Mueller looking for Revenge

[Tipped Off]

Everett Herald:
Mueller hoping for World turn
Silvertips center Peter Mueller returns to the World Junior Championships eager to avenge last year's disappointment by Team USA.

By Nick Patterson
Herald Writer


EVERETT - Peter Mueller is looking for a different result this time around.

The Everett Silvertips center said he's hoping for bigger and better things for himself and Team USA at this year's World Junior Hockey Championships.

Mueller was a member of the U.S. team that was the pre-tournament favorite at last year's World Juniors. However, the U.S. faltered, finishing fourth and failing to even earn a medal.

Meanwhile, Mueller, as a 17-year-old, saw limited ice time, primarily being used on the penalty kill. This time around, the Bloomington, Minn., native is determined to make sure the outcome is different.

"It's a lot bigger for me personally," Mueller said before departing Sunday, first for two days in Chicago, then for Sweden, where the tournament is being held. "I think it's going to be a big thing for me, as well as the other guys returning.

"It was very disappointing last year, it still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. We want to go in there and take it game by game and focus on the little things, not the big things."

Mueller is being counted on as a team leader this year and is expected to center one of Team USA's top two lines. His offense will be even more important considering the way the U.S. team was selected this season. Team USA spurned some of its top offensive talent in favor of role players. Among those not invited was winger Bobby Ryan, arguably the best offensive forward available.

"It's a little different from last year," Mueller said. "But the World Juniors for the USA hasn't been doing well. Maybe we'll go into it with a new role, more gritty and more of an energy-type team. We'll see what happens."

Mueller could end up going head-to-head with his Everett teammate as goaltender Leland Irving will play for Canada.

The tournament ends on Jan. 5, and both Mueller and Irving will be given some time off before having to report back to Everett, meaning they won't play for Everett again until mid-January.

[Gmen_07_Cup]

Peter is a good player but he dose not play like a pro and it will have to trake a while till he can play at that level. that was a good call when he got those suspensions.
GO CANADA!

[rinkrat]

Peter is a good player but he dose not play like a pro and it will have to trake a while till he can play at that level.

Thats why we have junior hockey. :)

[Redwic]

Peter is a good player but he dose not play like a pro and it will have to trake a while till he can play at that level. that was a good call when he got those suspensions.
GO CANADA!

No, Peter did not deserve such a harsh suspension. Here's why:
1) The player he hit wasn't lying on the ice, bleeding or lifeless.
2) The player he hit actually jumped right back up, and proceeded to break Kyle Beach's nose!
3) The player he hit didn't need any help getting off of the ice.
------------

Because of how fast Peter was skating as well as how loud the boards were when the hit occurred, he *maybe* should have gotten a 4-minute penalty. But the punishment should fit the crime, and in this case it did not. There have been other players (on other teams) this season who have hit opposing players much harder & with much more malicious intent than Peter did, but only received a one-game suspension (or less).

I would like to say that the league used this as an opportunity to try to "even-up" the Giants/Silvertips home-and-home series, but that would sound like a conspiracy theory.

Oh, and by the way, Peter *has* been playing like a pro this season. He can pass, skate, shoot, lead the Power Play, lead the Penalty Kill. There aren't a lot of players who can do all that, and as effectively as he does.

[Tipped Off]

As a Tips fan I can honestly say Peter's suspension was exactly what I thought he'd get. I was hoping for one, praying he didn't get five. IT was the right punishment for the crime.

[scrunt]

Well, as a Giants fan I don't want to see Mueller progress too far, but overall I think his success could be huge for the WHL, since as an American, Mueller passed over some more patriotic options to play in the Dub. For him to demonstrate that the WHL is a premier league for developing talent will improve the league's ability to draw top talent from the western US. Had he not progressed, no doubt the American development leagues would love to raise that when wooing prospects in the future: "Just look at so-and-so, he went to the WHL and that stunted his development..."

As for the Mueller check, I have not seen it, so I cannot comment on the specifics of the incident. However, there are two things that really bother me about the issue in general: one is that a lot of players turn away from the hit at the last split second, adding significantly to the danger (should the hitter still be held fully responsible?); the other is that the NHL has for years been punishing the injury not the act, and the WHL seems to follow suit. I have a real problem with that.

I therefore have to disagee with your reasoning, redwic. If ten similar hits from behind result in five minor injuries and one major injury, are the four perpertators of the non-injury hits less guilty than the ones who caused an injury? Is one act much worse than all the others because one player being hit was a slightly different distance from the boards?

Unfortunately there is are easy answers, but what bothers me is the lack of acknowledgement by the leagues that (a) in some cases, the injured party should take some of the responsibility for putting himself in a very vulnerable position or somehow making the consequences of hit much worse (like not doing up a chin strap properly), and (b) the severity of the act should be the basis for punishment, not the extent of the injury. While these points may seem contradictory, they aren't. They both relate to players being held accountable for their actions, at both ends of a hit.

[Redwic]

Unfortunately there are easy answers, but what bothers me is the lack of acknowledgement by the leagues that (a) in some cases, the injured party should take some of the responsibility for putting himself in a very vulnerable position or somehow making the consequences of hit much worse (like not doing up a chin strap properly), and (b) the severity of the act should be the basis for punishment, not the extent of the injury. While these points may seem contradictory, they aren't. They both relate to players being held accountable for their actions, at both ends of a hit.

Mueller's act deserved a penalty, I agree. However, the result of the act did not warrant a two-game suspension, in my opinion. It's OK to disagree on this. I am a believer that the best way to be fair is to carry out the *same* type of punishment for all players for the same types of penalties/acts. Unfortunately, that does not happen (especially in the WHL). So the next best option is to have the suspension match the injury. I believe that any player, in any sport, who commits a violation of the rules & injures another player as a result, should be suspended for as long as the opposing player is unable to play. That would help cure the types of cheap-shots which ruin careers and sporting events.

They should make the hockey rule state something like this:
"When a player receives a Major Game Misconduct Penalty, he is automatically thrown out of the game and then suspended for a minimum of one game plus as many games as the player injured as a direct result of the penalty cannot play."
------------

There are deviations from this type of rule, such as conduct which is detrimental to the team, conduct against referees, or conduct which directly affects any people off the ice. This is just an opinion of mine, especially considering how inconsistent the WHL is when handing out penalties.

[scrunt]

Mueller's act deserved a penalty, I agree. However, the result of the act did not warrant a two-game suspension, in my opinion. It's OK to disagree on this. I am a believer that the best way to be fair is to carry out the *same* type of punishment for all players for the same types of penalties/acts.

Fair enough. I can see your point about Mueller, and grudgingly agree that unless all players who give a hit from behind get a suspension, maybe Mueller shouldn't either. I hate it when reality gets in the way of theory.

[Aside: I recently read a great quote: "In theory, reality and theory are the same; in reality, they aren't." I think it was attributed to Albet Einstein???]

Anyway, I'd like to support the idea of the suspension equalling the length of the injured player's absence, but there are just too many other factors involved. Certainly a better review process to address the potential danger of the play would be welcomed by me.

[rinkrat]

They should make the hockey rule state something like this:
"When a player receives a Major Game Misconduct Penalty, he is automatically thrown out of the game and then suspended for a minimum of one game plus as many games as the player injured as a direct result of the penalty cannot play."
------------


OK,Mueller hits Flatters from behind into the boards with two weeks left in the season.The Giants doctor says Flatters has a concussion and will miss at least a week,after regular check ups,the doctor keeps Flatters out indefinately,all the while knowing Mueller sits the same time.Mueller misses the rest of the season and playoffs.Flatters is still showing symptoms the next season....
Is this fair? On the surface your eye for an eye seems like a good idea,but there's no chance of it working anywhere but fantasy land.

[SectionNDeserter]

The checkups performed on the players in question would obviously have to be done by a 'non-team' doctor to determine this. I am not sure what the economic viability of this would be at the WHL level though.

[dondo]

Its actually very naive to take this viewpoint -- and eye for an eye, the player who injured the other player is out for the same amount of time. As mentioned above the mitigating factors are huge and virtually the same act which caused a serious injury in one case might garner nothing in another - that's no way to make a determination.

The only way is to consistently have a bandwidth (so to speak) for a particular act and let the players know the consequences from the get-go. So a check from behind is anywhere from 1-5 games depending upon the severity of the hit and the injury and taking into account mitigating factors such as a player turning away from the hit to face the boards at the last minute there-by exacerbating his own injury.

As scrunt said above the players have got to start becoming more responsible for where they place themselves on the ice and to be aware when they are placing themselves in a vulnerable position. A lot of players these days deliberately place themselves in vulnerable positions, to avoid being hit and that practice has simply got to stop.

In the hey day of hockey back when the hair flowed and helmets were not worn the players had a respect for one another and would rarely if ever put themselves in a position in which they might get injured, head shots were rare except for the occasional retaliatory elbow (but with padded elbow pads not the armoured weapons they wear today), and players did not regularly and consistently cheap-shot one another.

the players playing today need to not abuse the rules to steal room on the ice, but rather need to be responsible for when they place themselves in a potentially career ending position (ie: stopping three feet from the boards with their back to the play handling the puck with another player barreling down on them) and adjust themselves to a defensible position.

How they get that through their heads is another matter altogether.

[Beaner]

In the hey day of hockey back when the hair flowed and helmets were not worn the players had a respect for one another and would rarely if ever put themselves in a position in which they might get injured, head shots were rare except for the occasional retaliatory elbow (but with padded elbow pads not the armoured weapons they wear today), and players did not regularly and consistently cheap-shot one another.



I'm sorry dondo, but that is the biggest load of you know what.

There are and were just as many cheap shots in hockey in the "hair flowed and helmets not worn days" as there is today.

Take a look here at some of the worst incidents in hockey cheap shots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_ice_hockey

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/top10/hockey_lowlights.html

[rinkrat]

There are and were just as many cheap shots in hockey in the "hair flowed and helmets not worn days" as there is today.

Check out this Coutu fellow,makes Bertuzzi look like a Saint.Wow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Coutu

[dondo]

ahhh ..memories :laugh:

okay I suppose I am guilty of wearing revisionist glasses -- but bettman still sucks :p :thumb: