GlenX in trouble?
According to Bob McKenzie, the Flames forward had a disciplinary hearing this morning relating to the Drury hit. R O asked in comments below why GlenX was on the 4th line at practice. Answered, I guess. No word on any sanctions as of yet.
Update: as per Bob McKenzie, Glencross has been suspended for three games.
3 months ago
Robert Cleave
23 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Thanks Robert.
I guess we can start predictions on his suspension.
My prediction: one game. He probably deserves it.
by R O on Nov 9, 2009 9:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
My understanding of how these things work is that a phone hearing usually means suspensions of a game or two tops. I’d suspect if they were going to do any more than that, an in-person hearing would be in order.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1-2 games
if it goes to 3 or higher I would be shocked.
That said, he earned this one, as I finally saw the hit and it was over the line of what is acceptable.
by brisulph on Nov 9, 2009 9:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If it were up to me, I would give GlenX 3 games (and I don’t think it was intentional) but seriously…without bias, there was no reason what-so-ever for that contact. The puck wasn’t even close to Drury, the hit was a shoulder, he coasted into him, so I don’t see it as ‘dirty’ but rather untimely. But hey, he didn’t exactly turn away from it either and the dude’s gotta be accountable for the weight he throws around, good or bad. Ultimately, with no reason for contact and a heavy hit… it’s a concussion 5 times outta 10 and really even 3 games is pretty lenient if they are trying to do something about it.
What pisses me off is when a guy really gets er good (like Hedman from Neil) and the never-ending debate starts about head-shots. Then we make it that you can’t even hit a guy. Queue Phanuef/Sarich hits and that’s all BS, it’s a tough game. But this….sorry Glenny, but damn man, bad decision.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 10:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
And you’d be right. Three games it is.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dammit, I was hoping the NHL was going to continue with slap on the wrist one game suspensions. Next time I’m keeping my mouth shut.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Alex Ovechkin can slewfoot a guy, the most dangerous play in hockey, and get off with a slap on the wrist, yet Glencross gets three games for what amounts to interference against a glass hockey player?
This suspension is a joke, if only because Campbell doesn’t have the stones to take out star players for even more dangerous offences.
by Resolute on Nov 9, 2009 11:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly the NHL is so inconsistent when they penalize a player it’s not even funny do I think this warranted a suspension maybe but not 3 games the NHL needs to take a long look at how they handle these matters but they need the American fans to keep coming back that’s why you won’t see ‘’Star in the League’’ get a stiffer penalty.
Where the Lead is never safe, Ahead or Behind.
by CofRed on Nov 9, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In a vacuum, I’m OK with 3 games – I don’t think it was an extremely dirty hit, but it was unnecessary and in an NHL where the players start having more respect for one another, it deserves a suspension.
However, the NHL suspension system isn’t a vacuum – it is a bleeping quagmire of inconsistent standards. I swear that Campbell decides on a suspension length by licking his finger and sticking it in the air. There are no standards, no benchmarks and no overall objectives. What is the NHL trying to do with suspensions – are these punishment or an attempt to affect behaviour? Because if they’re the latter they don’t work.
So, in this system, I’m not sure GlenX deserves 3 games. Ultimately, it’s fine because he hasn’t been playing that well and this may be a wake up call. But it’s all a big guessing game.
by maimster on Nov 9, 2009 11:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Three games is probably warranted.
The issue of star players getting treated differently than scrubs – well that’s a red herring I think. Shouldn’t affect the way we view how the league handled this particular incident, or be used as an argument against suspensions and punishment in general.
For instance: the Iginla trip on Souray. No intent imo, but a dangerous and reckless act. He probably deserved a couple of games at least, but he didn’t get them (and it’s fairly clear why). Doesn’t change the fact that Glencross should be suspended, just doesn’t. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
by R O on Nov 9, 2009 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s fair game to admit that Glencross deserves some sort of discipline while criticizing the fact that the NHL is completely inconsistent in these matters.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree. The league is telling us that dirty hit x is ok, but not dirty hit y. The double standard is most certainly relevant to how this hit, and others, have been treated by the league. Based on how other hits have been treated, I feel I can stand here and say Glencross’ punishment is a joke.
This suspension was made because of one, or all, of three factors:
1. Glencross isn’t a star
2. Drury is (allegedly) a star
3. A player from New York got hit
Nowhere, really, does the severity/nature of the hit or the injury factor in because the league has already shown in previous recent cases that neither matters much.
We can argue independently of the NHL’s actions whether such a hit deserves a three game suspension, and that is fair. But in the context of how the NHL handles supplementary discipline, this decision was an absolute joke.
by Resolute on Nov 9, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We can argue independently of the NHL’s actions whether such a hit deserves a three game suspension, and that is fair. But in the context of how the NHL handles supplementary discipline, this decision was an absolute joke.
Well I agree with you on the first part – the hit deserves suspension independent of the NHL’s disciplinary system.
As for the second: you have already made a case as to why the NHL’s disciplinary system is severely flawed and contains double standards. So to pass judgment on Glencross’ suspension using those same standards… well I think that is an indefensible position. It’s not like Glencross shouldn’t get suspended, just because Ovechkin and Richards and Iginla didn’t get suspended.
If I interpret correctly (and correct me if I’m wrong) you’re saying something along the lines of:
The NHL won’t punish Ovechkin, Richards and Iginla, so it’s a joke that they’re punishing Glencross
Whereas I’m saying:
The NHL won’t punish Ovechkin, Richards and Iginla, so it’s a joke that they’re not punishing Ovechkin, Richards and Iginla.
by R O on Nov 9, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly right on what I am saying.
Ovechkin should have been suspended. A slewfoot is blatantly indefensible.
Richards was a clean but hard hit (under the rules), and while others have used it as a comparable to decry giving Glencross 3 games, I have no issue with there being no punishment. Same with Iginla. That was a trip, not a dirty hit, and one where Iginla is lucky he didn’t scramble his own head.
My argument is pretty much as you say though: The NHL’s recent history of discipline says that three games for what Glencross did is at least two games too many.
by Resolute on Nov 9, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t totally disagree with you and at the same time, I think this is why the “head shot” debate rages on ad nasuem. The fact of the matter is most recent ‘debateable’ hits → ie Richards, Neil, Ott, Scuderi etc. all had the element of ‘intent to injure’ as the focal point, but the puck was there. With GlenX, the puck was nowhere near Drury. It’s much more likely the NHL will have inconsistencies (judged by fan bias often) when determining the extent of “attempt to injure.” How can someone tell X he meant to injure that player?
Glen X is easy, no puck+heavy blind side hit = suspension (hands down). The debate is the term, but 3 games….come on, out of an 82 game schedule? That’s pretty light. I think it had little to do with the A, B, C you’ve listed, but often the severity of the injury does influence the penalty.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Double Standards by the League Aside
Yeah that particular hit was dirty and uncalled for…but what’s more shocking is that it came from GlenX. He’s always seem liked a discipline guy who isn’t dirty or mean spirited in anyway. It is what it is though.
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
by KingJafi on Nov 9, 2009 12:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not super-surprised that a suspension was levied. I am a little surprised at the term… I’d have thought 1 game personally.
So… Sjostrom plays for Glencross, Prust plays for Sjostrom? Or do you think someone from the farm gets a cup o’ coffee?
by Parallex on Nov 9, 2009 1:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to see someone like Lundmark come up, he has an offensive upside. Backlund has 6 goals in the AHL, tied for team lead, but I don’t think he should be the man, considering our current defensive problems.
BTW…. Irving had another good weekend. 1-1 with 62/66 shots saves 2.00 and .939%. He is slowly working his way up the AHL leaderboard for top goalie with an impressive 9-4-1 2.17 .928 record. Good for 11th best sv%.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s good news on the Irving front.
I dont see the Flames calling anyone up for 3 games, given they’ve already got a healthy body in Prust.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sweet Irving is putting up numbers. Waiting for the day the Flames draft and develop a goalie.
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
by KingJafi on Nov 9, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just so you guys know – I didn’t write the headline for the Glencross stream at SBnation.com. I think the word “inexplicably” casts a bad light on the article.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 1:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
@
Ottawa
|
Tue 02/09 | 4:30 PM PST |
|
Dallas
|
Thu 02/11 | 6:30 PM PST |
|
Anaheim
|
Sat 02/13 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Minnesota
|
Wed 03/03 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
New Jersey
|
Fri 03/05 | 6:00 PM PST |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Tampa Bay
|
Sat 02/06 | OT - L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Florida
|
Fri 02/05 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Carolina
|
Wed 02/03 | W 4 - 1 |
|
Philadelphia
|
Mon 02/01 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Edmonton
|
Sat 01/30 | W 6 - 1 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
