|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Oct 8, 2013 22:02:05 GMT
Absolute joke!!!!!!! 10 games would of been fair. You are joking?
|
|
|
Post by BlogFromBlock15! on Oct 9, 2013 6:37:54 GMT
The argument carries on as to whether Hull should be made to be an import short for 46 games.
Whereas I think there needs to be some sensible medium, maybe 10 or 20 games, if they allow Hull to replace him because he was sacked it sets a dangerous precedent.
What would stop any side sacking a player who got a lengthy ban in order to ensure they iced with a full roster shortly afterwards.
Whereas I understand that it's not necessarily Hull's fault Campbell behaved like this, they have to take some responsibility as they employed him in the first place.
Sent from my HTC One using proboards
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 9, 2013 6:54:46 GMT
Hasn't such as precedent already been set - by us?
When Jim Shepherd got suspended for spearing Belfast's Mark Dutiaume, we sacked him. I'm not fully certain about this (it was 6 years ago) but IIRC we were able to replace him because we'd sacked him. If so, then Hull shouldn't be hit by Campbell's suspension either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 7:29:22 GMT
Hasn't such as precedent already been set - by us? When Jim Shepherd got suspended for spearing Belfast's Mark Dutiaume, we sacked him. I'm not fully certain about this (it was 6 years ago) but IIRC we were able to replace him because we'd sacked him. If so, then Hull shouldn't be hit by Campbell's suspension either. We played a import short for 9 games AFTER bergin was signed !
|
|
5+game
Terry Kurtenbach
Posts: 2,974
|
Post by 5+game on Oct 9, 2013 7:39:48 GMT
To be fair, if you were handing out bans based solely on the video evidence then I would say around 10 games would be about right.
The majority of the bans and seriousness eg the gouging, kneeing and head banging is not seen on the video so it is hard for us to see how bad these actions were and if they warranted the length of bans they got.
Also did Hull know what length of ban he was going to get and so they sacked him, or did the league hand out a lengthier ban because they knew he was being sacked anyway and used it as a way to set an example?
For the record, I don't think Hull will or should play an import down for the whole length of the ban but maybe 10 games of it so that the team still has an amount of accountability for their players actions.
|
|
|
Post by BlogFromBlock15! on Oct 9, 2013 7:53:17 GMT
To be fair, if you were handing out bans based solely on the video evidence then I would say around 10 games would be about right. The majority of the bans and seriousness eg the gouging, kneeing and head banging is not seen on the video so it is hard for us to see how bad these actions were and if they warranted the length of bans they got. Also did Hull know what length of ban he was going to get and so they sacked him, or did the league hand out a lengthier ban because they knew he was being sacked anyway and used it as a way to set an example? For the record, I don't think Hull will or should play an import down for the whole length of the ban but maybe 10 games of it so that the team still has an amount of accountability for their players actions. I don't think many fans would disagree with this. Some punishment for Hull but not 46 games, their season will be long enough as it is!
|
|
Pies
Forum Moderator
Reluctant Chief of ITK
Posts: 4,879
|
Post by Pies on Oct 9, 2013 8:45:10 GMT
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
TWITTER: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,585
|
Post by BigLad on Oct 9, 2013 9:10:45 GMT
Hull should be fined for failure to control their players. Not forced to play an import short.
This should apply to ALL teams not just Hull and irrespective of the ban.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 9, 2013 9:28:53 GMT
Hasn't such as precedent already been set - by us? When Jim Shepherd got suspended for spearing Belfast's Mark Dutiaume, we sacked him. I'm not fully certain about this (it was 6 years ago) but IIRC we were able to replace him because we'd sacked him. If so, then Hull shouldn't be hit by Campbell's suspension either. We played a import short for 9 games AFTER bergin was signed ! Did we? I honestly don't remember. Now the thing is... if the precedent is to lose the import slot for the duration of the ban, then Hull are in trouble. It IS partly their own fault for signing a known nutjob, but to be forced to play an import down for virtually the entire season would be too much. Think there's going to have to be some compromise here...
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by Warren on Oct 9, 2013 10:19:54 GMT
We played a import short for 9 games AFTER bergin was signed ! Did we? I honestly don't remember. Now the thing is... if the precedent is to lose the import slot for the duration of the ban, then Hull are in trouble. It IS partly their own fault for signing a known nutjob, but to be forced to play an import down for virtually the entire season would be too much. Think there's going to have to be some compromise here... Simmsy on Twitter seems to think that Hull will have to play an import down for the full 47 games but can appeal at the board meeting (So to all the Club owners). Simmsy is trying to use the precedent set this season for clubs having to play short when a player has been suspended and they have a spare import (us?) but this is the first case this season of a player being banned and fired. As for did we play an import down with Shep's suspension? I think we did, briefly. There was a gap between Sheps release and Bergins signing and first game, but not 9 games. I think the same has happened with big suspensions in the EIHL era, where the player has been released. Although with the way the cloak and dagger workings of the league, I would say anything is possible. For me, because he isn't under contract anymore, Hull should not suffer Import wise and a fine "for not controlling players" / "Poor rink management" makes sense. Trouble is the Fine, depending on size could be as bad as playing an import down for club like Hull. As for was the ban "increased" because of Hull's firing? I doubt it, all of the incidents listed by MH are all given bans of reasonable length. If he had given an extra 10 games because of multiple "Match" penalties in a single game, then I would say it was for show.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,442
|
Post by Yotes on Oct 9, 2013 10:23:18 GMT
I'm not sure that can be correct. Like Shaggy I can't remember it particularly clearly, but just from the statistics for that season Bergin's games (52), plus Shep's games (7), plus 9 ban (68) would be too many (65 I think is the maximum, what McAslan played that year). All those stats are from Pete Walch's site. Unless Shep didn't get 9 games ban? I can't even remember that Remember the spear though. A ban should follow the player, it shouldn't hinder the team. The team pays either by not being able to select that player (if they keep him), or as in Hull's case now having to replace that player. The same as it would do in any other sport. The way it appears to be now, it only applies to imports. If a Brit got banned, provided you had or could find one, you'd be able to replace him because we don't have any restriction (that I know of) on roster size, or number of players on the bench.
|
|
5+game
Terry Kurtenbach
Posts: 2,974
|
Post by 5+game on Oct 9, 2013 10:25:13 GMT
Hasn't such as precedent already been set - by us? When Jim Shepherd got suspended for spearing Belfast's Mark Dutiaume, we sacked him. I'm not fully certain about this (it was 6 years ago) but IIRC we were able to replace him because we'd sacked him. If so, then Hull shouldn't be hit by Campbell's suspension either. We played a import short for 9 games AFTER bergin was signed ! Im sure we didn't, because all the other teams fans were moaning like hell about it.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,442
|
Post by Yotes on Oct 9, 2013 10:25:55 GMT
Beat me to the punch/knee to the head/eye gouge Warren.
|
|
|
Post by spik on Oct 9, 2013 10:34:05 GMT
If you release a player to avoid being penalised, then that is wrong.So you have to have some sort of punishment. But by releasing the player and him not being part of your club anymore the 47 games is then to much. The 47 game ban should be the players own call, will that hold if he leaves to play abroad ...IIHF rules? The club then needs a fine or something subject to a sensible level.
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by Warren on Oct 9, 2013 10:48:55 GMT
If you release a player to avoid being penalised, then that is wrong.So you have to have some sort of punishment. But by releasing the player and him not being part of your club anymore the 47 games is then to much. The 47 game ban should be the players own call, will that hold if he leaves to play abroad ...IIHF rules? The club then needs a fine or something subject to a sensible level. I have seen on Twitter people recommending 5 games for Hull as a team. If so, this is ok but needs to be set in stone by the league. Perhaps 10% (rounded up to nearest game)? That would stop teams going out and signing an Andrew Sharp type character just to run and injure the starting nettie in a must win game just to release him afterwards. Imagine the advert.... "Wanted: Someone who can skate quite fast and utilizes other people to stop. useful if you can take a punch. A desire never to play hockey again is highly recommended. No time wasters"
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
TWITTER: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,585
|
Post by BigLad on Oct 9, 2013 13:34:51 GMT
But if the club signed Sharp (who's a Brit) they'd not miss out as they could bring in another Brit anyway regarldess of whether they retain Sharp's services or not.
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by Warren on Oct 9, 2013 13:47:06 GMT
But if the club signed Sharp (who's a Brit) they'd not miss out as they could bring in another Brit anyway regarldess of whether they retain Sharp's services or not. True. I always forget that hes classed as a Brit...
|
|
goon37
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 161
|
Post by goon37 on Oct 10, 2013 11:30:58 GMT
47 games is too long for a team to be an import short, but they need some penalty. For the player, make all his bans consecutive. For the club, concurrent. So they have to go 15 games without an import.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Oct 10, 2013 13:11:43 GMT
Who cares they are always a few thousand fans short anyway. Sooner that bigger teams come in from London and other bigger EPL setups the quicker that tin pot teams like Hull and Edinburgh can be left to their own devices. Personally with all of the problems over the last few years there I am surprised that Hull Council still want anything to do with the team even being there. Wasn't there a problem there last year with Panthers fans and players too?
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 10, 2013 13:52:01 GMT
Who cares they are always a few thousand fans short anyway. Sooner that bigger teams come in from London and other bigger EPL setups the quicker that tin pot teams like Hull and Edinburgh can be left to their own devices. "A few thousand fans short" of what, exactly? You do know that most of the league can't claim "a few thousand fans" at all, don't you? Perhaps you'd like to see a three-team league - just us, Belfast & Sheffield? Or have Braehead, Cardiff and Coventry just squeaked in above whatever minimum attendance you deem worthy? Perhaps you want to get rid of Dundee as well as Hull & Edinburgh, they 'only' got 900 fans in on Sunday... what does it matter that they're actually leading the league right now? You can forget the "bigger EPL setups" joining the EIHL... why should they? They've got a good thing going down in the South of England... lots of teams close together, low travel costs, more chance of away fans coming along... oh, and no arrogant numpties from big arena teams looking down on them. Oh, and they're "a few thousand fans" short as well. As for a team or two in London... come back to us when you've found the money and the arena for that, will you? Ridiculous...
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
TWITTER: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,585
|
Post by BigLad on Oct 10, 2013 14:19:44 GMT
Plus I usually really enjoy my trips to Hull!
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by Warren on Oct 10, 2013 14:28:54 GMT
In relation to them dropping out of the league, Didn't they say that there operational costs would be higher in the EPL? Thats if the EPL would have them. As Shaggy says, why would the larger EPL clubs want to move up? If memory serves, they got burnt by the cross over cup. The only way I can see them joining is if they ALL join and we have a fully structured league with conferences and Finals to boot. That will never happen though, even if linking together properly, playing under 1 big banner will be the only way of the sport making real strides forward and that is only the first step on a very long road. too many people have too much at stake for big changes like that.
Back on to Campbell, I agree with most, that Hull need some recompensece against them for "failing to control the player" but giving them the full 47 games will destroy them this year. Though if they were smart and thought about it, and "saved" the cash they were paying Campbell (and the other bits they provided) they could use it next year. I apreaciate that is over simplifiying it, but its times like this they need to think smart.
I pray to god that they dont try to use the "he was not a Hull player when the Bans were imposed so the club isn't liable" as that becomes a nasty example to set. Players released on a mondy morning, the ban comes out and is only 1 game so he re-signs Tuesday afternoon as he serverd his 1 game Sunday night...
|
|
|
Post by tootootrain on Oct 10, 2013 14:30:48 GMT
Plus I usually really enjoy my trips to Hull! They sell nice pink sambuca just around the corner apparently....
|
|
|
Post by pantherdman on Oct 10, 2013 18:11:05 GMT
Check the rule book on this matter....... Oh nothing in there? Make something up then.
IMO, they will let hull away with it. The league clearly tipped hull off about the ban so that they could sack Campbell before the ban was released.
I'm not sure what would be best for hull? Having an excuse for 47games an import short and save some money or accept a fine?
They can punish hull for failing to control their players, but what about failing to protect the players. This is a ticking time bomb at a lot of the smaller rinks. Are we going to wait for a player to get stabbed or a fan get seriously injured?
Some of the security at some rinks is archaic, Sunday football league standard, they wouldn't be allowed in the conference.
|
|
dp
Jim Keyes
Posts: 966
|
Post by dp on Oct 10, 2013 20:19:10 GMT
Are there any other leagues in the world that would punish a team by making them play a man short for the entire season because of one player's actions?
I'm as sure as I can be that when Panthers sacked Shepherd they played Bergin as soon as he was available, because I remember the fuss other fans kicked up. In fact, I almost remember the words on the website article explaining that Bergin could play immediately because we'd sacked and deregistered Shepherd.
Hull are being punished enough by losing one of their best players and having to pay money they probably can't afford to replace him (ITCs, flights etc).
As for the argument "why don't teams just sign Sharpe and let him go mad?". Well, any NHL team could do that every single game because there's no import limit and somebody, somewhere would always take 5 grand to do it and get their 5 minutes of fame...but it doesn't happen.
|
|