Shanahan explains non-suspension for Alfredsson hit

A late explanation is better than none, I suppose.

It seems Shanahan felt the hit was borderline, and with Wolski not making a habit of borderline hits it meant no suspension.

7 months ago B_T 7 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I am not satisfied with his explanation

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Nov 3, 2011 10:58 AM EDT reply actions

I agree.

As one of the commenters on the Senators Extra article noted, Wolski’s action as well as his reputation needs to be accounted for.

The Marginal Virtues

by JonathanA on Nov 3, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

I just don't buy the explanation that he shouldn't be suspended because Alfie didn't see it coming

Isn’t that what “blindsided” means? For me, the only reasonable response is that all head shots merit a suspension. Intent cannot be a factor if protection of the players is the goal.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Nov 3, 2011 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I don’t get the explanation as well. It sounded to me like he knew they had messed up and he was trying to talk his way through it. The bracing, the intentionality, the reputation… it doesn’t jive with how they’ve been calling things.

To me, it looks like Wolski did not just accidentally bump into Alfredsson. And regardless, it was blind-side, directly to the head, and resulted in what looks like an increasingly serious injury. To the extent reputation (or more accurately, history) is a factor, which it is, it could have been a short suspension.

The complete absence of one, however, is ridiculous and does not appear to be defensible, Shanahan’s “explanation” notwithstanding.

by sensory_experience on Nov 3, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, we never like to admit we were wrong.

The Marginal Virtues

by JonathanA on Nov 3, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

They were both accounted for

I just don’t agree with Shanahan’s assessment of the action.

by B_T on Nov 3, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Not good enough

That strikes more as a rationalization than an explanation. The facts are clear, Wolski hit Alfredsson in the head with his elbow and forced him out of the game. If that is not a headshot then the term has no meaning. Headshots should be punished by a suspension regardless of intent or previous behaviour.

To put Shanahan’s argument in perspective: if someone commits a murder they should not be pardoned just because they have never committed any previous murders. It’s an absurd rationalization.

by DW19 on Nov 3, 2011 5:26 PM EDT reply actions