|
Post by carolle on Oct 6, 2004 11:40:06 GMT
From Panthers site...
|
|
|
Post by grayhead on Oct 6, 2004 12:27:49 GMT
Excellent news. Hopefully this will put a stop to all the debates on here on whether he was guilty or not. This now means that he has been punished for what happened and a line drawn under the incident. Go Johnny Go ;D
|
|
Shig
Pat Casey
Ice hockey isn't a matter of life or death...its more important! Shig a.k.a andy10
Posts: 330
|
Post by Shig on Oct 6, 2004 13:07:09 GMT
yeah very true, i was one that in real time thought it was worse than it was. but video replays are great for stuff like this.
I hold my hands up, i was wrong
cheers Andy10
|
|
RBR97
Jim Keyes
Posts: 988
|
Post by RBR97 on Oct 6, 2004 14:01:17 GMT
good to hear nothing else is going to happen with it, just hoping his performance improves now.
|
|
Igor
Pat Casey
Yeth, marthter?
Posts: 319
|
Post by Igor on Oct 6, 2004 17:00:52 GMT
Hmm, the Elite League just declared OPEN SEASON on goalies.... bet Curtis can't wait to play in Guildford...
|
|
Mythosman
Matt Myers
Age is a big price to pay for maturity!
Posts: 1,661
|
Post by Mythosman on Oct 6, 2004 17:34:21 GMT
I still believe JC is a lucky man not to get any additional games, particularly with Uncle Frank on the Disciplinary Panel - our players have suffered badly in the past from some debatable decisions - just look at Barry for one! Perhaps this one redressed the balance? If the video evidence truly proved JC's innocence, why hasn't the Guildford netminder been punished for feigning an injury, as several posters claimed at the weekend?
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 6, 2004 17:45:06 GMT
If the video evidence truly proved JC's innocence, why hasn't the Guildford netminder been punished for feigning an injury, as several posters claimed at the weekend? And if the video evidence truly proved JC's guilt, why hasn't he been punished further, as several posters claimed he should be at the weekend
|
|
|
Post by heja on Oct 6, 2004 18:15:21 GMT
hardly
as what ever happens they will get at least 1game ban, and as i have said practically from the start thats all it deserved, no if a player goes in an elbows a netminder rather than just barges him then yeah, that deserves additional games.
But i bet the elite also looked at the condidtion of the netminder, ie he was down for ages, but still managed to play the next night so it could of been as bad as it was believed to have been at the time.
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 6, 2004 18:16:49 GMT
Hmm, the Elite League just declared OPEN SEASON on goalies.... bet Curtis can't wait to play in Guildford...
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 6, 2004 18:19:46 GMT
If the video evidence truly proved JC's innocence, why hasn't the Guildford netminder been punished for feigning an injury, as several posters claimed at the weekend? Even if he was partially or completely feigning injury...... what would be the point? That would strike me as being a tad spiteful - after all, he DID get hit by JC and (all right, IMHO only) JC was wrong to do so! Just draw a line under the whole thing and leave it at that - surely that's the best policy?
|
|
|
Post by heja on Oct 6, 2004 18:21:07 GMT
everyone is saying that he was wrong to do so just that it wasn't a very bad hit.
|
|
|
Post by nickthepanther44 on Oct 6, 2004 22:14:26 GMT
yes but if guildford try anything on curtis then jc, magdoskow, krulis, ivan or carllson can give them a beating, and i bet that will put them off. if craighead was sent out to cause trouble cus they hit moran then he'l probably be sent out to raise hell if cruikshanks is touched.
|
|
Mark
Randall Weber
Experience has taught me that when it really matters the only person you can rely on is yourself.
Posts: 4,609
|
Post by Mark on Oct 6, 2004 22:18:18 GMT
Hmm, the Elite League just declared OPEN SEASON on goalies.... bet Curtis can't wait to play in Guildford... I take it you were at the game then Igor and in the perfect position to make the correct judgement on what happened. You have obviously since scrutinized the video and decided that the people judging the severity of Craigheads crime are all wrong, people who in the past have dished out punishments in excess of the offence but on this occasion thought no further action was required. I wish I had your insight.
|
|
|
Post by newham on Oct 6, 2004 22:20:57 GMT
what's that for? I think the guy has a good point. Craighead is going to be a marked man when he returns to Guilford
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 6, 2004 22:58:24 GMT
what's that for? I think the guy has a good point. Craighead is going to be a marked man when he returns to Guilford Stuff like Bertuzzi/McSorley attacks aside (which I wouldn't expect).... JC should be able to take care of himself. Either one or more Flames players will drop the gloves (in which case, I suspect JC would obliterate them), or they'll try slyer/nastier stuff (in which case, one would hope the ref would dish out the appropriate penalties, which could only be good for us) or they'll just concentrate on crowding him.... in which case, the other forwards will have that much more space. Or they'll do none of the above and simply concentrate on playing ice hockey. Whichever of the above applies..... it can't be bad for us.
|
|
|
Post by newham on Oct 6, 2004 23:02:55 GMT
this may sound odd, but i think it couldnt be bad for us in the long run if JC gets a good beating. He is currently waltzing around like he owns the place.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 6, 2004 23:06:17 GMT
this may sound odd, but i think it couldnt be bad for us in the long run if JC gets a good beating. He is currently waltzing around like he owns the place. Not only do I disagree with your assessment of JC's demeanour and your rather strange assertion that it might be a 'good thing' for JC to get clobbered - but have you seen the date of the away fixture at Guildford? Sunday 20th February. A bit late to be delivering any 'attitude adjustment', no?
|
|
|
Post by newham on Oct 6, 2004 23:15:05 GMT
as for his demeanour, i stand by what i say. He's always struck me as somewhat of an arrogant player. He's definately got the talent but only he chooses when to use it, he threw his dummy out of the pram in Sheffield during the warm-up because Tvrdon didnt pass to him. That's what we're dealing with.
As for the clobbered comment, it may sound odd but it has worked in the past. I've seen a good few players like Craighead get a good beating which sets them straight. They realise theyre not as hard as they realise and actually begin to work. On the other hand, it could lead to him making bigger cheap shots, so it could go both ways.
Also, i didnt know when the Guilford return leg was. Its probably a little too late, considering that the season ends not long after that.
|
|
|
Post by Bretters on Oct 6, 2004 23:21:44 GMT
Maybe they looked at the video replay, and didnt think that Craigheads hit was as bad as people made out, we havnt got the video to see so we cant say really, and they cant really punish the Guildford keeper because nobody really knows if he was in pain or not, we can only think what happened, but not many of us know the facts.
|
|
Baz
Simon Hunt
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by Baz on Oct 7, 2004 7:20:55 GMT
There's only two people that knows the facts - the one who did it (allegedly), and the one to whom it was done (allegedly).
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 7, 2004 8:08:05 GMT
what's that for? I think the guy has a good point. Craighead is going to be a marked man when he returns to Guilford Because Igor's claimed the league has declared an " open season on goalies, and I think that's the case. Craighead no doubt will be a marked man when we play away in Guildford, but that's not, and still isn't the point I'm arguing. Igor seems to think the league have set a precedent with, I guess in Igor's eyes, of letting Craighead run the goalie without any form of additional punishment from the disciplinary commitee. Mark's response to Igor's comment sums it up pretty well.
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Oct 7, 2004 9:03:43 GMT
bet Curtis can't wait to play in Guildford... I'm not a betting man, but if Curtis takes a big hit in the return game, I'd put money on a bench clearance and a beating for the Guildford side (especially if any of them have the guts to take their full face masks off this time ) Craighead is going to be a marked man when he returns to Guilford I’m sure he’s quaking in his boots.
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 7, 2004 10:04:08 GMT
I'd also like to think that the league will be keeping a close eye on anything that may transpire when Panthers play away at Guildford
|
|
|
Post by NevesMetro on Oct 7, 2004 11:25:06 GMT
I'd also like to think that the league will be keeping a close eye on anything that may transpire when Panthers play away at Guildford And that's where the real can of worms could open. Doesn't the elite league look after elite players and the BNL looks after their own when it comes to dishing out punishment? Would the elite league panel have to show the video to the BNL league? I doubt it? I just wonder how much input the BNL had with the JC hearing? and how they feel about the outcome? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Spooks on Oct 7, 2004 11:50:55 GMT
Here`s hopin for a bench clearance then as i am sure some of our players wont let it lie.
|
|