Jump to content

Mottau suspended for two games


Recommended Posts

Did you read the part when I said a suspension should be based on INTENT?

You tell me where he's headhunting there??

Don't you waych Law and Order? Intent follows the bullet...

He still stuck his elbow out and hit the guys head. Had it been Parise hit that way we would all be yelling for a 10 game suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you waych Law and Order? Intent follows the bullet...

Which is why we have three different criminal classifications of murder right? :P

(what scares me is it would not shock me if the NHL based their rules on TV Cop shows!)

the biggest disgrace in the whole is Hunter getting an instigator for it, in what should be the hockey world, he fights Mottau and this thing is done and forgotten!

Link to post
Share on other sites
the biggest disgrace in the whole is Hunter getting an instigator for it, in what should be the hockey world, he fights Mottau and this thing is done and forgotten!

If anything I think that's the only reason Mottau got two games, because the Isles got hosed on the instigator and ejection :P There is no way you could say he was aiming for his head when the other guy tried to make a get out of the way move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything I think that's the only reason Mottau got two games, because the Isles got hosed on the instigator and ejection :P There is no way you could say he was aiming for his head when the other guy tried to make a get out of the way move.

Doesn't matter if he was aiming for the head, he has to be in control of his actions. He wasn't and basicly butended Nielson in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the hit is analogous to an inadvertent high sticking penalty. It doesn't matter whether or not a player meant to hit a someone in the face with his stick, all that matters is that the player was not in proper control of his stick. Every high stick the referee sees is called, regardless of intent. I don't see how a hit to the head should be ignored based on intent if high sticking isn't.

What I would like to see, however, is the implementation by the NHL of some type of concrete rule regarding the length of suspensions assessed for hits to the head.

Edited by Jake
Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you waych Law and Order? Intent follows the bullet...

Actually there is a legal doctrine called transfered intent, in which this is actually true. More on topic, I think this was a dirty hit and two games is about right. I think Mottau didn't mean to do anything but he did throw that elbow out there, he should know better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually there is a legal doctrine called transfered intent, in which this is actually true. More on topic, I think this was a dirty hit and two games is about right. I think Mottau didn't mean to do anything but he did throw that elbow out there, he should know better.

I have to agree. There was no reason for that hit or attempted hit or whatever it was he was trying to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great another knee-jerk overreaction to a hit that was not THAT bad...it annoys me when a penalty is based on the level of injury on the victim when it should be more about the INTENT of the play....

gotta love the No Hitting League!!!

The NHL is being consistent here. Ruutu got two games for almost the exact same thing. I don't think this supension has anything to do with the result. The league is making a conscious effort to stop elbows to the head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting information from the Isles announcers tonight (who, by the way, are disgusted by the fact that it was only two games):

Campbell told Garth Snow it was two games because, in Campbell's opinion, Mottau did not connect fully with Neilson's head.

Frans Neilson is out 8-12 weeks with a knee injury due to the hit.

The argument the Isles announcers make is, why suspend him at all if you don't think he connected to the head, and why is the suspension not more severe than Rutuu's hit, when the guy Rutuu hit was fine while Neilson is out 2-3 months.

My response is because Mottau didn't hit Neilson in the knee, he (apparently didn't) hit him in the head. Neilson essentially hurt himself getting out of the way of Mottau, but who's to say he wouldn't have been just as hurt taking the hit, either.

I think we all know on both sides of this that the NHL really needs to figure out what they want to do about hits to the head and how to punish them, because this is a little ridiculous...I mean, how do you figure a just punishment for a hit like that last night?

-the kid's hurt - but it wasn't his head - but he hurt his knee as a result of the hit

-Mottau's not a dirty player, has no history of these kinds of hits

-The hit didn't connect, according to Colin Campbell himself

-Hits to the head, whether intentional or not, are dangerous, stupid, and shouldn't be tolerated

In the end, I guess we're lucky they didn't try to make an example of Mottau.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at the replay, Nielsen does it more to himself by trying to avoid the hit and fall backwards before Mottau even touches him! Nielsen hurt himself by chickening out.

maybe he grazed him with an elbow or forearm. That's not suspension worthy.

Exactly!

Can't be Mottau's fault. Can we get a measurement on Nielsen's chin? Isn't there a "Jay Leno Rule" somewhere in the books? I say he threw his chin into his elbow! That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :doh1:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical reaction here....

Now, I'm not saying that it was the smartest hockey play ever...but....

We chastise this defense for never "taking the body", playing tough, physical, etc.

We invoke the glory of the "elder days" (Stevens, Dano, Neider)

Mottau attempts to stand up, makes a bad decision, hits a player unintentionally - and he's a clown.

If St. Scotty Stevens layed the same hit and - "missed the mark" - many of you would have your NJ Devil Rosary beads out and be reciting the "Stevens Creed" over and over, saying that it sends a message to other teams.

I give Mottau credit (which is probably of surprise to no one here), for actually playing tough, something none of our other journeyman D (short of Sally and White) do enough of.

Had that hit not happened, and the resulting play ended in our net, Mike would undoubtably be on the cross anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure he would have been crucified..... for taking the low percentage hit rather than forcing his opponent into the corner and slamming him there. He took the low percentage hit, missed and when he realized he fvcked up, he made a dirty play.

He made a hit that was a suspendable action. When was Scott Stevens suspended for a dirty hit?

Edited by Don
Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical reaction here....

Now, I'm not saying that it was the smartest hockey play ever...but....

We chastise this defense for never "taking the body", playing tough, physical, etc.

We invoke the glory of the "elder days" (Stevens, Dano, Neider)

Mottau attempts to stand up, makes a bad decision, hits a player unintentionally - and he's a clown.

If St. Scotty Stevens layed the same hit and - "missed the mark" - many of you would have your NJ Devil Rosary beads out and be reciting the "Stevens Creed" over and over, saying that it sends a message to other teams.

I give Mottau credit (which is probably of surprise to no one here), for actually playing tough, something none of our other journeyman D (short of Sally and White) do enough of.

Had that hit not happened, and the resulting play ended in our net, Mike would undoubtably be on the cross anyways.

You're a piece of work. Not one person said Mike Mottau was a clown. Most people said he deserved the suspension. To me, that's people being fair and not looking at the game with red-and-black glasses. Stop making up stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was worthy of the suspension because it was a hit to the head which the NHL is trying to eliminate. I've been saying for the past couple weeks that this team needs to hit someone. Hopefully now our other defensemen will step up and play the body but not get suspended.

Edited by Prucenterrules
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with the suspension (other than the fact that it leaves us shorthanded on the blue line). Sure, Mottau didn't line him up with the intent to hurt him, but he DID go up high and he WAS extremely dangerous. He deserved a suspension.

If this happened to a Devil, I have a feeling that a lot of folks around here would be upset than the culprit got only two games.

Where do I Sign????

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was worthy of the suspension because it was a hit to the head which the NHL is trying to eliminate. I've been saying for the past couple weeks that this team needs to hit someone. Hopefully now our other defensemen will step up and play the body but not get suspended.

I do not think he hit him in the head. To me, it looked like this:

mnhzg0.png

And he then sorta "pulled him down"

I'm not 100% on the suspension guidelines but I do agree that he did leave his feet so if that is what warrants a suspension then so be it. However, if it is for head contact I do not agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.