Dan Carcillo Suspended Two Games For High Sticking Incident
by Travis Hughes on Mar 30, 2010 3:33 PM EDT
in Philadelphia Flyers News
Email
PrintDan Carcillo has been suspended two games by the NHL for his high stick on David Clarkson on Sunday night against the Devils, according to the Flyers. He picked up a match penalty on the play, which means it was automatically reviewed by the league for supplementary discipline.
The team released a statement from Paul Holmgren, who said that he is" disappointed in this decision by the league" and that it "was clearly an accidental high stick and I do not believe a match penalty."
According to Rich Chere, Devils beat writer at the Star-Ledger, Carcillo apologized to Clarkson right after the incident while the two were still on the ice. Clarkson is quoted by Chere as saying that Carcillo shoved him and his stick got a little high, and that he didn't know if Carcillo would be suspended for it. Chere's article had a tone which suggested that Clarkson wasn't upset about the incident and that he didn't have any ill feelings towards Carcillo -- minus the fact that he's a Flyer.
I didn't see the play live or on replay, and I haven't seen any video, so I'm going to refrain from analyzing this one. The NHL has made the video of the incident available. Here it is:
Coincidentally, perhaps, the NHL has dropped the end of the video where the refs jump in rather quickly and the two players are talking to one another a bit. I watched this part on NHL GameCenter, but I can't upload that video. I can tell you though that in it, you can see Carcillo's immediate apology when he realizes Clarkson was cut and you can see him pat Clarkson on the back in apology as well. To say this was an intent to injure -- which the officials were saying by handing out a match penalty and Colin Campbell is saying by handing out a suspension -- is really stretching things.
Nevertheless, Carcillo will miss Thursday's game against the Islanders and Friday's game against Montreal. It means that James van Riemsdyk will be back in the lineup come Thursday if he's healthy. If not, the Flyers will likely have to call someone up from the Phantoms.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Suspended for Playing While (wearing orange and) Black
Can we start referring to these as PWB suspensions?
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Show me David Laliberte!
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 30, 2010 2:03 PM EDT reply actions
What the heck? You can only even get a match penalty for a high stick if it has deliberate intent to injure, let alone a suspension.
60.4 Match Penalty – When, in the opinion of the Referee, a player
attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or
holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the
Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.
Travis, your headline was right… but they didn’t just toss out the rulebook, they shredded it and then burned the pieces.
and peepeed on the ashes.
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Mar 30, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
it si a judgement call by the ref on the spot. the ref made the call, and in his opinion it was deliberate intent to injure, and thus within the rules of the game (as opposed to the “incidental contact” incident).
in my opinion, it’s complete horseshit. that’s a legal verdict. look it up.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
this is another reason hockey isn’t getting big in America…the rules are always getting changed and no one has a clue what is going on. (but neither do the people that are suppose to know)
Skip the Pitt, Move on down to Broad Street....
Philadelphia Flyers / Columbus Blue Jackets, 'nuff said.
by PhillyPhan85 on Mar 30, 2010 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought it had to with the prospect of the fight and when Carcillo engaged Clarkson the stick got stuck between them and Clarkson got hit in the face. it is almost like the face shield stupidity and the rules of fighting. Why didn’t Leblond get a match for cross checking Carcillo in the head when he wanted to fight him? Correct me because I have no idea what Ia m getting here.
Just Call Me "M"!
Im starting to like the KHL more and more
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
I just watched it on Game Center… can’t upload the video, but Carcillo actually pats Clarkson on the back and has an “oh shit, sorry dude” look on his face.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
But clearly he intended to injure Clarkson.
Can Carcillo appeal this suspension like they do in baseball? Clearly this is Campbell doing things based on reputation only. I can’t even describe how much of a c*nt Campbell is. He honestly does not deserve to hold his job and everyone knows it.
But Clarkson doesn’t make it sound like he thought it was intent to injure at all, and it was his face!
by DragonGirl0583 on Mar 30, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Which is fine, but he should be in control of his stick. From my understanding (haven’t seen it), it was a run of the mill accidental occurrence because he got his gloves up there. I don’t why they decided this was suspendable (is there much/any precedent), but fuck the NHL’s role in this: it’s Carcillo’s fault. Don’t do that. The you don’t have to apologize to Dave fuckin Clarkson, only to be suspended by it.
I’m not angry about the high sticking call, but match penalties are reserved for stuff that’s really, really serious. The fact that Matt Cooke doesn’t get a match penalty for his hit on Marc Savard (clear intent to injure) and Carcillo gets one because a little shove went off target is a nice summation of how terrible the league handles this stuff.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 30, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
So are you more shocked by the match penalty, the suspension, or both? Or were you resigned to the suspension after a wrongful match penalty was assessed?
The match penalty was totally shocking (although, as I said, I didn’t see it live so I didn’t know how bad it was or wasn’t). I kinda feel like Carcillo in that yeah, a suspension was probably going to come down because of who he is, but I was holding out hope they’d have some sense in this one.
If Carcillo doesn’t get the wrongful match penalty, though, this is never reviewed and a suspension is never handed out. Let alone two games. I mean, shit, Ovechkin got two games for ending Brian Campbell’s season.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 30, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah apparently two games is a big price to pay. If ovechkin gets two games then Carcillo should be suspended from one practice. The NHL needs to make its suspension guidelines public and formulaic. This would make it so much easier for everyone involved.
Completely agree. We need a lot more transparency.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 30, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s my problem. There’s a general disconnect. Let’s look at this from the classic parental time-out perspective: what’s Carcillo supposed to learn from this?
I don’t mind the officials tossing him. From what I’ve heard, it seemed like a double technical situation: they just didn’t want to see him for the rest of the night. I’m fine with referees having that power, should someone’s play generally warrant it.
and therein the hypocracy
the league just equated what carcillo did to what oveckin did.
it’s like equating shoplifting to rape*
*unless it’s clown/mime rape. cause that shit’s funny. still illegal, but funny.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
I could understand a ref calling a match penalty on this play, as if he’s out of position, it could look like Carse cross checked Clarkson the the face. It would totally be jumping the gun and the wrong call to make, but I could understand why the ref would make that kind of call, especially when you consider that it’s Daniel Carcillo who’s doing it.
But, upon further review, there’s no way this should be a suspension. It was typical hockey post play scrum type stuff, when Clarkson knocks Carse’s stick into his own face. Weak suspension handed out because of the name on the back of the jersey.
by Hatt the Moople on Mar 30, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
My grammar and typing are atrocious, as always. Pretty fitting for an English major. However, two mistakes worth clarifying:
-I’m asking a question when I say “is there much/any precedent.” I can’t think of a similar situation.
-“The you don’t have to…only to be suspended by it” should be “Then you don’t have to…only to be suspended in addition.”
Now, now guys. Don’t you see the irony in complaining about the refs when the Flyers are the biggest goons in the league?
But seriously, even I’m getting sick of complaining about all these calls (Yes, I know they’re utter BS). My spirit is broken. Colin Campbell employs The Great Throwdini, so I’ve lost all hope.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 30, 2010 2:28 PM EDT reply actions
Oh, FYI I feel like going all WIP caller right now, but Ben Feldman and JpH89 summed up my level of resignation quite nicely.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 30, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Is the suspension really just collateral damage to getting a certain amount of match/game misconduct penalties? The entire thing is a calamity of incidentals but I imagine the legitimacy of the of the infraction is not what got him the 2 games. It was the umpteenth time he was ejected from a game.
Just Call Me "M"!
It may be true that he got the suspension because he’s been ejected a few times. But before they decide that is the case shouldn’t they review the play itself and determine if it warranted the ejection. If they decide the ejection was bogus then there is no need to suspend. It just seems like a lazy Colin Campbell being unable to use any rhyme or reason to dole out disciplinary action.
And to me it doesn’t look like “intent to injure” or a two game suspension.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 30, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Did he mean to shove Clarkson? Sure.
Did he mean to cut his eye open? Sincerely doubt that.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 30, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I meant. Carcillo was definitely pushing him, but I guess the stick just got a little to high. I wish they would show him apologizing to Clarkson afterwards.
Can’t show it. Then it looks like the Flyers have feelings. You know, positive ones.
I can read the future, while lesser men read comic books.
Also, such disclosure contradicts the princples outlined in
Chapter 5: Building Better Fall Guy from the book of Practical Scapegoating
Campbell is a douche
Typical I would just say no harm no foul no intent no foul but he is a Flyer so intent is a given. If Clarkson got hurt I could see warranting some type of suspension, for chirst sakes Coatsey caught a more vicious high stick while between the benches this year. I would also give Carcillo more credit if he really had intent to injury someone I think Matt Bradley can tell you that he would succeed. I think he got the same suspension for both plays LOL.
Now that I see the video...
He cross-checked him in the face. He threw the cross-check at his shoulders, but it got deflected into his face.
Of course he was suspended. Independent of what constitutes the leap from match penalty to suspensions…he cross-checked him in the face. Sorry, Carbomb, enjoy the press box.
My favorite part of this is that you cannot get a match penalty for anything that is called as a cross-checking penalty, which is why they had to fit it under high-sticking… Is it bad that I’m hoping to have to study a new rule book by next year, just so I can get rid of the headache from the current one?
by DragonGirl0583 on Mar 30, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
so let me get this right……
blasting someone in the face on purpose with the puck is the same as if the puck deflected off an errant stick and caught someone up high?
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Metaphor doesn’t work, because cross-checking is never legal. They just allow it. Unless you do it to a human face.
i’ve seen cross checking called in situations where the stick wasn’t applied to the face. it usually occurs in the crease.
but i see your point.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
“Unless” doesn’t constitute an “if and only if” statement. So, logically, what I said is:
If you cross check someone in then face, then cross checking isn’t legal.
It’s not the only “if, then” that can be applied to the legality of corss-checking, but the statement is still valid.
LSAT FTW.
but you did bring in the definitive statement of “they just allow it”. if you had stated “they usually allow it”, then i would have been rightly lawyer’d.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Time to switch hats. Go go, useless English degree!
The statement, reduced through antecedents and removing the adverb “just” (here meaning “merely”): Referees merely allow cross-checks. Statement doesn’t clarify if all referees allow all cross-checks.
Okay, this is getting pedantic.
i respectfully disagree.
legally, i am bound to give your statement the broadest reasonable interpretation. while “merely”, in light of the definition that you refer to, does make sense, the specific definition(s) supplied cannot be implicitly improted into the statement.
but yes. pedantic indeed.
f it dude, let’s go bowling.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
To say this was an intent to injure — which the officials were saying by handing out a match penalty and Colin Campbell is saying by handing out a suspension — is really stretching things.
Nuh uh. If you injured the guy then you must have had intent to injure. And I’m pretty sure the NHL is on record saying that suspensions aren’t just for intent to injure, as much sense as that would make. Even if they haven’t explicitly stated it, anyone who has paid any attention knows that they punish injuries, not intent. It’s stupid, but it’s reality. This should have been penalized in game and been the end of it. You see this kind of stuff happen pretty routinely (seems like I saw almost this exact same thing last time DET and PIT played… can’t recall who may have been involved though…). Definitely a little ludicrous to get 2 games over this.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
If Carbomb
was a Pen, maybe protecting Crosby, would he be fined or suspended or anything???
Skip the Pitt, Move on down to Broad Street....
Philadelphia Flyers / Columbus Blue Jackets, 'nuff said.
trick question
carbomb would never defend crosby.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Forget if Carcillo was a Pen, What Leblond did to Carcillo was close to the same same thing. No match that is the problem.
Just Call Me "M"!
I would feel outrage if it wasn’t for the fact that Campbell is a complete joke and NHL discipline is the laughingstock of the league.
Don’t even get me started on the officiating from game to game.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 30, 2010 5:14 PM EDT reply actions
What a joke
I saw the FSN feed of the game and the original play.
-Carcillo had no intent to high stick Clarkson, as what appeared to be developing was your typical end of lopsided game, let’s send a message for next time brawl. Gloves were flying, but then as soon as Carcillo realized that he had nicked Clarkson, he grabbed on and could be seen patting Clarkson on the back.
The most laughable part of this is that Clarkson was clearly the aggressor, and Carcillo was merely responding.
Meanwhile Matt Cooke continues to attempt to injure players, without even receiving a penalty.
Wow, that suspension was fawking bullsheet. All Carse was doing was bumping with another player, and the stick slid up. This is definitely a suspension based on the perpetrating player, rather than the incident.
by Hatt the Moople on Mar 30, 2010 10:17 PM EDT reply actions
I think Hell is freezing over – a Pens fan just said a Flyer doesn’t deserve to be suspended!
Seriously, though, when the fans of rival teams are saying a suspension is a bad call, that goes to show how bad either the decision or the lack of communication is. Maybe the league does have a legitimate reason, but they’re not telling anyone, which gives at least the appearance of being completely arbitrary. If they don’t have such a reason, than they are completely arbitrary.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
show me the money
I guessing this bullshit call is going to cost Carcillo over 20K I would be really pissed if I got fined 20K for something that was even remotely questionable.
Shameless plug
Show your outrage with an awesome Checillo t-shirt! Buy one and send it to Colin Campbell!
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Mar 31, 2010 10:30 AM EDT reply actions
heheh nice. I’ve already shown enough outrage by buying one of the Got Goaltending? shirts. However, along these lines, perhaps a Wheel of Fortune inspired NHL Wheel of Justice shirt is in order (though this feels like a complex message to deliver on a tshirt). I’m not really clever enough to flesh out the idea myself (though I feel like Carcillo, Pronger and Richards/Briere could be contestants…..), so uh, you know, good luck with that.
As for the hit, it’s pretty clear to me that Carcillo is cross checking him pretty lightly trying to incite him to fight, and on the second cross check, Clarkson brings up his right hand, hitting Carcillo’s left, which brough the stick up into Clarkson’s face (and also caused Clarkson to lose his glove). I’m always alright with incidental/accidental stick contact with face being given two/four minutes (depending on if it draws blood, of course), but for a match penalty and a suspension? Completely ridiculous. It’s unbelieveable the number of vicious hits that get let go night in and night out, without so much as two minutes, let alone a match (the Volchenkov hits have been mentioned numerous times, so how about when Andy Sutton brought his stick up into Powe’s face later in the game? He got a call, but no match, on a play that was much more dangerous than what Carcillo did). To say that this was so outlandishly vicious that they had to get this guy off the ice (for 2+ games) is a joke. But we all already knew that.
"He told me, 'Keep your head up.' I didn't realize he meant the whole season."
I love the Wheel of Justice idea.
I saw an image of players spinning the wheel from the Price is Right (can’t find it now though) which was pretty funny, maybe something like that.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 31, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s cliche, but you could always go with the Dartboard of Justice.
And of course, Justice is blind, so a blindfolded Campbell with a dart is a must.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
I’ve got a mental image in my head of how that shirt could work, if you’re serious about that idea…. I could explain it to Kreider if you want me to try…
by DragonGirl0583 on Mar 31, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha, should have read lower. That was where I was going with it, was to use the Price is Right wheel instead.
by DragonGirl0583 on Mar 31, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Hahaha. Do we like the Price Is Right wheel or Wheel of fortune better?
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Mar 31, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the price is right wheel…. I imagined Carcillo spinning it, with possible punishments on the wheel, and the red spot on the wheel (where the 1.00 normally is) could be something like “Lifetime Ban”. That was the image in my head, anyway. I think the price is right wheel is better because we only have to come up with the visible options instead of a whole wheel that might be too busy.
by DragonGirl0583 on Mar 31, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Are we thinking campbell or bettman as Bob/Drew with the old school mic? Maybe Hartnell and/or Richie or someone standing by?
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Mar 31, 2010 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Bettman as Bob, with Campbell as one of Barker’s Beauties…
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Are you really going to try to draw this?
by DragonGirl0583 on Apr 1, 2010 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
You guys seem to want it, why not?
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 1, 2010 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Kings vs. Coyotes Game 5; Pierre McGuire on Tortorella/DeBoer argument (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Behold, the incredible playoff beards of Radko Gudas and AHL’s Norfolk Admirals
- Coyotes vs. the road warriors: Can Phoenix end LA Kings’ road domination?
- Coyotes, Kings Game 5 preview; Claude Giroux has fun; PK Subban on the ladies (Puck Headlines)
- Stanley Cup Final schedule released; Game 1 on May 30, Game 7 would be June 13
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Tokarski, Admirals blank IceCaps 4-0; Norfolk wins AHL's Eastern Conference
- Norfolk advances to Calder Cup Finals
- Oilers president Lowe says vacant coaching job not discussed with Sutter
- Eastern Conference champ to host Game 1 of Stanley Cup final on May 30
- Rangers, Devils brush away rhetoric, prepare for crucial Game 5 in East finals
