30 Minute Bruins Recap: Dear Montreal, SHUT UP! (Rant Warning)

Ok this might be a little lengthier than Coop's 30 second Bruins recaps. You might finish it in 30 minutes or so.

We all know what happened in Tuesday night's game. The one thing everyone obviously agrees on is that Max Pacioretty hopefully will have a full recovery and be able to play hockey again. But that's where everyone seeing eye-to-eye ends.

I'm a Bruins fan, so this is going to be somewhat biased, but I also like to think that I can use some logic when looking at these types of situations. Apparently unlike Montreal fans. Maybe if Pacioretty hit Chara into the glass I'd want him to be suspended, maybe not. It's impossible to say, and while I might immediately be upset with everything, I think that over time when you review the replays and actually think about what happened, you calm down and approach the situation with reason. Hopefully.

The Hit



For me the best view is around the :12 second mark from overhead. Was it a late hit? Yes. Was it an interference penalty? Yes. Do I think it was a dirty play? No. Here's why - from the overhead view you can see that Chara tries to slam Pacioretty into the boards (or maybe even the bench) way before Pacioretty reaches the "turnbuckle." This happens right around the "O" or the "R" in the Ford logo at center ice. Since Pacioretti had a lot of speed, his momentum carried him forward after the contact. Agree? Disagree? That's what makes sports - the debate. But read on to "The Aftermath" where this really gets crazy.

The Aftermath
So you know how I feel about the play. I agree with the penalty, but I was unsure about the game misconduct at first. I don't know if I've ever seen someone get a game misconduct for interference before, but after thinking about it, that was the right decision. At that point, the game was probably over and you don't want things getting out of control.

As far as suspensions go, I didn't think he deserved one. My feeling is that the injury was more of a circumstance of where they were in the rink as opposed to the hit. Like I stated before, my thought is that Chara tried to hit Pacioretti well before the "turnbuckle," but their momentum carried them through. There are people who say that blaming where they were on the ice isn't a valid defense for the hit. I understand what they're saying, but if you're blaming Chara and saying he had to know where he was, then you also have to admit that Pacioretti should have known where he was and maybe he shouldn't have tried to go outside Chara where you can expect contact so close to a dangerous place (this guy agrees).

After reading other opinions and throwing out the irrational ones (people were calling for the rest of the season or as much as 10 games), you might convince me to give him one game, MAYBE two.

But the problem I saw with arguments is that people said, "Well Pacioretti is probably done for the season, so Chara should sit for a while." Here's my problem with "suspending to the injury" - there are perfectly legal plays where guys get hurt, and there are also cheap shots and bad hits where there's no injury. Everyone's body is different and every situation is different. Also, the Canadien's came out right before Chara's conference call with the league and said Pacioretti had a "severe" concussion. I thought the timing was suspect, and that was almost confirmed when Pacioretti admitted that his concussion was not "severe."

Insane Response
So no suspension. Ok I'm cool with that. But the NHL just opened Pandora's box because anyone from Montreal wants blood. An eye for an eye, right? First there was Air Canada threatening to remove its sponsorship from the NHL unless there are tougher policies against headshots. That's noble and I can agree with that. But what I disagree with is that they cited this as a specific incident of what's wrong with the league. I see it as a freak accident. It's fine to disagree with that, but there are times when there are blatant cheap shots, some even causing bad injuries, and there's hardly a peep from anyone. Where was all the outrage from Air Canada when Savard got decked with a cheap shot that everyone agreed was a dirty play? It's because Montreal wasn't involved then, that's why. So you're making a stand for something you believe in, but only if it involves the team from the same city as your headquarters. Awesome.

And to further my point here's a video from two years ago that Puck Daddy posted. Very similar situation:



Johnson's hit wasn't as late as Chara's, and Smyth wasn't injured as badly, but I didn't even hear about this until after Chara's hit. Where was all the outrage then? Canadiens fans just need to shut up and be reasonable.

Think I'm out of line? What about all of the people that called their local police station and asked that Chara be arrested. That really happened. So many calls were received in fact, that the police put out a statement asking them to stop. I can't believe that's a serious reaction. There's a gray line when dealing with sports and law enforcement, and I can understand situations like the McSorely clubbing of Donald Brashear. The player clearly had intent to injure and used his stick as a weapon. No deabtes. No disagreements. But how can any legal action possibly be expected in a situation where it's impossible to determine the intent? Though that's not what's happening with an investigation seeming to start.

In the end, I think the NHL actually did the right thing in this situation. But they can do even better by looking at the engineering at rinks. I always thought it was strange that the angle was so harsh. Maybe rounded glass, or a tapered angle will help? It will take a while to implement this at all levels, but the NHL is the most dangerous place for this to happen so starting at the top seems to make sense.