Thread: Duncan Keith suspended 5 games

NHL suspends Duncan Keith for illegal hit on Daniel Sedin - The Globe and Mail

Brendan Shanahan revealed the five-game suspension at about 6 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday. He noted that Keith had never been suspended before, but added his elbow caused injury. Shanahan did not declare the elbow to be deliberate.

Five games means Keith will return to the Blackhawks’ lineup with two games left in the regular season.

A bit harsh for a first time offender, but I think he earned it.

I thought Shanny was too lenient on him. But its somewhat consistent with other susoensions he has given out. At least it has that going for it.

I'm a lazy fat bastard.

...so I thought I would just steal this quote from a Ottawa Senator fan on another board who summed up my thoughts much more capably than my own simple mind could.

I agree there's a serious problem with the suspension he handed to Keith. I'm ok with not penalizing hits that injure players overly harshly so long as the hit was a HOCKEY PLAY that got out of hand, such as shoulder coming up to the head or what have you.

But this Keith hit which was a blatant attempt to hurt Sedin when he didn't have the puck and was a completely illegal hit and just not a hockey play.

Neither was the Bourque hit on Backstrom.

Both Keith and Bourque should have had to sit for seriously 25 games for that (and I'm not exaggerating for effect). Again, I'm not a soft hockey-guy, I actually am all for no suspensions for hits to the head that just happen to happen throughout the game due to player miscalculation.

But when you are throwing a disgusting hit with intent to injure when the guy doesn't even have the puck: that doesn't belong in hockey and neither should the offender for a long period of time.

credit 2 Sureves: Duncan Keith suspended 5 games for hit on Daniel Sedin - Page 11 - HFBoards

i'm somewhere in between... i think that maybe 25 games is a bit overboard, particularly for a first time offender, but 10 games would have been perfect for a play like that - which are exactly the ones they are trying to get out of the game.

i also think Doan should have gotten at least 5 as well.

Originally Posted by gescom

i'm somewhere in between... i think that maybe 25 games is a bit overboard, particularly for a first time offender, but 10 games would have been perfect for a play like that - which are exactly the ones they are trying to get out of the game.

i also think Doan should have gotten at least 5 as well.

Agree that the 25 games is the radical end of the spectrum, but I do think it was a premeditated hit and he should have been suspended for the rest of the regular season plus a game in the playoffs. These types of hits are vicious and need to be dealt w/much more severely IMO.

Doan should have gotten more and Bourque most certainly should have been given a stiffer (tehee I said stiffer) sentence.

My hope is that the NHL starts cracking down even harder next time these type of hits occur.

Also, Keith isn't a first time offender; he's a first time punishee

Originally Posted by Drunken Crunker

I'm a lazy fat bastard.

...so I thought I would just steal this quote from a Ottawa Senator fan on another board who summed up my thoughts much more capably than my own simple mind could.



credit 2 Sureves: Duncan Keith suspended 5 games for hit on Daniel Sedin - Page 11 - HFBoards

I've argued that there is no need for fighting in the game for this very reason. The whole supposed "need" for players to "police themselves" would go away if the league started handing out nasty suspensions of 10+ games. You hand out one 50-game suspension for a knee-on-knee or elbow to the head, there pretty much won't be any more of these plays. Instantly.

In what sport are players left to "police themselves"? Hockey likes to think that's it is unique, except it ain't. There are plenty of games in which there are violent hits and with the exception of hockey, none of them allow fighting. The argument that the sport "needs" fighting, if you step back, sounds absolutely insane. The only reason the players would ever need "to police themselves" is that the league has refused to police the players and abdicated its responsibility for doing so.

Question for you guys and gals. What do you think of Daniel Sedin's initial hit?

I'm wondering if my biases may be interfering w/ my ability to recognize the hit properly.

I thought at most it deserved a minor penalty, but I know a lot of Hawk fans believe Sedin targeted Keith's head and that it was the PPoC.

Hoping to get a better perspective of that hit here that I would among the vitriol exchanged between some Nuck and Hawk fans.

Originally Posted by Drunken Crunker

Question for you guys and gals. What do you think of Daniel Sedin's initial hit?

I'm wondering if my biases may be interfering w/ my ability to recognize the hit properly.

I thought at most it deserved a minor penalty, but I know a lot of Hawk fans believe Sedin targeted Keith's head and that it was the PPoC.

Hoping to get a better perspective of that hit here that I would among the vitriol exchanged between some Nuck and Hawk fans.

I'll never be one to defend the Sedins because I group them in with the Perry's of the world (those who only like to get tough when there's 3 guys to protect them) but there should be no excuse for Duncan Keith's hit. If Keith really wanted to get back at him he should have kept the elbow down and run through him.