Skip to content

Former NHLer on Keith elbow: “Daniel Sedin will think twice about hitting a guy in the head”

Mar 22, 2012, 5:09 PM EDT

Daniel Sedin

Former NHL defenseman and current CSN Chicago analyst Steve Konroyd is the latest to weigh in on the Duncan Keith-Daniel Sedin incident from Chicago’s 2-1 OT win on Thursday.

Konroyd, 51, played in 895 games with six different teams and was a teammate of some of the most feared enforcers of his era: Bob Probert, Dave Manson, Wayne Van Dorp and Mike Peluso, to name a few.

As such, he’s uniquely qualified to speak about NHLers policing themselves — something he says happened when Keith exacted revenge on Sedin for an earlier hit the referees missed.

Six minutes prior to elbowing Daniel Sedin in the jaw, Duncan Keith was blindsided with a shoulder to the jaw by the same man he later targeted. This shoulder to the face didn’t get noticed by the officials on the ice — heck it didn’t get noticed by me who was watching closely and adding color commentary to Pat Foley’s call.

But Duncan Keith sure noticed, and he decided to call a penalty. He saved number 22’s number in the memory vault and the next opportunity he had (roughly six minutes later) exacted his revenge.

I don’t like calling this “prison rules” or “law of the jungle” but what it demonstrates in no uncertain terms is if you slap my face and nobody punishes you, get ready to have yours slapped back.

Since I’m on a roll, let me take the jungle analogy one step further. A monkey walks up to a lion when no one is looking and pulls his tail. Guess what? The monkey just pulled his last tail. That’s why, to some extent, players have to police themselves because the referees can’t be watching everyone and everything over an entire ice surface.

The “policing” didn’t end there, either, as the Canucks spent a good majority of the second period going after Keith. Alex Burrows, Kevin Bieksa and Zack Kassian combined for 30 penalty minutes, yet there was a catch — none of the penalties were for fighting.

Historically speaking, players have policed the game with fighting. So why was there none on Thursday night?

  1. comeonnowguys - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

    Yep. Just what this issue needs. /eyeroll

  2. davebabychreturns - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM

    This never would have happened if the Canucks had some useless goon stapled to the bench.

    • elvispocomo - Mar 22, 2012 at 9:40 PM

      I hope that was sarcasm, since you know well enough a ‘useless goon’ couldn’t have forced Keith to man up and fight. Bieksa was certainly willing, as was Kassian and Burrows would have even gone with him, but Keith backed out at every opportunity.

      For those of you talking bout how they miss the old days of hockey, Keith would have stood up for himself after a hit like that and faced the music. I guess it’s the new NHL’s fault that players won’t do that anymore, eh?

      • luke35 - Mar 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM

        What a mindless comment for many so reasons. Number one, the hit was a retaliation for the late hit define put on Keith about 6 mins earlier (that targeted his head). Second, of course Bieska would step up against Keith, Bieksa is always ok with fighting someone smallest than him. Third, of course Kassian would too, fighting is the only thing that duster is good for. Fourth, Keith actually tried to fight burrows, but lil Alex kept skating backwards because he couldn’t grab shops of keiths hair. As far as standing up and facing the music, Daniel’s initial hit was the reason he heard the sound of his own bell getting rung.

      • luke35 - Mar 23, 2012 at 1:46 AM

        The funny thing about this is there’s not a single hawks fan that says it wasn’t a cheap hit by Keith. But none of the bucks fans can admit that the blindside headshot by adding was just as bad. If keith was injured by that which was a real possibility, would you be suprised if Daniel wouldn’t fight bollig, Seabrook or shaw? Talk about of total lack of objectivity coming from western Canada.

      • davebabychreturns - Mar 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

        elvispocomo – definitely sarcasm.

        luke35 – if you think Sedin’s hit on Keith was anywhere near as bad as elbowing a guy in the chops when neither player has even a shot at getting to the puck then you need to either take off the homer glasses or learn a bit about the game before running your mouth. I don’t think anyone has said that Sedin’s hit was squeaky clean but that kind of hit happens hundreds of times a season with zero fanfare at all. The type of hit Keith delivered happens maybe two or three times in a bad year.

      • elvispocomo - Mar 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM

        @davebabych I figured I’d just make that clear, sacasm is often lost on the masses.

        @luke35 If you don’t like Daniel’s hit, then perhaps you’d like to comment on this one:

        Do you remember if there was a penalty or suspension on that play? For the record, I didn’t like it (I think hits should come down, including Daniel’s) but the NHL has said it’s ok so why the concern when it’s one of the ‘sisters’, who couldn’t possibly do much damage since they’re so weak and small.

        You might be too young to remember this one, but here’s a good parallel to Keith’s hit:

        That was back before hockey was ‘pussified’ as some people are claiming it is now with all the rules against illegal hits and penalties and suspensions and such. There are still people saying Keith’s hit was within the rules since it was expected and a part of the game as a result of getting hit first, contrary to your statement.

        BTW, Duncan Keith is the same size as Bieksa, and a good Canadian kid, so he should be able to hold his own, right? How about Daniel as compared to the Bollig and Seabrook? he gives up and inch or two in height, but 30+ pounds on each of them. I guess he had to skate pretty fast to get away from those guys when they came after him for hitting Keith, right? No? Maybe Shaw could have caught him since he’s in the same weight class at least, but I guess he didn’t think to do it either.

  3. cableguymike - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

    The answer is simple Halford: Because Keith spent the rest of the game hiding behind the refs and his teammates and trying to run away from any Canuck that came near him. Just like he did back when he blindsided Matt Cooke. Keith may not be a repeat offender suspension wise but only because he was let off the hook when he tried to take Cooke’s head off in retribution. Now he’s done it again. Then to play dumb afterwards?! Come on! The weasel could learn from Shane Doan on how to take responsibility for his actions.

    Every other team likes to talk about how the Canucks don’t man up. What I saw last night was the Rat-Hawks be exposed for what they are as Keith tried to run away from Burrows and Bolland pair up with H Sedin because he didn’t want someone like Bieksa or Kassian punching his all ready ugly face in.

    Disgraceful to watch a grown man run and hide. At least Daniel had the balls to stand in there and take the punches from Marchand in the SCF.

    • h8rgnh8 - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

      Don’t like seeing your team on the other side of the hits do you? I sure did!

      • cableguymike - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

        Hits are fine. Trying to cave a guys face in with your elbow is not.

        How many times have the Canucks been suspended this year? Yeah, exactly.

      • elvispocomo - Mar 22, 2012 at 9:48 PM

        @cableguymike: 9 games in suspensions this season with more to come.

        Oh wait, I thought you said Chicago, nevermind. The Canucks have 0 games this season. 😉

    • strangertome - Mar 22, 2012 at 6:26 PM

      I find this amusing. I remember a few years back Keith fighting Burrows and Burrows pulling Keith’s hair like a little girl. And I remember that joke Torres on Vancouver last year elbowing Seabrook in the head and knocking him cold and no suspension. The Canucks are notorious for cheap shotting and not fighting. Before the Hawks had to dismantle their Cup team they never tried that because Burish, Eager or Big Buff would have beat them down. But more to the point at hand…..The same Sedin twin was caught on tape elbowing Keith in the face and NO penalty was called. The Hawks don’t play dirty and are well respected throughout the league. Keith was only giving pay back. You don’t wanna get cheap shotted? Then don’t do it first. The Canucks have a reputation for classless play ( see Bruins last season and Red Wings this year with complaints about them among others ) and they are lead by the chief crybaby as their coach

      • cableguymike - Mar 22, 2012 at 6:42 PM

        Ok. So Keith didn’t want to fight because he was afraid of getting his hair pulled? Hmmmm, okay. And unless your name is Dan Carcillo (who plays, was resigned by the Hawks and has been suspended TWICE this year) you know that Raffi Torres doesn’t play for the Canucks this year. Nope, Tanner Glass neither.

        Should Daniel be, or have been, punished for his SHOULDER (not elbow) to the jaw of Keith, yes. Could he still be suspended or fined, yes. Was it nearly as egregious as Keith trying to cave Sedin’s face in when he never touched the puck, I don’t think so. And you’d have to be a complete loon to think it was.

        Don’t forget that the Canucks’ Aaron Rome was given THE LONGEST SUSPENSION IN STANLEY CUP FINALS HISTORY or that Raffi Torres was suspended at the end of last season. The Canucks have had their fair share of stiff suspensions for bad hits.

        Now take your medicine when it’s your own player that does something gutless.

      • beninvictoria - Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 PM

        hey man, real cool using the “little girl line”
        you’re sexist and a misogynist.

      • centraldutch - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:04 PM

        Right on strangertome. Vancouver has been cheap for a long time. Every time the worm turns their coach whines about how nasty everyone else is. Konroyd is right. It was hilarious when the Bruins beat them in the finals.

      • comeonnowguys - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

        I remember Bieksa skating away from John Scott last year, only to immediately jump that brute Stalberg.

      • comeonnowguys - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:47 PM

        …from behind, I might add.

    • homelanddefense - Mar 23, 2012 at 9:42 AM

      Yeah it sure is frustrating when you see an opponent take cheap shots and chirp all game and then run away when held accountable. All the Bruins fans know exactly how you Vancouver fans feel.

      And only a Nucks fan would term Sedin allowing Marchand to speed bag his head as “having balls”

  4. sjsharksfan11 - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    That’s hockey at its finest. Not a fan of the Hawks but I love what Keith did and said. atta boy Duncan!

  5. kitshky - Mar 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    ..and then Konroy hitched up his fur loincloth, grunted, grabbed his woman by the hair and dragged her back to his cave.

  6. ikillchicken - Mar 22, 2012 at 6:05 PM

    Oh gee, another brainless comment from one of the good ol’ boys. What a shock.

  7. hairpie - Mar 22, 2012 at 6:32 PM

    30 minutes of penalties but no one with the guts to fight… thats absolutely hysterical.

    • danphipps01 - Mar 22, 2012 at 7:36 PM

      No kidding. What was the point of picking up Bitz and Kassian, exactly? I thought they were supposed to provide the Canucks roster with something resembling a spine, and yet they don’t even drop the gloves with the guy who cheapshotted their best player? The hell’s the excuse for that? I mean, if Bitz was a scratch, fine, fair enough, but Kassian gets far too many direct comparisons to Milan Lucic to be excused for not dropping the gloves. =/

      • beninvictoria - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM

        watch the highlights, Bieksa, Kassian and Weise all challenged Keith. Hell even Henrik challenged him, but Keith skated away each time because he was AFRAID.

      • kitshky - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:15 PM

        Ya he was challenged for pretty much the entire game that he was involved in, I kinda liked seein Hank all worked up …and Bitz is in Chicago.

  8. haterzgonahate - Mar 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM

    what a stupid article based on the homer opinion of a past NHL punching bag. any body other than D.Sedin in the corner and you can bet you ass Keith isn’t going to watch his pass. i say good on Sedin for finishing his check! now maybe defensemen will think twice when the Sedins are on the ice as they’re actually playing physical now.

    i find this whole thing hilarious… for the last what.. 8 years? everyone was calling the Sedins “sisters” and how their not tough enough.. suddenly Daniel decided to finish a check and all you idiots calling them weak are up in arms! lol

    Hawks are a shadow of the team they used to be and last night the Canucks were trying to do to what the Hawks did to them in 2009/2010 but they didn’t even have the sac to answer the bell. i’d be ashamed if i were a Hawks fan.

    looks like the Canucks took note from last years playoffs.. won’t be anyone pushing them around this year. last nights game was proof.

  9. danphipps01 - Mar 22, 2012 at 7:35 PM

    >Keith throws a pointless, dangerous and flagrantly illegal hit
    “Yeah, that’ll teach that Daniel Sedin for… whatever it was he did that was worse!”

  10. kitshky - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM

    Thank you Chicago homers for the history lessons, name calling, and various comparison to other hits by other players in others game …none of it excuses or minimizes Keiths elbow and everyone of you know it.

    • comeonnowguys - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM

      Of course it doesn’t excuse it. But it sure makes your high horse a bit shorter.

      • kitshky - Mar 23, 2012 at 5:34 AM

        So a fan base that revels and takes any chance it can to cut down the Vancouver Canucks (and their fan base) as dirty, cheap, and classless gets confronted by a clear and undeniable dirty play … and somehow turns it around as if it’s nothing to be concerned about, and you try and pretend WE’RE comin off a high horse here!?

        Honest to God man ..give your head a shake.

      • comeonnowguys - Mar 23, 2012 at 9:33 AM

        See, there you go again.

        and somehow turns it around as if it’s nothing to be concerned about,

        Never, ever said that. Maybe it’s your head that needs a shake.

  11. johnnyru131 - Mar 22, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    Yeah Keith was SOOOO scared. You Canuck fans sound like little kids. That’s something immature little kids say. Sedin got what he DESERVED! Fact!

    • danphipps01 - Mar 22, 2012 at 9:14 PM

      If a dicey hit by Sedin earned a blatant headshot from Keith, what does the blatant headshot earn? If we’re going with “law of disproportionate payback” to justify Keith’s hit, you’re making it sound like a stick to the mouth would be fair recompense for him at this point. Funny thing about eye for an eye logic is that it doesn’t really END anywhere, something you may wish to consider in the future. Keith threw a spectacular cheapshot on a player nowhere near the puck. You know what the difference between that fact and yours is? Mine actually is one.

      • luke35 - Mar 23, 2012 at 1:57 AM

        Are you honestly trying to say sedin’s hit wasn’t a blatant headshot? And if your talking about being nowhere near the puck you might puck you might want to watch sedin’s hit again. Suprise, it was nowhere near the puck. Your “fact” is more like a supremely biased opinion.

  12. elvispocomo - Mar 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

    I wonder if Konroyd ever had to stand up for himself and fight after an illegal elbow to the head, or if he ran and hid after he “exacted his revenge.”

  13. arbruins - Mar 22, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    30 minutes…no fights. I am not sure that if I were in Keith’s skates that I would fight any of those purse swinging, hair pulling, finger biting brides maids either.

  14. iamanidiotfan - Mar 23, 2012 at 2:50 AM

    I grew up on the Battle of Alberta. Those were rough and tough games. But you didn’t see a lot of players trying to deliberately injure each other. Play hard, play tough but show respect. There was universal disgust for players like Ulfie Samuelsson targeting player’s knees.

    What’s the big difference between Samuelsson targeting a knee and Keith targeting Sedin’s face? Not much in my opinion. Both had a deliberate attempt to injure. So if you’re going back to old-time hockey, there was also some degree of respect, because those other players were trying to put food on the table. It’s why people hated Bertuzzi’s cheapshot, McSorley’s cheapshot, etc. That’s my two cents.

    • kitshky - Mar 23, 2012 at 5:54 AM

      …and no ones saying Keith is a dirty player to be compared to Samuelsson , he’s a stud no question about it, but it does my head in that people (because of blatant bias) are tryn to spin this one.

  15. iamanidiotfan - Mar 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    Keith is no Samuelsson, but at the same time, with all we know now about head injuries, a direct elbow to the face is pretty similar to Ulfie targeting someone’s knee. It can end careers, and should be prevented. If it was Toews or Kane on the receiving end, I’m guessing most Hawk fans would agree.

  16. kbmorgan1 - Mar 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

    No self respecting hockey fan can look at what Keith did and believe it was justified. Only Hawks fans could and that just means they don’t really care about the game, just their team.

    The same goes for the Bruins and Marchand’s hit on Salo.

    It’s interesting that both incidents involved the Canucks, would these so called fans try so hard to justify these plays if it were another team? Probably not. Once again proving they are simply team fans (and Canuck haters) and not fans of the game.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1886)
  2. P. Kessel (1596)
  3. M. Richards (1357)
  4. N. Backstrom (1165)
  5. M. Giordano (1144)