More “code” , this one I don’t think I’ve seen before,, the kid scores into the open net with a mighty slapshot! Rielly remembers the aforementioned code and goes over at top speed and cross-checks him in the head. Sheesh.. https://x.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/1756509796847513973?s=20

.

Yikes. Methinks that one calls for a DPS meeting in person, not over the phone. Absolutely egregious.

From some site or other w.r.t taunting in the NFL: "Taunting in football falls under the unsportsmanlike section of penalties and is called when one player performs an act that will provoke the other team in an unnecessary fashion."

Provoke???  Unnecessary fashion???  No shortage of blame, IMNSHumbleO.

I think it was Kelly H or Kevin B who mentioned that the kid had been "sticked" earlier in the game ,, maybe he WAS blowing off some steam. However, decapitation might be a rather severe retaliation....

in regard to taunting,, geez, the guys trash-talk each other throughout the game, then all of a sudden it's disrespectful to slap the puck into the empty net??  Gimme a break! (truth be told, I laughed my a*s off when he slapped that puck into the net ...LOL )

Is trash talking* good for the game?  Should there be any consequence?  Does it make a diff whether it's sports, life in general, or BHO?

* = a.k.a. running off at the mouth.

Fwiw, I didn't laugh my a*s off when he took the slapper.... but I did think it would have been "good" (?) had his stick snapped and the puck dribbled off into the corner.

Gimme a break? .... Here's one for ya: ... Them's the breaks.  [Was that easy, er what?!?!?]

If both sides (consenting adults*) agree to trash-talk, then I would endorse it.
(watching Canucks & Caps,, Joshua barely bumps into Kuemper the goalie and Wilson comes right over to trash talk Joshua)

* "adults" definition up for discussion [ ah well, boys'll be boys ]

... ditto for both sides agreeing to play by "the code"??  Interesting that it would be okay for adults ... dunno how it would be policed where adults and minors play in the same league .... and age of majority not consistent across jurisdictions.

Btw, re. "all of a sudden it's disrespectful ... "  [from your previous post] ... Is it all of a sudden?  Was there a time in the past when, in similar circumstances, it would have been generally seen as respectful?

I didn't see the caps/Canucks game.... are you sure Wilson was trash talking, or could he simply have been "explaining" the code to Joshua?

And fwiw, I notice an absence of "??" following "...boys'll be boys."   

By "endorse" do you mean "good for the game"?

The “code” needs to be reupholstered, imho. Then both sides agreeing will avoid decapitation attempts.
If needling/trash talking is acceptable during the game, then why not a slapper into an MT net?

Not sure what Wilson said, but it could have hinted at decapitation.

My endorsement has no bearing on Bettman’s rulings.

(So many questions,, so little time)

Interesting that something so straightforward/simple as two sides "agreeing" will keep everything/everybody on the straight-and-narrow.

By "endorse,"  do you mean "good for the game"?

I've seen a couple of video replays ... I see a pretty stiff cross-check to the neck/head .... so far I haven't seen any attempted decapitation.   I won't ask, "What am I missing?" as that apparently would make for too many questions, so for now, just the one ^^.

According to Elliotte Friedman, who's pretty reliable, Rielly has been offered an in-person hearing with the DPS. Five games or fewer under consideration, the hearings are held by phone. In person means six or more.

My endorsement , I’ll admit, borders on the allowance of “taunting” but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good…. so I would say it wouldn’t be good for the pure game per se, but could put bums in the seats.
I wasn’t thinking you’d take “decapitation” literally,, however, Rielly’s actions were in that neighbourhood. How about if he’d just given him a Gordie Howe elbow to the chops,, would that be acceptable in today’s “hockey culture” , or would Howe have to constantly sit out suspensions in today’s game for targeting the head?

quote:

---

Originally posted by eagleisland

According to Elliotte Friedman, who's pretty reliable, Rielly has been offered an in-person hearing with the DPS. Five games or fewer under consideration, the hearings are held by phone. In person means six or more.

---

Chip, I'm wondering what "has been offered" entails... I'm thinking he has to attend in-person to the New York office. ...?

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

quote:

---

Originally posted by eagleisland

According to Elliotte Friedman, who's pretty reliable, Rielly has been offered an in-person hearing with the DPS. Five games or fewer under consideration, the hearings are held by phone. In person means six or more.

---

Chip, I'm wondering what "has been offered" entails... I'm thinking he has to attend in-person to the New York office. ...?

---

Time and date of Rielly's choosing, according to Friedman.

I'm not sure what the CBA says about choosing NOT to attend an in-person hearing. I do know that as long as a likely suspension is thought to be five games or fewer, they typically do them by phone. It's only when suspensions may be longer that in-person hearings are on the table. That they want to do this in-person tells us that DPS is looking at at least six games.

Yes, the point-blank slapshot was unnecessary showboating and I agree that "justice" would have been a muffed shot. That said, Rielly's move was way out of proportion. I wouldn't have a problem with 6+ games.

Could one liken the slapper into the MT net to the Bautista bat-flip? Seems like lots of hitters are flipping their bats these days. I’d laff my a*s off if everybody started blasting the empty-netters with blazing slap-shots from here on in…..!

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

quote:

---

 

---

Chip, I'm wondering what "has been offered" entails... I'm thinking he has to attend in-person to the New York office. ...?

---

This from the story on the situation from the League's website:

If the infraction might require a suspension of six games or more, the offending player is offered the opportunity to an in-person hearing. In this case, the player remains suspended until the hearing takes place. If the player waives his right to an in-person hearing, the hearing will be conducted by phone.

Thnx for that, Skip.

Re. "[Taunting]  wouldn’t be good for the pure game per se, but could put bums in the seats."

How so?  [i.e. The bums in the seats part of the process.]

Well, I’m thinking taunting/trash talk makes for more pugilistic shenanigans which the less purist hockey fans devour like chili dogs on a cold afternoon. Lord Stanley loved the game as an exercise in grace, speed, & finesse (dipsy-doodle, la-dee-da, fancy-pants) , however, it devolved into the realm of intimidation, bullying, and near-decapitations.

Have I got this straight:  Trash talking gets a pass ...  but the guaranteed-to-follow pugilistic shenanigans [or stick work/elbows/etc./etc.] don't* ?   

* = or do they? Like I said before I find some of the rationale kinda confusing.

I dunno why Reilly didn't just stuck his tongue out at R.G. instead of giving him a good solid cross check to the neck/head.  [Fwiw, a cross check that wasn't even within light years of an attempted decapitation.... even before the 'way-over -the-top, and thus ineffective, hyperbole.]  Everybody coulda gone home happy. 

Great minds think alike. I watched the recap and thought "bat flip" as soon as I saw the shot. But the "retaliation" was totally unwarranted. Then I read the comments underneath the recap (it was posted on YouTube). There are some seriously deranged hockey fans out there. Guys (obviously) saying that he deserved it. Really? Macho crap.

I've notcied that replays of fights - blow by blow - have come back, sometimes with words of praise for whomever the commentators were cheering for - whether he "won" or "lost" the fight.

I thought that, if I were the shooter, I'd look for the next empty netter against the Leafs and do it again, making sure I'm surrounded by bigger teammates.

The idea , not mine, is to endorse trash-talking if it fires up the opposing teams to play with more emotion and stick it (pun non-intentional) to the other team by scoring more goals than their rivals. Pugilism outlawed,, fight for pucks instead, within the rules of the game.
fwiw, I’d say a vicious cross check with stick aimed at a player’s neck or neck constitutes the same action as a decapitation if using a sword/saw blade/ploughshare. (oh yes, hyperbole on my part, but that doesn’t diminish the severity of the act).

Speaking of taunting/showing up the other team, I’m watching the S Bowl and reminded of the chest-pounding antics of players who sack the QB, tackle a running back, or score a TD.

So a player would be allowed to pretty much run off at the mouth to whatever extent he wants, and the one on the receiving end is allowed to retaliate/respond by playing with more emotion??  Dunno why I didn't think of that, as that re-upholstering will pretty much solve all of hockey's problems/shortcomings.

I didn't say that over-the-top hyperbole diminished the severity of the act, just that it greatly diminished the effectiveness of subsequent rationale (?).

Pugilism outlawed??  Which is worse .. a cross-check to the neck [or a spear to the groin, or a butt-end in the face, etc., etc. ] or "pugilism"?

'Way back Chris Thorburn of the Jets opined something akin to: "Sometimes situations arise in a game where a player just needs a punch in the face."  Running off at the mouth and skating around like you own the place [as was succinctly explained previously] are often two of those situations, IMNSHumbleO. 

Some endorse running off at the mouth, and fancy-danning-it with the primary objective of "rubbing it in."  I don't. YMMV.

Edit: Why would you want to "...fire up the opposing team .... etc."???   I've generally heard that "don't wake the bear" is a better approach.

Exaggeration and hype are sometimes part of everyday conversation,, maybe it’s offensive in SW Man-ee-toe-bah but it adds colour to normal parlance. (think Rex Stimers , the old TeePees play-by-play man, and his 20-bell saves).
Cross checks, butt ends, spearing are penalties,, tell me which coach wants to play short-handed half the game. Ok, the refs miss the odd one, but they get most of’em. This attitude of somebody just needs a punch in the face has been baked into hockey culture - that’s what I’m trying to rail against,, change the friggin’ culture starting at peewee.
When both sides trash talk it’s often to try distract them off their game , their effectiveness. So, learn to bear down and play good hockey.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Edit: Why would you want to "...fire up the opposing team .... etc."???   I've generally heard that "don't wake the bear" is a better approach.

---

I recall MD spouting off, "Don't poke the bear!" several times during a Habs-Ruins playoff series, which the Habs won, and taunts about poking the bear thrown back at him by the players.