|
Post by wannabe2 on Nov 7, 2018 17:36:50 GMT
Think you would be a fan of Blood if he played for Panthers, and you watched him week in week out. He is pure class,very good skater for a big guy, has a great shot, hits like a train, that’s why he is going to a top European team.
|
|
|
Post by wgray on Nov 7, 2018 17:39:54 GMT
Shaggy, there's recently been a thread on THF (you remember...) whereby someone who I have little doubt is "in the know" said that DOPS does review a lot of plays, but only the ones that require supplementary discipline are announced publically. Essentially, no public news means DOPS agree with the call/non call... "DOPS review a lot more items now than when the system was first introduced in November 2017 - the original scope of what would be reviewed was very defined, and the process a little more drawn out. The Hockey Ops Department worked with the Board and DOPS to help bring that whole process forward an extra step this season, and make it a much more comprehensive setup which is much more closely aligned with what you'll see in other pro leagues around the world. The result is a lot more is being looked at, but in that same vein it became somewhat impractical to publish a massive list of everything that was being looked at - especially when the vast majority of stuff ends in no further action. Basically, put the tin foil hats away" As I've said, I'm no great fan of Blood, but it's a minor for interference for me (at most) with an unintended outcome. You can put your own conspiracy theory here if you like. It’s the inconsistency in their decisions which doesn’t help, example, a few seasons ago Hotham got a 2 game ban for an innocuous slash on Dimmen, he was injured after this. What’s the difference between Hotham slashing someone and Blood interfering with someone? Both incidents have resulted in injury, both were intentional actions.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Nov 8, 2018 12:31:23 GMT
There's no way you can say the Blood incident is in any way "proof" that he wanted to hurt Henderson. Players get hurt by legal and illegal checks, most of which are "intentional". You can't ban players solely as a result of injuries suffered by their actions on an opponent, howsoever caused. Consistency is always an issue, but "new" DOPS have been better, I think. The problem is, every situation is different, you have to take very one on its own merits. It's like HR in employment. You can't have black and white "rules". That was "old" DOPS, to be fair. The same one who thought Colton Fretter's actions were worth a one game ban.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,429
|
Post by iginla on Nov 8, 2018 13:06:05 GMT
There's no way you can say the Blood incident is in any way "proof" that he wanted to hurt Henderson. Players get hurt by legal and illegal checks, most of which are "intentional". You can't ban players solely as a result of injuries suffered by their actions on an opponent, howsoever caused. Consistency is always an issue, but "new" DOPS have been better, I think. The problem is, every situation is different, you have to take very one on its own merits. It's like HR in employment. You can't have black and white "rules". That was "old" DOPS, to be fair. The same one who thought Colton Fretter's actions were worth a one game ban. True you can’t ban a player purely because of an injury if it was a legal play. Rissling crushed Ross Venus with that big mid hit against Coventry and put him out of action for a long time but Rissling quite rightly didn’t get any ban.
|
|