|
Post by wgray on Jan 31, 2019 18:04:06 GMT
Here's the relevant snippets from the Checking to the head penalty (Rule 124). They focus around when and where contact was made and that's where the debate here is centred around: Where is the first point of contact. If it's his shoulder or chest as many assert, but no footage clearly shows (just like no footage clearly shows the head being hit first), subsequent contact with the head is not an infraction unless the player explodes up, which Rissling doesn't. At the risk of shouting at the telly... v. There is no evidence at all of contact being body first then "sliding up" to the head or neck. It's a badly worded rule, but IIWII. vi. Mosey was not skating "in the direction of" Rissling. This is the most obvious possible "get out" for Rissling, but it doesn't apply. He's almost skating perpendicular to Rissling. vii. Rissling is not "maintaining his position". Regards point v - From the footage we have all seen, the main camera angle, it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case imo.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Jan 31, 2019 18:09:18 GMT
At the risk of shouting at the telly... v. There is no evidence at all of contact being body first then "sliding up" to the head or neck. It's a badly worded rule, but IIWII. vi. Mosey was not skating "in the direction of" Rissling. This is the most obvious possible "get out" for Rissling, but it doesn't apply. He's almost skating perpendicular to Rissling. vii. Rissling is not "maintaining his position". Regards point v - From the footage we have all seen, the main camera angle, it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case imo. Which is exactly why there should have been no ban. Panthers fans,Devils fans and DOPS are/were all guessing in this instance and you cannot or should not convict somebody on a guess in whatever instance of life. That hit was just too borderline to call one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Jan 31, 2019 18:23:46 GMT
No, these are "get out" clauses. If one of these is satisfied, then no penalty will be assessed. I respectfully, and reluctantly, have to disagree with the assertion that "it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case". If you can show that there was a "slide up", then the exemption in this rule applies and DOPS is wrong. However, IMHO, no-one in their right mind, looking at that footage, would argue that Rissling hits Mosey in his body and then his shoulder "slides up" Mosey's chest and then makes contact with his head. There's no sliding up at all. So no get out. It's a poorly worded rule, and I can't think of a hit that I've ever seen when this might apply, but that's what it says. If you can show me where Rissling "slides up" Mosey, I'm willing to be proved wrong. If there's no evidence that he did, then you have to say he didn't, the exemption in rule v. can't be applied and you carry on going through the rules to look for an exemption.
|
|
|
Post by wgray on Jan 31, 2019 18:42:30 GMT
No, these are "get out" clauses. If one of these is satisfied, then no penalty will be assessed. I respectfully, and reluctantly, have to disagree with the assertion that "it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case". If you can show that there was a "slide up", then the exemption in this rule applies and DOPS is wrong. However, IMHO, no-one in their right mind, looking at that footage, would argue that Rissling hits Mosey in his body and then his shoulder "slides up" Mosey's chest and then makes contact with his head. There's no sliding up at all. So no get out. It's a poorly worded rule, and I can't think of a hit that I've ever seen when this might apply, but that's what it says. If you can show me where Rissling "slides up" Mosey, I'm willing to be proved wrong. If there's no evidence that he did, then you have to say he didn't, the exemption in rule v. can't be applied and you carry on going through the rules to look for an exemption. The fact that we only have one angle and the footage being so poor makes anything difficult to prove. Here’s an example where I think the poorly worded rule could apply, a player checks another at the top of the chest, they’re both travelling at speed and the resulting affect is that the checked players head jolts forward and careers into the top of the checking players shoulder. That’s the only example where I think it could apply, if a player was to body check another and then slide up surely that could be seen as driving up to target the head? Rules aren’t perfect, situations can vary, Rissling has been banned and that’s the enemy of it now. Something that’s come out of this which we can all agree on is the fact that we need higher quality cameras installing at the NIC, in multiple locations. The league should be enforcing this if they want to make these decisions easier going forwards.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Jan 31, 2019 18:56:09 GMT
No, these are "get out" clauses. If one of these is satisfied, then no penalty will be assessed. I respectfully, and reluctantly, have to disagree with the assertion that "it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case". If you can show that there was a "slide up", then the exemption in this rule applies and DOPS is wrong. However, IMHO, no-one in their right mind, looking at that footage, would argue that Rissling hits Mosey in his body and then his shoulder "slides up" Mosey's chest and then makes contact with his head. There's no sliding up at all. So no get out. It's a poorly worded rule, and I can't think of a hit that I've ever seen when this might apply, but that's what it says. If you can show me where Rissling "slides up" Mosey, I'm willing to be proved wrong. If there's no evidence that he did, then you have to say he didn't, the exemption in rule v. can't be applied and you carry on going through the rules to look for an exemption. The fact that we only have one angle and the footage being so poor makes anything difficult to prove. Here’s an example where I think the poorly worded rule could apply, a player checks another at the top of the chest, they’re both travelling at speed and the resulting affect is that the checked players head jolts forward and careers into the top of the checking players shoulder. That’s the only example where I think it could apply, if a player was to body check another and then slide up surely that could be seen as driving up to target the head? Rules aren’t perfect, situations can vary, Rissling has been banned and that’s the enemy of it now. Something that’s come out of this which we can all agree on is the fact that we need higher quality cameras installing at the NIC, in multiple locations. The league should be enforcing this if they want to make these decisions easier going forwards. Good luck with extra cameras mate. Have we even got the goal line technology that Tony Smith promised a couple of years ago ! Seems to me that these hitting rules are written purely against the hitter to prove him guilty. Still waiting to see a video of the primary contact point that proves they wern’t guessing.
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Jan 31, 2019 19:41:43 GMT
Here's the relevant snippets from the Checking to the head penalty (Rule 124). They focus around when and where contact was made and that's where the debate here is centred around: Where is the first point of contact. If it's his shoulder or chest as many assert, but no footage clearly shows (just like no footage clearly shows the head being hit first), subsequent contact with the head is not an infraction unless the player explodes up, which Rissling doesn't. At the risk of shouting at the telly... v. There is no evidence at all of contact being body first then "sliding up" to the head or neck. It's a badly worded rule, but IIWII. vi. Mosey was not skating "in the direction of" Rissling. This is the most obvious possible "get out" for Rissling, but it doesn't apply. He's almost skating perpendicular to Rissling. vii. Rissling is not "maintaining his position". V. There's as much conclusive proof of it being head first as body first. I.e none because the collision is the side of Mosey that can't be seen from the camera. However it's a judgement call based on the footage we do have and I'm leaning body, but it's not clear cut. VI. The 2 players are both converging on the slot, even if they are coming from different angles. I feel like your interpretation would require him to be stationary. VII. I didn't mean to include this one! I read this as incidental contact, but Rissling made a conscious play IMO.
|
|
|
Post by pingchowchi on Jan 31, 2019 22:40:53 GMT
No, these are "get out" clauses. If one of these is satisfied, then no penalty will be assessed. I respectfully, and reluctantly, have to disagree with the assertion that "it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case". If you can show that there was a "slide up", then the exemption in this rule applies and DOPS is wrong. However, IMHO, no-one in their right mind, looking at that footage, would argue that Rissling hits Mosey in his body and then his shoulder "slides up" Mosey's chest and then makes contact with his head. There's no sliding up at all. So no get out. It's a poorly worded rule, and I can't think of a hit that I've ever seen when this might apply, but that's what it says. If you can show me where Rissling "slides up" Mosey, I'm willing to be proved wrong. If there's no evidence that he did, then you have to say he didn't, the exemption in rule v. can't be applied and you carry on going through the rules to look for an exemption. If there is no "sliding up" how does mosey get a black eye? ( as it should be protected by his visor ) Even the cardif fans said there was a "sliding up" just from the chin to the eye, not the shoulder to the eye.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Jan 31, 2019 23:02:28 GMT
No, these are "get out" clauses. If one of these is satisfied, then no penalty will be assessed. I respectfully, and reluctantly, have to disagree with the assertion that "it can’t be determined if this was the case or if it wasn’t the case". If you can show that there was a "slide up", then the exemption in this rule applies and DOPS is wrong. However, IMHO, no-one in their right mind, looking at that footage, would argue that Rissling hits Mosey in his body and then his shoulder "slides up" Mosey's chest and then makes contact with his head. There's no sliding up at all. So no get out. It's a poorly worded rule, and I can't think of a hit that I've ever seen when this might apply, but that's what it says. If you can show me where Rissling "slides up" Mosey, I'm willing to be proved wrong. If there's no evidence that he did, then you have to say he didn't, the exemption in rule v. can't be applied and you carry on going through the rules to look for an exemption. If there is no "sliding up" how does mosey get a black eye? ( as it should be protected by his visor ) Even the cardif fans said there was a "sliding up" just from the chin to the eye, not the shoulder to the eye. His face hits the ice. If you look at the slow mo video very very carefully you can actually see Mosey’s right shoulder pad/shirt move a bit before his helmet does. 🤔
|
|
|
Post by spik on Feb 1, 2019 1:32:33 GMT
So many accounts and only one applies - being wrong or not, it is with the DOPS.
Putting posters here on that panel and on another day we'd have so many different outcomes. Were supposed to be viewing the same footage but so much difference of opinion.
Borderline etc... 6 games?
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 1, 2019 7:44:50 GMT
Seems to me that these hitting rules are written purely against the hitter to prove him guilty. How else would you write them? The rules are written such that the offences are set out, scenarios added for illustration/clarity, and "get out" clauses added for special situations. These aren't to "prove them guilty" but set out the thought process. Did they do this/definition? Was it one of the special cases/illustrations? Is the foul exempted in this situation? You'd think the rule relating to time outs would be easy? There's 8 subsections... 15 sub-sections for a shoot out. Actually reading the rules is fascinating at times. I can thoroughly recommend it. For example, "a player who makes physical contact with an opponent after the whistle has been blown but who had sufficient time to avoid such contact will be assessed...."? a. 10 minute misconduct b. minor for interference c. minor for charging
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 1, 2019 7:58:23 GMT
Sod the rulebook & the shop stewards carrying them.
I know a clean hit when I see one & this was definitely a clean hit.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Feb 1, 2019 8:01:43 GMT
Is his ban over yet?
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 1, 2019 9:00:39 GMT
Sod the rulebook & the shop stewards carrying them. I know a clean hit when I see one & this was definitely a clean hit. That's the spirit.
|
|
|
Post by wasteoftime on Feb 1, 2019 12:10:12 GMT
The one thing to come out of this is, that it is not possible to appeal. Utterly farcical, just goes to show how Mickey Mouse this sport is run in this country.
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 1, 2019 12:42:07 GMT
The one thing to come out of this is, that it is not possible to appeal. Utterly farcical, just goes to show how Mickey Mouse this sport is run in this country. This was voted for by all the EIHL teams. Was their own decision.
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Feb 1, 2019 13:22:34 GMT
Frustration about the six games is in previous seasons Mardiff themselves appealed about a multi game ban and it was reduced to 2/3 games so if Rissling had got 8 its more than likely he would have substantially less than 6 games now...
|
|
|
Post by wasteoftime on Feb 1, 2019 13:52:18 GMT
The one thing to come out of this is, that it is not possible to appeal. Utterly farcical, just goes to show how Mickey Mouse this sport is run in this country. This was voted for by all the EIHL teams. Was their own decision. I know what the EIHL teams voted for that makes them even bigger idiots.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 1, 2019 13:59:40 GMT
So all the teams voted to implement something that applies to all teams, yet because it detrimentally affects Panthers (in this instance), they're all idiots?
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 1, 2019 14:09:20 GMT
This was voted for by all the EIHL teams. Was their own decision. I know what the EIHL teams voted for that makes them even bigger idiots. There's lots of reasons the league is Mickey Mouse.... Quality of officiating, league/conference structure, ownership/spokes people, DOPS....
This vote doesn't seem that bad a thing to me, was done for the right reasons.
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 1, 2019 14:11:06 GMT
Frustration about the six games is in previous seasons Mardiff themselves appealed about a multi game ban and it was reduced to 2/3 games so if Rissling had got 8 its more than likely he would have substantially less than 6 games now... Well yes, the number of games rule gave DOPS a limit really didn't it. I imagine they would only go above the appeal number of games in extreme circumstances.
We certainly can have a voice over the ban & the number of games the ban is. Not the denial of appeal though.
|
|
|
Post by wasteoftime on Feb 2, 2019 8:11:21 GMT
So all the teams voted to implement something that applies to all teams, yet because it detrimentally affects Panthers (in this instance), they're all idiots? Where did I mention Panthers? if you think that not having the right to appeal is a good thing thats fine.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 2, 2019 9:11:44 GMT
So all the teams voted to implement something that applies to all teams, yet because it detrimentally affects Panthers (in this instance), they're all idiots? Where did I mention Panthers? if you think that not having the right to appeal is a good thing thats fine. If everyone agrees, it's absolutely fine. And everyone did.
|
|
|
Post by dill1015 on Feb 2, 2019 11:59:18 GMT
Where did I mention Panthers? if you think that not having the right to appeal is a good thing thats fine. If everyone agrees, it's absolutely fine. And everyone did. And everone was wrong. You should always be able to appeal what you believe to be a bad desicion. Hope Neil Black learns his lesson and doesnt put his two votes in favour of dumb rule changes in the future.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Feb 2, 2019 12:22:49 GMT
If everyone agrees, it's absolutely fine. And everyone did. And everone was wrong. You should always be able to appeal what you believe to be a bad desicion. Hope Neil Black learns his lesson and doesnt put his two votes in favour of dumb rule changes in the future. Quite right too. That’s the biggest suspension in the EIHL this season i believe,did Rissling really deserve six games for a “very questionable and alleged” head hit ? I don’t think so.
|
|
bbw
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 60
|
Post by bbw on Feb 2, 2019 16:06:00 GMT
Well I've already said Panthers released footage of the Garnett save from behind the goal.The angle would have been perfect to clear Rissling of any wrong doing. Someone said that the footage had gone missing .Very convenient don't you think? If there was nothing to hide why not show it. My guess is the footage was damning therefore not forthcoming.Could be wrong though,like I say just a guess.
|
|