Hawks' Quenneville fined $10,000 for remarks

Chicago Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville paid the price Thursday for criticizing officials after Game 3 of the Western Conference quarterfinals.

After the officials failed to call a penalty on the Coyotes' Raffi Torres following the winger's hit on the Hawks' Marian Hossa that sent Hossa to the hospital during the first period Tuesday night, Quenneville said: "I saw exactly what happened, it was right in front of me and all four (officials) missed it, The refereeing tonight was a disgrace."

The NHL lowered the boom on Quenneville, fining the coach $10,000 "for public comments critical of the officiating."

A day after the incident, Quenneville was asked during a news conference if he was worried he'd draw a fine for his comments and replied, "I don't think I said anything bad. I was just answering the question."

Torres has been suspended indefinitely pending a Friday hearing with NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan for the hit.

I'm a long time hockey referee.

They could assess a 10 minute misconduct penalty...look at Sunday's Pitt/Philly game, there were 3 assessed.

But in the event that a 10 minute misconduct penalty is given that team may substitute for the penalized player immediately. That is why when refs give a misconduct penatly, it's always in conjuction with another minor/major penalty. So, for example, the player is given a "2 and a 10".

Oh and as an aside...Torres is a dirty SOB. I personally am of the opinion that if a player is suspended due to an egregious hit that results in injury, the player should be suspended until the injured player returns. So, for instance, Steve Bertuzzi should have never played again after breaking Steve Moore's neck. I believe THAT would stop the head hunting.

Right. I don't know why an official would even bother giving a ten-minute misconduct in a situation like that. I would think the normal approach to that type of violent episode would be a 5-minute major and a game misconduct.

I think your approach about suspensions for violence resulting in injuries coinciding with the duration of the injury for the player who has been targeted, but I'm not so sure this is a good idea. For one thing, you start to get into an area where the "parity" of the players comes into play. If my team has a fourth-line journeyman who is injured by a star player from a close division rival and the opposing player gets suspended, I actually have a vested interest in keeping my player out of action for as long as possible. Secondly, you'd always have to account for mitigating circumstances where the severity of an injury could be exacerbated by one or more factors that are completely out of the aggressor's control.

To me, the NHL Players Association needs to get out in front of this issue and support actions by the NHL that would help protect the players. Part of the problem here is that disciplinary action is limited by provisions of the league's collective bargaining agreement with the NHLPA.

I also find myself wondering why this seems to have become a much more serious problem in recent years. What are some of the contributing factors here? Are players really that much more violent on the ice today than they were 20-30 years ago?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.