Follow Us on Twitter

Sens Underground


We're all volunteers paying out of our pocket. We operate on a loss.  If you'd like to help, it will be put to use running the podcast and we'll give you huge kudos on the show!


Underground Hosts







Quick Search

Sens Underground Forums > Shanahan/Refs' Thread - Call them out on their BS

I feel this topic, like many years in the past, will be alive and well this year as well.

Beginning with the brutal non-suspension on Wolski for the elbow to the head (called in the game) to Alfredsson.
But let's go back to the Konopka 5min. major and game misconduct. Have a look at the highlights on from the Edmonton v. St. Louis. TJ Oshie nails an Oiler hard from behind and gets 2 minutes, yet Konopka gets the 3rd degree on a less dangerous play.

October 31, 2011 at 12:36 AM | Registered CommenterSens Dawg

i hear ya.

The most amazing/disgusting thing about the hit on Alfie was that it wasn't even deemed to be reviewable!!! not that they looked at it and said no suspension, THEY NEVER EVEN REVIEWED IT!!!!!

October 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

retraction: I read now that the play was reviewed but deemed to be a "legal hit". Not that that makes me feel any better.

You broke my heart, Shanny...

October 31, 2011 at 10:22 AM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

Big surprise here. From @thenyrangers on twitter this morning: "Artem Anisimov says he will play tonight for #NYR after hit into boards Sat "I feel great...I am ready to go"

Hey Shanny, how about a video at least explaining why Pukeski was deemed a "legal hit"?

October 31, 2011 at 11:29 AM | Registered CommenterSpaceman

Given that there have been 'explanation videos' of why plays were deemed to be legal, I'd be interested in seeing why the hit was deemed to be acceptable and legal given that there was a 2 minute penalty for contact to the head assessed in game.

Where was it being announced that it was reviewed but deemed a legal hit?

October 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Registered CommenterKardinal

guys, i might have screwed this up 6 ways to sunday. I "think" i read that it was deemed a legal hit, where i can't tell you now. don't remember. but, it might have been just declared "no further discipline necessary". Sorry if i' keep getting the semantics wrong but you know where I'm going with it anyways. at the end of the day, it's still a farce that there is no suspension, That much I know is right.

October 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

Ok, so let's reset....

Alfredsson gets and elbow to the head. Wolski gets 2min. minor for illegal check to the head. Shanahan reviews it and takes no further action.
I thought hits to the head were to be punished with suspensions? Shanahan's been doing it since week 1. You could clearly see Wolski circle back and get in Alfredsson's way only to elbow him. It was unfortunate that Alfie was admiring his drop pass, but he wasn't expecting to get laid out so long after the puck was gone.

October 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM | Registered CommenterSens Dawg

Wolski was bracing for contact and Alfredsson should have been called for interference in the NHL's world--since the puck was so far gone what else could Wolski have been doing. It's completely asinine since the puck was gone and why was Wolski even getting his elbow or shoulder up to hit Alfredsson--"bracing for contact or collision" it's still the same damn thing an unsuspecting player hit in the head.

October 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM | Registered Commentertjlincoln

wow....this is a Mike Fisher tweet to ian Mendes re: alfie hit:

"mikefisher1212 Mike Fisher
@ian_mendes players are really confused. I'm out because of a similar play and no dice as well. I don't get it!"

what's left to say after that?

October 31, 2011 at 7:31 PM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

That pretty much says it all. I'll add words from Bryan Murray as stated in this article:

National Hockey League disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan didn't deem the Wolski hit worthy of a suspension, a decision that didn't sit well with Murray.

"I told (Shanahan) I didn’t agree, that (Wolski) did go out of his way a little to make contact, that it was an elbow that was involved in the play," said Murray. "An elbow to the head … I was under the impression there would be a suspension. Since our player was hurt in that particular incident, I can’t agree with the ruling."

October 31, 2011 at 8:35 PM | Registered CommenterKardinal

Why has no-one mentioned that Shanahan spent his last two full season's before retiring as a member of the ... New York Rangers? (Retired as a Devil, but didn't play much ...)

... because we all wanted to believe it was different now. The rules are the rules, and infractions would be based on them ... apparently not so much.

October 31, 2011 at 10:19 PM | Registered CommenterPuddleduck

remember that some GMs wanted Shanny to back off on the heavy handed suspensions? Maybe they got their way. after all, they are the bosses, right?

October 31, 2011 at 10:42 PM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

i just read this in Kerry Fraser's column on

"The bottom line is that the prescribed penalty for an illegal check to the head is only a minor penalty or a match penalty if in the referee's judgment the player deliberately attempted to injure his opponent. (You, I and the referee's know that a match penalty will seldom, if ever be assessed.) Absent from the language of rule 48 is the provision for a referee to assess a major penalty; also gone from the language of this rule is the provision for a game misconduct to be assessed.

When I heard the language change of rule 48 prior to this season I shuddered thinking that a softening of the rule had taken place when it had become obvious that a tougher stance was required to reduce and hopefully eliminate checks to the head. It concerned me even more when I learned that the referees wanted the language change to only assess a minor penalty (or match.) "

In layman's terms, despite all their big talk about taking a tougher stance against head shots, they actually SOFTENED the rule!! and the refs asked for this!

October 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

I guess what they're saying never happened.

October 31, 2011 at 11:19 PM | Registered CommenterSunburned Senior

"Murray was told by league disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan that Alfredsson was felled by a “hockey hit.” Wolski received a two-minute minor from the referee for what was called an “illegal check to the head.” "

sooooooo....this means an illegal hit to the head is now a "hockey hit'?

ok, i got it now.

November 1, 2011 at 1:15 AM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

“I thought in pre-season some of the suspensions made it very clear the stand we were going to take,” said Murray. “I’ll have a chance at the GM meeting in mid-November to discuss it further with Brendan, but at this moment I’m not exactly sure what is a suspendable hit to the head.”

November 1, 2011 at 1:16 AM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

We're joking about Alfie should be the one suspended. But I definately see a Sens player going to be suspended over all of this. If only Wolski had gotten one game, but now...

The next time we play the Rangers, Wolski better not be in the line up because one of ours is going to have a run at him. And it might even be one of the younger guys. Like Cowen, Smith or Greening. Or heck... it might as well be Neil or Konopka.

It's hard to be unbiased but immediately after I saw the Konopka hit, I thougth he went out of his way to make it NOT from behind. And sure I didn't even see the Alfie hit during the play, because the camera wasn't there. But seeing it in the replay, that sure should have been a suspension. I wouldn't even have cared so much if there was no penalty, refs are only human and though they are supposed to see things like this, hey, it can happen. But seeing this hit in the replay from all the angles, Shanny MUST do something with this. They want sh#t like this out of the game? Then err on the side of caution! And since they look at players on the delivering side of the hit and their history and reputation. Let's look at the receiving party as well. I admit, it shouldn't matter. But hey Shanny is only human too. Alfie is a well respected (I'm starting to doubt that now) captain and veteran, with no history of diving or whatever.

And about it being 'a hockey hit', if it's not even in the field of view of the camera during play... it sure might be considered a rather late hit. But come on, the elbow was a bit too clear for me. If it were Neil on Richards with the exact same hit, he should also have gotten a suspension for it and in my opinion he sure would have as well.

Sorry, when I feel the rage I start to rattle on and on. The play is way better but there's still need for a Rage-line!

November 1, 2011 at 3:56 AM | Registered Commenterdisappointed labru

There's no point in ranting about the refs... they've been sucking consistently for the past several years... The Z-Kop penalty was a joke...

Shanahan, on the other hand, started the season really well with really heavy suspensions, trying to put the message out that there isn't gonna be any BS this year. But since the season officially started, he's been losing more and more of his credibility. After the "hockey hit" crap about Alfie, he's lost whatever little respect and credibility he had left in my book.

Be consistent, or just STFU and GTFO.

SU needs to get Shanahan as a guest, and have it as an open-line surprise interview... :P

November 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM | Registered Commenterdadexter

About the Fisher hit, Beauchemin was charging - saw Fisher looking the other way, took 3-4 healthy strides across the ice and smoked Fisher in the head. Beauchemin should be gone 10 games easily.

Wolski - a hit to the head causing long-term injury (concussion) should be suspendable automatically, no ifs or buts.

Anisimov/Konopka incident - so the refs think Anisimov is seriously hurt by him lying on the ice. So they toss Konopka. Ok. THEN, Anisimov pops out on the ice and continues on for the entire game. THIS sort of diving needs to be taken out of the game as well. If the trainer has to come out to help you, you are going to the dressing room for further reassessment and need to ask for permission from the ref to come back on the ice at the next stoppage of play.

This is similar to soccer. Guy goes down and gets stretchered out. Afterwards, he immediately pops up and asks for permission to come one. Meanwhile, he's earned the opposing player a yellow card and 5min. rest for his team. I love soccer but this BS has to be removed, and now it's creeping into hockey.

November 1, 2011 at 5:13 PM | Registered CommenterSens Dawg

Jason York just had a good idea. you lie on the ice, you cannot play again that period. point blank.

November 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

Diving in the league is a farce and they are not doing a thing to stop it. A few years ago they kept a secret list where they did stupid things like on 1st offense they were asked to to dive again, 2nd offense the player may have gotten a letter, 3rd offense I think the leagued asked the player's mom to talk to them. Point is they they did absolutely nothing even though they said they were cracking down on diving.

When they do call a diving penalty it's usually an offsetting minor where the other player gets a hooking penalty or something. So players have absolutely nothing to lose by diving, at worse, nothing gets called or they get offsetting minors. The league should call a penalty on the diver and nothing on the other player. Every diving penalty should also come with an additional 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct or 10 minute game misconduct and a fine.

November 1, 2011 at 6:27 PM | Registered CommenterHomer

Andy Sutton got 5 games for his hit on Landeskog

November 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM | Registered CommenterHomer

Refs have every tool in the tool box to police the game. They just need to police better.
No one expects refs will be 100% correct, but we all know they can make up calls, etc.

For example, they made the mistake of excessively punishing Konopka, but they under penlized Wolski. They could have easily thrown out Wolski (match penalty) and given him 5min major to offset their mistake with Konopka.

And honestly, video replay needs to be introduced in these situations. So, you have a serious injury on the ice, or what looks to be on, you review the play and see what happened. You don't just throw out 5min majors and throw players out willy-nilly because of the player's rep.

Chris, do these bozos even have these discussions in the offseason?! Every forum is full of lively discussion and suggestions and we keep seeing the same goddamn mistakes. IMPEACH SHANAHAN!

November 1, 2011 at 6:42 PM | Registered CommenterSens Dawg

"They could have easily thrown out Wolski (match penalty) and given him 5min major to offset their mistake with Konopka. "

actually, Dawg, according to the Kerry fraser bit posted abovem the refs do NOT have the option of calling a 5 min major on a head shot. they used to but for some reason, only known to Buttman and his evil minions, they have taken away that power from the refs. and the refs were in favour of it.

"Absent from the language of rule 48 is the provision for a referee to assess a major penalty; also gone from the language of this rule is the provision for a game misconduct to be assessed."

so, with all this big talk, they actually softened the rule prior to the season. it's all smoke and mirrors, folks.

November 1, 2011 at 7:10 PM | Registered CommenterResigned Russell

Shanny talking about suspensions and non-suspensions, including Alfie.

It enraged me all over again. "Wolski isn't a dirty player, has no history of being a dirty player". Yeah, and he still doesn't because YOU gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Apparently, if one player sees the collision coming just before it happen, that makes it legal for him to "tense up" and elbow the other one in the face. Great league you got there....

November 2, 2011 at 6:58 PM | Registered CommenterSpaceman