Pierre-Luc Letourneau-LeBlond Suspended One Game

[BROKEN*ORBITAL]

Originally Posted by BigBadWolf1171

thats what im saying,PL3 knew Johannson wasnt gonna drop the gloves,yet still went at him,he obviously knew he was gonna get an instigator.
At the end of the day its a 1 game suspension,no big deal.

And if the league wants to have that p*ssy "5 minutes left in the game instigator rule" fine. It's gay. It's retarded. But if they want to have in place nothing can be done about it. Go ahead and suspend guys.

However, suspend guys who instigate fights in the last 5 minutes. When a guy is TRYING TO INSTIGATE something and fails, leave the suspensions out of it.

[stevecanuck16]

Originally Posted by BROKEN*ORBITAL

Yet you agree with him getting an instigator and suspended for something you admit wasn't a fight. The league didn't say they were suspending him for his actions during the scrum, they suspended him for the instigator for a fight that didn't happen, as you just admitted.

Oh and that Leafs dig was both hilarious and original. A+ material.

You know, your practice of highlighting and responding to single sentences in posts really illustrates your difficulty with reading comprehension. I'll try to keep this simple.

No, it wasn't a fight. Then again, neither was McCarty pummeling Claude Lemieux. It's a jumping, it's an attack, it's whatever you want to call it. But unfortunately, they don't have a "Randomly attacking an opponent with your gloves off" penalty in the rulebook. So, they called it a fighting major.

Also, are you aware that the ref on the ice made the fighting major call, while the NHL itself called the suspension? They're not the same entity.

The fact is, if PL3 had have got a 2 minutes for roughing and a game misconduct (a possible other call), he would've still been suspended. His actions were way out of line, and not a part of hockey. However, since he did get the instigator anyways, its pretty simple for the league to just give him the mandatory one game and be done with it. Easy.

[BigBadWolf1171]

Originally Posted by BROKEN*ORBITAL

And if the league wants to have that p*ssy "5 minutes left in the game instigator rule" fine. It's gay. It's retarded. But if they want to have in place nothing can be done about it. Go ahead and suspend guys.

However, suspend guys who instigate fights in the last 5 minutes. When a guy is TRYING TO INSTIGATE something and fails, leave the suspensions out of it.

I do see your point. I checked and rechecked the video,maybe the refs saw something we didnt, a punch,kick,dickslap etc to call it a fight.But to me, there was enough to call a fighting major/instigator,but then again im a Caps fan.

[RayzorEdge]

Not a fight. Shouldn't have been any fighting majors. Shouldn't have been any instigator. Shouldn't have been any suspension. Period, end of story.

Of course, this being Bettman's NHL, nothing can ever be based on common sense.

[BROKEN*ORBITAL]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck16

You know, your practice of highlighting and responding to single sentences in posts really illustrates your difficulty with reading comprehension. I'll try to keep this simple.

No, it wasn't a fight. Then again, neither was McCarty pummeling Claude Lemieux. It's a jumping, it's an attack, it's whatever you want to call it. But unfortunately, they don't have a "Randomly attacking an opponent with your gloves off" penalty in the rulebook. So, they called it a fighting major.

Also, are you aware that the ref on the ice made the fighting major call, while the NHL itself called the suspension? They're not the same entity.

The fact is, if PL3 had have got a 2 minutes for roughing and a game misconduct (a possible other call), he would've still been suspended. His actions were way out of line, and not a part of hockey. However, since he did get the instigator anyways, its pretty simple for the league to just give him the mandatory one game and be done with it. Easy.

And now you're putting this in the same category as McCarty - Lemieux. My how the dumb get dumber.

[avamania2003]

I don't get why they are saying he instigated a fight with carlson when he went johansson and than the 3 caps jumped him including carlson and than the linesman broke it up ! Never a fight but he did deserve the instigator and deserve the suspension !

[stevecanuck16]

Originally Posted by BROKEN*ORBITAL

And now you're putting this in the same category as McCarty - Lemieux. My how the dumb get dumber.

Does everyone now see what B*O is? He takes a single quote from each post out of context, and proceeds to argue that. All he knows is "fighting good, Bettman bad" and that's all you'll ever get from him.

Care to comment on the rest of my post? The part with the actual argument?

[stevecanuck16]

Originally Posted by avamania2003

I don't get why they are saying he instigated a fight with carlson when he went johansson and than the 3 caps jumped him including carlson and than the linesman broke it up ! Never a fight but he did deserve the instigator and deserve the suspension !

The only thing saying he instigated a fight with Carlson is hockeyfights.com, not the league. It's simply for filing purposes.

[BROKEN*ORBITAL]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck16

Does everyone now see what B*O is? He takes a single quote from each post out of context, and proceeds to argue that. All he knows is "fighting good, Bettman bad" and that's all you'll ever get from him.

Care to comment on the rest of my post? The part with the actual argument?

You make a dumbass statement suggesting this incident was on par with McCarty and Lemieux, and you expect me to give a f*ck about anything else you said?

You admit this wan't a fight, then say he deserved the instigator? Thats so goddamn stupid you don't even realize that what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Fighting good. Bettman bad. Stevecanuck16 a f*cking retard. That about sums it up.

[stevecanuck16]

Originally Posted by BROKEN*ORBITAL

You make a dumbass statement suggesting this incident was on par with McCarty and Lemieux, and you expect me to give a f*ck about anything else you said?

You admit this wan't a fight, then say he deserved the instigator? Thats so goddamn stupid you don't even realize that what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Fighting good. Bettman bad. Stevecanuck16 a f*cking retard. That about sums it up.

Again, learn to read.

You said that this wasn't a fight, so it shouldn't have been a fighting major.

I pointed out that there isn't a penalty in the book for jumping a guy, and that it's always just called "fighting," then used the most famous incident of this nature to illustrate my point.

This is apparently beyond you. Let me try again. In the simplest terms possible.

PL3 was penalized for instigating a fight. Instigate means (from dictionary.com, just for you) to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course. How is chasing a guy down the ice, dropping your gloves, taking a swing at him, falling, then going nuts trying to get an opponent underneath the referees, not INSTIGATING. That's textbook instigating.

You can argue that it didn't deserve a fighting major, but as we both know, you can't have the instigator without the fighting major. If you could, PL3 certainly would have got the instigator penalty anyway. That much he was guilty of. And the rule itself is for an instigator penalty in the last 5 minutes, not a fighting major.

Here is the official NHL rule on instigating.

"An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season."

The bold are the offenses that you can 100% see PL3 committing in the video. Chances are quite good he also tossed out some threats, and it can be argued that this is "obvious retribution" for a lopsided score.

You can argue all you want about whether or not the instigator should be in the game. But the fact is, as its written in the rulebook, PL3 deserved an instigator penalty there.

[nyrpack]

very stupid move by leblonde, next time it wont happen, he will be running scared of dj king, geez how come he didnt come after avery, oh yeah boogey is on the rangers !!

[BROKEN*ORBITAL]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck16

You know, your practice of highlighting and responding to single sentences in posts really illustrates your difficulty with reading comprehension. I'll try to keep this simple.

No, it wasn't a fight. Then again, neither was McCarty pummeling Claude Lemieux. It's a jumping, it's an attack, it's whatever you want to call it. But unfortunately, they don't have a "Randomly attacking an opponent with your gloves off" penalty in the rulebook. So, they called it a fighting major.

Also, are you aware that the ref on the ice made the fighting major call, while the NHL itself called the suspension? They're not the same entity.

The fact is, if PL3 had have got a 2 minutes for roughing and a game misconduct (a possible other call), he would've still been suspended. His actions were way out of line, and not a part of hockey. However, since he did get the instigator anyways, its pretty simple for the league to just give him the mandatory one game and be done with it. Easy.

Ah what the hell.

No, it wasn't a fight.

Yet you agree that he should have been suspended for instigating a non fight.

Then again, neither was McCarty pummeling Claude Lemieux. It's a jumping, it's an attack, it's whatever you want to call it.

I would call it 2 completely different scenarios. See how McCarty kicked Lemieux's ass? See how he threw punches and actually engaged in fisticuffs? Did you see any of that here with LeBlond?

But unfortunately, they don't have a "Randomly attacking an opponent with your gloves off" penalty in the rulebook. So, they called it a fighting major.

Because as I stated earlier, a couple of roughing penalties and a 10 minute misconduct couldn't possibly have been called on that play. Nope. It was a fight, even though you admit it wasn't, and he deserves and an imaginary instigator with a suspension.

Also, are you aware that the ref on the ice made the fighting major call, while the NHL itself called the suspension? They're not the same entity.

Wow. Just a boatload of info you are. Referees are the ones who call penalties, and the league hands out suspensions. What's next? Coaches fill out the lineup cards?

The fact is, if PL3 had have got a 2 minutes for roughing and a game misconduct (a possible other call), he would've still been suspended. His actions were way out of line, and not a part of hockey. However, since he did get the instigator anyways, its pretty simple for the league to just give him the mandatory one game and be done with it. Easy

And now the dumber are getting even more dumb. If what he did was so bad, they would have tacked on games to his (sometimes) automatic late game instigator suspension. He would have been suspended for the instigator, and then also for his conduct afterwards. I mean if his actions were so "out of line" and "not part of hockey" surely the league would have sent him and everyone else more of a message.

They didn't however because what you saw there was NOTHING. Are you new to hockey? You actually believe this was some kind of wild out of control situation? Did he receive an abuse of official penalty? No. He received an instogator on a play where he didn't even throw a punch. That's today's NHL propeganda.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

[stevecanuck16]

Originally Posted by nyrpack

very stupid move by leblonde, next time it wont happen, he will be running scared of dj king, geez how come he didnt come after avery, oh yeah boogey is on the rangers !!

This, I'll never understand. Because, this isn't the first time we've seen this. We've seen fighters go after non-fighters to "send a message." But if PL3 is willing to chase down some random rookie and drop the gloves without giving him a choice, why doesn't someone do this to Avery EVERY night? Or Ott? Or Burrows?

Why doesn't this happen? How does it make sense that some useless Euro on Washington gets jumped by New Jersey, but Avery can try to fight Kovalchuk and people just politely ask if he'd care to dance?

EDIT: Read my most recent post above, B*O. I truly get what you're trying to say, but I really don't think it matters.

[BROKEN*ORBITAL]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck16

Again, learn to read. If your comprehension was anywhere near the level of a functioning member of society, you'd understand.

You said that this wasn't a fight, so it shouldn't have been a fighting major.

I pointed out that there isn't a penalty in the book for jumping a guy, and that it's always just called "fighting," then used the most famous incident of this nature to illustrate my point.

This is apparently beyond you. Let me try again. In the simplest terms possible.

PL3 was penalized for instigating a fight. Instigate means (from dictionary.com, just for you) to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course. How is chasing a guy down the ice, dropping your gloves, taking a swing at him, falling, then going nuts trying to get an opponent underneath the referees, not INSTIGATING. That's textbook instigating.

You can argue that it didn't deserve a fighting major, but as we both know, you can't have the instigator without the fighting major. If you could, PL3 certainly would have got the instigator penalty anyway. That much he was guilty of. And the rule itself is for an instigator penalty in the last 5 minutes, not a fighting major.

Here is the official NHL rule on instigating.

"An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season."

The bold are the offenses that you can 100% see PL3 committing in the video. Chances are quite good he also tossed out some threats, and it can be argued that this is "obvious retribution" for a lopsided score.

You can argue all you want about whether or not the instigator should be in the game. But the fact is, as its written in the rulebook, PL3 deserved an instigator penalty there.

menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats

So I guess players across the board should be getting "instigator" penalties on just about every shift of every game. I mean, I've seen plenty of guys look "menacingly" at the opposition. 2,5, and 10. And verbal instigation. Well I guess Avery should be handed instigator penalties every second of every game.

You're a dummy, and simply don't understand that for an instigator to be called, a FIGHT HAS TO TAKE PLACE. WHat happens when one guys drops his gloves and the other guy doesn't and skates away? Does player A receive and instigator penalty? NO, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO F*CKING FIGHT. Guy gets 2 for unsportsmanlike. But wait, that doesn't make sense because the rulebook says, "gloves off first."

Do you see now how the criteria for the instigator doesn't add up unless there is an actuall fight that accompanies them.

[stevecanuck16]

This would be so much simpler if you'd just refer to the rulebook.

46.1 Fighting – A fight shall be deemed to have occurred when at least one player (or goalkeeper) punches or attempts to punch an opponent repeatedly or when two players wrestle in such a manner as to make it difficult for the Linesmen to intervene and separate the combatants.