|
|
Post by PantherTom on Dec 31, 2011 16:40:53 GMT
A lot of players now seem to position themselves like that now to draw the penalty in the first place, Finnerty does it, as do others around the league. Now Fox should have expected some kind of physical contact, they were all over each other just before that, he has however positioned himself so that either he doesn't get touched, or if he does, it's a penalty. What a complete and utter load of crap!!! Try watching the video and taking the teal tinted glasses off. Fox doesnt position himself so he can draw a penalty. The puck comes free and runs along the boards Fox turns to the boards and plays the puck (he couldnt play the puck if he doesnt face them). Fox has no idea that King is going to push him into the boards why would he its a stupid thing to do. He gets up and skates off the ice and down the tunnel. its not like he spends ages writhing around on the floor selling it. if you dont want to be thrown out the game then dont push soneone head first in to the boards its simple. if one of our players had done it i would have no sympathy for them either. +1 |
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 16:46:16 GMT
For me a 2+10 for checking from behind would suffice. Except that a) it was clearly a Boarding penalty and b) for Boarding, there is no option for 2+10... From the IIHF Rulebook:- www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Sport/rulebook2010/Rulebook_52_101_-_30_September.pdfIf it was deserving of anything more than a 2min minor on its own, then 5+Game it had to be. And if Hicks decided that Fox was injured - whether he returns later in the game or not - then the minimum penalty applicable was 5+Game. He could always have given King a Match penalty... now that would have had you lot howling!  And yet Cardiff players made the same type of hits in the CC game and stayed in the game, with the same ref making the calls. I've seen refs make plenty of calls which should have been boarding, but given a 2+10 checking from behind because it was felt they were more serious that a simple 2 minutes for boarding, but not serious enough for a 5+game. I can watch the video and without some Steeler bias say that it isn't worthy of a game misconduct. Was it stupid and did it cost the team, yes, but I maintain that the penalty given out was over the top. |
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 17:12:08 GMT
Warx
"And yet Cardiff players made the same type of hits in the CC game and stayed in the game, with the same ref making the calls. I've seen refs make plenty of calls which should have been boarding, but given a 2+10 checking from behind because it was felt they were more serious that a simple 2 minutes for boarding, but not serious enough for a 5+game."
This is very difficult to asses what happened in the Cardiff v Steelers match - it cannot be seen. What does seem to be the case viewing the video and referring to Shaggys post is that in this instance King did get the treatment he deserved. The incident of King on Fox should be viewed as a stand alone case.
However if the claim you make for the Cardiff match is correct, you do have a case that referees are being inconsistent and that the standard needs to improve. I think that this is a separate issue and it is worth consideration as to how standards can be improved.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator 
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 31, 2011 17:19:47 GMT
And yet Cardiff players made the same type of hits in the CC game and stayed in the game, with the same ref making the calls. I've seen refs make plenty of calls which should have been boarding, but given a 2+10 checking from behind because it was felt they were more serious that a simple 2 minutes for boarding, but not serious enough for a 5+game. I can watch the video and without some Steeler bias say that it isn't worthy of a game misconduct. Was it stupid and did it cost the team, yes, but I maintain that the penalty given out was over the top. Firstly, what happened in this Cardiff/Sheffield game is both completely irrelevant to this situation and impossible for the rest of us to make any judgement upon. (But if you want to use other games as comparisons... call this one evening things out for that utter cobblers of a 5+Game given to Heerema the last time your lot came to ours. Surely even you would have to say King's offence was more serious than that one!). Secondly, by your own words, Hicks made the correct call. Why? Because of this (on the very next page of the IIHF rulebook:- You yourself say the following:- So in your own judgement, Fox is standing there, expecting a hit, knowing it's going to be coming - he is aware of the impending hit. Which by the very definition of the penalty, is not Checking From Behind. The description again of Boarding:- Which is exactly what happened. He was thrown violently into the boards. As you say, Hicks obviously felt that it deserved more than just a 2 minute minor. By the very letter of the rules, the only other option was for him to give King a 5+Game. Like say... be thankful King didn't get a Match. You know, like more than one total cobblers call against Lepine last season. |
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 17:50:37 GMT
Well Heerema got the same call Cruikshank did in a previous season for exactly the same thing.
Again, by the letter of the law hitting a guy in the face with a combo of your glove and the butt end of the stick is going to get you kicked out of the game, but for me, common sense would be to give the player a 2+10 call (call it roughing or whatever, let the players sort it out where possible if it's not a terrible/very dangerous hit with a clear intent to injure).
I understand well that Hicks made the right call by the letter of the law, I just don't think that looking at the hit that it warranted it.
I'd like to see some common sense used by refs sometimes, it would make for better games in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 17:59:40 GMT
Warx
"Well Heerema got the same call Cruikshank did in a previous season for exactly the same thing."
Again impossible to comment without seeing it.
"I understand well that Hicks made the right call by the letter of the law, I just don't think that looking at the hit that it warranted it.
I'd like to see some common sense used by refs sometimes, it would make for better games in my opinion."
So it was a correct decision. But if a ref sometimes does one thing and sometimes another or other refs do something different - Isnt that inconsistent? Just the sort of thing you were complaining about in the Cardiff match!
|
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 18:19:20 GMT
The boarding call was correct, a 2 or a 5 is a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodit on Dec 31, 2011 18:22:15 GMT
I understand well that Hicks made the right call by the letter of the law, I just don't think that looking at the hit that it warranted it. I'd like to see some common sense used by refs sometimes, it would make for better games in my opinion. With no disrespect to you, aren't all hockey fans questioning the fact that refs in this league don't know the rules and are so inconsistant, and by saying he got it right by the rule book, to me it sounds like you're suggesting that he got the call right. |
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 31, 2011 19:09:24 GMT
The boarding call was correct, a 2 or a 5 is a matter of opinion. Yes, the boarding call was correct... meaning the penalty you stated was deserved (2+10) could not have been given. King boarded Fox headfirst into the boards... now you can argue Fox's reaction all you like (gamesmanship or not) but take a look at King's body language again on that clip. He boards Fox and then immediately turns away... but not to skate after the puck or rejoin the play, not with any kind of urgency or purpose whatsoever. He knew Fox was going to be down, he knew play wasn't going to continue... that's him putting an opposing player down and then just dismissing him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hicks picked up on that, even subconsciously. You want play-acting? That'll be King playing the innocent after being given his marching orders... |
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 19:51:21 GMT
The boarding call was correct, a 2 or a 5 is a matter of opinion. Yes, the boarding call was correct... meaning the penalty you stated was deserved (2+10) could not have been given. King boarded Fox headfirst into the boards... now you can argue Fox's reaction all you like (gamesmanship or not) but take a look at King's body language again on that clip. He boards Fox and then immediately turns away... but not to skate after the puck or rejoin the play, not with any kind of urgency or purpose whatsoever. He knew Fox was going to be down, he knew play wasn't going to continue... that's him putting an opposing player down and then just dismissing him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hicks picked up on that, even subconsciously. You want play-acting? That'll be King playing the innocent after being given his marching orders... Which is why I said give him a checking from behind and a 2+10, it may be the wrong call but more of an apt punishment. I think you need to re-watch the clip. He turns around to skate after the puck, before looking back and seeing Fox down at the official skating in with his hand in the air. Then he stops. |
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 20:05:22 GMT
Warx
"Which is why I said give him a checking from behind and a 2+10, it may be the wrong call but more of an apt punishment."
If it is the wrong call the floodgates are open for inconsistency. You cannot have officials making arbitrary decisions. If that were to be the case the argument you brought up earlier about different interpretations at the Cardiff Steelers match does not hold any water. It would encourage officials to give whatever they felt to be an appropriate sentence and make officating totally subjective.
I think Shaggy has covered it comprehensively and absolutely correctly.
PS If you watch King as he is leaving, he gestures that Fox took a dive - is there anyone who actually believes that he did after viewing the video?
|
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 20:25:26 GMT
I think we're way past that point, I've seen enough hookings given as holding, checking from behind given as boarding etc.
There seems to be a lot of subjectivity as it is with the rules, we're asking refs to make split second choices in a fast and physical game, asking to make a choice between a 2 and a 5.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 31, 2011 20:51:24 GMT
Which is why I said give him a checking from behind and a 2+10, it may be the wrong call but more of an apt punishment. So you're complaining that the referee made the right call, but should have made the wrong one instead  If that's what you call skating after the puck, then it's no wonder the Steelers lost... there was about as much purpose and speed in that skating away as you'd get from... well, me on skates! The only reason he stopped moving at anything but a glide was because Steve Lee was there in his way... now it has to be said... if there was any intent from King to be going after the puck, he'd at least have tried to get past Lee... as much as I like and appreciate Steve Lee as a hockey player (far more than King) he'd probably have succeeded. But he didn't even try. And then he turned to see Fox on the ice and then Hicks with his arm up. Face it... King went to take out our player, that was obviously his sole intention, and Hicks called him on it. Boarding with apparent injury. Simple as. |
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 21:01:23 GMT
Well I never said he was a hard worker....
I disagree though, it's a silly, in the moment along the boards push, not an intent to injure. I think there is as much "Panthers googles" going on here as there is my team specs.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 31, 2011 21:05:18 GMT
I think there is as much "Panthers googles" going on here as there is my team specs. We didn't need to google anything... the weblink was already provided!  |
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 21:26:01 GMT
warx
I put the video on my own youtube site with an additional slow motion, which was not available on the Sky programme, so that it was absolutely clear.
As my user name here - it is cooperphil156 - some other good videos which you can watch for free - now that must appeal to a Yorkshireman
|
|
5+game
Terry Kurtenbach
Posts: 2,974
|
Post by 5+game on Dec 31, 2011 21:36:39 GMT
Yes, the boarding call was correct... meaning the penalty you stated was deserved (2+10) could not have been given. King boarded Fox headfirst into the boards... now you can argue Fox's reaction all you like (gamesmanship or not) but take a look at King's body language again on that clip. He boards Fox and then immediately turns away... but not to skate after the puck or rejoin the play, not with any kind of urgency or purpose whatsoever. He knew Fox was going to be down, he knew play wasn't going to continue... that's him putting an opposing player down and then just dismissing him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hicks picked up on that, even subconsciously. You want play-acting? That'll be King playing the innocent after being given his marching orders... I think you need to re-watch the clip. He turns around to skate after the puck, before looking back and seeing Fox down at the official skating in with his hand in the air. Then he stops. I think its you that needs to re-watch the clip. Ther is no way he goes to skate after the puck. the puck is at the other side of the ice being carried out by the defenceman King makes no attempt to go in that direction and is too far away to go after it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by PantherTom on Jan 1, 2012 10:46:21 GMT
I think you need to re-watch the clip. He turns around to skate after the puck, before looking back and seeing Fox down at the official skating in with his hand in the air. Then he stops. I think its you that needs to re-watch the clip. Ther is no way he goes to skate after the puck. the puck is at the other side of the ice being carried out by the defenceman King makes no attempt to go in that direction and is too far away to go after it anyway. Watching the video you can see fox plays the puck to the defenseman behind the goal then gets pushed into the boards form behind |
|
jaymeh
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 24
|
Post by jaymeh on Jan 1, 2012 11:46:15 GMT
I physically cringed when i saw this on Sky, this wasn't the usual push in the lower back sending the player hard, but flat into the boards. King pushed Fox, who was already leaning forwards, on the back of the neck/shoulders. Any hockey player, especially pro's, know EXACTLY what a push that far from the boards leads to. Any player how intentionally throws a player face first onto the top edge of the boards does not deserve to play the remainder of the game. Simple.
And before anyone starts I am a big fan of physical play, and was disgusted at Lepine's suspensions last year. If King wanted to hurt Fox he could have hit him with a massive, clean check or no-choiced him, he's a big guy after all. However he chose to do something much more dangerous, and his team paid for it. Whether Fox played or not afterwards is trivial, he was down and could easily have had a serious facial injury as far as Hick's was concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by patch9495 on Jan 1, 2012 16:09:35 GMT
They need to hurry up and put the show on the eihl website
|
|
5+game
Terry Kurtenbach
Posts: 2,974
|
Post by 5+game on Jan 1, 2012 16:21:46 GMT
They need to hurry up and put the show on the eihl website Doesnt normally get uploaded til the end of the following week |
|
|
|
Post by patch9495 on Jan 1, 2012 17:17:25 GMT
Ok thanks
|
|
d
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 123
|
Post by d on Jan 1, 2012 22:58:20 GMT
They need to hurry up and put the show on the eihl website Was put up yesterday. |
|
Ghost
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,698
|
Post by Ghost on Jan 2, 2012 9:26:23 GMT
Watched this over and over again. How anyone can disagree with the decision made on the ice is beyond me, he knew exactly what he was doing. Every time I've seen him at the NIC he's been a pure a goon and more importantly a liability, thanks for the momentum King, you loser.
|
|
|
|
Post by PantherTom on Jan 2, 2012 10:48:41 GMT
Watched this over and over again. How anyone can disagree with the decision made on the ice is beyond me, he knew exactly what he was doing. Every time I've seen him at the NIC he's been a pure a goon and more importantly a liability, thanks for the momentum King, you loser. +1 |
|
