Printable View
All americans, feel free to leave.
Jason Smith got a 6-minute triple minor for roughing a few minutes ago, plus a 10 minute misconduct. :confused:
(He hit Koleta from behind and they shoved a little bit afterwords)
He actually held up on Koleta. He could've put him, in a coma from where he was if he wanted to.
I've personally never seen a 6-minute minor get called. (Maybe a highsticking double minor then a 2-minute for roughing, but never 6 for the same thing)
Box Score
Hey there are Americans who love Hockey! (myself included, I've played my whole life!)
I've never heard of a triple minor though. Interesting call by the refs. How bad was the hit from behind?
Wtf? A triple minor? That is wierd, never seen one
It wasn't too bad. It could've been much worse though. He let up, plus he kinda held him up so he wouldn't hit his head on the boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I've seen double minors but never a triple, had to be a monster hit.
Just finished watching the Hawks win 3-1.
I assume from your description is that it was a double-minor on the hit, plus a roughing minor afterwards. If it really was a triple-minor for the hit, that is lame. If you think it is that bad, the penalty should be a major and a game misconduct and the ref needs to have the guts to call that.
All 3 minors were for roughing.
Well, you can't assess a major for roughing. If the play happened as you say, I would think the correct call would be five minutes for a check from behind and a game misconduct...or, if they were penalizing the shove after the play, 2 for roughing, 5 for check from behind, and a game misconduct. (Course, if my guy got 17 PIM on the play and there was no blood on the ice, I'd send out my special line to make sure there was some by the end of that game.)
Anyway, yeah, that's weird.
Who cares??? It's hockey
Pretty much echo what oriole said...a triple minor? That's just weird.
I really don't get it. According to the rulebook, roughing is "a punching motion with the hand or fist," and "a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty." While there are some physical violations for which the book specifies the option of a double minor (head butting, high stick with apparent injury, etc.), roughing isn't even one of them. The rulebook says a minor, unless it's a goalie who used his blocker to make the hit, in which case it's a match penalty. And while the rules are specific about how double-minors are served, there are no provisions for a triple-minor.
So was the interpretation that his actions constituted three different roughing penalties? What would that mean, three separate blows? While the rules aren't specific about whether it could be called that way, I've certainly never seen it... a normal rouging penalty often comes from multiple "punching motions."
Did you see who called this? Was it Fraser? He's done some bizarre things, but he's been around for decades so I can't really see him breaking this far from the norm... or was it Chris Ciamaga?
P.S. Yeah, some of us Americans do pay attention to hockey.
You could get a double-minor for roughing on an initial incident - and then pick up a third minor for a separate altercation afterward. But it is a weird call.
the people that like hockey :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
Your a Canadian!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
Ya, probably the only one who hates hockey :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
The refs don't followe the rulebook to a tee. If someone makes 4 and a half punching motions, they do not get 9 penalty minutes. Its really up to the referee's discretion as to what merits a roughing penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayC