|
Post by PantherG on Dec 17, 2015 9:29:30 GMT
What happlened to the explanation of the Marsh reduction which was promised?? Did I miss it? I ask that question to Seth Bennett via Twitter and his reply was :- "I think this story has moved on, however, the short reason is the panel saw the primary point of contact being the shoulder and although there was contact with the head, it meant they felt the head wasn't targeted during the hit, which makes it a lesser offence and why they decided to cut the suspention " Surely this shows that DOPs got the initial review very wrong, or was it the panel that got it wrong.....everyone has their own thoughts on this, but that's the official reply Saying the story has moved on is sweeping it under the carpet, big time. Why not just come out with the video and the explanation after the appeal. This would never ever happen in any other sport.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Dec 17, 2015 10:03:06 GMT
The Panthers should be kicking up merry hell, demanding an explanation for the Marsh decision, it's appalling that they announced the reduction, then gone radio silent. What sort of people are running this league...if this happened to Shuff we would never hear the end of it.... Unprofessional doesn't even get close. They might've had the explanation, and just not passed it onto us.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Dec 17, 2015 10:04:26 GMT
I ask that question to Seth Bennett via Twitter and his reply was :- "I think this story has moved on, however, the short reason is the panel saw the primary point of contact being the shoulder and although there was contact with the head, it meant they felt the head wasn't targeted during the hit, which makes it a lesser offence and why they decided to cut the suspention " Surely this shows that DOPs got the initial review very wrong, or was it the panel that got it wrong.....everyone has their own thoughts on this, but that's the official reply Saying the story has moved on is sweeping it under the carpet, big time. Why not just come out with the video and the explanation after the appeal. This would never ever happen in any other sport. I bet if you offered to contribute to the Christmas party fund there you would be offered a private viewing
|
|
|
Post by wgray on Dec 17, 2015 16:46:20 GMT
The Panthers should be kicking up merry hell, demanding an explanation for the Marsh decision, it's appalling that they announced the reduction, then gone radio silent. What sort of people are running this league...if this happened to Shuff we would never hear the end of it.... Unprofessional doesn't even get close. it never happens to them though funnily enough
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 16:50:25 GMT
I guess we should be content in the plausible fact that this is general incompetence to the potential highest bidder/greatest influence at the time rather that blatant Sheffield bias.
I guess the true test would be if we appealed anything, but lately I've noticed us getting some fair decisions from the process so I genuinely believe they're just a bit stupid.
I imagine Kirkham felt pretty miffed when his 'team' was usurped by an invisible panel with no face, even if he was on that panel but in a different seat....
|
|
Mark
Randall Weber
Experience has taught me that when it really matters the only person you can rely on is yourself.
Posts: 4,621
|
Post by Mark on Dec 19, 2015 14:29:56 GMT
Perhaps somebody should go after Marsh tonight, chespshot him in the head and then appeal the consequent ban. Afterall DOPS has now set a precedent.
|
|
|
Post by thebestpanthers on Dec 30, 2015 19:08:20 GMT
Glad to see that the DOPeS have finally decided to do what they are supposed to do and ban a player for a "check to the head" plus an "off ice incident" Didi of Storm gets banned for 4 games - 1vDevils, 1vFlyers & 2xSTEELERS - Happy New Year
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Dec 30, 2015 19:44:53 GMT
Glad to see that the DOPeS have finally decided to do what they are supposed to do and ban a player for a "check to the head" plus an "off ice incident" Didi of Storm gets banned for 4 games - 1vDevils, 1vFlyers & 2xSTEELERS - Happy New Year Back to helping steelers.... again...
|
|
|
Post by flyerpanther on Jan 2, 2016 22:32:29 GMT
Danny Stewarts a little stirring poo poo most nights..but Didiimete really is a Diddy!..a hapless buffoon
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Jan 2, 2016 23:04:51 GMT
Danny Stewarts a little stirring poo poo most nights..but Didiimete really is a Diddy!..a hapless buffoon Dididickmeti is a walking ban looking for somewhere to sit down.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Jan 19, 2016 13:46:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Jan 19, 2016 21:08:23 GMT
The incident can be seen in some extended highlights on checking it out ... if you can put up with the mundane questions of GM surrounding it.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 19, 2016 21:23:42 GMT
What point in the video, Guinness?
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 19, 2016 21:31:30 GMT
Just before Lacho's goal Yotes.
Not sure how the ref got a check to the head on Clarkey though......ridiculous call !
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 19, 2016 21:48:03 GMT
Yes, very odd call, I thought it was stick at the time actually. Looks like a complete guess from the ref, but why not just call a minor? I have a pretty low opinion of Pering's refereeing so not really surprised.
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Jan 20, 2016 13:11:45 GMT
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 20, 2016 13:23:36 GMT
Firstly that seems really harsh on Tanaka.
Secondly, "the correct call was made on the ice". Hmm, how about proving that with the game footage? Or, just show some stock video of Clarkey having a laugh in training. Same difference.
|
|
|
Post by panthersdave on Jan 20, 2016 13:46:49 GMT
So a couple of observations about this.
Match penalty for high sticks is probably the correct call, however to ban him for three games suggests that this incident was worse than the Marsh check to the head of Brad Moran.
As for the Clarke verdict, this weeks episode of checking it out has extended highlights which show the incident. Clarke does appear to catch Lloyd with a stray elbow, 2+10 is perhaps a little harsh but can see why it was given.
Have seen much worse given the same penalty though.
|
|
Robbie Nud
David Clarke
I really do look like this.
Posts: 3,109
|
Post by Robbie Nud on Jan 20, 2016 14:00:35 GMT
I'm sure that escaped nobody that who 2nd additional game is against!! Coventry just have to appeal and he is free to play against Belfast and Shuff and poss serve a ban against lesser teams.
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Jan 20, 2016 14:05:30 GMT
To be honest. That offence by Tanaka was pretty bad and deserves at least 3 games in my view.
The problem is the consistancy of the calls when comparing to the Moran hit for example. The Tanaka call is by no means too harsh. The Ban on Marsh is/was the joke.
|
|
nate24
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,415
|
Post by nate24 on Jan 20, 2016 14:08:15 GMT
To be honest. That offence by Tanaka was pretty bad and deserves at least 3 games in my view. The problem is the consistancy of the calls when comparing to the Moran hit for example. The Tanaka call is by no means too harsh. The Ban on Marsh is/was the joke. Who does Marsh play for..........I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Mac on Jan 21, 2016 17:50:22 GMT
Tanaka easily deserved 3 games for that offence in my opinion. That is of course ignoring the precedents set by the bonkers decisions made by DOPS.
|
|
dp
Jim Keyes
Posts: 966
|
Post by dp on Jan 21, 2016 21:15:52 GMT
DOPS somehow just manages to get worse. I don't know how Seth Bennett can keep his dignity doing the voiceovers - I've come to the conclusion that he must not have any left.
The Tanaka one is bad, but from the slo-mo it looks like he's not even looking at the player as he does it - just protecting himself from the hit. Careless yes, but not malicious. But that's apparently 3 times worse than Mosienko's intentional double slash to the neck/head of Bohmbach.
I'd suggest Coventry appeal this because if Marsh was only 2 games on appeal, there's no way they'll give this one 3. Talking of which...where's the explanation of the reduction we were promised Seth???! JOKE LEAGUE.
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Jan 22, 2016 7:19:32 GMT
BLAZE APPEAL TANAKA PENALTY
on: January 21, 2016
Coventry Blaze have appealed the suspension handed to their forward Cale Tanaka by the Department of Player Safety.
Tanaka was suspended for three matches by DOPS for a High Sticking penalty in his side’s game at Braehead Clan last weekend.
Tanaka will miss one game – Coventry’s trip Belfast Giants on Friday night – which is the automatic minimum tariff after receiving a match penalty.
But under the rules of an appeal, Tanaka is free to play after that until the hearing is held.
The Department of Player Safety will confirm the date of the hearing in due course.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Jan 26, 2016 13:53:19 GMT
BLAZE APPEAL TANAKA PENALTY on: January 21, 2016 Coventry Blaze have appealed the suspension handed to their forward Cale Tanaka by the Department of Player Safety. Tanaka was suspended for three matches by DOPS for a High Sticking penalty in his side’s game at Braehead Clan last weekend. Tanaka will miss one game – Coventry’s trip Belfast Giants on Friday night – which is the automatic minimum tariff after receiving a match penalty. But under the rules of an appeal, Tanaka is free to play after that until the hearing is held. The Department of Player Safety will confirm the date of the hearing in due course. This Thursday:- www.eliteleague.co.uk/dops-reviews-this-week-6/
|
|