Jump to content


John Scott Suspension: 7 Games, Will Not Appeal


  • Please log in to reply
343 replies to this topic

#1 26CornerBlitz

26CornerBlitz

    1970

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,097 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:04 PM

My guess is 5 games for Scott.

Edited by 26CornerBlitz, 01 November 2013 - 12:37 PM.


#2 beerme1

beerme1

    First Line Center

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,087 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:12 PM

10 for Grigs sake.

#3 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:15 PM

View Postbeerme1, on 23 October 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

10 for Grigs sake.

heheheh , thats good.

#4 wonderbread

wonderbread

    Caveat emptor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,034 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:15 PM

10.

#5 BRAWNDO

BRAWNDO

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,488 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:17 PM

10

#6 plenzmd1

plenzmd1

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 575 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:23 PM

0.  Does. Not hit him in the head

#7 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:25 PM

Does Scott have previous suspensions? If not then he can't be suspended because he has no history of suspensions which in the past has been Shamabans reason for not suspending guys. I swear to Gawd.

I say 3 games because he's just too damn big and it wasn't intensional but that being said this is the Sabres so maybe 5. on the other hand the severity of the injury has to be duly noted. Is there bruising ? If so add 1 game to the 3. Headaches ? Subtract 1 game for the Milbury effect but add a game for the blindside. Was there malice of forethought on the part of BIG JOHN or was he simply doing what he's been taught to do since pee wee ?

#8 skaught

skaught

    Rolston Centipede

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:30 PM

10, hes a Sabre

#9 papazoid

papazoid

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 471 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:34 PM

5 games.

looks like scotts shoulder caught his chin.

#10 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,893 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:42 PM

All of them because f*ck you that's why.

#11 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:44 PM

What?

#12 sabills

sabills

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 428 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:51 PM

View Postplenzmd1, on 23 October 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

0.  Does. Not hit him in the head

Posted Image

Watch that chin snap. If he hits him in the shoulder or the chest it doesn't respond like that.

#13 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,763 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:00 PM

3 is the norm for "illegal check to the head."  He's not repeat offender.

IF Shanahan has any consistency, and he doesn't, it should be 3.

Milbury should be suspended for 10.

#14 grinreaper

grinreaper

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:10 PM

The only thing he should have been penalized for was a late hit. The Bruin player should also have been penalized for being too short.

#15 dudacek

dudacek

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:High and wide

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:43 PM

It wasn't an elbow, he didn't take a run and the height difference clearly played a role.
But it was also clearly a hit to the head by a questionable hockey player.
Three seems the standard for a first-offender hits to the head, add two more because it was Scott and I predict five.
But in the greater scheme of things this year, does it matter how long John Scott is suspended for?

Scott played a regular fourth line shift all game.
Milbury is hockey's biggest douche and I've heard more balanced broadcasts from Jack Edwards.
###### you NBC

Edited by dudacek, 23 October 2013 - 11:44 PM.


#16 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    McDavid is to McDieFor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:51 PM

Quit this ###### about height. Sure, him being taller made Eriksson's head an easier target, but it wasn't the only factor. And I didn't know that height makes you lower your shoulder and throw your elbow through the hit. Give me a break.

He'll get 5, but should get 10. John Scott shouldn't be in the NHL. He seems like a good guy. He's the worst player active in the NHL.





(However, Mike Milbury should be fired for his over-the-top, blatantly biased rant after the game).

Edited by DStebb, 24 October 2013 - 12:02 AM.


#17 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,920 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:00 AM

Based on Shanahan's rulings, he should get 3.  Based on the standards I'd like to see, he should get 15.  He'll probably get 10.  Milbury should be fired two years ago.  

I eagerly await Eleven's analysis.

#18 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    McDavid is to McDieFor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:03 AM

But there's so much irony about all of this:

1. The Bruins are the only reason we have John Scott.
2. The Bruins have been called "classy" for not responding. We were criticized for not responding to Lucic. What gives?
3. Mike Milbury literally went into the stands and beat a fan with his shoe.

#19 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,920 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:04 AM

View PostDStebb, on 24 October 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

But there's so much irony about all of this:

1. The Bruins are the only reason we have John Scott.
2. The Bruins have been called "classy" for not responding. We were criticized for not responding to Lucic. What gives?
3. Mike Milbury literally went into the stands and beat a fan with his shoe.

Oh, it's hilarious.  I don't feel bad at all, Boston had it coming...but that doesn't mean Scott shouldn't get smacked.  I just wish it had happened to Marchand.

#20 Heimdall

Heimdall

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:12 AM

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 24 October 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

Oh, it's hilarious.  I don't feel bad at all, Boston had it coming...but that doesn't mean Scott shouldn't get smacked.  I just wish it had happened to Marchand.

Agreed, Lucic would have been good to.

#21 Andrew Amerk

Andrew Amerk

    Heart Means Everything.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:29 AM

In reality, it should be 0 games. Legal hit.

#22 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,763 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:30 AM

TSN says it'll be an in-person hearing. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=434887

#23 skaught

skaught

    Rolston Centipede

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:36 AM

View PostHeimdall, on 24 October 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:



Agreed, Lucic would have been good to.

Eh, he got a puck to the face and then proceeded to smash his head into the wall after scoring a goal. I think that was enough.

#24 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,763 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:39 AM

View PostDStebb, on 24 October 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

But there's so much irony hypocrisy about all of this

Absolutely.

Just so we have it on record, here's Milbury after Miller/Lucic:

Quote

What did Milbury think of the hit and the ruling on it? ...
“I thought it was the right call, it was a two minute minor and they were both going for the puck. We want to have players that play hard like Lucic does and there’s going to be contact and sometimes oh my God people will get hurt,” Milbury said.

Keep in mind Mill######head played for Boston for 12 years (his only team), beat a fan with his shoe in the stands as a player during a game, is a failed coach and GM, and currently collects paychecks from not only NBC, but NESN and HNIC as well.

#25 JJFIVEOH

JJFIVEOH

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boca Raton, FL

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:41 AM

Milbury is the definition of the word 'hypocrite'. What made it even worse was Pierre and Lucic on the bench talking about dirty hits. I agree with Stebb, the double standard presented by the tools on NBC regarding the way both teams reacted in their respective situations is extremely aggravating.

At most Scott should get 3 games. That's IF Shanahan is consistent, which we all know he won't be. The tools on NBC make Scott out to be a knuckledragging ogre. If anybody looks at his history he has never been one to throw cheap shots or illegal hits. He's here to fight and he only fights players who are willing to fight back. There are many more players in the league notorious for throwing cheap hits all the time and rarely get called. A few of them were in this game tonight. Making an issue of WHEN a coach puts a line on the ice is totally absurd! Did it ever occur to the NBC idiots that our 1st round pick from last year was on that line and he needs to get some ice time? Did he happen to notice the offensive contributions that Scott had tonight? ###### NBC, I'm so glad we're not on the schedule again until January.

Now, we can all get ready to compalin about Shanahan's inconsistencies when Scott gets 7 games tomorrow.

#26 Andrew Amerk

Andrew Amerk

    Heart Means Everything.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:46 AM

View PostJJFIVEOH, on 24 October 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

Milbury is the definition of the word 'hypocrite'. What made it even worse was Pierre and Lucic on the bench talking about dirty hits. I agree with Stebb, the double standard presented by the tools on NBC regarding the way both teams reacted in their respective situations is extremely aggravating.

At most Scott should get 3 games. That's IF Shanahan is consistent, which we all know he won't be. The tools on NBC make Scott out to be a knuckledragging ogre. If anybody looks at his history he has never been one to throw cheap shots or illegal hits. He's here to fight and he only fights players who are willing to fight back. There are many more players in the league notorious for throwing cheap hits all the time and rarely get called. A few of them were in this game tonight. Making an issue of WHEN a coach puts a line on the ice is totally absurd! Did it ever occur to the NBC idiots that our 1st round pick from last year was on that line and he needs to get some ice time? Did he happen to notice the offensive contributions that Scott had tonight? ###### NBC, I'm so glad we're not on the schedule again until January.

Now, we can all get ready to compalin about Shanahan's inconsistencies when Scott gets 7 games tomorrow.

Good post. Well said.

#27 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,763 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:00 AM

Hit notwithstanding, I was impressed with John Scott's game tonight.  I thought he worked hard and maybe put forth the best hockey game I've seen from him.  On one shift, he back checked hard, made a defensive play on the puck that caused a turnover, took the puck up ice, lost it, but then kept pursuing to cause a turnover in the offensive zone, and almost regained possession in time to make for a nice scoring chance.  He also made a number of good physical plays on the forecheck and in the defensive zone.  It's slow-going, but his game is progressing.

#28 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:10 AM

I think Scott tried to make it clean but he's just too fuggin tall to make it work.  But, and this will be key, it was a predatory hit.  He came across the ice, from one wing to the other, to make that hit.  And prinicple point of contact, to use Shanny's words, was def head/neck IMO.  Between going across the ice and the hit landing high, And after the Toronto incident, Scott gets 6 games IMO.  Unfortunately I don't think Scott could have hit Ericsson in open ice without principally contacting the head/neck.

#29 That Aud Smell

That Aud Smell

    That Nostalgic Olfactory Blend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,657 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:15 AM

I'll say he's in the 7-10 range. Not much of a guess, I know.

And, IKP, please, please: Scott's game is not progressing. It's an embarrassment that he's in the league.

#30 FolignosJock

FolignosJock

    Komisarek cant hold me !

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bad News, VA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:04 AM

I dont see how that is suspension worthy...... that being said BS will probbaly give him three. That is a legal hit though, the head was not the principal point of contact, he got his whole body. This is exactly the type of hit that should NOT be legislated out of the league because it is just as easy as keeping your head up. Soon players wont keep their heads up at all and we will see someone die because they are not protecting themselves out there.

#31 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,269 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:09 AM

The league should be trying to eliminate John Scott from their league. I'd like to see at least 25 games.

#32 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,453 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:18 AM

Life. Throw Darcy, Terry, Kaleta and the shield-licker in there too. This franchise is the height of embarrassment right now.

#33 FolignosJock

FolignosJock

    Komisarek cant hold me !

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bad News, VA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:22 AM

Has this place gotten crazy since I left? That hit was not that bad, Scotts entire left side of his body connected with the entirety of Loui. He did get him in the head because of Scott being bigger and Loui having his head down until the last second, also this isnt his "blind side". Scott is directly in his line of vision if his head is UP!  This is the exact type of hit which is the opposite of kaletas, which was blind side and the principal point of contact was the head. This is a good strong hit where the player carrying the puck needed to pick his head up and see that scott was going to hit him.

#34 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,269 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:25 AM

View PostFolignosJock, on 24 October 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Has this place gotten crazy since I left? That hit was not that bad, Scotts entire left side of his body connected with the entirety of Loui. He did get him in the head because of Scott being bigger and Loui having his head down until the last second, also this isnt his "blind side". Scott is directly in his line of vision if his head is UP!  This is the exact type of hit which is the opposite of kaletas, which was blind side and the principal point of contact was the head. This is a good strong hit where the player carrying the puck needed to pick his head up and see that scott was going to hit him.
It was a targeted shot to the head by a goon on a star player. There's nothing "good" about the hit. The hit is an embarrassment for this franchise.

#35 FolignosJock

FolignosJock

    Komisarek cant hold me !

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bad News, VA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:29 AM

View Postdeluca67, on 24 October 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

It was a targeted shot to the head by a goon on a star player. There's nothing "good" about the hit. The hit is an embarrassment for this franchise.

It was most definitely not targeted to the head! He hits his whole body. This whole stars vs goon thing is stupid as well, there always has been and there always will be star players, hitters, 4th liners and everything in between. These guys play in the NHL the best hockey league in the world, Loui needs to keep his head up pure and simple. It is a true shame such a great player might be out for a while but this is a contact sport, I want the hits like kaletas out of the league but this hit is not like that. Kaletas was a targeted shot to the head from a blind side, this is a full body hit on a guy that had his head down where scott is coming from in front of him.

#36 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,269 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:35 AM

View PostFolignosJock, on 24 October 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

It was most definitely not targeted to the head! He hits his whole body. This whole stars vs goon thing is stupid as well, there always has been and there always will be star players, hitters, 4th liners and everything in between. These guys play in the NHL the best hockey league in the world, Loui needs to keep his head up pure and simple. It is a true shame such a great player might be out for a while but this is a contact sport, I want the hits like kaletas out of the league but this hit is not like that. Kaletas was a targeted shot to the head from a blind side, this is a full body hit on a guy that had his head down where scott is coming from in front of him.
When a goon steps on the ice with the intent to injure you there isn't much you can do. John Scott injuring another player was inevitable. It will happen again unless the league or the Sabres remove him from the ice.

#37 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:37 AM

View Postdeluca67, on 24 October 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

When a goon steps on the ice with the intent to injure you there isn't much you can do. John Scott injuring another player was inevitable. It will happen again unless the league or the Sabres remove him from the ice.
Who has he injured before?

#38 FolignosJock

FolignosJock

    Komisarek cant hold me !

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bad News, VA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:38 AM

View Postdeluca67, on 24 October 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

When a goon steps on the ice with the intent to injure you there isn't much you can do. John Scott injuring another player was inevitable. It will happen again unless the league or the Sabres remove him from the ice.


He is a big dude that hit a guy, how many dirty hits does john scott have in his entire career? I would venture to say NONE. This is a witch hunt. That hit should be perfectly legal.

#39 Buffalo Wings

Buffalo Wings

    Not a Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • Location:Clifton Park, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:04 AM

View Postweave, on 24 October 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

I think Scott tried to make it clean but he's just too fuggin tall to make it work.  But, and this will be key, it was a predatory hit.  He came across the ice, from one wing to the other, to make that hit.  And prinicple point of contact, to use Shanny's words, was def head/neck IMO.  Between going across the ice and the hit landing high, And after the Toronto incident, Scott gets 6 games IMO.  Unfortunately I don't think Scott could have hit Ericsson in open ice without principally contacting the head/neck.

It was a late hit, Scott's shoulder is at Eriksson's head, and there was clear intent (in my mind) to hit Eriksson regardless of whether or not he had the puck. I figure 5 games, but who the hell knows anymore.

I had to turn the broadcast off when McGuire was talking about the whole response thing...it was the last straw for me, since every one of those "analysts" were criticizing the Sabres all night for everything they were doing - right or wrong. If they want to market this "Rivalry Wednesday" bs, then they better talk up the Sabres a little bit to make it somewhat interesting. What a load...

#40 Rico7

Rico7

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere Else

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:05 AM

View PostFolignosJock, on 24 October 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

He is a big dude that hit a guy, how many dirty hits does john scott have in his entire career? I would venture to say NONE. This is a witch hunt. That hit should be perfectly legal.

I agree. The hit may have been a second too late, but if Scott really wanted to hammer the guy he could have.