Then again, it is an incident involving the Habs

Well here we go again! Another classic example of transparency; hope Shanahan can explain this one with a straight face. He has already lost the room!

Video’s out:

My opinion? That’s a very stretchy definition of “just prior”. Nevermind that the rule says “immediately prior”.

It certainly makes for a convenient loophole, should you need to backslide from your previous stance or at least give the dinosaurs a token non-suspendable hit.

It wasn’t a good call, but it’s all on video with a clear attempt to explain rationally.

I say that’s reason enough to let it go. So Shanahan has drawn the line. It’s muddy, not very well drawn, but it’s a line. And I’m fine wit this.

What I’m looking forward to is, will the line start creeping away every month that goes by come december? It has, ever december since the lockout and it has never been drawn fully back come september of the next season.

This two steps backward one step forward tango is what led us to Pacioretty almost dying on the ice with the league calling it a hockey play, with Don Cherry arguing this was fine because it happened before. That’s the vicious circle the league, trough Shanahan, has to break. If it means the gray area surrounding the line is where Malone and Campoli collided, fine, we have to start somewhere. We are miles and miles away from what Dryden wrote about, but we have to give it time, I think.

But yeah, the dirty oaf did jump Campoli.

I don’t buy the Yzerman thing or conspiracy, but it is irritating that I have to read about the player placing himself in a vulnerable position.

This league is all over the place in regards to accountability and their loosely worded trap doors. They pull the chute at their discretion.

I know we can’t compare Shanahan’s finding to anything Campbell ruled on, but it seems to me they loosely interpret things to their choosing.

….In determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstance of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit…can be considered.

They ignored this in their Kostopolous ruling on Van Ryn. Van Ryn puts himself in a vulnerable position? Irrelevant. Intent? irrelevant. Suspension? Yes. Responsibility for ones actions.

They have Malone committing to the hit at the faceoff dot when Campoli is two feet over the goal line. He continues on the same path for fifteen feet and Campoli drops his head about 7-8 feet away.

Let’s use the logic from the Pacioretty hit. If this hit was to occur in a different part of the rink (rolling eyes), how would it change the result? What if Campoli was behind the net fighting for the puck, would it be acceptable for Malone to commit to the hit from 15 feet? If Campoli turned his back when Malone was 8 feet away, would Malone have zero responsibility?

This whole thing is nonsense. Penalize the player for his responsibility, don’t cloud the issue with intent or place the onus on Campoli for putting himself in a vulnerable position.

As long as they maintain this trap door, there will be no consistency. Headshot=suspension. Simple as that. I am tired of a league that gives Plekanec two games for a slew foot, but throws it’s hands in the air when a guy takes a direct headshot.

Stupid.

I wonder whats going to happen on opening night, as far as cheap shots go. Rosehill, Orr, Brown, and Armstrong will have a field day, now that Josh Georges is the habs newest enforcer.