Alex hit the nail on the head. Tucker is called Sideshow Bob by some of the media in the Toronto area because of his antics.




This thread is timely due to the Alfredsson hit on Tucker just prior to the winning goal being scored in tonights game.




For those that missed it, this was a case of the skilled player hitting the pest from into the boards behind. Tucker crumpled to the ice, no penalty was called and Alfredsson potted the winner about 5 seconds after the hit with just over 2 minutes remaining in the game.




So, would a penalty have been called if a meek player like Kaberle was hit into the boards instead of a pest like Tucker? Would there have been a penalty called if Shane Hnidy did the hitting?




Trying hard not to sound like a whiny Leafs fan




Stu

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Darcy Tucker.


(If memory serves)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Stu, I should probably know this, but which Leaf is Sideshow Bob?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

An interesting idea Alex. IMHO, one potential problem is when the trade-off works to the advantage of one team over another in a playoff series. For example, Player "A" hits Player "B" from behind in game one of a series. Player "B" is considered to be less valuable to his team than is Player "A" to his. Player "B"'s coach sits him for the remainder of the series even though he could have returned for game three. They claim that Player "B" sustained a head injury, but who's to say?




In spite of all the stuff that has gone on this playoff season I still believe that you have to assess each incident on it's own merits. Still, some kind of consistancy would be nice to us non-lawyer types who don't work in the NHL offices.




It's too bad that they just don't call the rules that are already in place. Why do we need the infraction prefaced by the word "obstruction" anyway? Is it because someone at the NHL feels a need to micro-manage things? There were already rules in place for things like hooking, holding, interference etc. Why the need to be redundant? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?




The league says that they don't want the refs deciding the games but it is the players, by their actions, that decide the game. If it's a penalty then it should be called.




Take the incident in game 3 of the Ott/Tor series when Cujo thinks he is interfered with on the third Ottawa goal. He comes out of the net like a screaming idjit, hits at least one Ottawa player and almost elbows the linesman in the head, yet no penalty is called against him. How is this behaviour to be discouraged if there is not going to be a penalty handed out? BTW, I make this statement as a long-suffering Leafs fan. As impressed as I am with their sometime gritty performance given the injuries they have, Sideshow Bob and his buddies have been making me ill for the other 50% of the time.




Stu

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Just a thought. Suspensions should be meted out, for particularly brutal hits, whereby the offender is suspended one game for every game the player injured misses, to a maximum of one season for a career-ending injury.


What do you all think?