Why No Suspension for Ribeiro?
Posted 10:42 PM ET | Comments 11
What is the reason that I have not heard one complaint about Mike Ribeiro being fined and not suspended for his slash to Chris Osgood's chest? I thought maybe it was because Osgood has protection on, but then thought about how all players wear shoulder pads for protection. Next, I thought of what Barry Melrose said, talking about how Osgood "started" by butt ending Ribeiro. This is no excuse whatsoever.
What is the main reason that Ribeiro is not watching Game 3 (and 4 and more) from the press box? He is Mike Ribeiro, the Dallas Stars leading scorer and not someone that makes "dirty plays". What would have happened if that was Steve Ott? Or Sean Avery? Or an even better question, what about this makes it just a fine, while Chris Simon's similar slash was a landmark suspension? I find it strange that with all the talk of inconsistency from the referees making penalty calls there has been no talk of another obvious inconsistency. Both Simon and Ribeiro were provoked, Simon by Hollweg's hit from behind and Ribeiro by the Osgood butt end, and retaliated in a way that is unacceptable, with slashes to the upper body in dangerous locations. And while one may have been slightly less vicious than the other, is the difference between them really 25 games?
What is the main reason that Ribeiro is not watching Game 3 (and 4 and more) from the press box? He is Mike Ribeiro, the Dallas Stars leading scorer and not someone that makes "dirty plays". What would have happened if that was Steve Ott? Or Sean Avery? Or an even better question, what about this makes it just a fine, while Chris Simon's similar slash was a landmark suspension? I find it strange that with all the talk of inconsistency from the referees making penalty calls there has been no talk of another obvious inconsistency. Both Simon and Ribeiro were provoked, Simon by Hollweg's hit from behind and Ribeiro by the Osgood butt end, and retaliated in a way that is unacceptable, with slashes to the upper body in dangerous locations. And while one may have been slightly less vicious than the other, is the difference between them really 25 games?
How is a tap on a goalie's chest protector vicious? And why aren't you asking why wasn't Osgood suspended for the butt end? A butt end to the face is far more vicious than a love tap to the chest, with no intent to try and injure him at all. I find it funny that Osgood can take a 100 mph slapshot to the exact same spot and not even budge, but when he gets tapped by a 1 ounce stick he drop to the ice like he was shot. The tap that Ribiero gave Osgood was no worse than tapping someone on the shin pad with your stick. And the reason no one is complaining that he didn't get suspended is because everyone agrees it was no big deal.
They probably decided not to suspend Ribs because they might have had to answer the question as to why Osgood wasn't suspened for the but end
Anybody who saw this play live knows that it was not just a "tap" on the goalie's chest protector. There are 2 reasons for why he wasn't suspended, both of which reveal major problems with the league. The first is the obvious, and that is because it wasn't Avery or Ott or Simon, it was a star player, so the league is biased. Let's think about this. Sean Avery danced in front of a goalie to distract him and they immediately changed or interpreted or whatever some rule to make this illegal. Ribeiro slashes a goalie in the chest, and he gets a fine. The second reason is that Osgood suffered no serious injury, which means the league hands out punishments based on the severity of an injury. In the 1992 Patrick Division Finals, Graves slashed Lemieux across the hands, something done quite often, but was suspended for the series because Lemieux's hand broke as a result (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqvxQcnZy2Y).We complain about inconsistency and this is a perfect example. Just imagine the great 87 cheap shots Avery and he turns around and slashes Sid in the chest. If you can tell me that there would be no suspension, you're crazy.
both are getting fines..... well it should be more, it was uncalled for by ozzie to buttend ribiero and still pretty stupid to slash him in the chest, but how much padding is there for him to really feel it? if he can take a 110 mph slapshot to the chest, he can deff take one half a$$ slash ad have the same effect, he over embellished it wayyyyyyyyyy too much... come on ozzie is a jerk for that
Seriously 30wearsblue? What about the butt-end of Osgood's stick to Riberio's face? I agree with the inconsistancies in the league ... but c'mon ... you know Ribeiro could NOT hurt Osgood with that slash and most certainly deserved it!
The padding excuse is nothing to me. It works the same as when Simon slashed Hollweg and the big thing was a few inches lower or higher and it could have been worse. The same thing with this play about 4 5 inches higher and it could have hit him in the neck. There is no place in the league for stick "attacks" like this and if the league really wanted to show this, like they said they wanted to last year, then Ribeiro would have be none for the round at least.
The padding excuse is nothing, but if you're going to make the argument that any stick play is dangerous - and I agree that it is dangerous - then you can't give Osgood a free pass. He basically admitted to trying to slow Ribeiro down with his stick during the post game press conference, as he tried (unsuccessfully imo) to say that he didn't butt-end Ribeiro. If Ozzie's stick was 4-5 inches higher, it would have clipped Ribeiro in the face. I don't dispute that Ribeiro should have gotten more, but Ozzie should have gotten the same punishment.
I was focusing specifically on the Ribeiro play, but I agree the Ozzie play was definitely bad. I'm not sure about previous plays using that part of the stick, but I think a minor suspension would've been appropriate for him as well. But like I said before, it shouldn't matter how the "victim" of the play reacts. Just because there was padding doesnt mean the intent to slash him high wasn't there. Oh and by the way, isn't the league on some protect the goalie rampage? I guess a slash to the chest area isn't too big of a deal in their eyes.
Whatever happened to "intent" when the league is doling out punishment? They seemed to be pretty good at determining that earlier in the year.
that's another reason he wansn't suspended...there was no intent. If Ribero REALLY wanted to hurt Osgood he would have slashed him somewhere else besides the spot that he has the most protection on his body. When you say "if it was 4-5 inches higher it would have been worse" thats just reaching for an excuse. If Ribiero WANTED to slash Osgood 4-5 inches higher, HE WOULD HAVE!!! And stop comparing this to Simon. Simon slashed a guy accross the throat, that's why he got 25 games...Ribiero wasn't even close to that and had no intent at all to hurt him, he was just letting him know to keep his head up and stop butt ending people in the face...
The idea that there was no intent to hurt him is ridiculous. The only reason the slash was that low was because somebody was grabbing him when he attempted the slash. And even if it wasn't at the face, I go back to my point about Graves' slash on Lemieux in 92. The slash was across the hands, but since he hit a star and injured him there was a severe suspension. CONSISTENCY is key, and clearly there is none in this league.