Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Video- Stop Pushing The Suspension Button

Some fans, and I question the word fans at this point, want David Booth suspended or at least have Hockey Ops take a look at this…

Filed in: NHL Teams, Calgary Flames, Vancouver Canucks, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: david+booth, miikka+kiprusoff

Comments

Nathan's avatar

He had a Flame behind him, and one to his left, as he was taking the puck to the goal. There is no suspension here, and shouldn’t have even been a penalty. These are the types of plays that have become common as a result of the crackdown on obstruction. In 2003, the defender behind Booth could’ve used a free hand to push Booth toward the back of the net. Now, he would get called for a penalty 95% of the time. So, teams started collapsing on their own net. That takes away room in the best scoring areas on the ice, therefore plays like this happen.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 12/05/11 at 12:11 PM ET

Avatar

I agree, while I love the stiff penalties for head shots, not every infraction is a suspendable offense. This call barely warranted 2 minutes in my mind, driving the net should not be anywhere near suspendable. I don’t care how big a collision, goalies are the most protected player on the ice, give it a rest.

Posted by timbits on 12/05/11 at 12:11 PM ET

Avatar

Suspension?  Come on.

But this was absolutely a penatly.  You have to at least attempt to get out of the way, not just throw your arms up in front of you before making contact.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 12:15 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

Garth, I agree you have to attempt it, but where did you want Booth to go? The only way he avoids the collision is by giving up the scoring chance… and if guys did that it would ruin hockey.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 12/05/11 at 12:25 PM ET

Avatar

Garth, I agree you have to attempt it, but where did you want Booth to go?

This isn’t a situation where you can say “well, Ryan Miller was out of his crease playing the puck, he assumed the risk”, this is a goalie who is entirely within his crease, pressed against the goalpost.

David Booth is 27 years old, meaning he’s been playing hockey for more than 20 years.  You can’t tell me he doesn’t know he’s not supposed to run through goalies in their crease like a Mack truck.

And by the by, which scoring chance would he have given up?  He didn’t even attempt to take a shot.  At the time of the contact his stick was well behind the red line and the puck slid harmlessly behind the net, not even bouncing off the net.

There is zero defense for this play.  There’s no way he should be suspended.  At all.  But to even pretend that’s not a penalty is crazy.  That is not incidental contact and it’s not something that you can let go without a penalty.  Period.  (In my opinion, of course)

and if guys did that it would ruin hockey.

Come on, guys avoid barreling over goalies ALL the time.

If Booth scores on that play while bowling over Kipprusoff, you don’t honestly think there’s a chance the goal stands, do you?

Why don’t teams play for the shootout and then just have their shooters destroy the goalie in their attempts to score?

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 12:41 PM ET

Avatar

Don’t suspend him, just let someone kick his butt.  Get rid of that damned instigator rule that protectors punks like Vancouver and I guarantee he won’t be doing that again any time soon.

Posted by sean_o_sean on 12/05/11 at 01:04 PM ET

Avatar

Ridiculous to call for a suspension, but it’s certainly a penalty. To sean’s point, might as well raise the question: what do you do about plays which have been deterred with the kind of on-ice justice that is now less tolerated?

Posted by Dave on 12/05/11 at 01:35 PM ET

Avatar

I’m with this guy,  sean_o_sean

Without the instigator rule, the business is handled on the spot.  Refer back to Mark Howes conversation a few weeks ago.

Posted by Cubanpuckstopper on 12/05/11 at 01:51 PM ET

Primis's avatar

I’d like to see a 2 min. minor assessed to any defensive skater in their own goalie’s crease.  Then this doesn’t happen, and it opens the game up a bit more.  It all becomes black and white then.

Also then if the attacking skater trucks the goalie and nobody else is there… then it’s easy to whistle the attacker.

Posted by Primis on 12/05/11 at 01:52 PM ET

bezukov's avatar

Looks like a good situation for matching minors.  Calling for a suspension on this play is absurd.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 12/05/11 at 02:16 PM ET

Avatar

Posted by Primis on 12/05/11 at 11:52 AM ET

Really?  So you’re going to Brett Hull this one and give Smith a penalty for having his foot in the corner of the crease and ignore the fact that Booth goes straight at the goalie and makes zero attempt at avoiding contact?

Maybe you’d also give the goalie a penatly for not getting out of the way?

And the coach can get one too.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 02:16 PM ET

Avatar

Looks like a good situation for matching minors.

Yeah, that’s discourage players from running at goalies, knowing that at worst it’s going to be 4-on-4…

You guys really want it to be open season on goalies, don’t you?

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 02:18 PM ET

wingsfanindenver's avatar

to my mind that’s a minor because Booth never made any attempt to *not* run down a goalie in his crease (turn, slow down, etc) but it is certainly not a suspension worthy offense

Posted by wingsfanindenver on 12/05/11 at 02:46 PM ET

Avatar

I agree with John.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 03:06 PM ET

WingsFanInBeanLand's avatar

Has anyone read this book?

Posted by John on 12/05/11 at 01:02 PM ET

I did and thought is was the biggest pile of crap I’ve ever read.  Can I have my $7.99 back?  I can at least delete it from my Ipad unlike from my mind.

Plug your shit elsewhere.

Posted by WingsFanInBeanLand from where free agents no longer dare. on 12/05/11 at 03:18 PM ET

Avatar

Pet Peeve #357:
The Instigator myth.
Could we stop pretending that this “rule” has some bearing on hockey?
When have you EVER seen it called?  I have seen probably hundreds of muggings after a hit where one guy didn’t want to fight, and I honestly don’t remember the instigator ever being called.
Even if some of you elephants can point to one, let’s quit the charade that it is a deterant (leave gross misrepresentation to Cherry).  Does anyone know how to access the stats on minor’s called?  (I’ll bet you my car it wasn’t called twice last year).
(I’m a Nuck man and I’ll call that a minor for not attempting to avoid.  If you get beat up for it, well, part of the risk of driving the net).

Posted by tuxedoTshirt on 12/05/11 at 03:54 PM ET

Nate A's avatar

Does anyone know how to access the stats on minor’s called?  (I’ll bet you my car it wasn’t called twice last year).

http://espn.go.com/nhl/statistics/team/_/stat/major-penalties/sort/instigatorPenalties/year/2011

49 times last season to a total of 24 different teams (oddly enough including Detroit?).  What kind of car do you drive? Is it nice?

But I mostly agree with your point. The rule is a joke since it’s never enforced. Start calling guys who go after a guy who delivers a big hit (clean or not). If the rules are called properly and supplemental discipline is consistent and effective (as it’s starting to become) the players won’t need to police themselves. And they shouldn’t have to. The rules are there for a reason, but they need to have teeth..

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 12/05/11 at 04:41 PM ET

bezukov's avatar

Yeah, that’s discourage players from running at goalies, knowing that at worst it’s going to be 4-on-4…

You guys really want it to be open season on goalies, don’t you?

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 12:18 PM ET

I say its matching minor because it sure doesn’t look like Booth tried all that hard to miss the goalie, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t get helped into the goalie either.  Both players were culpable on the play, but nothing egregious happened. 

If, as the NHL, you want to make a point about running goalies, you should have suspended Milan Lucic, and you should suspend Tootoo for 7+ games. 

This reminds me of a question I’ve been asking for what feels like forever and I’m taking this opportunity to subject you all to my mostly unrelated rant… Why have a goal crease if it effectively means nothing?  It drives me crazy that Homer gets called all the time for comparatively minor contact with goalies, but you can score goals like you’re going in for a touchdown and there is no call.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 12/05/11 at 04:46 PM ET

Avatar

Both players were culpable on the play

No they weren’t.  Are you kidding me?  There is absolutely NOTHING punishable about what the defenseman did.  What possible penalty do you suggest giving the defenseman?  He does NOTHING physical.  If anything, he lets Booth go in too easy but, I’m sorry, that’s not a penalty.  When Booth makes contact one defenseman is in front of the net, the other is BEHIND him.  There’s no contact made with the defenseman and Booth until Booth is slowed down because he RAN INTO THE GOALIE and defenseman ran into him.

There’s a penalty for goalie interference, there isn’t a penalty forhalf-assedly trying to legally check a forward.  If the defenseman had done anything physical at all, Booth wouldn’t have gone barreling straight into the goalie.

The only way the defenseman should be penalized is by riding the pine for letting Booth get anywhere near the goalie.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 05:11 PM ET

Nate A's avatar

Why have a goal crease if it effectively means nothing?

It makes the ice look pretty.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 12/05/11 at 05:15 PM ET

Avatar

It makes the ice look pretty.

The blue really brings out a goalie’s eyes.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 06:15 PM ET

bezukov's avatar

There’s no contact made with the defenseman and Booth until Booth is slowed down because he RAN INTO THE GOALIE and defenseman ran into him.

Precisely.  If the defender hadn’t finished Booth into Kipper we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

This is a chicken or the egg question, the ref could have called him for roughing or something lame.  You can lay the blame entirely on Booth if you want, and I’m not saying he was blameless, but the defender didn’t give him much opportunity to avoid the hit.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 12/05/11 at 06:30 PM ET

Avatar

Precisely.  If the defender hadn’t finished Booth into Kipper we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Yeah, you’re right.  Give the defenseman a penalty for running into Booth AFTER Booth has ALREADY bowled the goalie over.

Good one.

And maybe they should start awarding goals before the shot is taken.

This is a chicken or the egg question

No it isn’t.  Booth hit the goalie.  Booth’s forward momentum was stopped.  BECAUSE HE HIT THE GOALIE.  And the defenseman.  Who was BEHIND HIM.  Ran into him.  AFTER HE HIT THE GOALIE.

Again, Booth hit the goalie before ANYONE ELSE ran into him.

Do you see why Booth should’ve, and was indeed, given a penalty?

It’s like trying to communicate with a brick wall.

The defender who wasn’t touching Booth had exactly NOTHING to do with Booth hitting the goalie.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 06:51 PM ET

bezukov's avatar

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 04:51 PM ET

Have it your way man, I said my piece.  Use more capital letters next time, its very persuasive.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 12/05/11 at 09:22 PM ET

Avatar

Posted by bezukov from Celebrating 20 yrs of Hockeytown being > St Louis on 12/05/11 at 07:22 PM ET

You can say as many pieces as you want, the defender didn’t push the forward into the goalie, so he has zero culpability in the matter.  The only person with any culpability is Booth.  Piskula has no more culpability than Kiprusoff does, or Brent Sutter does or Roberto Luongo does.

Say whatever piece you want, you’re wrong.

Posted by Garth on 12/06/11 at 12:32 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

Say whatever piece you want, you’re wrong.

Posted by Garth on 12/05/11 at 10:32 PM ET

Feel better now?  If not, the good people at Novartis Pharmaceuticals can help.

Seriously man, there isn’t any reason to be a dick because we disagree.  I just don’t see it your way, and since we don’t know the minds of the people involved there is room to speculate.  So the issue is never going to be black and white, no matter how much you yell. 

Now, can we take a deep breath and be friends?

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 12/06/11 at 01:44 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com