Monday, November 23, 2009

Awaiting a Decision on Laraque

From this morning...

"There were four refs on the ice and they didn't call anything.  If they called a match penalty it would be different. There was no intent, there was no reason why I would try to go and hurt him. It was a pure accident, that's why they called it tripping, so I'm not worried at all."--Georges Laraque

No intent, huh?  Your knee just sort of accidentally stuck itself out?  Why would you try and hurt him?  Maybe it's because you're a goon.  You're not paid to score goals, block shots, kill're paid to enforce.  What's more believable: that it was purely accidental, or that you were frustrated because you were already taking a bad penalty so you made a stupid decision?  I'm thinking it's the latter. 

Basically, whatever suspension he is handed down isn't long enough.  This was a fourth line player taking out a top echelon defenseman.  Laraque may get 1-5 games, but what about Kronwall?  He could be out for two months.  If you ask me, a blatant cheap shot such as this should see the offender be suspended for the duration of time spent on the sideline for the victim.  Think Georgey boy would think twice about sticking his leg out if that were the case?


  1. The only problem I can see with making suspension length match injury length is when the player roles are reversed, which would create another unfair double-standard.

    Let's say it's the other way around, and between two rival teams. Let's say Mike Richards gets suspended for a knee-on-knee that injures a Penguins #6 defenseman. If he's suspended for the same length that the guy is hurt, then it all but behooves the Penguins to make sure he's hurt for as long as possible, since the loss of Richards hurts the Flyers way more than the loss of a #6 D-man hurts the Penguins.

    As for Laraque? Five games should be the minimum. He's a waste of a roster spot at this point in his career. He's literally bad at everything about hockey except for fighting.

  2. considering what players have been suspended for in this league the last couple years, you would think 5 games would be a lock, but at the same time, actual dangerous plays seem to be over looked.

  3. So, I know I'm a day or 2 late on this, but I can't agree with you more Drew! Injure a player with a penalty like that - you're out AT LEAST as long as the injured player. This kind of stuff needs to stop, and the only way to start getting it out of there is to start being harsh with the penalties.
    My thoughts on this go back to the Bertuzzi / Moore incident. If Moore can't ever play again, why should the dumbass who caused the injury with a penalty be able to?
    I for one like a good solid physical game (damn I miss McCarty & Kocur!), but not one that is stupid.
    While I'm on my penalty soap box... goalies should become familiar with the box too. I know it would have hurt us when Hasek was around, but the ability to get away with hacking & whacking without a lesser punishment than any other player? Doesn't work for me.