DS
Lorne Smith
Posts: 723
|
Post by DS on Oct 3, 2004 14:16:23 GMT
How was it?
Have you not read the post by LooseChippings and I quote
|
|
|
Post by newham on Oct 3, 2004 14:38:14 GMT
Oh the irony.... it's too much. lol, i know! Its incredible, but it gives me a chance to put your theory into practice. You said that i'd ignore it if a Panthers player acted in a manner such as in Coventry a few weeks ago, well im not ignoring it. JC should be fined/dropped/sacked for that, there's no place for it.
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Oct 3, 2004 14:57:02 GMT
legal from the point of view that hanson was unable to penalise craighead with anything other than a coverall rule of "unnescessary roughness" which in ice hockey is nothing more than a joke being a FULL CONTACT sport.... IF it had been anything other than a legal check then he (hanson) being an ex goalie would have called him for it ie xchecking, interference etc etc however this he didnt do, if the playyer was anyone other than JC and the check was on any other player than their goalie then this debate would NOT be happening now would it??... For what its worth i felt though having said all that with 2 mins to go and the game well won it was totally unnecessary whether JC acted under instructions from his coach or not..
|
|
Baron
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 41
|
Post by Baron on Oct 3, 2004 15:08:06 GMT
Craighead won't be fined or fired. After last years rumoured sacking by Adey for not paying his fine and subsequent reintstatement by the GM, he's what's known as untouchable. Only JC will decide if he's going to "Up" his performance and work ratio. I've seen JC in 3 away performances this season and I don't think i've seen him break sweat yet. With a short bench again this season there's no room for passengers, irrespective if they are the teams enforcer. JC showed last year that he can play when "HE" wants
|
|
DoUrden
Ken Westman
Squash Them Sheep
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by DoUrden on Oct 3, 2004 15:16:44 GMT
I think you said he hurt his shoulder, yeah, god it must of hurt so much that he couldn't move his arm to rub his head??? How much are you betting that he isn't playing tomoorow or when ever there next game is. i can 99.9% sure he will be, unless he sustains an injury betweeen now and th next game. He may well play tomorrow or next game. Thats not the issude. Ther eis a hell of a lot of difference between being Injured and being HURT! The keeper is unlikely to get an injury from a bash like that but it will certainly hurt. He'll proll ybe fit enough to play still but will be sore from that hit so saying he was milking it just cause he may not be injured is very harsh.
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 16:03:05 GMT
legal from the point of view that hanson was unable to penalise craighead with anything other than a coverall rule of "unnescessary roughness" which in ice hockey is nothing more than a joke being a FULL CONTACT sport.... Ice Hockey is not a full contact sport against net minders, whether you agree with the rules or not it makes no difference he ran the goalie and got called for it!
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 3, 2004 16:10:16 GMT
I'd juts like to point out that running the goalie might not be "allowed," but it doesn't mean it's a big no no
Fighting is an accepted part of this sport, & players partake in it fairly frequently, but you still get penalised for it at the end of the day
|
|
loonypeter
Robert Lachowicz
The Elburry
Posts: 421
|
Post by loonypeter on Oct 3, 2004 16:11:54 GMT
I'd juts like to point out that running the goalie might not be " allowed," but it doesn't mean it's a big no no Fighting is an accepted part of this sport, & players partake in it fairly frequently, but you still get penalised for it at the end of the day i would say checking a goalie and fighting are in worlds of there own, the goalie cant really stand up for himself.
|
|
|
Post by Rumpole on Oct 3, 2004 16:35:16 GMT
I am sure I am like most people and did not actually see what happened, just the aftermath. I have spoken to someone who has seen the video of the incident. JC did not connect with the netminder's head. He caught his arms/shoulder with a check, and not a very good one at that. The netminder either milked it (unlikely) or hit his head on the ice after his helmet flew off. My informant was at the Blaze game and says Carlson's elbow on Ahlroos was much worse. JC was the top scorer in the league last year. To my mind he was, on his day, the best player by far. He chose to come back here when there were better offers on the table elsewhere. He is not performing anywhere near his best yet and appears frustrated. By all means criticise him, but please don't vilify the man for an incident which seems to have been blown out of all proportion. Game Report? Never looked in trouble. Can play better, but no Elite team has managed 7 goals in a game this season.
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 16:57:01 GMT
I'd juts like to point out that running the goalie might not be " allowed," but it doesn't mean it's a big no no Except for hitting the officials. Running the nettie is the biggest no no in hockey!
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 3, 2004 17:00:17 GMT
i would say checking a goalie and fighting are in worlds of there own, the goalie cant really stand up for himself. The point I'm making is that neither are allowed in the sport, as the rules dictate that players get penalties for committing both offences. Fans will openly cheer for their player to get involved in a fight & get chucked out of game or put in the penalty box, but checking the goalie is akin to murder. I don't think 88 should have done it, especially as we'd won the game way before, but he hasn't committed the crime of the century or done something that is completely unacceptable. Unwritten rule you never touch the goalie? No, I don't agree with that. Unwritten rule is that if you touch the goalie you get an ass whomping for it...
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 17:12:22 GMT
Unwritten rule you never touch the goalie? No, I don't agree with that. Unwritten rule is that if you touch the goalie you get an ass whomping for it... It is not an unwritten rule it is a written rule!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Robbie Nud
David Clarke
I really do look like this.
Posts: 3,101
|
Post by Robbie Nud on Oct 3, 2004 17:18:43 GMT
One of the main issues here seems to be JC's lack of effort during games. If he made one mistake during a game, but the rest of it he at least tried, he would be forgiven. Match reports would warrant the mistake a mention and nothing more. But this guy has many threads in his 'honour' due to the lack of passion, committment, effort, mistakes, and needless penalties. etc. If this season he has been signed purely as the role of 'enforcer', perhaps we should stop critisizing him for his lack of goals and play-making. However I do not recall him throwing a great many decent checks on the opposing players to, either, put them off their game or provoke them into taking a penalty. So what is his role in the team this season? Enforcer? Scoring forward? Because I for one do not feel he is doing either to the best of his abilities.
|
|
loonypeter
Robert Lachowicz
The Elburry
Posts: 421
|
Post by loonypeter on Oct 3, 2004 17:20:18 GMT
The point I'm making is that neither are allowed in the sport, as the rules dictate that players get penalties for committing both offences. Fans will openly cheer for their player to get involved in a fight & get chucked out of game or put in the penalty box, but checking the goalie is akin to murder. I don't think 88 should have done it, especially as we'd won the game way before, but he hasn't committed the crime of the century or done something that is completely unacceptable. Unwritten rule you never touch the goalie? No, I don't agree with that. Unwritten rule is that if you touch the goalie you get an ass whomping for it... in my opinion no matter what the situation is checking the goalie is completely unacceptable. The reason checking the goalie carries such a big penalty is because of how dangerous it is. As someone else touched on it is near impossible for a goalie to twist and land safely when wearing his pads. Fighting is to some extent a part of the game, checking the netminder is NOT
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 17:28:07 GMT
Just to add to the post by Loonypeter ...
A net minder uses different Body Armour, Shorts, Pads, Skates, Helmet , Gloves and even different Box to a skating player.
His kit is designed fto help him stop pucks going into the net and also afford him/her protection from those pucks - it is not designed to protect him from checks.
Any checks on the net minder can cause serious injury!!
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 3, 2004 17:50:29 GMT
It is not an unwritten rule it is a written rule!!!!!!!!! So it says you must not touch the goaltender under any circumstance
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 17:56:49 GMT
So it says you must not touch the goaltender under any circumstance Have a read Rule 514 - Calling of Penalties (Page 64) ➤ 3. A goalkeeper is not “Fair Game” just because he is outside of the goal crease area. A penalty for interference or charging should be called in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. 522 - CHARGING[/u] (Page 65) a) A player who runs, jumps or charges an opponent or who runs, jumps or charges opposing goalkeeper in his crease shall be assessed, at the discretion of the referee, - Minor penalty (2’)or - Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct penalty. (5’+GM)or - Match Penalty (MP)b) A player who injures his opponent as a result of charging shall be assessed, discretion of the referee, a: - Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct penalty. (5’+GM)or - Match Penalty (MP)527 - EXCESSIVE ROUGHNESS Page 69 Any player who committs an action not permitted by the rules that may cause or causes an injury to an opponent, to a team or game official shall be assessed a: - Match Penalty (MP)
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 3, 2004 18:41:24 GMT
Have a read Rule 514 - Calling of Penalties (Page 64) ➤ 3. A goalkeeper is not “Fair Game” just because he is outside of the goal crease area. A penalty for interference or charging should be called in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. 522 - CHARGING[/u] (Page 65) a) A player who runs, jumps or charges an opponent or who runs, jumps or charges opposing goalkeeper in his crease shall be assessed, at the discretion of the referee, - Minor penalty (2’)or - Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct penalty. (5’+GM)or - Match Penalty (MP)b) A player who injures his opponent as a result of charging shall be assessed, discretion of the referee, a: - Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct penalty. (5’+GM)or - Match Penalty (MP)527 - EXCESSIVE ROUGHNESS Page 69 Any player who committs an action not permitted by the rules that may cause or causes an injury to an opponent, to a team or game official shall be assessed a: - Match Penalty (MP)[/quote] That's fine LC, but it does not state a player cannot touch the goalie. It states that a penalty must be given if contact is unnecessary. This arguement could go on forever, and I have said what I've got to say so I'll only be repeating myself, so I'm bowing out
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 18:46:53 GMT
That's fine LC, but it does not state a player cannot touch the goalie. It states that a penalty must be given if contact is unnecessary. This arguement could go on forever, and I have said what I've got to say so I'll only be repeating myself, so I'm bowing out Before you go can you give examples of when it is necessary for a player to contact a nettie?
|
|
|
Post by girdeaux on Oct 3, 2004 19:04:21 GMT
Before you go can you give examples of when it is necessary for a player to contact a nettie? Why should I, that's not my arguement and you know that. You are making out that Craighead has commited some form of heinous sin in our sport, and have provided quotes from the rule book that says if you do it, you get penalised. You're infering that it is a written rule that a player can NEVER check a goaltender. I'm saying that while it is in the rules that if a player does said act, he will a penalty, it is not written that a player cannot do it per se.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 3, 2004 19:06:39 GMT
You have to see all of this within the context in which it was set. That was summed up perfectly by Trap11 a couple of pages ago, and that should leave no question as to what happened and why. (I was sat in block 9 and saw the event perfectly).
But, for once, I am not going to defend JC this time - such a check on the NM is unacceptable. But, as was pointed out - that seems to be why it happened. And the NM did milk it a bit...
|
|
Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 3,181
|
Post by Admin on Oct 3, 2004 19:14:57 GMT
After five pages of a thread laughingly called "Game report" I thought it about time someone actually posted a game report ... (As I saw it anyway!) 2 Oct 04 - Nottingham Panthers 7, Guildford Flames 2.Another cross conference game, proving very popular this season and highlighting the quality of the teams currently playing in the British National League. This time it was last season's BNL Play Off Champions the Guildford Flames to visit Nottingham. A highly charged and entertaining game, the final result not quite doing the visitors justice. Referee Moray Hanson was quick to set out his stall, calling Panthers #9 Scott Ricci for high sticks after just 26 seconds. Nottingham's penalty killing tested for the first time of the evening and worked well. Some enjoyable end to end hockey continued with the Flames battling valiantly to prove their worth against the Elite League big boys. However, it was to be the hosts to open the scoring with an unassisted goal from home grown talent Paul Moran at 8:36. The Brit line of Clarke, Moran and Myers were a joy to watch, each knowing exactly whereabouts on the ice to find the other - they looked like they'd skated together all their lives. Panthers were given a Power Play opportunity a minute later but it proved ineffectual against an impressive Guildford defence. Play continued at a hard and fast pace with some good chances for both teams, the Flames netminder putting in a highly inspiring performance between the pipes, the shots came thick and fast yet he managed to keep the puck out of the net. He appeared at times to stand on his head to get the puck stopped! Guildford continued to fend off the Panthers best efforts 'til the end of the period, Nottingham going into the 1st break just the one goal up. Second period and both teams came out as 'up for it' as the preceding twenty minutes. Guildford making the most of a chance at 24:48 and drew the score level with a goal from Stuart Potts, the Flames #14. That was the wake up call needed to spur the Panthers on, from that point upping the anti - no way were we going down to a BNL team in our barn! Just over a minute later it was time for David Clarke to step up, putting Nottingham once again in the lead at 26:56 assisted Mark Cadotte and John Craighead. Scott Ricci was next to score for Panthers at 33:48 after another two minutes of PK (Craighead - Slashing). The hosts had their second Power Play shortly after following dangerous high sticking by Flames Peter Michnac. This time Nottingham capitalized, a Marek Ivan slap shot from the blue line was tipped in by David Clarke, his second goal of the evening at 37:55. Panthers went into the second break with a comfortable three goal lead. Into the final twenty minutes … Panthers #49 Marek Ivan sent to the penalty bench early on for interference shortly followed by Flames #5 for tripping. Hockey genius David Clarke scoring his hat trick goal at 43:38, assisted Kim Ahlroos to extend Nottingham's lead. Another Power Play for the hosts came after interference from Guildford's #21, Matt Myers scoring a second after the PP ended, the fifth goal for the Panthers' Brit Pack …. Lots of 'Rule Britannia' played in the National Ice Centre tonight! Either frustration or a change of game plan saw the visitors start to get in with plenty of sly digs and 'dirty' play unseen and / or uncalled by the officials. Guildford managed a consolation goal in the 49th minute, Panthers replied minutes later at 53:34 with a goal from Roman Tvrdon, a promising player with good pedigree, new to Nottingham but as yet unable to turn massive potential into meaningful points. That said, it was a beautiful goal and with any luck that's the opening of the floodgates. Seven goals to two with moments to go, and end of the scoring but far from an end to the evening's drama …<br> Two minutes from the final buzzer and Guildford #17 Jason Baird challenges Paul Moran for the puck, a push, a shove and some nasty stick play and he's pushed the right buttons - our Paul's not afraid to stick up for himself and pushes the Flames bully boy into the boards from behind. The inevitable exchange of blows ensued and Moran receives a beating despite landing some useful punches. With no love lost between the teams (and coaches) it's only seconds until the next incident. A bad tempered John Craighead challenged the Flames netminder behind the goal and the keeper was down, expecting retribution #88 dropped his gloves but got no takers. Worryingly the netminder remained prone for some time as Craighead was ejected with a match penalty and the coaches verbally sparring from bench to bench. An unfortunate and ill tempered end to a cracking game of hockey and an awesome display from the Panthers Brits. A well deserved Man of the Match for David Clarke. Flames MoM Milos Melicherik. (c) blackandgoldpanthers.com
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Oct 3, 2004 19:21:39 GMT
Why should I, that's not my arguement and you know that. You are making out that Craighead has commited some form of heinous sin in our sport, and have provided quotes from the rule book that says if you do it, you get penalised. You're infering that it is a written rule that a player can NEVER check a goaltender. I'm saying that while it is in the rules that if a player does said act, he will a penalty, it is not written that a player cannot do it per se. Very lateral thinking I must say.
|
|
|
Post by caddy27 on Oct 3, 2004 19:50:24 GMT
I think the team played brilliant last night especially the brit line. i think what craighead did last night was awful and i didnt see any point in why he did it. Even if it is a rule or not i think most people will agree it was uncalled for and if it was the other way round on our curtis we would be annoyed. I find it funny that he has a poor game and does that and gets himself out of the game tonight, makes me wonder if his heart is in this team. these are only my opinions so if you dont agree im sorry.
|
|