|
|
Post by yoyomamajoe on Apr 18, 2016 19:06:10 GMT -4
The reason he doesn't get 7 games is because the player is not injured. For the rest it's the same reasoning as with Imama (including repeat offender)
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 19, 2016 8:32:09 GMT -4
I saw the Dubois hit and felt 2:00 was all it justified. Maybe 5:00 because the optics of the helmet coming off could fool the Refs. Dubois didn't knock the helmet off by any other means than checking the player. I have yet to see a video of Martineau's hit ... anything available ? 4 playoff games would seem to be a significant suspension for a player like Martineau ... not a dirty player. Imama's 5 games have repeat offender issues added in. Not sure what I think about that Martineau hit. Four playoff games seems excessive ... I think that is a 3 regular season game hit at best. It sort or reminds me of the hit on Nic Ehlers in the playoffs last year by Stephen Johnson ... and Johnson got 2 games I think. I'm all for longer suspensions on dangerous hits ... but this seems to lack consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 19, 2016 8:34:34 GMT -4
The reason he doesn't get 7 games is because the player is not injured. For the rest it's the same reasoning as with Imama (including repeat offender) Martineau isn't a repeat offender for dangerous hits. His suspension was for a fight that he didn't instigate in which they deemed he pulled Garland's helmet off and then appeared to body slam him. I don't consider Martineau a dirty player. |
|
|
|
Post by juliansteed on Apr 19, 2016 9:13:21 GMT -4
Not sure where they are getting 4 games for that. I think 5 and a game and no suspension would have been more appropriate than 2 minutes then 4 games.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliansteed on Apr 19, 2016 9:16:20 GMT -4
I feel bad for eagles fans, this is nothing more than to deflect off the Imama suspsension and nothing for Dubois. Courteau is as crooked as they come. Expect the next Memorial Cup for our league to go to Moncton and their new rink. Saint John got screwed last time and I see no different this time coming. Courteau has already spent a week in Moncton being courted by Monctons group All other things being equal, I think SJ will get the Memorial Cup before Moncton gets it again. Of course it could all come down to who has the better projected team when the Q is hosting and thinks the time is right to return to the Maritimes. I think Moncton has their eyes on something bigger once the new arena is built, something that could benefit SJ to a lesser extent as well. |
|
|
|
Post by justathought on Apr 19, 2016 10:30:13 GMT -4
Looking at the video above, it's hard to believe that Martineau got 4 games. He coasted into the hit and it looked as much side on as from behind but he did push him towards the boards. Obviously, the Sea Dog player who looks bigger was not hurt on the play.
To me, it seems that Martineau is being punished for other calls that weren't punished by the long shaky arm of the QMJHL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 19, 2016 10:38:10 GMT -4
Looking at the video above, it's hard to believe that Martineau got 4 games. He coasted into the hit and it looked as much side on as from behind but he did push him towards the boards. Obviously, the Sea Dog player who looks bigger was not hurt on the play. To me, it seems that Martineau is being punished for other calls that weren't punished by the long shaky arm of the QMJHL? I look at it like this: Imama and Martineau hits are very similar. Only difference, in my opinion, is the injury Imama caused. When a hit like Imama's happens both teams and the players and medical info is all brought in the discussion. Our argument against Imama is the obvious: charging, boarding, injury. Saint John's argument: The injury is the only reason it's a suspendable offense and the 5 min penalty was enough. The league's point of view is that the hit is dirty and the injury has to come into play. Fast forward 1 game and you see the Martineau hit. CB's argument: There's no injury, so should be no suspension. SJ's argument: No different then Imama's hit, outside of the injury. The leagues point of view is that the hit is dirty and the lack of injury means fewer games. Say what you will but SJ's management and veteran coaching did exactly what they were supposed to do: influence a future decision based on a past ruling. I honestly see the hit and see the same hit minus the injury to Bisson. From that simple perspective, 4 games vs 7 means the league actually got to fight back against SJ's argument that they were only penalizing the hit. Martineau's actually being punished in an attempt for the league to show SJ that Imama's hit was just as dirty and that the injury only played a small role in the amount of games given. Add in the hit, repeat offender status, and the injury and the league argues they only gave an extra 1 or 2 games to Imama for the injury to Bisson. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 19, 2016 10:39:30 GMT -4
I feel bad for eagles fans, this is nothing more than to deflect off the Imama suspsension and nothing for Dubois. Courteau is as crooked as they come. Expect the next Memorial Cup for our league to go to Moncton and their new rink. Saint John got screwed last time and I see no different this time coming. Courteau has already spent a week in Moncton being courted by Monctons group All other things being equal, I think SJ will get the Memorial Cup before Moncton gets it again. Of course it could all come down to who has the better projected team when the Q is hosting and thinks the time is right to return to the Maritimes. I think Moncton has their eyes on something bigger once the new arena is built, something that could benefit SJ to a lesser extent as well. Only thing bigger could be an NHL team and that's not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by elementz on Apr 19, 2016 10:48:40 GMT -4
All other things being equal, I think SJ will get the Memorial Cup before Moncton gets it again. Of course it could all come down to who has the better projected team when the Q is hosting and thinks the time is right to return to the Maritimes. I think Moncton has their eyes on something bigger once the new arena is built, something that could benefit SJ to a lesser extent as well. Only thing bigger could be an NHL team and that's not happening. I am assuming that Julian was inferring to a possible World Junior Tournament or World Championships event. If so, even with a new rink, it may be seen as too small of a venue for NA. Also, if Moncton were to play host and split the duties, I would presume that Halifax would co-host rather than Saint John. |
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Apr 19, 2016 10:49:57 GMT -4
All other things being equal, I think SJ will get the Memorial Cup before Moncton gets it again. Of course it could all come down to who has the better projected team when the Q is hosting and thinks the time is right to return to the Maritimes. I think Moncton has their eyes on something bigger once the new arena is built, something that could benefit SJ to a lesser extent as well. Only thing bigger could be an NHL team and that's not happening. With that comment, I thought World Juniors or World Championships. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 19, 2016 10:53:37 GMT -4
Only thing bigger could be an NHL team and that's not happening. I am assuming that Julian was inferring to a possible World Junior Tournament or World Championships event. If so, even with a new rink, it may be seen as too small of a venue for NA. Also, if Moncton were to play host and split the duties, I would presume that Halifax would co-host rather than Saint John. ahh ok...I took it as a more permanent fixture vs another tournament but that would make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by dt281 on Apr 19, 2016 11:20:51 GMT -4
Looking at the video above, it's hard to believe that Martineau got 4 games. He coasted into the hit and it looked as much side on as from behind but he did push him towards the boards. Obviously, the Sea Dog player who looks bigger was not hurt on the play. To me, it seems that Martineau is being punished for other calls that weren't punished by the long shaky arm of the QMJHL? I look at it like this: Imama and Martineau hits are very similar. Only difference, in my opinion, is the injury Imama caused. When a hit like Imama's happens both teams and the players and medical info is all brought in the discussion. Our argument against Imama is the obvious: charging, boarding, injury. Saint John's argument: The injury is the only reason it's a suspendable offense and the 5 min penalty was enough. The league's point of view is that the hit is dirty and the injury has to come into play. Fast forward 1 game and you see the Martineau hit. CB's argument: There's no injury, so should be no suspension. SJ's argument: No different then Imama's hit, outside of the injury. The leagues point of view is that the hit is dirty and the lack of injury means fewer games. Say what you will but SJ's management and veteran coaching did exactly what they were supposed to do: influence a future decision based on a past ruling. I honestly see the hit and see the same hit minus the injury to Bisson. From that simple perspective, 4 games vs 7 means the league actually got to fight back against SJ's argument that they were only penalizing the hit. Martineau's actually being punished in an attempt for the league to show SJ that Imama's hit was just as dirty and that the injury only played a small role in the amount of games given. Add in the hit, repeat offender status, and the injury and the league argues they only gave an extra 1 or 2 games to Imama for the injury to Bisson.[/quote Imo that hits aren't similar at all. Martineau didn't charge from one side of the ice to make the hit, he glided from the face off dot. Bisson had the impact of the charge followed by the impact with the boards. Martineau wasn't hitting Webster head on. He was basically skating the same path as him. Add no injury and not a repeat offender and 2 games at most should have been given. Webster was in a vulnerable position when Martineau pushed him. |
|
|
|
Post by yoyomamajoe on Apr 19, 2016 11:51:40 GMT -4
I look at it like this: Imama and Martineau hits are very similar. Only difference, in my opinion, is the injury Imama caused. When a hit like Imama's happens both teams and the players and medical info is all brought in the discussion. Our argument against Imama is the obvious: charging, boarding, injury. Saint John's argument: The injury is the only reason it's a suspendable offense and the 5 min penalty was enough. The league's point of view is that the hit is dirty and the injury has to come into play. Fast forward 1 game and you see the Martineau hit. CB's argument: There's no injury, so should be no suspension. SJ's argument: No different then Imama's hit, outside of the injury. The leagues point of view is that the hit is dirty and the lack of injury means fewer games. Say what you will but SJ's management and veteran coaching did exactly what they were supposed to do: influence a future decision based on a past ruling. I honestly see the hit and see the same hit minus the injury to Bisson. From that simple perspective, 4 games vs 7 means the league actually got to fight back against SJ's argument that they were only penalizing the hit. Martineau's actually being punished in an attempt for the league to show SJ that Imama's hit was just as dirty and that the injury only played a small role in the amount of games given. Add in the hit, repeat offender status, and the injury and the league argues they only gave an extra 1 or 2 games to Imama for the injury to Bisson.[/quote Imo that hits aren't similar at all. Martineau didn't charge from one side of the ice to make the hit, he glided from the face off dot. Bisson had the impact of the charge followed by the impact with the boards. Martineau wasn't hitting Webster head on. He was basically skating the same path as him. Add no injury and not a repeat offender and 2 games at most should have been given. Webster was in a vulnerable position when Martineau pushed him. Imama never pushed the player, it was a clean bodycheck. The force of the impact and the resulting boarding is what got him suspended, so you can make a case that it was unintentional. Martineau blatantly pushed the opponent into the boards from behind, that is intentionally trying to hurt a player |
|
|
|
Post by dt281 on Apr 19, 2016 12:25:25 GMT -4
Imama never pushed the player, it was a clean bodycheck. The force of the impact and the resulting boarding is what got him suspended, so you can make a case that it was unintentional. Martineau blatantly pushed the opponent into the boards from behind, that is intentionally trying to hurt a player There was nothing clean about Imama's hit. It was charging/ boarding and not sure how you can say it was unintentional. Martineau pushed Webster more from the side, Webster which was also boarding. Both hits were to guys in a vulnerable position. I'm sure Martineau intended to push him off the puck and into the boards but only he would know if he intended to injure him?? In no way is Martineaus worse or even comparable. |
|
|
|
Post by juliansteed on Apr 19, 2016 12:30:41 GMT -4
Only thing bigger could be an NHL team and that's not happening. With that comment, I thought World Juniors or World Championships. Yeah World Juniors is what I meant. I'll just leave it at that to avoid going any further on this tangent. And no I don't have any inside info. |
|
