Whoa…where’d Campbell find his cojones?

Posted by mrfluffy from Long Beach on 03/18/10 at 04:12 PM ET

Enjoy your unpaid vacation, Wiz.

Posted by eternal_fields on 03/18/10 at 04:15 PM ET

All meaningless if Seabrook also doesn’t get at least a game.

Posted by Primis on 03/18/10 at 04:20 PM ET

8? They’re starting to get the hang of this.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/18/10 at 04:22 PM ET

Holy cow.  This NHL suspension storyline is like a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Seabrook should be awarded a Razzie for his bad acting.

Posted by mike from austin on 03/18/10 at 04:23 PM ET

Wonder if this suspension is also to send a message for the Bruins/Pens tilt tonight.

Matt Cooke has turned from hunter into hunted.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 03/18/10 at 04:23 PM ET

How does this fit the concept of “consistency involving similar incidents”?

Posted by Shtikl on 03/18/10 at 04:26 PM ET

Seabrook should have gotten at least 2 games.  I would have been fine with 4 and 2.  8 seems pretty extreme, especially considering recent precedent.  For any of the conspiracy theorists who feel the league bends over backwards for Crosby and the Pens, well, you now have your evidence.

Posted by Aaron from Boston on 03/18/10 at 04:27 PM ET

How does this fit the concept of “consistency involving similar incidents”?

I’m not sure said concept existed, therefore this is not exactly unexpected.  Certainly what he deserved, considering it was a retaliatory headshot w/ a pretty obvious intent to injure, combined with interference and charging.

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 03/18/10 at 04:28 PM ET

Seabrook should be awarded a Razzie for his bad acting.

Love the knuckledraggers who believe this was a conspiracy of some sort. Get out of your mother’s basement. It’s nice outside.

Posted by eternal_fields on 03/18/10 at 04:30 PM ET

The Wheel Of Punshment that Campbell uses is truly random.

Posted by yreland from Van Dieman's Land on 03/18/10 at 04:39 PM ET

Well, I wonder what he would have made of a hit like <a >this</a>, then? Oops, the victim had the puck, maybe that justifies the full-speed hit-from-behind into the boards?

Posted by Shtikl on 03/18/10 at 04:54 PM ET

Give ya the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyLtbpiUB_I

Posted by Shtikl on 03/18/10 at 04:55 PM ET

The suspension policy consistency still seems rather unclear, to say the least, but I have no problems whatsoever with eight games for Wiesniewski. All the one and two game suspension should be reserved for automatic sentencing for game penalties. Whenever Campbell examines a transgression, suspensions should start at five games (and less reluctancy in handing them out).

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 03/18/10 at 05:03 PM ET

For any of the conspiracy theorists who feel the league bends over backwards for Crosby and the Pens, well, you now have your evidence.

Yeah, because losing Matt Cooke for a few games would have DESTROYED the Penguins playoff and Stanley Cup chances.

Spot on.

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 03/18/10 at 05:26 PM ET

It was a dirty play.  However, when you throw the book at a guy who lays out a retribution hit like that, I think it sends a message that you can cheap shot and not face retaliation. 

Seabrook got no suspension for his hit on Perry.  Without the threat of payback, be it by the players or league suspension, guys like Yzerman, Gretzky, et al. would never have played as many games as they did.  Goons would have been going after them and had no fear of a Probert or Semenko or Mcsorley coming after them for it. 

Posted by eternal_fields on 03/18/10 at 05:30 PM ET

If you believe he wasn’t channeling Ric Flair in his dazed and confused act before he fell to the ice, then I bet you still believe in Santy Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.  Sure he was hurt on the play, but he was not KO’d like I read someone say.  That was a hard sell considering he had the presence of mind to break his fall with his arm.

Posted by mike from austin on 03/18/10 at 05:32 PM ET

Yeah, because losing Matt Cooke for a few games would have DESTROYED the Penguins playoff and Stanley Cup chances

No, playing the Devils will ruin the Pens playoff chances.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 03/18/10 at 05:35 PM ET

i’m no hawks fan, and even less of a ducks fan, but i’m a bit confused as to how anyone thinks Seabrook’s hit on Perry was suspendable. it didn’t even look like penalty to me.

also - whoever thinks seabrook was faking it. you are just plain retarded. he got a forarm/elbow directly to the chin at full speed from 60 ft away. that absolutely would knock you out. not only was he clearly not faking, he’s lucky he didn’t leave on a stretcher.

and one more absurd comment - since when is this how a player retaliation is supposed to be. i understand all of the people who are crying for getting rid of the instigator rule, but guess what - if he comes down and instigates a fight with seabrook and beats the crap out of him, he ends up with a one game suspension instead of 8. so who cares about the instigator rule? he clearly didn’t give a damn about getting suspended. so instead of sticking up for his teammate the old fashioned way, he lays an ultimate cheapshot. Probert never played this way. To be honest, i think this play is worse than Bertuzzi, who at least tried to get vengeance the old fashioned way first and only laid a cheapshot once the dude refused to stand up to him. even his cheapshot was WAY less violent… just had much more unlucky results.

also - while i think 8 games is perfectly reasonable, i can’t believe Cambell had to throw in that “repeat offender” BS. the fact that the NHL punitive system is so fluid and flexible and weighs all the crap like extent of injury, time of game, player involved, previous offenses… this is all nonsense. While all sports have elements of human error in their disciplining, this idea that punishment should not be based solely on the act itself is just stupid. you make a rule… if it’s broken, there’s a certain punishment. simple. all the rest is just ridiculous.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 03/18/10 at 06:16 PM ET

If you have trouble swallowing the length of the suspension, look at it this way.  Wisniewski got:

2 games for charging (taking more than two strides at a guy)
2 games for charging (leaving his feet to deliver a hit)
2 games for his elbow to the chin
and
2 games for interference.

Seriously, it was a stupid-ass play that had nothing to do with hockey.  I want guys standing up for teammates like was Wisniewski’s intent, but not in the same manner . You have a problem, you hit a guy hard, not cheap.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/18/10 at 06:46 PM ET

’m no hawks fan, and even less of a ducks fan, but i’m a bit confused as to how anyone thinks Seabrook’s hit on Perry was suspendable. it didn’t even look like penalty to me.

It’s suspendable because the league just suspended Ovechkin for two games for basically the same hit on Campbell.  Maybe you saw or heard something about that?

Then again, the league isn’t hungry for Ovechkin to win a Cup like it is for Chicago, apparently…

What a complete fauxing joke this league is when it comes to discipline, with their different rules for different teams and players.  The only thing we can take from this is that you’re not allowed to hit Chicago’s players… but it’s ok for Chicago to take out your guys.  Apparently Chicago is now officially Pittsburgh West…

JJ, Wisniewski got 8 games for being a stupid idiot.  That works and is ok by me.  I need no further breakdown.  I’m not a fan at all of Seabrook’s hit on Perry, but what the Wiz did in retaliation is just beyond even normal stupidity.

Posted by Primis on 03/18/10 at 09:29 PM ET

@mike from austin

Yup, Seabrook was acting last night when he was pretending to be dazed and confused with a head injury. In fact he enjoyed acting so much last night, that he’s decided to continue his performance tonight by not playing in the game. /sarcasm.

——————

I can’t help but wonder if the Ducks announcers hadn’t accused Seabrook of “selling it” would so many people be accusing Seabrook of acting. Because I can’t remember any other hit where a player took criticism for faking an injury. Especially when the player didn’t return to the game after the hit.

Posted by Brian on 03/18/10 at 09:31 PM ET

I would have thought he was faking even if none of the Ducks announcers had said it.  I still think it was a gross embellishment.  Seabrook looked fine on the bench.

Posted by mike from austin on 03/18/10 at 10:04 PM ET

No, playing the Devils will ruin the Pens playoff chances.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 03/18/10 at 06:35 PM ET

Not their playoff chances.  They went 0-6 against them and are STILL in the hunt for the Atlantic (they’re actually in first by a point at the moment, but Jersey has a game in hand).  Even if they don’t win the Atlantic and get the 2nd seed, they should…SHOULD…comfortably nestle into the 4th seed…seeing as the Sens are 10 points behind the Pens (9 point behind the Devils).

Now…as for ruining Stanley Cup hopes?  We’ll see what happens in the playoffs.  I’ll worry about that if and when it happens.

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 03/18/10 at 10:39 PM ET

channeling Ric Flair

In Mike’s defense…if I’d have just saw the hit and didn’t know he missed the rest of the game, I’d have thought Seabrook embellished a LOT.

It absolutely looked like a vintage Ric Flair sell…except he didn’t fall face-first into the ice afterwards.

But, the fact is, he missed the rest of the game.  Given that fact, I can absolutely believe that he was out on his feet.  He looked like a boxer that just took an uppercut to the chin, man.

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 03/18/10 at 10:43 PM ET

I still think it was a gross embellishment.  Seabrook looked fine on the bench.

He embellished so much he decided to sit out tonight as well. You’re an idiot!

Posted by Timbits on 03/18/10 at 11:01 PM ET

He embellished so much he decided to sit out tonight as well. You’re an idiot!

Posted by Timbits on 03/19/10 at 12:01 AM ET

Youre right, Timbits.  Seabrook himself made the decision to sit out tonight.  Not a team doctor who was concerned with not only the patient’s well-being, but also the Black Hawks’ liability if something were to happen to him during tonight’s game.  A club wouldn’t want to look negligent now, would they?

Posted by mike from austin on 03/18/10 at 11:19 PM ET

I don’t care what team you’re playing for now…you don’t do that to old teammates.  That’s just poor taste.  It would be like Scott Hartnell gnawing on Martin Erat’s left ear.

Posted by stoneman from vegas on 03/19/10 at 04:37 AM ET

I love how people can develop tele-medical abilites where they can determine that a player didn’t have a concussion by looking at them on the bench from their couch at home. Simply brilliant ability and technology that we have. Because you know when a guy has a concusion blood flows from his ears and eyes making it really obvious.

Seabrook let up on Perry along the boards and did not drive him face first. He caught Perry a little bit high because Perry was reaching back for the puck. It was a hockey play that could have merited two minutes at best. He didn’t shove a prone player ten feet into the boards from behind.  If you can’t tell the difference then you probably have never played the game and believe that it is just a “push”. Ten feet from the boards is FAR more dangerous than a few inches.

I’m all for sticking up for your teammates, but running a guy not playing the puck is not the way to do it. You drop the gloves and give him a fair beat down if he deseves it.  Wiznieski seemed stunned in his interview. He thought Seabrook had the puck when he started the charge from the blueline 3 seconds earlier?

Posted by hockey1919 from montreal on 03/19/10 at 08:01 AM ET

Blackhawks fans might see how it has felt to be a Red Wings fan over the last 20 years. Usually, the winged wheel is the target for cheapshot teams like the Ducks. It’s kind of nice that it’s not so far this year.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 03/19/10 at 09:29 AM ET

Blackhawks fans might see how it has felt to be a Red Wings fan over the last 20 years. Usually, the winged wheel is the target for cheapshot teams like the Ducks. It’s kind of nice that it’s not so far this year.

We were so close to having a discussion that didn’t involve the Red Wings victim complex.  Oh well, maybe next time.

Posted by Aaron from Boston on 03/19/10 at 11:45 AM ET

It’s suspendable because the league just suspended Ovechkin for two games for basically the same hit on Campbell.  Maybe you saw or heard something about that?

That someone would be unable to understand the difference between what Ovechkin did to Campbell and what Seabrook “did” to Perry is difficult for me to believe.

Nice of the league to finally get a suspension that more closely fits the crime on this Wisniewski thing.

Posted by steve on 03/19/10 at 12:13 PM ET