|
Post by maxfax on Feb 23, 2007 17:56:05 GMT
Ted, as you know the incident happened right in front of us in block 5. I could see all & hear nearly all (Though the rules of the forum rightly stop me repeating what was said).
Ndur, did NOT aim his stick at an area of the ice OR a player to indicate a point, he aimed it at Carson. He never ever touched Carson, or made any connection with his stick at ANY point.
However, I still find his behaviour outrageous & over the top, & thought in the balance of things at least a further 1 game ban would have been forthcoming. Just shows this 'tin-pot' league have NO consistency, make up the rules as they go along, & bend the said rules as they see fit. PATHETIC!
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Feb 23, 2007 17:59:21 GMT
yes but people keep saying stuff like... "sheffield didnt cheat in the grand sham era" and "if what sheffield did was so bad why didnt other teams complain/get a change" etc etc and its the same reason... all got their feet in the trough and no one wants to upset the apple cart..... in my mind that is what is happening here against coventry and happened last year against the giants and has happened in the past against the steelers... in pretty much all the incidents involving those clubs and panthers the decision has gone against the panthers... just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you....
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Feb 23, 2007 18:04:56 GMT
yes but people keep saying stuff like... "sheffield didnt cheat in the grand sham era" and "if what sheffield did was so bad why didnt other teams complain/get a change" etc etc and its the same reason... all got their feet in the trough and no one wants to upset the apple cart..... in my mind that is what is happening here against coventry and happened last year against the giants and has happened in the past against the steelers and happened recently about Ellis... in pretty much all the incidents involving those clubs and panthers the decision has gone against the panthers... just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you.... Edited for accuracy **Runs away and hides** ;D
|
|
|
Post by maxfax on Feb 23, 2007 18:05:53 GMT
''just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you.... '' I like that quote Tex
|
|
|
Post by Stoopy on Feb 23, 2007 18:05:56 GMT
Not surprised in the slightest.... disgusted, but not surprised - for three reasons:- Firstly because the EIHL so-called 'disciplinary process' is a complete farce, just as the ISL's was... and for the same reasons (the people involved in it). No common sense, no consistency, no apparent logic at all. Secondly because - if you talk to people involved in the sport - the same picture keeps appearing time and time again. The EIHL is 'heavily influenced' (the words I keep hearing are "run by") the people who run the Blaze. What a coincidence (not!) that at the same time that it is alleged that the EIHL have basically taken over the running of IHUK, the Blaze coach becomes GB coach and the Blaze owner/GM/whateverheis becomes GB team manager... Jobs for the boys? Thirdly... the Panthers have never done well out of the (in)disciplinary process:- - Clayton Norris getting clobbered with a ban for an attack that independent coaches watching the video said he didn't commit. - The bench clearance, where Scott Allison gets his ban reduced on appeal, despite his high-speed decapitation attack from behind, yet Baz Nieckar actually ends up with a longer ban overall! - Shmyr getting a 3 game ban for words and chucking his helmet (at the ice, not at the ref) whilst Clouthier gets 2 games for gouging/fish-hooking and Ndur gets 1 game for actually threatening a ref with a weapon! - And no doubt plenty more that I can't recall right now... Pathetic. Your post is certainly getting a great deal of scrutiny Shaggy. Maybe it is time to be a little more careful with the vitriol. It would be a shame for the Cage to be involved in a legal problem for the sake of a bit more common sense posting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 18:06:10 GMT
yes but people keep saying stuff like... "sheffield didnt cheat in the grand sham era" and "if what sheffield did was so bad why didnt other teams complain/get a change" etc etc and its the same reason... all got their feet in the trough and no one wants to upset the apple cart..... in my mind that is what is happening here against coventry and happened last year against the giants and has happened in the past against the steelers... in pretty much all the incidents involving those clubs and panthers the decision has gone against the panthers... just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you.... Like Panthers will never win the league.. we could be 15 points clear in february , coming down the stretch... then our star player gets banned mysteriously for 10 games
|
|
|
Post by maxfax on Feb 23, 2007 18:10:09 GMT
In fairnes Pidge, I don't think Shaggy has said anything too bad
|
|
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 Feb 23, 2007 18:28:41 GMT
I think some people are missing the point here.... We all saw it, Live or on telly, Ref report or not...VIDEO EVIDENCE, its threatening behaviour towards an official. For me there is no way people can be saying one game is enough... ....mindless and threatening violence is allowed folks but tossing your helmet is a much harsher penalty... absolutely ridiculous and nothing will convince me otherwise...
|
|
karl
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 24
|
Post by karl on Feb 23, 2007 19:11:48 GMT
;D Some of the stuff in this thread is priceless and should be archived immediately. Elite league conspiracy as the meek and mild Coventry Blaze flought signing regs then seek to take over the disciplinary process, the league, the GB team, the sport, the country, the world.... Love it. At least when panthers win something again this kind of 'huge chip' posting nonsense may stop. (1 game ban is a tad generous though- that I do agree with.)
|
|
|
Post by ted on Feb 23, 2007 19:28:36 GMT
fair enough, heja, you were sat right behind me, saw it differently to me. Wigwam... happened right infront of you.
What I posted is my interpretation from what I recall of the incident.
|
|
|
Post by maxfax on Feb 23, 2007 19:36:26 GMT
TeddyC... the Stevie Wonder of Hockey fans!
|
|
|
Post by ted on Feb 23, 2007 19:43:23 GMT
TeddyC... the Stevie Wonder of Hockey fans!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 19:45:56 GMT
TeddyC... the Stevie Wonder of Hockey fans! .......and linesmen ;D
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Feb 23, 2007 19:51:15 GMT
Clearly ZT working like a charm in British hockey then... Thought he would be gone for along time after that.
On the Payette ban(or lack of it)-don't forget that if Andre had recieved a ban for his actions, then ryans would have to be longer. ryan recieved his ban for abuse of official, and abuse of equipment. Something Payette did NOT do. As ryan tried to start a fight after being ejected, as Andre tried to as well, any ban Payette had would have to be matched(or be very similar) and added to ryans.
|
|
|
Post by newham on Feb 23, 2007 20:41:59 GMT
I know it sounds like paranoia, but you have got to wonder what would happen if Ndur was indeed a Panthers player.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision:
Shmyr has a go at the ref and tosses his helmet onto the ice = Three match ban Ndur has a go at the ref and all but aims his stick at his head = One match ban
I defy ANYONE to explain that one to me.
|
|
|
Post by gazzathedevil on Feb 23, 2007 20:48:35 GMT
I know it sounds like paranoia, but you have got to wonder what would happen if Ndur was indeed a Panthers player. I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision: Shmyr has a go at the ref and tosses his helmet onto the ice = Three match ban Ndur has a go at the ref and all but aims his stick at his head = One match ban I defy ANYONE to explain that one to me. Simple. League decided beginning of the year the throwing of ANY object carried an automatic 3 game ban. League rules state all match penalties will be automatically reviewed along with the REFEREE;s report to see if any further punishment is needed. the word in capitals is important here as i believe Carson wanted no further punishment to be inflicted as per his report
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 20:54:06 GMT
So why wasn t Ryan banned for 4 matches then ?
His first match penalty was for Abuse of official
|
|
|
Post by gazzathedevil on Feb 23, 2007 21:04:03 GMT
So why wasn t Ryan banned for 4 matches then ? His first match penalty was for Abuse of official because he was banned for 3 , the first ban was incorporated with his abuse of official call
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 21:07:38 GMT
So why wasn t Ryan banned for 4 matches then ? His first match penalty was for Abuse of official because he was banned for 3 , the first ban was incorporated with his abuse of official call So its really a 2 game ban outright then for throwing equipment on the ice.
|
|
|
Post by newham on Feb 23, 2007 21:08:25 GMT
I know it sounds like paranoia, but you have got to wonder what would happen if Ndur was indeed a Panthers player. I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision: Shmyr has a go at the ref and tosses his helmet onto the ice = Three match ban Ndur has a go at the ref and all but aims his stick at his head = One match ban I defy ANYONE to explain that one to me. Simple. League decided beginning of the year the throwing of ANY object carried an automatic 3 game ban. League rules state all match penalties will be automatically reviewed along with the REFEREE;s report to see if any further punishment is needed. the word in capitals is important here as i believe Carson wanted no further punishment to be inflicted as per his report Ok, to re-word my post: Can someone please explain to me the logic behind handing a bigger ban for throwing a helmet at nobody than threatening a referee?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 21:10:15 GMT
Simple. League decided beginning of the year the throwing of ANY object carried an automatic 3 game ban. League rules state all match penalties will be automatically reviewed along with the REFEREE;s report to see if any further punishment is needed. the word in capitals is important here as i believe Carson wanted no further punishment to be inflicted as per his report Ok, to re-word my post: Can someone please explain to me the logic behind handing a bigger ban for throwing a helmet at nobody than threatening a referee? Newham.. simple There is no logic
|
|
|
Post by spik on Feb 23, 2007 21:32:30 GMT
Chill 'panthers8768' please , your comments were not warrented.
So, apparently if we have a ruling suggesting a 2 game ban for a particular incident it should be handed out, fine. But seems like common sense says a disciplinary committee cant ajudge what seems a far worse incident........ BECAUSE its not written in stone in the rules?
People here keep mentioning that 'it's in the rules' re-throwing but is it not in the rules re-violent abuse?
|
|
|
Post by gazzathedevil on Feb 23, 2007 21:40:49 GMT
Simple. League decided beginning of the year the throwing of ANY object carried an automatic 3 game ban. League rules state all match penalties will be automatically reviewed along with the REFEREE;s report to see if any further punishment is needed. the word in capitals is important here as i believe Carson wanted no further punishment to be inflicted as per his report Ok, to re-word my post: Can someone please explain to me the logic behind handing a bigger ban for throwing a helmet at nobody than threatening a referee? Because the referee didnt feel he was threatened. Once a piece of equipment leaves your hand its liable to hit anyone/anything.
|
|
|
Post by maxfax on Feb 23, 2007 21:43:50 GMT
Ok, to re-word my post: Can someone please explain to me the logic behind handing a bigger ban for throwing a helmet at nobody than threatening a referee? [glow=red,2,300]Because the referee didnt feel he was threatened.[/glow] Once a piece of equipment leaves your hand its liable to hit anyone/anything. Disagree Gazza mate. D'ya not see how far he stepped/jumped back? He was bricking it. I bet his undies had changed colour!
|
|
|
Post by culley on Feb 23, 2007 21:45:12 GMT
Surely IIRC (i'm sure i will be corrected if i'm wrong_) but doesnt the length of the ban go on the strength of the referee's report ? has anyone seen the report ? Maybe just maybe Carson didnt see it as threatening behaviour so didnt put the incident strongly in the report,therefore the league only gave the one game !! I wasnt at the game but after watching the video it seems to me that Ndur was agruing with Carson,but had his stick in his hand - if that makes sense.
|
|