Saturday, December 15, 2007

Simon ejected for stomping





With the Islanders pressing for the tying goal, forward Chris Simon took a match penalty for trying to stomp on Jarkko Ruutu's foot with just under six minutes left.
What next?

UPDATE Video added. The Hockey Night in Canada crew seem to think a massive suspension is coming on this one.

20 Comments:

At 9:56 PM, December 15, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no "steroid use in hockey"
Someone want to test this guy?
This is two major incidents.
He's freaked in the head and should be banned for life.

 
At 10:21 PM, December 15, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure the media will be outraged and say that it's all because he was a former Flyer. Otherwise, it's not explainable by any means, considering that only Flyers players should be suspended and all.

But really... stomping and head butting in one week?

 
At 10:27 PM, December 15, 2007, Blogger Lowetide said...

I remember a story many years ago about Bobby Hull. Some kid up from the Chicago farm team made a couple of filthy plays on his first shift.

Comes back to the bench.

Hull says something like "thanks a lot, jerk. Now what do you think is going to happen to me next shift?"

Get rid of the instigator and the problem ends at midnight the day the rule is changed.

 
At 10:30 PM, December 15, 2007, Anonymous K24 said...

Sure, Lowtide, because Simon never fights.

 
At 12:29 AM, December 16, 2007, Blogger Shane Giroux said...

"I'm sure the media will be outraged and say that it's all because he was a former Flyer."

Bit of a complex there or what? Maybe if the majority of suspensions weren't being handed out to one team you wouldn't need to defend them so much ;)

Everyone knows Simon acts like a tool from time to time so I doubt the Flyers will get any blame for this one.

 
At 2:06 AM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous Keith said...

Gotta love Flyer fans making it a point to hoist themselves on their crosses every single time something happens, whether their dirty team is involved or not. Good post, Anon....

Given the "victim" was Jarko Ruutu, I'm rather torn between arguing Simon should be suspended for 20+ games, or given a bonus equal to his contract. At least it was a case of two guys who deserve no respect being involved. It's almost like seeing two drunk drivers hitting each other, instead of some innocent family for once.

 
At 2:32 AM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous twain said...

k24, I think you completely missed the point of Lowetide's/Hull's comments.

But I like how Lowtide (no e) also works, and give top marks if that was meant as an insulting reference to the Oiler coach of lore.

 
At 3:01 AM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Suspension!? It's Ruutu.
Simon should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

 
At 4:56 AM, December 16, 2007, Blogger Bill Needle said...

He was just finishing his check.

 
At 10:30 AM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous Gerald said...

He was just finishing his check.

Very possibly the greatest post ever. Definitely at the top in laughs-generated-per-word.

It is a testament to the breadth of James' readership that a post of such quality was preceded by six hours by possibly the most deluded post ever:

I remember a story many years ago about Bobby Hull. Some kid up from the Chicago farm team made a couple of filthy plays on his first shift.

Comes back to the bench.

Hull says something like "thanks a lot, jerk. Now what do you think is going to happen to me next shift?"

Get rid of the instigator and the problem ends at midnight the day the rule is changed.

What utter foolishness.

 
At 11:27 AM, December 16, 2007, Blogger ben said...

Can someone post an explanation of what exactly the Instigator Rule is, and how it's removal might (or might) not affect these type of cheap-shot situations?
It seems this argument gets brought out a lot, with champions for both sides, but I've never really understood why the rule was brought in and how it may have created these situations. It gets made so often that it's become part of the Canadian hockey canon and therefore doesn't seem to require explanation (I blame Don Cherry) :D

Thanks in advance...

 
At 12:41 PM, December 16, 2007, Blogger MikeP said...

ben, the rule was brought in to try to reduce fighting. It basically says that if you start a fight, you get an extra two minutes (and the other team gets a power play, obviously). Get enough instigators (three) and you're suspended.

The official ruling is here:
http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule56.html

and, er, it's the top hit if you google "nhl instigator penalty".

gerald, I guess you don't read enough of lowetide's work. Most commenters here should be so foolish.

 
At 1:33 PM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous K24 said...

Sorry, I guess I just don't see how eliminating the instigator rule would help prevent an incident like this, or really any incident involving Simon. If he had a problem with Ruutu, he could have done something other than try to stomp on his foot after knocking him down. Ruutu might not be a regular fighter, but he will fight. And last year Simon took out Hollweg, another pest like Ruutu, except Hollweg WAS a regular fighter last season, and was always (too) eager to drop the gloves. So how would having no instigator rule have prevented these two incidents?

 
At 3:02 PM, December 16, 2007, Blogger Doogie said...

I do think that the instigator is irrelevant to this particular incident, though I do agree that it's long since lost its original (ostensible) purpose, to protect players, instead existing pretty much to punish players for protecting themselves. But that's another argument for another day.

As for Simon, I think the bidding starts at ten, and could hit 15, though I don't see it going higher than that simply because of the outcome clause (i.e. Ruutu wasn't really injured).

 
At 3:27 PM, December 16, 2007, Blogger Baroque said...

Fifteen games sounds about right. I wonder if it might hit 20 because he has had prior incidents, though?

Fortunately Ruutu wasn't seriously injured. He is an irritating little cockroach of a player (and I mean that in the best way - that's just his job) but I wouldn't wish serious foot damage and possible surgery on anyone.

 
At 8:39 PM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incidents like these prove that the instigator penalty must remain in the game.

The argument I hear anywhere supporting its banishment is the idiotic idea that players can't police themselves; if not for this 2 minute penalty, then they could righteously avenge any cheap shot meted out by opposition players.

The idiotic idea is the the suggestion that players are keeping themselves in grudging check somehow, right now, their tempers barely restrained as they remind themselves about that extra two minutes they might receive if they start something.

Bullshit.

Simon is incapable of controlling himself - he's a suspension waiting to happen. You really think he gives a shit about an extra two minutes if he decides he wants to punch a guy in the face?

The answer is, no, of course not, and he behaviour proves it.

As does the behaviour of the vast majority of players across the league. The fact they get penalties of any kind is proof they are unable to keep all aspects of their game in check. And the fact that on a regular, almost weekly basis, we have replays of incidents to consider for possible suspension. "5 games for this? Maybe 8?"

Removal of the instigator penalty will only give guys like Simon a license to attack anyone they want to without even the deterrent of a penalty, and he's decisively proven himself unworthy to "police" the game. At least with the penalty in place - there is some deterrent from gooning it up, shitty though that deterrent may be.

Anyone who believes scrapping the rule will have any positive benefit on the game at all is a complete idiot. You have no brain: end of story. Any argument against my logic will just cement my position as the right one.

 
At 8:41 PM, December 16, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ruutu was faking, or at least, embellishing. Suspend Simon for the stomp, and Ruutu for the acting.

 
At 5:39 AM, December 17, 2007, Blogger Doogie said...

You know, anon, you had me at least respecting your argument, then you had to pull the arrogant "you must be a retard if you disagree with me" bullshit, and completely lost me.

 
At 12:53 PM, December 17, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Chris Simon as a player. But I have to agree with PJ Stock on HNIC, that this is his 7th suspension and following on the heels of his 25 game suspension last season, Simon must be suspended for the rest of this season. Anything else will make a mockery of the NHL's disciplinary procedures.

monsieur parafect
aka canucks fan boy.

 
At 1:10 PM, December 19, 2007, Blogger Kevin said...

I see that Simon ended up getting a 30-game suspension for it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker