Paul Stewart: Defending Teammates, the Code and the Human Rulebook

Paul Stewart: Defending Teammates, the Code and the Human Rulebook
- Paul Stewart

I wasn't a fan of Emery's actions, although I do understand his frustrations.

But so many NHL analysts seem to treat this situation like no team getting it's doors blown off ended up in a line brawl or picking fights. It happened before Friday night, and it will happen again after Friday night.

It's they hypocrisy. You mention Crosby jumping Brett MacLean off a faceoff. Well Crosby got praised, for lighting a fire under his team. No his fight with MacLean wasn't as drawn out or as deserving of the aggressor penalty as Emery's actions, but he sure as Hell jumped an unsuspecting kid at the faceoff dot and pummeled him.

I wasn't a fan of Emery's actions, although I do understand his frustrations.

But so many NHL analysts seem to treat this situation like no team getting it's doors blown off ended up in a line brawl or picking fights. It happened before Friday night, and it will happen again after Friday night.

It's they hypocrisy. You mention Crosby jumping Brett MacLean off a faceoff. Well Crosby got praised, for lighting a fire under his team. No his fight with MacLean wasn't as drawn out or as deserving of the aggressor penalty as Emery's actions, but he sure as Hell jumped an unsuspecting kid at the faceoff dot and pummeled him.
- Jsaquella

I agree, there seems to be a huge bias when it comes to fighting and what the commentators have to say. If its Crosby then he is praised as if he is the second coming of Christ. But god forbid John Scott gets into it with someone. What I find slightly hypocritical is that the commentators making these comments were fighters when they played, it's like seriously you can't go off on a guy for doing the same thing you did as a player.

I agree that the Emery fight was unfair, to say the least, and I'd be pissed about it if Holtby was my goalie. But as has been mentioned, this is far from the only case where one player fought an unwilling/unable player. The Crosby fight against McLean, McCarty on C. Lemieux, Domi/Kaberle on Burt, Carkner on Boyle (he got 1 game for that, not sure why) come to mind. Out of those 4, only 1 player got suspended, and (I'm guessing) that's because he got a match penalty.

As was also stated, to me, it shows a lack of team play that someone didn't step in and defend Holtby. Now, I'm not saying you should ever have a Michael Haley situation where a skater enforcer seeks out a goalie for a fight, but at the same time, if a player, goalie or not, is pummeling your teammate, it's on you to stop it if the referees don't.

I agree, there seems to be a huge bias when it comes to fighting and what the commentators have to say. If its Crosby then he is praised as if he is the second coming of Christ. But god forbid John Scott gets into it with someone. What I find slightly hypocritical is that the commentators making these comments were fighters when they played, it's like seriously you can't go off on a guy for doing the same thing you did as a player.
- jaumiller

That's my biggest issue, the rank hypocrisy.

I don't like what Emery did. I suggested he be suspended on twitter right after it happened. But to suggest he's the first guy that took out frustrations by fighting an opposing player in a blowout to try and light a fire is absolute bullpoop.

I actually was thinking of your Udavi Rule when this game was going on. I was wondering what some of the Caps had done to:
1. P!ss some of the Flyers off so much
2. Cause the refs to not throw the book at Simmomds, Vinny, Braydon and Emery with match penalties and more and
3. Not have fellow teammates come to Holtby defense.
Wayne was on that ice and was going to take someone out, Emery wasted no time going the length of the ice ( I understand he was still steamed about the last goal but him disdain should have been with the zebras at that point ) and Vinny is not one that drops the gloves that often.
Do we know something didn't preced this event other than the lambasting the Caps put on the Flyers?

I actually was thinking of your Udavi Rule when this game was going on. I was wondering what some of the Caps had done to:
1. P!ss some of the Flyers off so much
2. Cause the refs to not throw the book at Simmomds, Vinny, Braydon and Emery with match penalties and more and
3. Not have fellow teammates come to Holtby defense.
Wayne was on that ice and was going to take someone out, Emery wasted no time going the length of the ice ( I understand he was still steamed about the last goal but him disdain should have been with the zebras at that point ) and Vinny is not one that drops the gloves that often.
Do we know something didn't preced this event other than the lambasting the Caps put on the Flyers?
- jtb3rd

Well, looking at the play that started it all, Simmonds hit a Caps defenseman after the faceoff, and Tom Wilson started to engage him...and that's when Emery sprinted down the ice.

Like Downie took exception when he felt Read had been slew footed and fought Volpatti, Wilson felt Simmonds had been over enthused when hitting the Caps defenseman.

I wasn't a fan of Emery's actions, although I do understand his frustrations.

But so many NHL analysts seem to treat this situation like no team getting it's doors blown off ended up in a line brawl or picking fights. It happened before Friday night, and it will happen again after Friday night.

It's they hypocrisy. You mention Crosby jumping Brett MacLean off a faceoff. Well Crosby got praised, for lighting a fire under his team. No his fight with MacLean wasn't as drawn out or as deserving of the aggressor penalty as Emery's actions, but he sure as Hell jumped an unsuspecting kid at the faceoff dot and pummeled him.
- Jsaquella

As a Flyers fan I was upset that our goalie felt the need to "spark" the team by fighting. Shouldn't the Flyers have reacted before it was 7-0? Don't they have someone else to send a message". I have no problem with fighting. I really do not have a problem with what Emery did on the surface. He should have let off when Holtby was down. Other than that he was a player that was tired of losing and displayed his anger physically. Happened thousands of times in the past.

I am way more embarrassed by the Flyers getting that far into a game before showing any level of pride. That team quit in the second period. If I was Emery and Mason I might have had some words for the 18 other guys dressed for that game.

Also, I liked this article.

As a Flyers fan I was upset that our goalie felt the need to "spark" the team by fighting. Shouldn't the Flyers have reacted before it was 7-0? Don't they have someone else to send a message". I have no problem with fighting. I really do not have a problem with what Emery did on the surface. He should have let off when Holtby was down. Other than that he was a player that was tired of losing and displayed his anger physically. Happened thousands of times in the past.

I am way more embarrassed by the Flyers getting that far into a game before showing any level of pride. That team quit in the second period. If I was Emery and Mason I might have had some words for the 18 other guys dressed for that game.

Also, I liked this article.
- mickel25

The line brawl, for all it's ugly glory, was better than they way the team just quit in the second period.

Well written.

I couldn't agree more about the assessment of the CAPS players... I would go as far as to say that if someone came in with their stick up on Emery (to get him off Holtby), I would be praising him as a CAPS fan, regardless of suspension.

This isn't your typical 3rd man in, here. We are talking about a starting NHL goalie.

Imagine if Holtby got concussed or had a broken jaw or something that caused him to miss a few months? The players in the Caps dressing room would be kicking themselves for not doing anything.

Outside trying to maim Emery, IMO anything goes to try to get him away from Holtby: A crosscheck to the face or back of the head; a spear to the kidney;.. whatever.. get him off my starting goalie!

Seems to me that the rule book did have a place for the League to suspend.

27.6 Leaving Goal Crease – A minor penalty shall be imposed on a goalkeeper who leaves the immediate vicinity of his crease during an altercation. In addition, he shall be subject to a fine of two hundred dollars ($200) and this incident shall be reported to the Commissioner for such further disciplinary action as may be required. However, should the altercation occur in or near the goalkeeper’s crease, the Referee should direct the goalkeeper to a neutral location and not assess a penalty for leaving the immediate vicinity of the goal crease. Equally, if the goalkeeper is legitimately outside the immediate vicinity of the goal crease for the purpose of proceeding to the players’ bench to be substituted for an extra attacker, and he subsequently becomes involved in an altercation, the minor penalty for leaving the crease would not be assessed.

Seems to me the incident falls under this since he was given the minor penalty for leaving the crease and the rule says the Commissioner could have had "further disciplinary action as may be required." The league just blew this.

Seems to me that the rule book did have a place for the League to suspend.

27.6 Leaving Goal Crease – A minor penalty shall be imposed on a goalkeeper who leaves the immediate vicinity of his crease during an altercation. In addition, he shall be subject to a fine of two hundred dollars ($200) and this incident shall be reported to the Commissioner for such further disciplinary action as may be required. However, should the altercation occur in or near the goalkeeper’s crease, the Referee should direct the goalkeeper to a neutral location and not assess a penalty for leaving the immediate vicinity of the goal crease. Equally, if the goalkeeper is legitimately outside the immediate vicinity of the goal crease for the purpose of proceeding to the players’ bench to be substituted for an extra attacker, and he subsequently becomes involved in an altercation, the minor penalty for leaving the crease would not be assessed.

Seems to me the incident falls under this since he was given the minor penalty for leaving the crease and the rule says the Commissioner could have had "further disciplinary action as may be required." The league just blew this.
- icehammer97

Thing is, if a match penalty had been assessed, then you are in the "further disciplinary action" turf. If it is just the aggressor penalty -- even with instigator implications -- it is treated as part of the fighting rules. Doesn't make much logical sense, but as Paul said, "precedent rules the waves".

I would not be surprised if the aggressor rule is amended to give more explicit match penalty leeway, especially for goalies leaving the crease.

There is a simple rule in the rule book that can be used at any time, yet refs and disciplinarians seem to be scared to use it.

It's called intent to injure.

Technically, any time you jump someone with your fists, you are trying to hurt them. I understand that they can't hand out an intent to injure suspension for every fight that has an instigator.

With that said, once Holtby was on his knees and Emery was feeding him in the back of the head that was clearly intent to injure. It wasn't a hockey fight anymore.

Think about it.. how many times to you see an enforcer continuing to pummel someone repeatedly once they are on their knees or back? Sometimes, you see one last shot after a guy goes down, but you'd be hard pressed to find very many examples of guys pummeling others while they are down.

5 games for intent to injure. Done and done.

Another great read.

There is a simple rule in the rule book that can be used at any time, yet refs and disciplinarians seem to be scared to use it.

It's called intent to injure.

Technically, any time you jump someone with your fists, you are trying to hurt them. I understand that they can't hand out an intent to injure suspension for every fight that has an instigator.

With that said, once Holtby was on his knees and Emery was feeding him in the back of the head that was clearly intent to injure. It wasn't a hockey fight anymore.

Think about it.. how many times to you see an enforcer continuing to pummel someone repeatedly once they are on their knees or back? Sometimes, you see one last shot after a guy goes down, but you'd be hard pressed to find very many examples of guys pummeling others while they are down.

5 games for intent to injure. Done and done.
- Charliebox

Is a hard bodycheck "intent to injure?" Is fighting a player "intent to inujure?" I've always hated that rule because it's only called when a player IS injured. Just another way the NHL disciplinary process is so backward.

Is a hard bodycheck "intent to injure?" Is fighting a player "intent to inujure?" I've always hated that rule because it's only called when a player IS injured. Just another way the NHL disciplinary process is so backward.
- jmatchett383

Discretion is a good thing, but the refs need to be willing to use it more.

Now, here's something else. As a former player, I was wondering what Washington forward Michael Latta -- the closest Cap, and someone not directly involved in any of the other fights going on during the line brawl -- was doing in not coming to Holtby's aid.

Yes, referee St. Laurent apparently warned Latta to stand back, and he did so. But referees actually have some leeway when it comes to these situations. A third-man-in penalty and game misconduct (Rule 46.16) does not have to applied if there is a match penalty being assessed on the play -- and, again, I personally would have given Emery a match penalty on top of the Aggressor penalty -- OR if the third man in acts strictly as a peacemaker.

In other words, had Latta merely gone in and wrapped up Emery and wrestled him down to prevent him from throwing any further punches, he would not have to be ejected by the referees. Only at the point he would have started throwing punches of his own at Emery, he would become third man in with all the requisite penalties.

You have serious flaw here in your line of thinking, and that is, if the referee very clearly told Laata not to come in, why would you expect him to not give him a third-man in or other penalties if he simply helped? When he clearly told him not to help? I don't know about that one, just because you would handle it that way, doesn't mean the ref who clearly told him not to interfere would in the same manner.

Now, maybe he should have any way, but maybe Emery shouldn't fight someone who tells him no.

I wasn't a fan of Emery's actions, although I do understand his frustrations.

But so many NHL analysts seem to treat this situation like no team getting it's doors blown off ended up in a line brawl or picking fights. It happened before Friday night, and it will happen again after Friday night.

It's they hypocrisy. You mention Crosby jumping Brett MacLean off a faceoff. Well Crosby got praised, for lighting a fire under his team. No his fight with MacLean wasn't as drawn out or as deserving of the aggressor penalty as Emery's actions, but he sure as Hell jumped an unsuspecting kid at the faceoff dot and pummeled him.
- Jsaquella

No one has an issue with the line brawl. No one has an issue with Simmonds running around and Wilson taking exception to it. Everyone has an issue with a goaltender fighting someone who told him no.

No one has an issue with the line brawl. No one has an issue with Simmonds running around and Wilson taking exception to it. Everyone has an issue with a goaltender fighting someone who told him no.
- Blackstrom2

The funny thing is, a lot fewer people had an issue with Sidney Crosby fighting a guy who didn't want to fight, right off a faceoff.

Calling for banishment or long suspension is simply not being realistic or fair. He fought a guy who didn't want to fight, looked like a jackass in doing so. But he's not the first guy that took on a less than willing opponent and won't be the last...but he's one of the few that people seem to think needs especial punishment for doing so.

It's funny how some of this is falling on the Caps players on the ice for not helping Holtby. Not Emery..for you know...fighting someone who said no...for continuing to hit someone who was obviously in a defenseless and vulnerable position.

Maybe the Caps players thought Emery wasn't a piece of poop anymore and would let up? Maybe they thought the refs wouldn't be negligent in their job and stop it?

The funny thing is, a lot fewer people had an issue with Sidney Crosby fighting a guy who didn't want to fight, right off a faceoff.

Calling for banishment or long suspension is simply not being realistic or fair. He fought a guy who didn't want to fight, looked like a jackass in doing so. But he's not the first guy that took on a less than willing opponent and won't be the last...but he's one of the few that people seem to think needs especial punishment for doing so.
- Jsaquella

I actually said he should not be suspended, as there really is nothing in the books for that. However, something needs to be in place to protect players who refuse to fight in the future. Especially someone like Emery who has aggression issues and is a boxer, outside motive and intent is there.

I actually said he should not be suspended, as there really is nothing in the books for that. However, something needs to be in place to protect players who refuse to fight in the future. Especially someone like Emery who has aggression issues and is a boxer, outside motive and intent is there.
- Blackstrom2

I agree with that. It just shouldn't be limited to a goalie leaving the crease.

If Emery should get an extra two or extra five, so should a guy who does what Crosby did.

I agree with that. It just shouldn't be limited to a goalie leaving the crease.

If Emery should get an extra two or extra five, so should a guy who does what Crosby did.
- Jsaquella

I certainly called out Crosby for his nut punching, but you didn't see the big time media talking about it like the Emery thing.

Holtby is young, maybe he doesn't quite know about Emery's past. He probably wasn't expecting him to actually grab him and pummel him.

I certainly called out Crosby for his nut punching, but you didn't see the big time media talking about it like the Emery thing.

Holtby is young, maybe he doesn't quite know about Emery's past. He probably wasn't expecting him to actually grab him and pummel him.
- Blackstrom2

I'm sure he wasn't. Again, I'm not excusing Emery at all.

What a POS move that was by Emery. What if Holtby got hurt from this, and he didnt even want to fight. What a joke the Flyers are becoming