'll say he wouldn't have mattered. If it's a 3-2 loss, and they eventually lose in game 7, you'll say it might have mattered.

Overall, this probably helps the Hawks. Weird that you get rewarded for almost putting a guy's eye out.

Kane: That's hockey, baby!!!!!

Hawk's fans:

...then it will be this year's traditional outcome of a game against a playoff team.

_________________

Boers insisted he watched it a million times and there was no "pre" activity to Keith. Danny said of course it doesn't matter.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

While only a men's league player, I've taken a few cheap shots, including an elbow that broke my nose and knocked me out and a cross check to the back of the end that knocked me out. It took me every ounce of effort to not use my stick as a weapon, but I know the potential damages from it and always kept it under control. Like it or not, Keith fucked up. Doesn't excuse Coyle, but it also doesn't matter what Coyle did, you don't swing your stick at a guy. Period.

_________________

This instance is one of the few examples of when I wouldn't mind the Hawks employing an enforcer for the regular season that doesn't dress most nights but can when needed. Minnesota constantly does irritating cheap shit that doesn't really cross the line blatantly enough to draw a penalty all the time. If someone like a (dare I say Bollig) would just hand Dumba or Coyle their ass every now and then guys wouldn't continue to take their shit and let it build up until they lose it and do something stupid like this. Shaw will do it but he actually serves a purpose on the ice and is just too damn small to ever get the point across.

The game before last against the Wild in OT either Suter or Parise ran Anisimov into Dubynk to draw the GI penalty. That team just gets away with that shit every time and if its frustrating to watch then it has to be 100 times more frustrating if you are the actual players.

_________________
That's my purse! I don't know you!

There's no doubt Keith fucked up and deserved a suspension, but it does matter what Coyle did. There's a difference between a retaliatory act and a predatory act and I think the league takes that into consideration when dolling out punishment. If Coyle did nothing to Keith and Keith had fallen to the ice and intentionally swung his stick at Coyle with no provocation I'm sure the suspension would've been longer. I believe the retaliatory nature of the incident was a mitigating factor that kept his suspension to 6 games rather than 8-12 games or something like that.

_________________

Does the NHL actually say that it plays into it? I just don't know and assume it doesn't. Pretty much anybody can say their actions are retaliatory. I can say that I swung my stick at a guy's face because he is having sex with my wife behind my back and he told me during the game, so it set me off. May not be true, but if it gets me less games I would say it. I understand what you are saying, but I think it takes the league down a slippery slope.

_________________

I don't think the NHL says it in the videos (don't know for sure, I don't watch too many of those), but I believe behind closed doors it plays a part. Wouldn't make sense to overtly say they are mitigating the suspension due to retaliatory nature of the act since that would open up criticism from some narrow minded people saying the NHL is essentially endorsing retaliations.

But, I don't agree that it opens a slippery slope. The only way retaliations should mitigate a suspension is if the retaliation is immediate, when the player is still in that split second reactionary period. So if you're going to claim you were retaliating there's going to be video proof one way or the other. If you retaliate outside that split second time frame that takes your action into the premeditated realm.

I think in instances like this one, where Keith was cheapshotted twice and then immediately reacted with a retaliation, the league probably took that into account when issuing the suspension. If Keith waited till he got up and composed himself and then swung his stick at Coyle I have no doubt that the suspension would've been longer.

_________________

NHL needs to bring back the goons. What happens on the ice, gets settled on the ice. Between each team's largest, most coked-up CTE sufferer.

“an intentional and retaliatory act of violence by a player with a history of using his stick as a weapon,”


So they did acknowledge that it was retaliatory. I guess you could look at that and say that it was used so no one thought it was accidental, but I think that it would be even worse if the word was predatory. Replace that word with predatory and that sentence definitely looks worse.

_________________

Actually, just did some reading and puck daddy mentioned this. There is a "heat of the moment" situation that does come into play per the NHL dept. of player safety. Guess I'm wrong on this, but I thought the league would really need to leave it black and white or they open themselves up to controversy.

_________________

I think that's probably correct. I have no doubt the circumstances matter when the league is considering the suspension. And in this case, it's not like Keith whacked the guy out of the blue. In fact, Coyle should probably catch a suspension too.

It's funny because I heard bernstein take a guy apart because he called in to point out this exact thing. Hockey expert bernstein insisted it didn't matter. I believe it does. The call ended with bernstein and Boers supposedly watching video and insisting that Coyle never whacked Keith in the face with his stick. Boers even said something like, "uh, eh, no, no, I don't see that, he never hit Keith in the face, I'm, uh, uh, eh, I'm watching now, that didn't happen."

http://sportsmockery.com/2016/04/new-vi ... etaliated/

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Kash, and Don

yes

yes

_________________

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 37174.html

Is that guy being sarcastic? He forgot to use the orange font...

The link he posted is to Keith not appealing and apologizing to the team, Coyle, etc.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15123 ... rlie-coyle

I'm going with sarcasm...

_________________

I see the great unbeatable St Louis Blu are going to be without Backes and Allen rest of the year.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

One and done. Again. Goodbye Hitch.

Ryan Lambert doesn't refer to the Chicago Blackhawks as the Chicago Blackhawks, just "Chicago," because Blackhawks is offensive. Yeah, he's one of them, and just like McClure, he crams too much shit into his sentences and forgets what he's ranting about mid-sentence.

_________________

Brian Elliott had three straight shutouts a few weeks ago, didn't he? They're probably quite comfortable without Allen. Being without Backes won't set them back too much, either. Tarasenko, Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, and Parayko are all more important than that useless pissbaby.

And yes, fun to joke about the "unbeatable" Blues, but if you look at the Hawks' games against playoff teams since the deadline, well, two wins against the Wings who are 20,000 leagues under the sea in goal differential, then a shootout loss to St. Louis, blowout loss to Dallas, the 5-0 blowout to L.A., 3-2 reg-loss to the Flyers, shootout loss to the Wild, another blowout to Dallas, and the season-sweeping loss to Minnesota. Not only are they not winning these games to the tune of two wins out of nine, they're getting stomped in a lot of them. Let's hope it gets better with Crawford back.

_________________

I think Elliott goes on a shutout streak every season. All St. Louis goalies are mainly products of their system.

The NHL regular season doesnt matter, and how teams play during the regular season is in no way shape or form indicative of how they will play in the playoffs. Thank goodness the pre-season is almost over.