|
Rule 68.b might apply here:
Any player, Trainer, Manager, Coach or club executive who physically interferes with the spectators shall automatically incur a gross misconduct penalty and the Referee shall report all such infractions to the Commissioner who shall have full power to impose such further penalty as he shall deem appropriate.
So would this not count because he threw the octopus at an usher and not a spectator? Can a thrown octopus really be considered interference?
Rule 41.h states:
A bench minor penalty shall be imposed against the offending Team if any player, club executive, Manager, Coach or Trainer uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gesture to any person or uses the name of any Official coupled with any vociferous remarks.
A gross misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player or non-playing club personnel who directs obscene, profane or abusive language or gestures to any person or uses the name of any Official coupled with any vociferous remarks, after the expiration of the game. This action may occur on or off the ice.
This shall also apply to anyone who throws or shoots any equipment or other object in the general direction of an Official but does not come close to making any kind of contact. This action may occur on or off the ice.
There was an official standing right next to McLeod when he threw the octopus. He could be in trouble under this rule also.
Why isn't the league taking steps to stop this horrendous practice of players throwing invertebrates into the crowd. They have already decided that the almost 60 year old tradition of throwing octopuses ON the ice is so bad it warrents it's own rule. What if that usher was allergic to seafood? Did McLeod think of that? Where is the justice people? Where? WHERE???
|
Musta been Trotz whining about it to the NHL to get our fun getting rained on
