Kostopoulos suspended three games

2946 Views 20 Replies 9 Participants Last post by JL, Nov 14, 2008

Spider-Man NL

Discussion Starter · Nov 10, 2008

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=255442&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_main

The NHL has suspended Montreal Canadiens forward Tom Kostopoulos three games on Monday for a hit on Toronto Maple Leafs defenceman Mike Van Ryn on Saturday night.

Kostopoulos knocked Van Ryn into the boards from behind in the first period of the Toronto's 6-3 win. Kostopoulos was given a major penalty for boarding and ejected from the game.

'' First and foremost, I sincerely regret the injuries suffered by Mike Van Ryn,'' Kostopoulos said in a statement. ''This is an unfortunate turn of events. I was just trying to get in on the forecheck and get the puck. I didn't anticipate him turning and couldn't stop. I was trying to finish my check and obviously it did not end up well. I never intend on injuring another player. I feel bad. I hope he is going to be all right and resume playing as quickly as possible.''

Van Ryn suffered a concussion, a broken nose, a broken bone in his hand and a cut to his forehead. He is expected to miss a month.

The 29-year-old Kostopoulos has only had one previous suspension. He was suspended for one game in November of 2007 for going after Boston Bruins' Mark Stuart late in a fight-filled contest in Montreal.

Kostopoulos will forfeit almost US$33,000 in salary and will miss games against Ottawa, Boston and Philadelphia.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

Spider-Man NL

Discussion Starter · #2 · Nov 10, 2008

what a crock of sh*t!!!

Did Grabber get suspended for is spear on Price? NO.

Did Sauer get suspended for his head shot on Kostitsyn? NO.

the NHL is such a f*cking joke, it ain't funny any more.

Æn7ropy

· #3 · Nov 10, 2008

The biggest joke in this is Campbell saying it was a crosscheck, did he even watch the video or did just wait for the powers that be to tell him what to do?

Maybe if there would be a penalty to players that opportunity.turn their back like that (much like diving or something) this would happen less and guess what, increase offense since the team on the offense have more chance to recover the puck deep in the zone hence a scoring.

Way I see it Kosto knew Van Ryn saw him coming (we clearly see him look over his shoulder) and expected him to protect himself in the corner. There was no way he could of known Van Ryn would turn his back at the last second.

JL

· #4 · Nov 10, 2008

I am truly not happy about Campbell's decision here. Kostopoulos doesn't have a reputation of being dirty and there is nothing he could have done to prevent the injury. From his statement (and I believe him), he's truly sorry about it but as he says himself, he couldn't predict that Van Ryn would turn around at the last second and by that time, it was too late for TK to stop.

How many games did Hollweg get again?

A joke of a decision from a joke of a league...

See less See more

hockeyboy14

· #5 · Nov 11, 2008

JL said:
I am truly not happy about Campbell's decision here. Kostopoulos doesn't have a reputation of being dirty and there is nothing he could have done to prevent the injury. From his statement (and I believe him), he's truly sorry about it but as he says himself, he couldn't predict that Van Ryn would turn around at the last second and by that time, it was too late for TK to stop.

How many games did Hollweg get again?

A joke of a decision from a joke of a league...

So its okay to cheap shot a player, resulting in a nose break, a broken hand and a concussion because he said sorry? Lets be real here, I know Kostopoulos isnt a dirty but his action was dirty and was subject to suspension. 3 games is a fair amount of games.

I think the biggest problem, reffering back to old incidents is that the NHL rules need to be further defined.

JL

· #6 · Nov 11, 2008

hockeyboy14 said:
So its okay to cheap shot a player, resulting in a nose break, a broken hand and a concussion because he said sorry? Lets be real here, I know Kostopoulos isnt a dirty but his action was dirty and was subject to suspension. 3 games is a fair amount of games.

I think the biggest problem, reffering back to old incidents is that the NHL rules need to be further defined.

Cheap shot a player? There was no cheap shot there. As a firm believer in objectivity over fan favouritism, I actually think that was NOT a penalty...

Van Ryn turned in an attempted 180 when he saw TK had him lined up and that is why TK hit him from behind... but, the Rule states that such a situation is NOT a penalty:

Rule 44 – Checking from Behind

44.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

Though I guess it could be called a penalty if the referee interprets that last sentence to mean the player turns specifically or deliberately to create contact with his back and not just as part of the play...

I'm not denying TK hit Van Ryn in the back, because he clearly did... but the reason TK did it is why it should NOT have been a penalty and why I don't blame TK at all for the incident...

If you watch it in slow-motion you can see how the play developed... Van Ryn went into the corner at an angle as he should have, TK saw that and had him lined up for a big hit, Van Ryn saw TK in the glass and attempted to reverse direction and not only stopped, but started to turn his back to TK (look at Van Ryn's left skate during the play, he stopped and was about to push off in the opposite direction), which is probably the worse thing he could have done... if Van Ryn had continued in the same direction, or even just stopped without turning, TK would have hit him with a very hard, but perfectly clean, check...

Now consider that all this happened at full speed, how is TK supposed to stop when Van Ryn literally turned at the last instant before contact?... Watch the YouTube clip and try to freeze it as TK's skates are on the goal line... see how close he is to Van Ryn, probably within 3 feet, yet Van Ryn still does NOT have his back to TK even at this point... TK is probably only a foot away by the time Van Ryn has turned...

this is the text-book definition of the checkee 'causing' the hit-in-the-back and exactly why that sentence is in the Rule Book... it was a clean play by TK which Van Ryn turned into a dangerous/illegal play by his own actions...

On this picture, you clearly see that Van Ryn his heading towards the back of the net (look at his skates), or in a position to stop. At the same time, look at Kostopoulos who's already in motion to hit him, passed the goal line, leaning forward to hit him. Not in the back, but on the side!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/JLpics/HF use/Kostopoulos(hit).jpg (you'll have to remove the brackets as the auto-sensor didn't accept the link)

Look at the picture again, look how close Kostopoulos is from Van Ryn, within the red goal line, how his body is starting to move forward to hit and yet, Van Ryn is sideways to TK at that time. This shows without any doubt that Van Ryn turned at the very last second and TK couldn't stop.

It's an unfortunate incident that I'm sure TK feels bad about, but Van Ryn brought it to himself by putting himself in a vulnerable position in order to avoid the inevitable check. Furthermore, he bend down forward in doing so, a big no-no.

See less See more

hockeyboy14

· #7 · Nov 11, 2008

JL said:
Cheap shot a player? There was no cheap shot there. As a firm believer in objectivity over fan favouritism, I actually think that was NOT a penalty...

Van Ryn turned in an attempted 180 when he saw TK had him lined up and that is why TK hit him from behind... but, the Rule states that such a situation is NOT a penalty:

Rule 44 – Checking from Behind

44.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

Though I guess it could be called a penalty if the referee interprets that last sentence to mean the player turns specifically or deliberately to create contact with his back and not just as part of the play...

I'm not denying TK hit Van Ryn in the back, because he clearly did... but the reason TK did it is why it should NOT have been a penalty and why I don't blame TK at all for the incident...

If you watch it in slow-motion you can see how the play developed... Van Ryn went into the corner at an angle as he should have, TK saw that and had him lined up for a big hit, Van Ryn saw TK in the glass and attempted to reverse direction and not only stopped, but started to turn his back to TK (look at Van Ryn's left skate during the play, he stopped and was about to push off in the opposite direction), which is probably the worse thing he could have done... if Van Ryn had continued in the same direction, or even just stopped without turning, TK would have hit him with a very hard, but perfectly clean, check...

Now consider that all this happened at full speed, how is TK supposed to stop when Van Ryn literally turned at the last instant before contact?... Watch the YouTube clip and try to freeze it as TK's skates are on the goal line... see how close he is to Van Ryn, probably within 3 feet, yet Van Ryn still does NOT have his back to TK even at this point... TK is probably only a foot away by the time Van Ryn has turned...

this is the text-book definition of the checkee 'causing' the hit-in-the-back and exactly why that sentence is in the Rule Book... it was a clean play by TK which Van Ryn turned into a dangerous/illegal play by his own actions...

On this picture, you clearly see that Van Ryn his heading towards the back of the net (look at his skates), or in a position to stop. At the same time, look at Kostopoulos who's already in motion to hit him, passed the goal line, leaning forward to hit him. Not in the back, but on the side!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/JLpics/HF use/Kostopoulos(hit).jpg (you'll have to remove the brackets as the auto-sensor didn't accept the link)

Look at the picture again, look how close Kostopoulos is from Van Ryn, within the red goal line, how his body is starting to move forward to hit and yet, Van Ryn is sideways to TK at that time. This shows without any doubt that Van Ryn turned at the very last second and TK couldn't stop.

It's an unfortunate incident that I'm sure TK feels bad about, but Van Ryn brought it to himself by putting himself in a vulnerable position in order to avoid the inevitable check. Furthermore, he bend down forward in doing so, a big no-no.

Im not sure if the official ruling was check from behind or boarding...
If it was check from behind, it is wrong, and boarding (or charging) should be the call...

42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the
boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the
application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance
must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

Note the bold. Van Ryn, was in a vulnerable position, and TK didnt try to avoid him. Agreed, that Van Ryn did put himself in that position, but so many things can happen on that play. There was no time to react. It was plain and simple dirty.

The ref in the game, along with the NHL disciplinary group, agreed that it was dirty and worth a suspension.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNJ3X9tHqf0
Look at second 4, you can see TK hitting close to the head. Furthermore, you can see how far Van Ryn is away from the boards.

Its a dangerous hit, and one could argue an attempt to injure.

If I must, I will create a thread asking people if they think it was dirty or not, and I believe you will see a vast number of people saying its dirty.

There's nothing wrong with defending your player, but dont let your bias blind you. It was dirty, and was worth a suspension.

See less See more

gabriel

· #8 · Nov 11, 2008

Would TK be suspended if Van Ryn didn´t suffer all these injuries from the play?

hockeyboy14

· #9 · Nov 11, 2008

gabriel said:
Would TK be suspended if Van Ryn didn´t suffer all these injuries from the play?

Thats a very good question, and I think he would have got 1 game or even none. I think thats where lies the NHLs problem. It shouldnt matter if the player is injured or not, if a play is dirty and dangerous, the league should give out suspensions. Obviously punishment should be higher for those who did things on purpose of if there was an injury on the play (that isnt a fluke injury...)

There should be a rule book that addresses the injuries for example:

First time offender, no injury to other player: 1 game
First time offender, injury to player : 3 games
First time offender, serious injury to player : 5-10 games.

Second time offender, no injury: 3 games
Second time offender, injury to player: 5 games
Second time offender, serious injury: 10-15 games

Third time offender, no injury: 5 games
Third time offender, injury : 15 games
Third time offender, serious injury: 25-50 games

Fourth time offender: 50 games.

I know it may sound rash, and it probably is, but we have to take this out of hockey. Obviously there can be conditions, like accidental injury, and just a fluke injury, but thats for the NHLPA to determine. The only problem to this method is there's a lot of variables, but if the NHL and NHLPA can work them out, I personally think we would have a better game.

Personally I still think the Kostisyn trip on Schenn was worse, but thats just me.

See less See more

flyerfan2

· #10 · Nov 11, 2008

I'm sorry but three games is a joke.

This suspension should have been in the 10- 20 game range as TK made no effort to avoid and infact accelerated the hit at the end when Van ryn clearly had the numbers facing TK.

And Kostitsyn{sp} should have been suspended for his dangerous calculated push on Schenns skates sending him crashing into the boards.

viperstar

· #11 · Nov 12, 2008

JL said:
Cheap shot a player? There was no cheap shot there. As a firm believer in objectivity over fan favouritism, I actually think that was NOT a penalty...

Van Ryn turned in an attempted 180 when he saw TK had him lined up and that is why TK hit him from behind... but, the Rule states that such a situation is NOT a penalty:

Rule 44 – Checking from Behind

44.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

Though I guess it could be called a penalty if the referee interprets that last sentence to mean the player turns specifically or deliberately to create contact with his back and not just as part of the play...

I'm not denying TK hit Van Ryn in the back, because he clearly did... but the reason TK did it is why it should NOT have been a penalty and why I don't blame TK at all for the incident...

If you watch it in slow-motion you can see how the play developed... Van Ryn went into the corner at an angle as he should have, TK saw that and had him lined up for a big hit, Van Ryn saw TK in the glass and attempted to reverse direction and not only stopped, but started to turn his back to TK (look at Van Ryn's left skate during the play, he stopped and was about to push off in the opposite direction), which is probably the worse thing he could have done... if Van Ryn had continued in the same direction, or even just stopped without turning, TK would have hit him with a very hard, but perfectly clean, check...

Now consider that all this happened at full speed, how is TK supposed to stop when Van Ryn literally turned at the last instant before contact?... Watch the YouTube clip and try to freeze it as TK's skates are on the goal line... see how close he is to Van Ryn, probably within 3 feet, yet Van Ryn still does NOT have his back to TK even at this point... TK is probably only a foot away by the time Van Ryn has turned...

this is the text-book definition of the checkee 'causing' the hit-in-the-back and exactly why that sentence is in the Rule Book... it was a clean play by TK which Van Ryn turned into a dangerous/illegal play by his own actions...

On this picture, you clearly see that Van Ryn his heading towards the back of the net (look at his skates), or in a position to stop. At the same time, look at Kostopoulos who's already in motion to hit him, passed the goal line, leaning forward to hit him. Not in the back, but on the side!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/JLpics/HF use/Kostopoulos(hit).jpg (you'll have to remove the brackets as the auto-sensor didn't accept the link)

Look at the picture again, look how close Kostopoulos is from Van Ryn, within the red goal line, how his body is starting to move forward to hit and yet, Van Ryn is sideways to TK at that time. This shows without any doubt that Van Ryn turned at the very last second and TK couldn't stop.

It's an unfortunate incident that I'm sure TK feels bad about, but Van Ryn brought it to himself by putting himself in a vulnerable position in order to avoid the inevitable check. Furthermore, he bend down forward in doing so, a big no-no.

I can't believe what your saying -.- Dude anyone could see that the hit was dirty if you watch a replay he actually sped up when he coulda tried slowing down ... and he injured Van Ryn I mean i know he isn't a dirty player but IT's Van Ryn's job to play hockey so if he turned in to get the puck why is it his fault? for playing the game? even then why was Kostopulous going in to the boards at such a high speed ? -.- i mean wdf

Æn7ropy

· #12 · Nov 12, 2008

right and TK intentionally giving up the fight for the puck because some idiot can't protect himself was much better option. He plays on the fourth line, it could of cost him his spot and ended up in the AHL for a good while.

He sped up cuz he knew VR was aware of him and expected him to protect himself instead of pulling off a very idiotic play.

JL

· #13 · Nov 12, 2008

hockeyboy14 said:
Note the bold. Van Ryn, was in a vulnerable position, and TK didnt try to avoid him. Agreed, that Van Ryn did put himself in that position, but so many things can happen on that play. There was no time to react. It was plain and simple dirty.

I apologize if my first post was too long as it doesn't seem like you've read it, or read it all. Either that, or you ignore the evidence or didn't look at the picture I've posted. I've changed the name of the file and re-loaded it. Here it is again:

See how Van Ryn doesn't have his back to Kostopoulos, but his side? See where TK is, beyond the goal line? See how he's in motion to start his check, always on the same picture when Van Ryn is sideways to TK? The fact is that Van Ryn put himself in a vulnerable position by turning his back, knowing that TK was going to hit him. If you've played contact hockey, you'll also know that it was impossible for TK to stop his motion at that point in time because he was trying to land a clean legal check but couldn't predict that someone would be dumb enough to turn that way.

hockeyboy14 said:
There's nothing wrong with defending your player, but dont let your bias blind you. It was dirty, and was worth a suspension.

This is low and quite surprising coming from you. It is not bias, far from that. I was one who was saying that Sauer's hit was legal and it was Kostitsyn's fault (yes, one of OUR players) for watching his pass instead of looking ahead. You are dead wrong in your assessment of my personality.

gabriel said:
Would TK be suspended if Van Ryn didn´t suffer all these injuries from the play?

I highly doubt it. Unfortunately, it's a stupid way to look at infractions. The same thing as with the high sticking penalties, 2 minutes with no blood, 4 minutes if the same stick draws a bit of blood. Ridiculous.

flyerfan2 said:
I'm sorry but three games is a joke.

This suspension should have been in the 10- 20 game range as TK made no effort to avoid and infact accelerated the hit at the end when Van ryn clearly had the numbers facing TK.

And Kostitsyn{sp} should have been suspended for his dangerous calculated push on Schenns skates sending him crashing into the boards.

You're right, 3 games is a joke. Especially that Hollweg (remember the dirty bastard?) had 3 infractions in a row and only got 5 games for the same infraction his last time around. It's a big, big joke alright!

Kostitsyn's play has nothing to do with Kostopoulos, so I'll leave it at that.

See less See more

Amoroq

· #14 · Nov 12, 2008

At the end of the day, the Habs won't miss Kostopoulos and the Leafs didn't miss Holweg. But the Leafs will miss Ryn.

hockeyboy14

· #15 · Nov 12, 2008

JL said:
I apologize if my first post was too long as it doesn't seem like you've read it, or read it all. Either that, or you ignore the evidence or didn't look at the picture I've posted. I've changed the name of the file and re-loaded it. Here it is again:

See how Van Ryn doesn't have his back to Kostopoulos, but his side? See where TK is, beyond the goal line? See how he's in motion to start his check, always on the same picture when Van Ryn is sideways to TK? The fact is that Van Ryn put himself in a vulnerable position by turning his back, knowing that TK was going to hit him. If you've played contact hockey, you'll also know that it was impossible for TK to stop his motion at that point in time because he was trying to land a clean legal check but couldn't predict that someone would be dumb enough to turn that way.

This is low and quite surprising coming from you. It is not bias, far from that. I was one who was saying that Sauer's hit was legal and it was Kostitsyn's fault (yes, one of OUR players) for watching his pass instead of looking ahead. You are dead wrong in your assessment of my personality.

I highly doubt it. Unfortunately, it's a stupid way to look at infractions. The same thing as with the high sticking penalties, 2 minutes with no blood, 4 minutes if the same stick draws a bit of blood. Ridiculous.

You're right, 3 games is a joke. Especially that Hollweg (remember the dirty bastard?) had 3 infractions in a row and only got 5 games for the same infraction his last time around. It's a big, big joke alright!

Kostitsyn's play has nothing to do with Kostopoulos, so I'll leave it at that.

The picture doesnt show that much. Frankly the game changes extremely quickly, with the slightest fragment. Thats why I prefer the video, and one can tell from watching the video that it was a dirty hit. As you proved, it wasnt his complete fault (looking at the picture), and I agreed, but it doesnt change the fact, that he didnt try to avoid him. In fact, he sped up, and dont give me the frosted flake version that he sped up, to hit Van Ryn because Van Ryn noticed him coming.

As for your bias, you seem to be the only one (excluding Habs fans) that is defending the guy. I honestly dont see an argument, it was dirty.

What is debatable is the number of games. The Jones hit on Bergeron was two games, and this hit was 3. Thats pretty consistent on the NHLs part. Although one could argue that Bergeron's injury was a lot more severe than Van Ryn.

See less See more

flyerfan2

· #16 · Nov 12, 2008

Æn7ropy said:
right and TK intentionally giving up the fight for the puck because some idiot can't protect himself was much better option. He plays on the fourth line, it could of cost him his spot and ended up in the AHL for a good while.

He sped up cuz he knew VR was aware of him and expected him to protect himself instead of pulling off a very idiotic play.

Man this has to be the most bias post i've ever had the pleasure of reading.!!!

TK never had to give up the fight for the puck however he could have used a lot more sense and road vanryn out of the play in this dangerous situation rather than making the stupid bone headed choice he did by trying to ram an opposing players head through the glass.!!

How does the old saying go.

What go's around comes around.

Æn7ropy

· #17 · Nov 12, 2008

flyerfan2 said:
Man this has to be the most bias post i've ever had the pleasure of reading.!!!

TK never had to give up the fight for the puck however he could have used a lot more sense and road vanryn out of the play in this dangerous situation rather than making the stupid bone headed choice he did by trying to ram an opposing players head through the glass.!!

How does the old saying go.

What go's around comes around.

It's TK's job to forecheck hard, if he doesn't what else is left for him to do on the team? nadda
He saw VR look back at him and expected VR to have the sense to protect himself.
TK skated with him stroke for stroke then bone head decided to turn his back to him.

Leave the famous ''biased'' accusations out and debate the arguments pelase, it just redirect the convo and is a lazy way out of a debate.

JL

· #18 · Nov 13, 2008

hockeyboy14 said:
The picture doesnt show that much.

:dunno: I stopped reading after this. :n

hockeyboy14

· #19 · Nov 13, 2008

JL said:
:dunno: I stopped reading after this. :n

Good for you.

The fact remains, that the NHL, and NHLPA agreed that it was a dirty hit. If TK were on another team, I doubt you'd be as persistent, which does illustrate your bias. Hey Im not gonna lie, if this hit were on another player, from another team, I wouldnt be either.
We are both entitled to our opinions, and mine reflects the majority.

But the fact remains, he is suspended.

prucha_for_mvp

· #20 · Nov 13, 2008

flyerfan2 said:
I'm sorry but three games is a joke.

This suspension should have been in the 10- 20 game range as TK made no effort to avoid and infact accelerated the hit at the end when Van ryn clearly had the numbers facing TK.

And Kostitsyn{sp} should have been suspended for his dangerous calculated push on Schenns skates sending him crashing into the boards.

I couldn't agree more. TK may not have had an intent to injure but there was no intent to lay off either. He went for the big hit and got him from behind. Van Ryn got numerous injuries because of this hit. All the bias Montreal Canadien fans are arguing this because he got a measely three games. In my opinion you guys should be happy thats all he got.

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.