Skip to content

Video: Have the playoff suspensions been inconsistent?

Apr 16, 2012, 11:50 PM EDT

Brendan Shanahan has been nothing if not busy so far. He’s handed out suspensions to Matt Carkner, Carl Hagelin, and Byron Bitz. He’s also tossed out quite a few fines. But have his punishments been consistent? Check out the video below to watch NHL Live weigh in on the subject:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!

How would you rate Shanahan’s job performance so far? While we’re on the subject, what kind of punishment – if any – would you give to James Neal for his hits on Sean Couturier and Claude Giroux Sunday, Arron Asham for his cross check on Brayden Schenn, or any of the other major incidents that have happened over the past few days?

  1. lostpuppysyndrome - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:02 AM

    Is the pope catholic? The two biggest inconsistencies have been Weber’s over-reaction and Hagelin’s elbow. I get that the guy might make a mistake every now and then or that I personally disagree with a call, but the fact that seemingly everyone is questioning his judgment seriously needs to raise some red flags with the folks who ru(i)n the NHL. It’s becoming a farce.

  2. habsman - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:05 AM

    What we are seeing in these playoffs is the direct result of Boston being allowed to cheap shot their way to the cup last year.

    I blame it on Greg’s daddy Colie and Brendan (yes man) Shanahan.

    • taytay099 - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:14 AM

      I’m no fan of the Bruins, but what you’re saying is just plain silly. I haven’t seen anything suspension worthy from any Bruin so far these playoffs. There’s a huge difference between gritty and cheap, but you clearly can’t see past your bias to give the Bruins credit.

      • lostpuppysyndrome - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:19 AM

        Dude’s a habs fan. Everything is always either Boston’s or Toronto’s fault with them.

      • jgreiner9 - Apr 17, 2012 at 1:13 AM

        he’s not talking about these playoffs he’s talking about last years, where the bruins manhandled and cheap-shotted their way to the cup. which is the primary reason everything is being looked at and scrutinized with fines and suspensions.

  3. stakex - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:19 AM

    When NHL commentators are openly questioning Shanahans credability or his ability to be consistent, you know there is a problem.

    I mean, how can you not suspend Weber at all yet give Hagelin three games? One is just an over zealous hit by a young player in an intense game… the other a clear attempt to hurt another player as time expires. The simple fact that Hagelin hurt a super star is the only possible thing that makes his hit worse, and if thats a factor Shanahan needs to be fired today. Then lets not forget that Carkner all but attacked an unwilling Boyle, something that reminds me very much of the Brtuzzie/Moore inccident… and only recieved one game for a pre-planned attack on another player. I guess intent doesn’t mean much?

    Its going to be VERY interesting to see what happens with Neal and Asham. Both deserve extreme suspensions… yet the Pens have been given a pass from the league office this year for the most part, so it seems possible Shanahan will look for an easy way out. Asham SHOULD be suspended for the rest of this series (likely to be just a game or two), as well as 10 games next year and Neal deserves several games himself. Yet I would not be shocked to see Shanahan balk and hand out a meaningless suspensions for the “rest of the playoffs”… which could be just one game.

    • taytay099 - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:31 AM

      Yeah, they really need to start suspending people based on intent and less on the outcome. Certainly a major injury should have a longer suspension, but that shouldn’t be the only determining factor.

      I also don’t like the whole repeat offender crap. Some clean players are now technically considered repeat offenders because they have a “history.”

    • hockeyflow33 - Apr 17, 2012 at 9:43 AM

      the commentary is given to drive up ratings, not necessarily to speak the truth

  4. heyzeus143 - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:23 AM

    nope, I think what James Neal and asham did were just fine :-)

    • Playing the Ponzi - Apr 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM

      I love hockey’s ultra-violence and am both a big James Neal fan (multi-year fantasy keeper league affiliation) and a Flyers fan. I actually thought was Neal did was worse than Asham. I’m not convinced Asham was trying to cross-checking the neck – he may well have been targeting the chest and just had the stick ride up to the neck area. I think intent is key – as such, I think Asham should get 1 game. I would give Neal 3. He went airborne going after Couterier (which was worth 1 to me – I didn’t think it was especially bad), but I thought he his hit on Giroux was really cheap. Away from the puck and punching at the back of the head. That act act was the most clearly malicious of the Asham/Neal contigent, imho. I love the violence. I love the nastiness. I don’t mind guys doing stuff that requires suspensions. But you’ve still got to suspend them when they do it!

      • Jonny 5 - Apr 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

        Don’t forget that Ash threw punches to back of his head when he went down. Neal did have much more intentional malice in his actions though.

      • Playing the Ponzi - Apr 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

        I had forgotten about that – you’re right, and that makes it like Neal’s cheap shot on Giroux. Make it 2 games! I’ll be very curious to see if Shanny steps up and suspends either though, since Schenn is fine and seems Couterier is too (I haven’t heard anything about him missing time, anyway). I think the general outrage may be enough to force him into action. I think most of this could have been avoided by suspending Weber for a few games. That weak response sent a strong message of tolerance, imho.

  5. mclovinhockey - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM

    I agree with the habs fan. Boston was dirty as hell the past two years.
    Minus the weber thing and the lengths given on some everything has been fine.
    Anyway yes to Neal and Asham getting suspended. Notice the two players Neal went after are the two on Philly who have hat tricks? Dirty.

  6. ray2013 - Apr 17, 2012 at 1:26 AM

    They had a writer from THN on the radio today; he was making the argument that Shanny takes his marching orders from Bettman and the owners. He made the point that if you suspend a non-star, the only one who loses money in the player. If you suspend a star, ie Weber, the owners can lose money because they might be out playoff revenues. Looking at it from this light, it does make sense of some of the apparent irrationality of Shanny’s decisions. He further went on to make the point that if a penalty in the pre-season, it’s a penalty in the regular season, it should be a penalty in the post-season and that the NHL looks foolish for it’s careless disregard for the rulebook.

  7. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Apr 17, 2012 at 3:43 AM


    Sorry about the repost, but I just feel so sorry for all the chickens that Shanny has had to do this to. We’re not even through the fist round! Won’t someone think of the children!?

  8. sleepers108 - Apr 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM

    Your an idiot heyzeus!

  9. comeonnowguys - Apr 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

    The problem with looking at something with a giant flaw as a whole is that all you see is the flaw.

    If you look at the incidents separately, three games for Hagelin is about right. Two games for Bitz is about right.

    It’s the Weber embarrassment that is terrible. But you have to treat it like a terrible call in a game, you have to move on and hope they get the rest of the calls right.

    And intent has to play a bigger role in punishment both on and off the ice, otherwise you’re going to get sideshows like Mike Smith (and certain other players who are almost cliche to name) more frequently going forward.

    • lasapien - Apr 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM

      Three games for Hagelin is about right??? He happened to clip Alfredsson with the elbow as Alfredsson was ducking. I’d say one game just because Alfredsson was injured and it was not entirely Hagelin’s fault. What’s wrong though is the Carkner suspension. One game for blatantly punching Boyle in the face while Boyle’s gloves were still on and then continuously hitting him when he was on the ice? Just because Boyle wasn’t hurt doesn’t mean it wasn’t a big deal. If that was Alfredsson getting sucker punched 5 times, the guy who did it would be out for the rest of the playoffs. Doesn’t seem right that Hagelin gets 3 for a grazed elbow that injured Alfredsson while Carkner gets one for literally jumping Boyle.

  10. bergeronforselke - Apr 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    I don’t understand why each offense can’t have a definitive outcome. High stick to the face=1 game….slew footing,=1 game…etc etc. Take the resulting injury and player’s history out of it. Make teams take responsibility for the players they put on the ice.

  11. lordstanley65 - Apr 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM

    Yep…all these cheap shots are because of the Bruins and Dr. Recchi…oh wait…Habsman said that already…on two other posts as well. World hunger, cancer, that AIDS thing, all their fault, right,idiot?

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Quick (1409)
  2. S. Bennett (1335)
  3. A. Ovechkin (1170)
  4. K. Timonen (1165)
  5. B. Schenn (1125)