Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,408
|
Post by Yotes on Dec 12, 2014 12:25:44 GMT
The source was Dave Simms, his answer to the talk on this thread. Thing is he's going on about us refusing to see how DOPS works, no one has told us how DOPS works. An interview with Tony on the Steelers' webcast doesn't count, and he doesn't really provide much info anyway. For instance he says these various guys are "asked to look at an incident at a certain time" (words to that effect), but never says who asks. I think the system is probably a good one for us to use, I've said I prefer it to how it's happened in the past, the bans don't seem unreasonable to me, but the league could've made some basic information available about it at the start of the season, but as usual didn't. When we're left with the usual info drip feed, you're going to get people suspecting they're not getting the straight bat. In Oakford's case, did he carry on at all or did he have to be helped from the ice? How obvious was it to the ref that he was injured?
|
|
Mozzy
Pat Casey
Cracking
Posts: 365
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:32:53 GMT
Post by Mozzy on Dec 12, 2014 12:32:53 GMT
I bet the players are quaking in their boots...... I bet Doyle is..... I bet he's not....
|
|
Mozzy
Pat Casey
Cracking
Posts: 365
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:33:48 GMT
Post by Mozzy on Dec 12, 2014 12:33:48 GMT
The source was Dave Simms, his answer to the talk on this thread.
So far I have only seen comments from Todd Kelman, Dave Simms and Tony Smith (Though I havent explicitly been looking for it). Kelman was asking for the league to be clear on the matter and openly say what the DOPS procedure is. He did give a brief overview that he, as a Club GM, recieved. This should come through the offical channels not 1 Teams GM and another Teams Media Representative and Owner. TS maybe chairman, but if the source of the information is the Steelers he has his "Owner" hat on, not his "League Chairman" one. If DOPS was beyond reproach then I am happy to accept (begrudgingly in some cases) the decisions. They need to change the everything from top to bottom. Clear and distinct lines on when Plays get reviewed or not, Clear defined standards of type of incident carry's X days, etc. I don't care if the guys reviewing the play are in Bermuda, Sweden or Just outside Grimsby, So long as things are clear and consistent. Totally agree. No idea why the EIHL haven't officially announced the procedures.
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:34:58 GMT
Post by Warren on Dec 12, 2014 12:34:58 GMT
The source was Dave Simms, his answer to the talk on this thread. Thing is he's going on about us refusing to see how DOPS works, no one has told us how DOPS works. An interview with Tony on the Steelers' webcast doesn't count, and he doesn't really provide much info anyway. For instance he says these various guys are "asked to look at an incident at a certain time" (words to that effect), but never says who asks. I think the system is probably a good one for us to use, I've said I prefer it to how it's happened in the past, the bans don't seem unreasonable to me, but the league could've made some basic information available about it at the start of the season, but as usual didn't. When we're left with the usual info drip feed, you're going to get people suspecting they're not getting the straight bat. In Oakford's case, did he carry on at all or did he have to be helped from the ice? How obvious was it to the ref that he was injured? That is what I was reffering to as "Injury on the play" is subjective. I wasn't there so can't say but was he flat out on the ice and the trainer called on? did he get up, act groggy and head to the bench? Did he carry on and later on showed signs of a concussion? only the first can the Referee determine that it was that specific play that caused the injury. (Can't believe i may of defended a ref, I need a shower) Not in this case but what if the incident was to aggravate an injury that he was carrying PRIOR to the incident? would that be deemed "injury on the play"? The contact may be slight and on its own, not an injury. But he hits the player just right and pop what was a sore muscle is now a dead leg and hes out for couple of weeks. (The Panthers definition of dead leg is way different to mine)
|
|
Mozzy
Pat Casey
Cracking
Posts: 365
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:35:25 GMT
Post by Mozzy on Dec 12, 2014 12:35:25 GMT
The source was Dave Simms, his answer to the talk on this thread. Thing is he's going on about us refusing to see how DOPS works, no one has told us how DOPS works. An interview with Tony on the Steelers' webcast doesn't count, and he doesn't really provide much info anyway. For instance he says these various guys are "asked to look at an incident at a certain time" (words to that effect), but never says who asks. I think the system is probably a good one for us to use, I've said I prefer it to how it's happened in the past, the bans don't seem unreasonable to me, but the league could've made some basic information available about it at the start of the season, but as usual didn't. When we're left with the usual info drip feed, you're going to get people suspecting they're not getting the straight bat. In Oakford's case, did he carry on at all or did he have to be helped from the ice? How obvious was it to the ref that he was injured? Again, I agree with this.
As for Oakford, I can't remember how he got off the ice to be honest. I was too involved in giving the referee some stick to notice at the time. The temperature was rising at the time.
|
|
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:35:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rob Scott on Dec 12, 2014 12:35:40 GMT
I bet he's not.... He usually looks more like a Swiss cheese than a Netminder when visiting the NIC so it can't be his favourite place.
|
|
Mozzy
Pat Casey
Cracking
Posts: 365
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:40:25 GMT
Post by Mozzy on Dec 12, 2014 12:40:25 GMT
Thing is he's going on about us refusing to see how DOPS works, no one has told us how DOPS works. An interview with Tony on the Steelers' webcast doesn't count, and he doesn't really provide much info anyway. For instance he says these various guys are "asked to look at an incident at a certain time" (words to that effect), but never says who asks. I think the system is probably a good one for us to use, I've said I prefer it to how it's happened in the past, the bans don't seem unreasonable to me, but the league could've made some basic information available about it at the start of the season, but as usual didn't. When we're left with the usual info drip feed, you're going to get people suspecting they're not getting the straight bat. In Oakford's case, did he carry on at all or did he have to be helped from the ice? How obvious was it to the ref that he was injured? That is what I was reffering to as "Injury on the play" is subjective. I wasn't there so can't say but was he flat out on the ice and the trainer called on? did he get up, act groggy and head to the bench? Did he carry on and later on showed signs of a concussion? only the first can the Referee determine that it was that specific play that caused the injury. (Can't believe i may of defended a ref, I need a shower) Not in this case but what if the incident was to aggravate an injury that he was carrying PRIOR to the incident? would that be deemed "injury on the play"? The contact may be slight and on its own, not an injury. But he hits the player just right and pop what was a sore muscle is now a dead leg and hes out for couple of weeks. (The Panthers definition of dead leg is way different to mine) I'm note sure why the "injury on the play" bit is involved. Is a check to the head any less dangerous because it doesn't cause an injury?
If that offence carries a 4 game ban (for example) then it should be 4 games, whether injury occurs or not. Asking the referees to make judgements based on whether a player is injured is not fair and leads it open to being abused. We've all seen the faking of injuries in football. If being injured is the difference between a player staying in the game or not then that will give "some" players the opportunity to play the system....
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:48:24 GMT
Post by Warren on Dec 12, 2014 12:48:24 GMT
So far I have only seen comments from Todd Kelman, Dave Simms and Tony Smith (Though I havent explicitly been looking for it). Kelman was asking for the league to be clear on the matter and openly say what the DOPS procedure is. He did give a brief overview that he, as a Club GM, recieved. This should come through the offical channels not 1 Teams GM and another Teams Media Representative and Owner. TS maybe chairman, but if the source of the information is the Steelers he has his "Owner" hat on, not his "League Chairman" one. If DOPS was beyond reproach then I am happy to accept (begrudgingly in some cases) the decisions. They need to change the everything from top to bottom. Clear and distinct lines on when Plays get reviewed or not, Clear defined standards of type of incident carry's X days, etc. I don't care if the guys reviewing the play are in Bermuda, Sweden or Just outside Grimsby, So long as things are clear and consistent. Totally agree. No idea why the EIHL haven't officially announced the procedures. So you can see where the foil hat brigade are coming from then. Coincidentally or not, the most recent DOPS rulings (or lack of) Favour Steelers? Oh and Forgot to add, DOPS need to release videos of any request for review no matter the source or the outcome. Panthers request the Dowd hit to be reviewed? Video. Because the Sindel hit got him a game it gets Auto Reviewed: Video. As I say without the failings being shown, we don't know that they are reviewed and are left to feel its a conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Dec 12, 2014 12:51:36 GMT
That is what I was reffering to as "Injury on the play" is subjective. I wasn't there so can't say but was he flat out on the ice and the trainer called on? did he get up, act groggy and head to the bench? Did he carry on and later on showed signs of a concussion? only the first can the Referee determine that it was that specific play that caused the injury. (Can't believe i may of defended a ref, I need a shower) Not in this case but what if the incident was to aggravate an injury that he was carrying PRIOR to the incident? would that be deemed "injury on the play"? The contact may be slight and on its own, not an injury. But he hits the player just right and pop what was a sore muscle is now a dead leg and hes out for couple of weeks. (The Panthers definition of dead leg is way different to mine) I'm note sure why the "injury on the play" bit is involved. Is a check to the head any less dangerous because it doesn't cause an injury?
If that offence carries a 4 game ban (for example) then it should be 4 games, whether injury occurs or not. Asking the referees to make judgements based on whether a player is injured is not fair and leads it open to being abused. We've all seen the faking of injuries in football. If being injured is the difference between a player staying in the game or not then that will give "some" players the opportunity to play the system....
Get your point but (ignoring Daryll Lloyd) ice hockey players are way more honest than footballers. Also, injury on the play already is involved in the game. A more obvious example being the 'High Stick' penalty calls. High Stick and it's 2 minutes. Draw blood and its 2+2 for an Accidental High Stick.
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:52:32 GMT
Post by Warren on Dec 12, 2014 12:52:32 GMT
That is what I was reffering to as "Injury on the play" is subjective. I wasn't there so can't say but was he flat out on the ice and the trainer called on? did he get up, act groggy and head to the bench? Did he carry on and later on showed signs of a concussion? only the first can the Referee determine that it was that specific play that caused the injury. (Can't believe i may of defended a ref, I need a shower) Not in this case but what if the incident was to aggravate an injury that he was carrying PRIOR to the incident? would that be deemed "injury on the play"? The contact may be slight and on its own, not an injury. But he hits the player just right and pop what was a sore muscle is now a dead leg and hes out for couple of weeks. (The Panthers definition of dead leg is way different to mine) I'm note sure why the "injury on the play" bit is involved. Is a check to the head any less dangerous because it doesn't cause an injury?
If that offence carries a 4 game ban (for example) then it should be 4 games, whether injury occurs or not. Asking the referees to make judgements based on whether a player is injured is not fair and leads it open to being abused. We've all seen the faking of injuries in football. If being injured is the difference between a player staying in the game or not then that will give "some" players the opportunity to play the system....
Its in the IIHF Ruling for the penalty.
|
|
Mozzy
Pat Casey
Cracking
Posts: 365
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:58:17 GMT
Post by Mozzy on Dec 12, 2014 12:58:17 GMT
I'm note sure why the "injury on the play" bit is involved. Is a check to the head any less dangerous because it doesn't cause an injury?
If that offence carries a 4 game ban (for example) then it should be 4 games, whether injury occurs or not. Asking the referees to make judgements based on whether a player is injured is not fair and leads it open to being abused. We've all seen the faking of injuries in football. If being injured is the difference between a player staying in the game or not then that will give "some" players the opportunity to play the system....
Its in the IIHF Ruling for the penalty. I know it's in the rules but what constitutes an injury, missing the next shift, the next period, the next game? very hard on the referee's to make that call in real time.
|
|
Mozzy
Pat Casey
Cracking
Posts: 365
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 12:59:46 GMT
Post by Mozzy on Dec 12, 2014 12:59:46 GMT
Totally agree. No idea why the EIHL haven't officially announced the procedures. So you can see where the foil hat brigade are coming from then. Coincidentally or not, the most recent DOPS rulings (or lack of) Favour Steelers? Oh and Forgot to add, DOPS need to release videos of any request for review no matter the source or the outcome. Panthers request the Dowd hit to be reviewed? Video. Because the Sindel hit got him a game it gets Auto Reviewed: Video. As I say without the failings being shown, we don't know that they are reviewed and are left to feel its a conspiracy. Yes, I can see the argument. The EIHL should be more open.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 13:30:56 GMT
Post by Doom on Dec 12, 2014 13:30:56 GMT
Totally agree. No idea why the EIHL haven't officially announced the procedures. So you can see where the foil hat brigade are coming from then. Coincidentally or not, the most recent DOPS rulings (or lack of) Favour Steelers? Oh and Forgot to add, DOPS need to release videos of any request for review no matter the source or the outcome. Panthers request the Dowd hit to be reviewed? Video. Because the Sindel hit got him a game it gets Auto Reviewed: Video. As I say without the failings being shown, we don't know that they are reviewed and are left to feel its a conspiracy. Not really.....The 4 game ban to Nickerson means he misses games against Braehead and Cardiff, both of whom are likely title rivals. As usual I think people are looking for something that isn't there. Regards Doom
|
|
|
Post by tootootrain on Dec 12, 2014 13:32:00 GMT
From experience refs ask/should ask the attendant medical cover if they (the 'injured' player) is deemed injured and then penalties changed to reflect the answer (I've been asked a number of times at games where I've been providing medical cover for my professional opinion whether a player is fit to go on). The reason for this is that doctors/nurses who are medical cover are answerable to their registering authority (GMC/NMC) if they're later found to have 'favoured' said player's team by over-egging the injury. I've never seen a hearing regarding such actions but I can only imagine that the NMC would not go easy on a registrant who compromised the NMC Code for sporting gain.
To add, I've never met a player who has tried to feign any injury to benefit his team, indeed quite the opposite, it's hard to keep truly injured players from trying to get back on! Anyone who suggests players might feign injuries to benefit their team has either never played the sport or really doesn't 'get' the mindset of hockey players.
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
TWITTER: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,585
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 13:38:23 GMT
Post by BigLad on Dec 12, 2014 13:38:23 GMT
They have previously released videos of decisions that have resulted in no ban.
Although not sure whether they were in response to match penalties?
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 14:45:19 GMT
Post by Doom on Dec 12, 2014 14:45:19 GMT
They have previously released videos of decisions that have resulted in no ban. Although not sure whether they were in response to match penalties? I think they were for match penalties, where they explained the automatic 1 game ban and the reasons for no addition to that. I don't recall them explaining any incident where no ban has been given. Regards Doom
|
|
|
DOPS
Dec 12, 2014 20:32:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by ted logan on Dec 12, 2014 20:32:13 GMT
So you can see where the foil hat brigade are coming from then. Coincidentally or not, the most recent DOPS rulings (or lack of) Favour Steelers? Oh and Forgot to add, DOPS need to release videos of any request for review no matter the source or the outcome. Panthers request the Dowd hit to be reviewed? Video. Because the Sindel hit got him a game it gets Auto Reviewed: Video. As I say without the failings being shown, we don't know that they are reviewed and are left to feel its a conspiracy. As usual I think people are looking for something that isn't there. Regards Doom Them Panthers fans eh? Horrible bunch.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
DOPS
Dec 13, 2014 9:51:30 GMT
Post by Doom on Dec 13, 2014 9:51:30 GMT
As usual I think people are looking for something that isn't there. Regards Doom Them Panthers fans eh? Horrible bunch. I think all supporters are guilty of it from time to time.....You're not exclusive. Regards Doom
|
|
gump
Pat Casey
Posts: 348
|
DOPS
Dec 16, 2014 16:30:43 GMT
Post by gump on Dec 16, 2014 16:30:43 GMT
Who are the DOPS and what hockey experience d they have. Some of the rulings lack any creibility in terms of sanction vs players actions. Given thelck of transparency in the league chairmanship structure it is easy to speculate that favours get done by certain league teams.
|
|
|
DOPS
Dec 16, 2014 18:50:26 GMT
Post by PantherB on Dec 16, 2014 18:50:26 GMT
Who are the DOPS and what hockey experience d they have. Some of the rulings lack any creibility in terms of sanction vs players actions. Given thelck of transparency in the league chairmanship structure it is easy to speculate that favours get done by certain league teams. It's a body of people who cover the disciplinary side for many leagues across Europe. Their anonymity certainly doesn't help but it prevents them being targeted and abused.
|
|