2 would've been fair.
- flyersfan51

2, 4 not a big difference. I would love to see a new suspension policy... That the player carries out the suspensions, only against the franchise he did wrong to. Look at this situation, Ruhwedel is probably out with a concussion (hurts the Buffalo franchise). Rinaldo is out 4 games against other franchises. Sure it hurts the Flyers a bit, but how does it help Buffalo that Rinaldo was suspended 4 games. It would be interesting to suspend Rinaldo, his next 4 games vs Buffalo. This could stretch into multiple years, if was a suspension against a team out West. If a player is a UFA or wants to be traded, the suspensions would carry with the player (hurting the players negotiations with other teams).

I don't think he could have avoided the cont act because he was racing for the puck, but he sees the guy and lunges into him. Completely unacceptable. Rinaldo sees his role on the ice as if he is going to hit someone, they need to be crushed. He needs to learn time and place or he will never be effective. Hopefully this suspension knocks some sense into him.
- FlyersSteve118

He s a lot like Kaleta and I like both guys but as a fan Im sick of seeing these hits.

They need to fine players significantly more, as stated before, but then use the fine money to develop better equipment. Safer, heavier equipment would slow the game down a bit. That being said, these players understand what they are signing up for. They know the risk (injury), and reward ($). I understood being a former professional athlete

2, 4 not a big difference. I would love to see a new suspension policy... That the player carries out the suspensions, only against the franchise he did wrong to. Look at this situation, Ruhwedel is probably out with a concussion (hurts the Buffalo franchise). Rinaldo is out 4 games against other franchises. Sure it hurts the Flyers a bit, but how does it help Buffalo that Rinaldo was suspended 4 games. It would be interesting to suspend Rinaldo, his next 4 games vs Buffalo. This could stretch into multiple years, if was a suspension against a team out West. If a player is a UFA or wants to be traded, the suspensions would carry with the player (hurting the players negotiations with other teams).
- leon neon

1st time Automatic 10- 20 games when intent to injure is called on the ice. 2nd time double.

No mention of Coach Berube? Guess there is little doubt on his opinion. Make it clear on "what we bring to the table", boys!

This doesn't make any sense. A player is allowed to shoot the puck, and shouldn't be forced into not shooting the puck because the physical action of shooting the puck, will cause his head to lower and leave him vulnerable to a check to the head. The only decision that should've been changed on the play was Rinaldo's. This is not the same situation as a check along the wall, where a player turns his back to the play. Ruhwedel was making the correct choice on the play. All of the responsibility is on Rinaldo on this one.
- MJL

Players are allowed to shoot the puck, and pass, and stick handle... They are also allowed to check some one with the puck. The rule says "if a opponent put himself into a vulnerable position". It doesn't omit, shooting the puck or limit it to only against the boards.

Reaching into the past... How do you feel about the Stevens hit on Lindros. I think it was a similar situation, only stick handling, not shooting. Both drop there heads, unaware, no turning backs, etc... Did Lindros share blame, hell yes.

1st time Automatic 10- 20 games when intent to injure is called on the ice. 2nd time double.
- buffalo 1

I didn't comment on length... I'm not too thrilled with "automatic", there is too much grey area in most of these situations. The whole idea of "intent" is not clear. Only the person checking knows "intent" and what when through their mind at the time. They is bound to be accidents as well. Their is no fact, with no fact it is all subjective. The fans clearly don't like subjective. The length of suspensions are an issue, there is no consistency. I'd almost be better-off with the player sits as long as the injured player sits, with a cap max games for LTIR/career ending injuries.

For someone that covers the Flyers daily, you should know that Zac is getting spoken to behind closed doors from Homer to the coaches to the veterans. Why should he come out and admit he's wrong. That just puts a bigger target on our players. I'm sure you understand how easy it is to pull off a hit in a 0.001 of a second. Give me break, and write about something positive
- CACannon18

Maybe because admitting blame is something that men do, real men anyway. I will agree that sometimes borderline hit occur in a fraction of a second second, but you really have to go out of your way to cause this hit.

Another soft suspension from a soft DPS.

Why can't they admit this, why can't they disclose that? Sheesh

Anywho, you say that Homer has to defend his player and then spend the rest forgetting what you said.

But I agree Rinaldo needs to be spoken to. I volunteer that you ask him that for your next piece.
- wilsonecho91

this is an underrated post

Tim,

As a journalist working with the Flyers and being privy to the Flyers bras and the locker room, why did not you address your questions with Holmgren and Rinaldo using your investigative reporting skill and then placed your investigation piece on HB?

I appreciate your opinion, but it does not distinguish as a journalist and, frankly, it's not much different from the folks who comment on this board.

Had you done more of investigative reporting, you would have had much bigger readership (including me on a regular basis).

I hate that we're in Tim's blog. He really doesn't deserve this. Bill needs to save us.

Players are allowed to shoot the puck, and pass, and stick handle... They are also allowed to check some one with the puck. The rule says "if a opponent put himself into a vulnerable position". It doesn't omit, shooting the puck or limit it to only against the boards.

Reaching into the past... How do you feel about the Stevens hit on Lindros. I think it was a similar situation, only stick handling, not shooting. Both drop there heads, unaware, no turning backs, etc... Did Lindros share blame, hell yes.
- leon neon

First of all, at the time of the Stevens hit on Lindros, legal hits to the head were allowed. The head is no longer allowed to be the principal area of contact on the hit. So that's the first difference.
Secondly, the major difference is that it is possible to stick handle with your head up and be aware of the ice. It is possible to go into the corner, sometimes, without leaving yourself in a vulnerable position, and to not turn your back to an oncoming checker. It is possible not to admire your pass. However, it is not possible, in a shooting motion, to keep from lowering your head. Your argument, is well he shouldn't have shot the puck, he had an option to pass. The clear correct play for him to make was to shoot the puck. And he should pass up the opportunity to shoot the puck on net, because his head might lower leaving him vulnerable to a head shot? Seriously!

I hate that we're in Tim's blog. He really doesn't deserve this. Bill needs to save us.
- PhillySportsGuy

Exactly

He s a lot like Kaleta and I like both guys but as a fan Im sick of seeing these hits.
- buffalo 1

hes nothing like kaleta

hes nothing like kaleta
- flyershockey

who, Tim?

First of all, at the time of the Stevens hit on Lindros, legal hits to the head were allowed. The head is no longer allowed to be the principal area of contact on the hit. So that's the first difference.
Secondly, the major difference is that it is possible to stick handle with your head up and be aware of the ice. It is possible to go into the corner, sometimes, without leaving yourself in a vulnerable position, and to not turn your back to an oncoming checker. It is possible not to admire your pass. However, it is not possible, in a shooting motion, to keep from lowering your head. Your argument, is well he shouldn't have shot the puck, he had an option to pass. The clear correct play for him to make was to shoot the puck. And he should pass up the opportunity to shoot the puck on net, because his head might lower leaving him vulnerable to a head shot? Seriously!
- MJL

I didn't say the Lindros hit was legal or not. I simply asked your opinion. if that hit were to happen today, it would be illegal - but, legal back then. My point was - did Lindros share in the blame of his injury. Yes he did. And, I don't disagree that the Rinaldo hit was illegal. I frankly don't care if the hit was legal or not - it was not. The question in Tim's article was whether or not Ruhwedel shared some (not all or a majority, but some) of the blame. And, partial blame of the injury not the legality of the hit. Regardless of what Ruhwedel was doing - at one camera angle Ruhwedel head was as low as his butt... So, he did indeed put himself in a vulnerable position. Rinaldo didn't bend him over, then hit him. If Ruhwedel could have avoided or lessen the blow by any means, then yes he shared blame.

Why can't they admit this, why can't they disclose that? Sheesh

Anywho, you say that Homer has to defend his player and then spend the rest forgetting what you said.

But I agree Rinaldo needs to be spoken to. I volunteer that you ask him that for your next piece.
- wilsonecho91

I didn't say the Lindros hit was legal or not. I simply asked your opinion. if that hit were to happen today, it would be illegal - but, legal back then. My point was - did Lindros share in the blame of his injury. Yes he did. And, I don't disagree that the Rinaldo hit was illegal. I frankly don't care if the hit was legal or not - it was not. The question in Tim's article was whether or not Ruhwedel shared some (not all or a majority, but some) of the blame. And, partial blame of the injury not the legality of the hit. Regardless of what Ruhwedel was doing - at one camera angle Ruhwedel head was as low as his butt... So, he did indeed put himself in a vulnerable position. Rinaldo didn't bend him over, then hit him. If Ruhwedel could have avoided or lessen the blow by any means, then yes he shared blame.
- leon neon

So anytime a player takes a slapshot, they are partially to blame if someone throws a flying elbow at them. Got it.

I didn't say the Lindros hit was legal or not. I simply asked your opinion. if that hit were to happen today, it would be illegal - but, legal back then. My point was - did Lindros share in the blame of his injury. Yes he did. And, I don't disagree that the Rinaldo hit was illegal. I frankly don't care if the hit was legal or not - it was not. The question in Tim's article was whether or not Ruhwedel shared some (not all or a majority, but some) of the blame. And, partial blame of the injury not the legality of the hit. Regardless of what Ruhwedel was doing - at one camera angle Ruhwedel head was as low as his butt... So, he did indeed put himself in a vulnerable position. Rinaldo didn't bend him over, then hit him. If Ruhwedel could have avoided or lessen the blow by any means, then yes he shared blame.
- leon neon

It is false in my opinion to place any blame whatsoever on Ruhwedel. And I gave my opinion on the Lindros hit.

I'll explain as simply as I can, what the clear difference that is being missed here is, and then I'm going to move on.

If a player is stickhandling through open ice, with his head down, he is playing carelessly, and is playing the wrong way, leaving himself vulnerable. If a player turns his back purposely, along the boards, to an oncoming checker, he is playing carelessly, and is leaving himself vulnerable. If a player makes a pass and turns to admire his pass, he is playing carelessly, and is playing wrong, leaving himself vulnerable. All of these situations, players are taught in peewee, not to do. Taught to skate with your head up, not to admire your pass, and how to protect yourself from hits along the wall, and in the corners.

Now a player, who has the puck at the point, and has a wide open shot to the net, and takes that shot. And the resultant follow through causes his head to lower. That is not playing careless, nor is it playing the game the wrong way. Nor is a player taught to not take a shot if he might be hit, as a fundamental of Hockey. That play is clearly a different circumstance, and one in which the player taking the shot, cannot be blamed in any way for doing so. It was the correct play, and the player has the right to not get hit in the head because the physical follow through will cause his head to lower. It is a clearly different situation then the Lindros hit, And any other situation where the player getting hit shares some blame due to a careless action on his part.

So anytime a player takes a slapshot, they are partially to blame if someone throws a flying elbow at them. Got it.
- jmatchett383

Apparently.

So anytime a player takes a slapshot, they are partially to blame if someone throws a flying elbow at them. Got it.
- jmatchett383

I was in a driver safety class once. Some one asked the instructor who had the right-of-way in a certain circumstance... The instructor said, right-of-way discussions are best left to the lawyers - just avoid the accident. Rinaldo did not have the right-of-way, but Ruhwedel did nothing to avoid the accident.

Tim Panaccio: Why Can't Flyers Admit Punishment Was Correct?
- tpanaccio

The brass is likely pretty pissed off with the 2 hugely malicious and certainly illegal hits this year on BSchenn that went entirely unmentioned by Shanny. I don't see any reason to be kind worded regarding anything to do with Shannahan, they guy doesn't deserve any. He's been in his seat long enough to realize he's not doing a good job and yet he continues to dwindle in it.

Not sure why anyone suggests that the disciplinarians deserve any support. They're complete and utter failures to the league and players. The Rinaldo his was illegal, I wouldn't argue that for a second. But had I watched over and over again my teammates being so dangerously abused while Shannahan turned his shoulder away, I wouldnt give two (frank)ing poops about looking sorry and I'm happy that our organization is responding with discontent. They're just stating a point.

I was in a driver safety class once. Some one asked the instructor who had the right-of-way in a certain circumstance... The instructor said, right-of-way discussions are best left to the lawyers - just avoid the accident. Rinaldo did not have the right-of-way, but Ruhwedel did nothing to avoid the accident.
- leon neon

So again, how dare Ruhwedel shoot the puck. He should have made a different play, one which wouldn't have been the correct play, which could've caused his Coach to become unhappy. So he could avoid the accident? This is also senseless.

The brass is likely pretty pissed off with the 2 hugely malicious and certainly illegal hits this year on BSchenn that went entirely unmentioned by Shanny. I don't see any reason to be kind worded regarding anything to do with Shannahan, they guy doesn't deserve any. He's been in his seat long enough to realize he's not doing a good job and yet he continues to dwindle in it.

Not sure why anyone suggests that the disciplinarians deserve any support. They're complete and utter failures to the league and players. The Rinaldo his was illegal, I wouldn't argue that for a second. But had I watched over and over again my teammates being so dangerously abused while Shannahan turned his shoulder away, I wouldnt give two (frank)ing poops about looking sorry and I'm happy that our organization is responding with discontent. They're just stating a point.
- tymed8

The Flyers response publicly, or any team's response in a matter like this, is not based on any unhappiness with the powers that be, or to respond with discontent. But is likely about maintaining the unity of the dressing room. Any unhappiness with the player, or the League, would be handled internally, and behind closed doors.