.....and the penalty for biting is a 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty?
Joe...I am not being facetious, it is covered in the NHL rules....as a 2 minute minor, unless of course someone actually bit off a finger in which it would be 5 minutes and a game.
Nips...Ray Scampinello said that if the refs had seen it, they would have called the 2 minute minor and he highly doubts that Colin Campbell would have suspended Ruutu.........strange l know.
Technically, no the suspension was not warranted (according to Ray whom knows his stuff). He said had he bit his finger off and gotten the match penalty, then it is a different story.......so basically a player got suspended for what is considered a minor penalty...........me thinks the rule needs to be rewritten.

That is seems reasonable - but you get 4 minutes for drawing blood with a high stick. What about with a bite?

yep they cover pretty much everything in that rule book

since the 1987 Flyers Canadians Brawl they have had to!

haha


yeah l am a ref

How long until Jarkko Ruutu pulls a Sammy Sosa on TSN and says, ''En ymmarra'' ?
(it means '' l do not understand'' in finnish)

ps. It seems either the trolls are at it again or Senaturds fans have nothing better to do

Well, l know hair pulling is also a penalty so biting might as well be in it.Wonder if kicking in the ovaries will also be in there. l will have to look that up.

**WOW- l guess that would be like getting a 2 game suspension for ''divingwhich is also an unsportsmanlike penalty.

.Hmmm yup.guess it depends maybe on who is biting.and what they bit lol.obviously they applied rule 21 here upon review (match penalty) even though none was called at the time.any match is an automatic supplemental disciplinary review by the league office..

Obviously the league viewed it as a ''deliberate attempt to injure''(another bit of Ruutus past catching up)


29.1 Supplementary Discipline - In addition to the automatic fines and
suspensions imposed under these rules, the Commissioner may, at
his discretion, investigate any incident that occurs in connection with
any Pre-season, Exhibition, League or Playoff game & may assess
additional fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during
the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player,
goalkeeper, Trainer, Manager, Coach or non-playing Club personnel
or Club executive, whether or not such offense has been penalized by
the Referee.

So the suspension is not warranted? There should be an appeal then, with a basis on the rule you stated.

l agree that if it is in the rulebook and is a minor, then he should not be suspended.

NHL has too many rules IMO. im suprised they specifically said 2 minutes.

so if thats the rule why give him two games off?

further proof that the NHL is not adjudicating consistently, & instead, it is ''holding grudges''. that suspension had just as much to do w/ Ruutu is past as it did w/ the actual event. frankly, l think the suspension MOSTLY was influenced by his past. that implies that although Ruutu was (supposedly) adequately punished for previous infractions, he is inheriting a ''tax'' or ''interest'' from past punishments that is levied on current punishments.

it is crap. the new adjudication / corrective process on & off the ice this year is questionable at best; regardless of team loyalties.

i agree w/ NIPS. if the punished players cared enough, some of these perpetrators could get a decent lawyer & appeal the pay lost by these suspensions. Avery would have a decent case. Especially since he is out of work now. The judicial decision to his situation was almost entirely subjective.


Now, l realize that i'm about to take a risk by SEEMINGLY making a generalization, but for those reading this. TRY to extract the validity & application of what i'm about to write.

IF players can protest suspensions in the NFL for taking banned substances ''unintentionally'' (despite being SPECIFICALLY warned, & giving no room for excuses), & have lawyers / judges side w/ them, & then actually go on & play a few games), then there is potential credence for NHL players. do l think it is worth it? in some cases, no. but 5 years from now, when Ruutu is getting 10+ game suspensions & the like, because of a ''history of infractions & they count this ''biting'' incident as one of them, he could argue that some of these ''dominos'' should not have been been included in the line that ''fell''. furthermore, like previously stated, Avery has an arguably legitimate suit to reclaim wages lost by a questionable decision that exercised a considerable amount of latitude that may not have been specifically justified (or called out in the rulebook or bylaws of the NHL).

does that make sense?



add- l just read Leafer is answer. If that rule is stated such, this is a slippery slope. Does that encourage post game interviews (a la Peters) to hint that the league should look at stuff that happened on the ice? Does not this smell like grade school w/ ''who is the Commissioner is favorite / non-favorite''? tattletales, ''he started it''.

l have a question: HOW did this event even GET to the commish / front office? because of the media? Peters? what makes something reviewable? Does a coach have to request it? Seriously, it is like that joke that says, ''if a tree falls in the woods & no one is around, does it really make a sound?''. So refs r going to report themselves to the NHL front office. ''hey, l think l miffed a call. u may want to look at it.''. in MOST situations, this wo not happen. l would think (w/ my NHL - ignorant brain), that MOST reviews r triggered because of a coach or ref, & of course all playoff games. NOT the media. give me a break. had the media NOT broken this story, we should admit that MOST of us would not even know it happened. until sabres fans posted it. but it is not about us. it is about the info flow to the nhl front office.

The point is, that Bettman (and his staff) r arbitrarily (hint: unfairly) deciding what to review. Are they going to view EVERY minute of EVERY game & “fix” ALL the calls of ALL the refs TO ALL players? Probably not. Therefore, what is their criteria to decide what needs additional adjudication? Please tell me it’s not the media sticking a mike in front of a player. See, slippery slope! Welcome to the tattletale age.

what is Ruutu supposed to do? kindly ask Peters to remove his hand? HE CAN'T TALK! he is got a freakin glove in his mouth! here is a crazy thought. maybe Peters accidentally found his glove in Ruutu is mouth. But once there, made no attempt to remove it because he wanted to ''spice up'' the facewash & give a little extra works. Ruutu either reacted instinctively, OR. was a warning to Peters to remove his glove. Come on! since when is another player allowed to insert any portion of his body into the orifice of another player. (have fun w/ that one). will THAT be adjudicated?

i'm done.


Add 2- ( l guess I’m not done. Lol). Good points, leafer. I, in no way, am contesting those. And I’m not saying that Ruutu would have a good case. Nor am l a fan of Ruutu’s. he’s just another player to me. l guess what I’m saying is that sooner or later, if the nhl isn’t careful, this basic rule concept of “the commish is the supreme dictator & can soverignly levy punishments on whom he will, & reward those in his good graces (facetious)” will be challenged. And is crap. l think it needs to exist. I’m just saying that the nhl is in danger of going too far w/ it. (i.e. is not being “consistent” with it.) Your post was helpful to actually see the rule in writing. l think Ruutu should pick his battles. This wouldn’t be one of them. When the Avery thing first occurred, l figured their would be no appeal, cuz l think Avery KNEW he was going to do it, & was willing to face the music. The joy of doing it was worth the penalty (the kid who takes the cookie KNOWING that he’s gonna get a spank, cuz the cookie is so good). However, he didn’t know that he’d be removed from the team. But isn’t that double jeopardy? I’m not saying Avery would win the case, but sounds to me like the Stars made him a scapegoat, for some of their other woes. This isn’t about Avery though. All good points. Thank for the add’l info. l obviously don’t know the rules like u guys do, but based on the little info l have, it just seems inconsistent.

l know when a guy pulls hair in a fight they will give a gross misconduct.
Biting is certainly gross.

No.

l saw the highlights on Sports Center, & l thought Tyson had taken up hockey for a minute there. Then l saw who actually had done it (allegedly right?) & it did not surprise me. Since l only caught a brief bit of the story, & l was under the influence of some doctor prescribed medications, l am in no way qualified to comment on this, but l will anyways...

If the refs did not see it, then they can not call a penalty right? So no misconduct either. But can not the league go back & review the tape, & hand out a suspension if they so deem it necessary?

Speaking of banned substances, what if he had actually bitten off the finger of the victim, & the victim had been taking a banned substance, now would not the biter show positive for the same substance? (providing he savored the succulent digit for a bit) The NHL could request a test for any banned substances, & get him on that, too, right? l know it is round about way, but the NHL took a circuitous route to get rid of Sean Avery, too.

Me agrees, the rule needs to be changed, intent to hurt should prevail..

Lol, l did not know that. Figured that would fall under roughing.
Deserved or not, Ruutu got the suspension just for being a repeat offender and disrespecting the game of hockey.

l believe its 4 minutes for real teeth but only 2 for false teeth.

Well, when Jarko Ruutu bit Daniel Pialle or whoever, the referees did not know that!

It is a very odd rule but u never know with that game the other day lol