NP
Lorne Smith
Posts: 706
|
Post by NP on Sept 15, 2014 9:56:39 GMT
"The Department of Player Safety has come to the following conclusions...
• There was a penalty on the play, therefore the play has been deemed illegal • Belfast #62 Kevin Phillips took no further part in the game • Belfast #62 Kevin Phillips has been diagnosed with concussion
The Department of Player Safety has increased the original penalty called on the night to a match penalty for boarding.
Edinburgh have been fined £1,000 for failure to supply the matchnight footage required and, as a result, Emmerson will be banned for 10 matches."
Have to feel sorry for the Caps, appears to be one rule for the bigger teams and one for the smallest team, with the extremes of suspensions handed out thus far..
Phillips could hardly have been concussed if he was back playing 5 days later! Think Giants should be investigated by the Dept of player Safety for playing a concussed player!
Disclipinary decisons seems to be getting stranger and stranger each season...
Will surely get reduced a bit on appeal, with phillips back playing within 7 days as that just makes a mockery of their decison...
If you are playing the same team say weekend then midweek, it could lead to some "lesser" players making the most of being caught by a check, by sitting out the rest of a game after a hit by a "certain" player, if means decent chance it will lead to it being reviewed and a ban handed out!
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,406
|
Post by Yotes on Sept 15, 2014 10:13:34 GMT
Phillips could hardly have been concussed if he was back playing 5 days later! Think Giants should be investigated by the Dept of player Safety for playing a concussed player! Absolutely, if the idea is about protecting players - as the name suggests - then can't be allowing clubs to ice guys who, technically, have brain damage. Or he wasn't concussed to begin with, in which case Belfast have misled the league.
|
|
|
Post by dreadface on Sept 16, 2014 10:00:10 GMT
Sorry if this has been covered anywhere else but thought some people might have missed Todd Kelmans tweets last night. And I figured I would put them together so people dont have to trawl through all his tweets.
OK EIHL fans, I wasn't going to enter the Dept of Player Safety debate, but here are the facts and answers to questions I have been posed... All teams were informed of the DPS procedure prior to regular season starting. DPS documents outlined fines for not supplying full game tape DPS system is actually in place to protect the players and clean up the league and takes the responsibility away from teams having to ask for supplementary discipline from specific incidents. All injuries are reviewed, all major penalties are reviewed. If refs make mistakes, they are disciplined as well and game tapes are used to improve officiating as well as protect players. The Edinburgh incident and suspension of their player for 10 games is because without a game tape, how can you review the play? Without supplying a game tape, the player is given the maximum penalty on the play until sufficient evidence is submitted. This can be video, photographs from official photographer on the night but because Edinburgh did not have anything to show DPS, then DPS has no choice but to suspend the player. The injured player left the game with a suspected concussion. He did not play again that game however I assume DPS will consider the fact that K Phillips played on the weekend after the incident but it is up to Edinburgh to use that information to argue their case. Still the home team is REQUIRED to supply a full game tape, and this did not happen. So to say DPS is a joke, is wrong. Protection of players is paramount and DPS did that. Edinburgh is at fault for not supplying the tape Belfast does not have to ask for supplementary discipline. All injuries are automatically reviewed by DPS but no tape means max penalty Fans have 2 understand that the system in place is the best disciplinary system this league can get if all teams buy in and follow procedure Without game tapes, the play cannot be reviewed. Simple as that. Every team knew the fines so should have been double checking that they were recording the entire game. What if K Phillips was out for the year? Would 10 games have been sufficient? I actually think Belfast should not have played him regardless of what the player wanted to do in order to follow procedure when a player is concussed, but they have great medical staff and I am sure they took all necessary precautions and testing to ensure he was fit The ban should probably be reduced now that Phillips is back, but the decision by DPS without a tape to review made complete sense to anyone that bothered to read the DPS procedure documents that every team (owners, GMs, coaches) were given in advance. And finally - no I am not on the Dept of player safety but I understand the set up and how it will work. It is a positive move and the best system for discipline that this league has ever had in place. Mr Hanson who did it last season did not want to come back for another season and the DPS system is used in similar ways around the globe in top leagues. That is all for now, I will pay my fine for social media related offences later this week. The official EIHL can forward me an invoice. While I am at it, I also don't know how to fix a 50/50 draw, or fix a shirt off the back draw so the same people always win. I hate to expose this part of EIHL hockey, but teams actually don't care who wins the SOTB or the 50/50.. Nighty Night EIHL fans - thats me done twitter for a while..
OK i'm not quite done, need to clear something up. No - home teams couldn't hold the game tape to get an away player a 10 game ban. The £1,000 fine is to ensure teams submit all tapes. I don't know what the procedure would be if it happened to an away player, I assume that a home team can't ask for discipline if they don't supply a tape, but I am sure conspiracy theorists will now ask about that The reality is - 9 other teams supplied game tapes and the league made it a requirement to do it every game. I highly doubt it will happen again this season. And the "rich teams" aren't going to pay £1000 to not submit a tape, despite what some might think, the group of owners work very well together and work closely with officials to improve the product. We don't sit around at board meetings and talk about who beat who, we talk about improving the product for the fans, how we improve officiating, how we invest in our product and how we make it more competitive. Ideas that have come out of board meetings like the conference system, the trial of the 4 man system the standalone challenge Cup final, all make a better product for fans. We aren't trying to bleed our fans dry, we want this league and our businesses to be sustainable. We all have different issues and different problems, but we work together to do the best we can for the league we have and the income levels of teams. Sometimes fans need to trust their team owners that we are actually trying to think what you want before we think what we want. If you have ideas on how to improve things in the league or with your team, write an email to your team or to the league or to me and tell us how we can improve things. Its easy to blog, criticise, complain, so instead of telling the world how bad something you support and care about is... Why not tell your teams what you think would make it better? And if you are from Cardiff, tell me or if you have issues with the league, get in touch with me. I read all my emails, I don't always answer them but I will consider all suggestions and ideas. 500,000 people's ideas are better than 1 or 10 or however many people you think are making decisions for the league or your team Remember, this is our league, all of ours and if we care enough to be up at 1130pm talking about it, we all want it to be better So here is my email - let me know what you think tk@cardiffdevils.com
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,406
|
Post by Yotes on Sept 16, 2014 10:30:12 GMT
Well, I personally stand corrected on a few things (sorry Moray), but there's still a clear issue, in the Edinburgh case:
So we can expect that Belfast will be censured for playing the guy too soon?
How do you double check that a video is recording, I mean how do you know 100% that the recording isn't corrupt?
It's interesting too, from a technical point of view, that they'll take the referee's word on it for some parts of this one, but not others (ie, that it was Emmerson who hit Phillips, don't need video proof there, but not that it was only worthy of a minor penalty as called on the night).
|
|
|
Post by tootootrain on Sept 16, 2014 11:15:56 GMT
....So we can expect that Belfast will be censured for playing the guy too soon?... I think we pretty much know the answer to this and it undoubtedly involves EIHL carpet and a Belfast-tinged broom to do the sweeping under. Indeed, and this is what I object to most. This is a clear example of when in doubt only the refs opinion should have counted as he was the only 'evidence' available to rely on. Anything else is just guess work. On this though from Kelman, He seems to be aiming his little rant at those who are discussing the issues that have already become apparent with the DPS (the fans) but then counters his own rant with the reason why fans are scratching their heads, we were never given details of how it works!! Why not? What have the EIHL to hide if, as Kelman seems to suggest, the process was argeed upon, transparent, fair and beyond reproach? What we saw just the other day though, with the removal of what few 'EIHL-specific rules exist from the EIHL website, was the very opposite of transparency. When folks were scratching their heads over Edinburgh's fine some went to where details about such fines were previously laid out and....zip At the fear of sounding like 'Pantherdman', the EIHL should really have provided this information for everyone to see before the season started. If it is a fair system there is really no reason why not.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Sept 16, 2014 11:22:19 GMT
Most of what Todd Kelman says rings correct,true and perfectly sensible.
However,whilst he and the other teams were aware of the DPS facts,powers and penalty outcomes,we the fans were not. Were we even aware of it's existence until the Emmerson saga......no I don't believe we the fans had been informed or it's existence even announced !
It was therefore perfectly reasonable for the fans to jump to the conclusion that the Emmerson ban was unfair or too severe compared to the Thomas ban. If the EIHL were not so damn secretive and actually made fans aware of more of what happens behind closed doors in the "ivory tower" of the EIHL then perhaps the league would not get so much criticism etc.
There is a message for Todd and the rest of the EIHL here.........be more transparent at times and the fans will respect you a whole lot more !
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
TWITTER: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,585
|
Post by BigLad on Sept 16, 2014 11:39:23 GMT
If the EIHL were not so damn secretive and actually made fans aware of more of what happens behind closed doors in the "ivory tower" of the EIHL then perhaps the league would not get so much criticism etc. THIS! Fair play to Kellman to say what he's said - it now makes the whole thing perfectly reasonable. But had it been done in the first place there'd not have been an issue! A simple amendment to the statement about Emmerson's ban to include something like "as no footage is available, we have to impose the maximum ban until evidence is produced to show otherwise".
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Sept 16, 2014 12:02:37 GMT
sensible. However,whilst he and the other teams were aware of the DPS facts,powers and penalty outcomes,we the fans were not. Were we even aware of it's existence until the Emmerson saga......no I don't believe we the fans had been informed or it's existence even announced ! The first post in the thread is of its announcement to the fans, and Emmerson was several days afterwards. You even quoted in the thread before the game the Emmerson incident happened.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Sept 16, 2014 12:18:59 GMT
It says it was formed Shorty,it does not give any very much indication of powers or mention any details relating to teams giving games tapes or punishments thereof.
And if you read my first post which you kindly refer to on this thread it says......."what's the betting before the end of September we get two similar incidents with two very different outcomes,odds on i would say"
And I was absolutely and totally SPOT ON !!!!!!!
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Sept 16, 2014 12:36:46 GMT
You said we didn't know of its existence. We did.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Sept 16, 2014 13:09:28 GMT
We did indeed,all be it only a few days previous,I had forgotten.
Please accept my sincere apologies.
I was still SPOT ON with my prediction though wasn't i......as always !
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,406
|
Post by Yotes on Sept 16, 2014 13:31:03 GMT
I was still SPOT ON with my prediction though wasn't i......as always ! You're just playing up to @stef now, aren't you? Anyway, maybe one day we'll be allowed to see the DoPS rules, and maybe even know who the DoPS are (it's not Todd, and it's not Moray - two down, several million to go).
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Sept 16, 2014 13:48:41 GMT
Haha,well they're always picking on my posts Yotes so I'm trying to be nice,I think you should give them a 10% warning for it.
As for the DoPS goodness knows,probably Carson and Boniface locked in an upstairs room at EIHL towers !
|
|
|
Post by dreadface on Sept 16, 2014 14:26:34 GMT
We did indeed,all be it only a few days previous,I had forgotten. Please accept my sincere apologies. I was still SPOT ON with my prediction though wasn't i......as always ! You wasnt really SPOT ON though, the major difference was that there was footage of one and not of the other. That is the sole reason that there is a major difference in the suspensions, had Edinburgh provided footage and then received a 10 game ban THEN you would have been SPOT ON.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Sept 16, 2014 14:41:26 GMT
I was,I said there would be two similar incidents with two very different outcomes,I never mentioned differences of videos etc. His ban will soon be reduced anyway,ten games for no tape is ridiculous
SO I was SPOT ON.
Are you Shorty's mate by any chance,he/she likes to split hairs on all my posts too,if your'e not careful your'e going to get a 10% warning like Shorty and Stef. (;
Ps. See what I mean Yotes,I think I'm going to become a happy clapper who tows the party line on every subject......it's easier !
|
|
|
Post by pantherdman on Sept 16, 2014 14:54:56 GMT
Publish the damn rule book and stick to it.
Still don't see how it's a 10 game ban. 3 trained officials called it as boarding. The player fouled missed the rest of the game but didn't have concussion or any injury. 1 game ban for emmerton is the max I can plausibly see.
£1000 is fair, maybe the harsh ban is because the league know they have little chance of getting fine money out of a poor club. What if caps refuse to pay? What then?
If I was caps I'd be citing giants players for every incident missing from the video. These must also carry the maximum penalty.
If the league want to impose this they must also give the clubs the facilities to record effectively. What do caps use? A cam corder? Primitive, will probably fail again. Or maybe the league are just making a point because they think they called caps bluff? Maybe they did?
Poor thought out system exposed in the first weekend and will probably be abused throughout the season.
We had an incident reviewed on the ice in the chl, took 30 secs, the right call was proved, what's wrong with that?
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Sept 16, 2014 16:16:28 GMT
I can understand the £1000 fine for not providing a full game tape.
But what would happen if a team provided a full tape but there was an incident off camera which resulted in an injury or concussion,they wouldn't be able to review that either so would that be a 10 game ban too ?
Over to you Mr Kelman !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 16:21:35 GMT
Haha,well they're always picking on my posts Yotes so I'm trying to be nice,I think you should give them a 10% warning for it Er, I did apologise for my ranty post.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Sept 16, 2014 19:16:13 GMT
I can understand the £1000 fine for not providing a full game tape. But what would happen if a team provided a full tape but there was an incident off camera which resulted in an injury or concussion,they wouldn't be able to review that either so would that be a 10 game ban too ? Over to you Mr Kelman ! That is actually a superb point. Realistically could happen. Are there minimum requirements this season in terms of how many cameras the home team has to have shooting the action? It was noticeable from the highlights package of the Cardiff game that we now have 3 - the main one and one behind each goal. This could be a Panthers PR thing. Who knows? As others have said, why can't the Elite League be more transparent? They really do themselves no favours and seem unable/unwilling to learn from past mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Sept 19, 2014 14:11:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Sept 19, 2014 15:06:56 GMT
Common sense prevails at last.
|
|
|
Post by thebestpanthers on Sept 21, 2014 16:56:25 GMT
Interesting outcome of penalties to Hutchins and Hudson over the week-end - looks like common sense may prevail (for the moment anyway)
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Sept 25, 2014 19:03:51 GMT
FRANK: FOUR-MATCH BAN September 25, 2014
ELITE LEAGUE DEPARTMENT OF PLAYER SAFETY PRESS RELEASE
Player: Chris Frank Number: 22 Team: Braehead Clan
During the game Cardiff Devils v Braehead Clan on Saturday 20th September 2014, The Department of Player Safety has been asked to review a hit Chris Frank made on Cardiff #93 Doug Clarkson.
The Department of Player Safety has reviewed this incident and has come to the following conclusions...
• The hit is an illegal check to the head in which the head was recklessly targeted, with the elbow making principal point of contact with Clarkson’s head. • Frank leaves his feet prior to making the hit. • His elbow is extended when making the hit. • There is no intent to play the puck. • The hit is avoidable. • The opponent did not make any sudden movements just prior to contact. • There is an apparent injury to Clarkson as a result of this hit to the head. Although he temporarily remained in the game, his condition worsened and was removed from the game, taking no further part.
The Department of Player Safety has awarded a match penalty for checking to the head and neck under IIHF Rule 124 for this hit and has suspended Frank for four (4) matches.
To view a video explanation of the incident and suspension, please click here.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Sept 26, 2014 8:14:12 GMT
Did look a poor hit....
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,406
|
Post by Yotes on Sept 26, 2014 10:06:41 GMT
Looks like forearm to head, jumps into it.
|
|