Takes and trash talk from both ALL sides of the NHL's most obscure PATHETIC* rivalry

* Thanks, Kevin Lowe!

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Brown's Hits on Robidas and Ribeiro


Brown doesn't knock Robidas over the boards, he knocks him above the boards. That's one of the better board shots you're going to see.





Brown got a 5-minute boarding major for this one. Like I pointed out during the off-season, Brown hardly ever gets penalties as a result of his hits and I don't really think this should have been 5 minutes. At the same time, however, Brown hit a guy on the numbers and his face hit the boards, so it's definitely boarding. It was mostly an accident and a result of Ribeiro flinching away from contact, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Brown got a one-game suspension out of it. Morrow got a penalty for instigation and is supposed to get a one-game suspension and a fine, but I assume the league will rescind it after considering the score and the situation.

Ribeiro had a really nice shootout goal and followed it up with pointless showboating, first putting his hand to his pouty lips to silence the crowd and then skating by the Kings bench and mouthing off. I love the idea of a guy talking smack when not 5 minutes earlier he was lying crumpled on the ice, but I guess that's what the Dallas Stars are now. I feel kind of bad for Mike Modano and Segei Zubov: those guys have been class acts their whole careers and have led that team to so much glory and now their twilight years are being spent surrounded by a bunch of crowing jackasses. Oh well, I'm sure they'll have a lot to crow about today, seeing as how they're sitting at the bottom of the Pacific Division.

25 comments:

Earl Sleek said...

I don't think Brown deserves a suspension for that hit at all -- in my mind, he was committed to it before Ribiero put himself in a bad, bad spot.

Besides, after Avery's mock-boarding incident in Anaheim's game, I think the Stars have earned themselves a temporary "cry wolf" status on boarding calls. Sorry, Ribs, but at least that shootout move was sick.

As for Morrow, it looks like the NHL has already overturned the automatic suspension, which is the right call, I think.

Julian said...

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mike Ribero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNw8ZZT8tOU

I'm with Rudy - I feel bad for Modano and Zubov. First Avery and now this?

jamestobrien said...

Don't feel too bad for Zubov and Modano, as they're probably coping by swimming backstrokes Scrooge McDuck style in a swimming pool full of cash.

At least, that's how I assume all NHL players deal with these types of things.

RudyKelly said...

I thought Modano lost all his money because he invested about as well as Ribeiro stays on his feet.

Anonymous said...

Im a hard core Duck fan so my saying this takes alot, but:

Damn, that hit on Robidas was sweet. (ODs face is priceless...seems he was thinking..."What the hell man? How did you end up back here?"

Does anyone know where I can get a clip of the Kunitz hit on Avery? I of course missed all replays and being at the game I was at a bad angle, so all I saw was Avery dissapear behind the glass.

Washington said...

I'll even cheer for Chris Pronger if he laid out Ribeiro.

Thank you Morrow for finally contributing to the stat sheet. 17 PIMs justifies your spot on the fantasy roster.

Anonymous said...

how does the nhl get away with letting morrow off on this one? the Kings had to kill 3 minutes of penalty and still won. if they have the rule and morrow broke it, that's it.
i remember adam mair getting a 10+ game suspension for coming off the bench to help mikko eloranta avoid death in ottawa a few years back. some goon was beating the hell out of him and mair came off the bench to help him out of it. how is that any different.
rules are rules. if they don't like them, don't make them.
brown's hit, on the other hand, is obviously not a boarding call as he wasn't even moving towards the boards.

Earl Sleek said...

how does the nhl get away with letting morrow off on this one?

I'm just going off the top of my head here, but I suspect more than half the people they could nail on this "last five minutes" rule end up getting off without punishment. I remember the first instance was an instigator to Shane Doan, and both he and Gretzky were let off the hook.

Whether you think it's right or not, it's not without precedent. Morrow is a captain and a guy who is not out of place in the last minute of a tied game, and he did have some justification for his actions. In those terms, the non-suspension seems consistent with previous rulings.

rules are rules. if they don't like them, don't make them.

You do remember you're talking about the NHL, right? Rule enforcement is not their specialty.

Anonymous said...

Earl:

So that makes it ok? We can protest to the rafters about Fox broadcasts but our dicks are limp when it comes to the real issues. Poor ice, broken glass, rules that make no sense, getting the call wrong even with replay - lets just let it slide...

Earl Sleek said...

So that makes it ok?

If you're asking me whether I would prefer a hard no-excuses rule with zero input from players, coaches, or referees, or whether I would prefer a rule that could be overruled based on what actually happened, I'm much more in favor of the latter. If you'd rather there be no review and just a robotic suspension, I guess you have something to complain about.

Poor ice, broken glass, rules that make no sense, getting the call wrong even with replay - lets just let it slide...

Well, I'm not really lumping all these things in with the Morrow decision, but if you'd like to be active in changing these things, there's probably more effective methods than complaining in these comments.

Sure, there's many things the NHL can improve, but I'm not sure the first thing has to be suspending a guy for standing up for his injured teammate. Let's put it this way, if it were Selanne getting bloodied up (or for you, maybe Frolov), I'd hope that somebody would stand up for him, regardless of the clock rule.

Anonymous said...

Earl:

"Let's put it this way, if it were Selanne getting bloodied up (or for you, maybe Frolov), I'd hope that somebody would stand up for him, regardless of the clock rule."

I think I addressed that with the Eloranta situation. In that situation I have no problem with a player coming off the bench to rescue a non-fighter who's being pummelled by one of the NHL's goons. But he still got suspended for over 10 games.

"if you'd like to be active in changing these things, there's probably more effective methods than complaining in these comments."

Really? Isn't that where blog-writers flex their muscle (right!) by gathering opinion in order to effect change? Didn't we just have a multi-front campaign from Battle of California, Hammond, and Frozen Royalty to email the hell outta Tom Feuer? I bring up a valid issue and you dismiss it because things are screwed up already? The subjective decision was made last night on the ice by the ref. The Kings had to suffer the 5 minute major, but Morrow gets to play the next game when he broke the NHL's rule. It doesn't matter WHY he did it, he did it. The call on Brown IS reviewable because it's debatable whether it really was a boarding call.

If anything, Morrow endangered Ribiero by getting in a fight only a few feet from him while he required immediate medical attention. Hell, they could have even cut him with their skates as they fought.

Earl Sleek said...

But he still got suspended for over 10 games.

But these are very different rules that were created at different times for different situations, and historically they've been enforced differently also. The "bench rule" has always been automatic; the "last five minutes" rule has never been automatic, so why should one help us understand the other?

I bring up a valid issue and you dismiss it because things are screwed up already?

Maybe I'm just not understanding the validity of the issue. Should Brown received a five-minute boarding major? Probably not, but I don't want to pretend that's the first guy who's wrongly served a boarding major (see: Rob Niedermayer, 2007 playoffs vs. Detroit). Should my response be that referees are no longer allowed to call 5-minute majors?

As for Morrow, the NHL has only pushed this rule on goons in the past, and Morrow isn't a goon (well, not strictly). Should my response be that the NHL should suddenly enforce this rule differently than it has in the past?

Personally, I think the whole 5-minute rule is a crock. I'd rather that the referees call the game the same in the opening five minutes as they do in the final five minutes, but having seen the rule enforced in the past, the NHL did exactly what I expected them to. I have no big issue with them enforcing the rule like they've done in the past-- to me, it's much different than some guy at FSN giving SoCal hockey fans the middle finger because he has a broadcast agenda.

Sarah said...

I've always tried to like Ribeiro out of some sort of alliance to a fellow Portagee (sorry if anyone finds that term offensive)... but that guy is a king-sized jackass wrapped up in a scrawny package.

His assiness was cemented when I got to see him live in SJ on Saturday. Man! H was a dick, from pre-game warm-ups til the end of the game.

Earl Sleek said...

And anonymous, sincere apologies if I'm coming off like a dick in these comments, but you have to understand, there's a few more pressing items on my list today.

1. Brian Burke stepping down.
2. Who's Bob Murray?
3. Oh, and I'm selling a townhouse in Redondo and have been filling out, scanning, and e-mailing disclosure paperwork like a madman all day.

Here's a bit of advice: if you hate repetitive paperwork, don't ever buy or sell a property. It sucks.

cristobal said...

Earl:

I can understand the "automatic" sense of your argument here. I DO think that there shouldn't be rules that aren't "automatic" as that implies a double standard.
In my opinion, its up to fans and bloggers to pick out the real story and make it an issue. The fact is, the Kings had to serve a subjective penalty for the boarding and morrow doesn't have to serve a subjective penalty because he's not the profile of what the penalty was created for. For me, its the NHL trying to have it two ways. If the penalty isn't "automatic" I, personally, don't think they should have it.
I don't know if you were referring to the hit on Holmstrom in the Detroit/Ducks series where it was really Pronger who elbowed Holmes, but if it is, I think those types of checks (elbows up at shoulder height) should be "automatic" penalties. I'm tired of seeing the "crossyourheart" check.
Finally, as far as subjective calls go, I brought up Simmonds getting called for hooking at the end of the Ducks game, but last night Robidas and Lehtinen were getting away with a lot of hooking and grabbing. The way these calls are made is horrible. There's too much grey area and the officials aren't very good at their jobs these days. Too many "favorites" games going on.

cristobal said...

Earl:

Somehow I got logged in without logging in, but I'm he one posting Anonymous here. I wasn't taking your comments as Dick comments. It's okay to argue our opinions. No doubt.
Do mine come across that way? If so, sorry.
I guess I just don't understand why everyone doesn't agree with me...hahaha.
Paperwork is the spawn of the devil.

Nut said...

The rule is written that any fighting major accompanied by an instigator carries a one game suspension AT THE LEAGUE'S DISCRETION. The rule was written for donnybrooks that start at the end of the game when one team is well ahead and the opponent is trying to get some measure of payback. It doesn't say anything about goons, and while they are the normal culprits if the Kings were down 5-0 and Oscar Moller got an instigator for starting a fight with Zubov, guaranteed he would get the one game suspension. Jumping off the bench is a much bigger deal, and there needs to be a sufficient penalty for it. When Eloranta was getting pummeled, one of the guys on the ice needed to come to his aid. Otherwise, whats to stop the whole bench from clearing if Kopitar gets boarded and the ensuing fight doesn't go our way?

cristobal said...

Nut - The Eloranta incident was a few years ago so I can't expect anyone to remember, but every player on the ice was involved in an altercation, even the goalies. There was no suspension levied against the Ottawa player (i think it was neal) despite attacking a player who's never been in a fight. The NHL's rules are just lame, that's all I can say. There is absolutely NO consistency on hooking and grabbing calls.
Just look at what they suspended Peca for earlier this year. That was a discretionary call, too. Was he guilty of intending to injure or harm someone? Absolutely not.
Besides, what if Morrow had knocked Brown out (i know, that's like science fiction)? Would the referees still given brown a boarding call and allow Morrow to not only knock the other teams captain out of the game during a fight, but then have given Dallas a major penalty heading into overtime?

Nut said...

I do remember that game. I think that was the one where Jimmy got yelled at by Bryan Murray after the game, for calling him on his bullshit. if every player on the ice was involved, then its fair, 6 on 6. You hope your guy doesn't lose the fight, but you still keep it a fair fight. When Mair comes off the bench its unfair numbers, and thats why its more automatic for coming off the bench.

Earl Sleek said...

I don't know if you were referring to the hit on Holmstrom in the Detroit/Ducks series where it was really Pronger who elbowed Holmes, but if it is, I think those types of checks (elbows up at shoulder height) should be "automatic" penalties.

Cristobal, sorry had to run to dinner (great picture, by the way).

Yeah, I was referring to that hit, which was assigned to the wrong player, and then to compensate for that, they decided to suspend Pronger (with some weird admission that had they properly given him the 5-minute major, there probably wouldn't have been a suspension).

I guess I'm just jaded after years of being a dirty Ducks fan. Here's the thing: yes, certainly refereeing could and should be better, but it is at least somewhat predictable (look at the scoreboard and you'll get a sense of who's getting the next penalty). And really, what I've learned as a Ducks fan isn't to worry too much about "is every call correct", but rather the important thing is to play well despite refereeing.

I guess it boils to this for me: any team that is waiting for a referee to win them the game is probably going to lose. I don't even know if refereeing is worth griping about that much (you'll hardly see it from me), whether calls are good or bad the important thing is to kill penalties when you get 'em, and take advantage of power plays when the justice-meter is pointing the other way.

Yeah, it's a jaded stance for sure, but on the other hand, I don't really blame referees for the way they are -- I'm much more a guy who will blame the rulebook for creating a system with probably way too many penalties. I don't know if consistency is the best thing, to tell the truth. A game with all power plays is more boring to me than a game with zero power plays.

Some day when we're out of this whole Burke/Murray transition I suppose I'll write a post, but if you're interested, here's one I wrote last year.

cristobal said...

"(great picture, by the way)." - I plan on making it into a t-shirt. I'll let you know when I do if you're interested. Thanks, btw.

Nut - I guess I think the NHL should do a better job of using their discretionary powers. Pronger stomping leg = Bad, Mair rescuing Rapunzel = good/hero. Quite a game, that one was. Bryan Murray's team, too.

Earl - Interesting read on the politics of penalties. Funny, too, that I'm complaining after a win. I think it shows I'm not just treating this as a "homer" who's irked for a day. I think the quality of refereeing is worse today than in the past, but they're also being asked to do a more difficult job. It runs parallel to the LAW, they make up rules for everybody even though it's only the few who need discipline. I, personally, HATE that attitude. If there's going to be reviewing, why does there need to be Rules like the one for fighting in the dying minutes of a game? Hell, it doesn't even take into account that, really, there was still 5 minutes of overtime on schedule in a tie game. I'm a big believer in KISS-methodology, or Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Another thing about the article's theme that presents questions is degrees. What's the degree of punishment an offensive player should receive for tugging on a defenseman's glove behind the opposition's net? Should that really enable the other team to be up a man for 2 minutes? I know it would never happen, but it would be great if those incidents were treated like they are in Soccer - the penalized team concedes possession and backs off 10 yards (feet would work for hockey). It works pretty well in pick-up hockey.

If my opinions are hard to dig out of my writing, I guess I'm saying I would like the NHL to do a better job with the rule book and keep their referees accountable. Occasions like this one with Morrow and Brown (where, if you think about it, the nhl has said the ref got it wrong in more ways than one) showcase that we as a community of fans should voice our opinions, if we can agree on them. Just a dialogue about it helps, in my opinion. So let's pat ourselves on the back.

Finally, I still think that Ottawa writer is biased towards the ducks. The Ducks may be a wee bit dirty (I'm not a Ducks hating Kings fan) but they outclass Ottawa. He's just still bitter. Not in an offensive way, though. It was an interesting perspective.

cheers

Earl Sleek said...

If my opinions are hard to dig out of my writing, I guess I'm saying I would like the NHL to do a better job with the rule book and keep their referees accountable. Occasions like this one with Morrow and Brown (where, if you think about it, the nhl has said the ref got it wrong in more ways than one) showcase that we as a community of fans should voice our opinions, if we can agree on them. Just a dialogue about it helps, in my opinion.

Well, if you want to know how I'd call that play, I wouldn't have given Brown anything for the hit, and I'd have given Morrow and Brown five each for fighting and leave it at that. That's sort of ignoring the current rules, though -- just how I'd hope it would go.

I do understand why the refs called a penalty, though. Blood does complicate things, even if it's mainly optics. I don't think the major was a good call on its own, but I guess they were taking Morrow's minor into consideration.

Refs manage games, I guess is the point I was trying to make in the article. Not only because they can, but I think we expect that out of them. It's gotten much more complex to manage games, though, as now there's certain things that fall outside of that jurisdiction -- things that have to be called (the puck over the glass one is my least favorite -- I'd certainly like it better if refs could make an "intention" judgment there). I'm rambling now, but glad you enjoyed the read.

RudyKelly said...

Yeah, there's no way in hell Morrow deserved to get suspended for that. He got an instigator penalty and a game misconduct, just like Brown got a major. The suspension is for when the games aren't close; the league has always rescinded them when the game is close because they know the player that committed the penalty already hurt their team enough. The league made a good decision in not suspending either player.

And that Adam Mair thing was awesome but I don't see how it applies here because that suspension thing wasn't in effect back then.

cristobal said...

Earl - I think when you used the word "manage" you hit the nail on the head. The NHL is trying to over-manage the games. It totally takes the game out of the referees hands, control wise.

I'm also in complete agreement about how to call the penalties. Based on what I saw on my large-screen TV, I don't give Brown a boarding or Morrow an instigator. 5 for fighting and that's it.

Rudy - It's all rather complicated, but I'm not saying I want Morrow suspended for what he did, but because I believed it to be a violation of a rule that was not up to the discretion of the league to judge. Mostly, I think the penalty shouldn't be on the books. If players and coaches get out of hand at the end of a lopsided game, suspend them accordingly and trust that the right decision will be made.
Similarly, if rules are up to the discretion of the league, I don't think Mair should have received the 10+ game suspension he did. He didn't go on to try and kill someone, he went on to save someone. I don't hold it against Morrow at all. On the contrary, I like what Morrow did, and I liked what Mair did. There was no mercy shown Mair, though.

Anonymous said...

I'm just sad Ribeiro didn't break is scrawny neck. I'd pay to see that. Nothing would make me happier than seeing that guy unconscious and bleeding on the ice.