The NHL hasn't learned a damn thing.

Marchment was ejected from the game, but there was only 3 minutes left to go! Yeah I'm sure he didn't do it on purpose, but that doesn't excuse you from the action. You want to know what the media is doing wrong these days. I have barely heard anything about this incident. Marchement has a long history of incidents like this, there was no question that it was a hit from behind (which could kill someone), and on top of that Ritchie is done for the season. In my mind Marchment should be gone for 10 games at least. The media is so busy trying to pin blame for hockey's deterioration on just about anyone and yet it's happening again right under their noses.

posted by camcanuck at 11:19 AM - reply - flag:

This is the first I've even heard of the incident. And Marchment is a legendary cheap-shot artist, the Picasso of the dirty hit, so I'm surprised there wasn't media bedlam over the actions of this repeat offender. Shocking.

posted by Succa at 12:11 PM - reply - flag:

Wasn't he just suspended for a game or two? Is this a different incident? Succa, don't be too shocked. There was a 'Mcsorely' type incident not long ago, that went unpunished and virtually unnoticed. I brought it up here in last week's poop quiz. Personally, I think the League is largely responsible for the present hockey climate. You can't let 'near misses' continue to occur and only say something when a broken back bone is involved. If its a hit from behind or a stick swing at the head, the player must be brought to task for his actions. Otherwise the deteriorating long term memory of players will continue to get shorter.

posted by garfield at 12:32 PM - reply - flag:

Garfield: You might be thinking of Tie Domi who just came back from a suspension. The best excuse I've heard so far is Richie turned at the last second on the play. I haven't seen any highlights of the hit. If it was anybody other than Marchment I might let that excuse factor into giving a few less games, but a suspension for a hit like that is still warrented regardless. Since it was Marchment excuses like that should be ignored. On another note entirly: I think that Al Strachan makes a good point when it comes to trades he questions in the same article. Should you really be allowed to bascially give a player to your old team if you're no longer in the playoffs?

posted by camcanuck at 01:12 PM - reply - flag:

i think you're right, but this list is incomplete if that is the case.

posted by garfield at 01:20 PM - reply - flag:

camcanuck, I disagree with the trades issue he brings up. Sather hasn't been an Oiler for over a decade. There's not enough allegiance there anymore for him to just give players away. Do Jacques Lemaire's years (and successes) in New Jersey just not count at all? And Risebrough is more a Flame than a Hab, I'd think. Not to mention, and most importantly, that all these guys also happen to be professionals, who wouldn't give anyone away from the teams they're currently trying to, y'know, make better, so they can, y'know, keep their jobs. Sorry for the slight derail. Marchment should get some kind of suspension, especially since the Panthers are already officially calling dibs on payback. (For which they should also be getting some discipline, if the League has learned anything from last week.)

posted by chicobangs at 02:51 PM - reply - flag:

I was suspicious of the trade activity as well, but I think where players end up has more to do with who the GMs talk to, and like to talk to for that matter, than collusion.

posted by garfield at 03:12 PM - reply - flag:

Monday, March 15, 2004

Comments