|
Post by cooperphil156 on Feb 13, 2019 21:52:34 GMT
An apology has appeared on twitter from him. Anything happened regarding Finnerty? Dane Byers sent a letter in explaining what happened. He said after the handshakes he went back to his own teams end only to find himself alone with all the Fife players as he didn’t realise apparently they do it differently in Fife. And the Fife players wern’t very nice to him so it kicked off. Haha classic. 🤣🤣 Yes I saw that - all a bit of a shambles
|
|
loupowell52
Robert Lachowicz
Grape Aficionado
Posts: 444
|
Post by loupowell52 on Feb 14, 2019 6:59:22 GMT
Nobody wants to see any player suffer serious or long term injury but, hockey was, is and will always be a physical sport. The players accept it so any 'mamby pamby' fans , officials or administrators who cannot or don't want to accept that should get out of this great sport. As far as actually during games are concerned - the standard of officiating this season has been atrocious. Have any of the Referees or Linos ever played the game ? If so, when and to what level ? I fear the majority have no feel or understanding of the essence of the sport and so simply look at events through text book/manual eyes.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Feb 14, 2019 9:49:12 GMT
Rissling 6 games Byers 1 game
Mmmm,both “supposedly” checks to the head so why the big difference,especially when they deem Byers elevated himself and Rissling didn’t ?
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,382
|
Post by Yotes on Feb 14, 2019 11:03:54 GMT
Gives you something to complain about Big suspensions from the other bit: Stoflet 6 games, Rupp 3, Springer 5. Plus £3k fines to each team (where that money goes is anyone's guess).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 11:25:30 GMT
Well it certainly won t go on officiating I do know!
Wow Rissling must have really upset someone in elite towers after all this! To get less games for a POST game incident is a hell out of lot worse than anything what happens during it !
|
|
|
Post by wgray on Feb 14, 2019 12:29:31 GMT
Every ban that DOPS has issued of late has been way OTT.
They state in the report that their goal is for the league to be based around speed and skill, as though they are trying to justify the severity of these bans.
This league is miles behind others in the world in terms of speed and skill, we don’t have the raw, homegrown talent to compete with the rest in this area.
The league needs characters to grow, if they continue to dish out these ridiculous bans then they will eradicate any chance of foreign players joining who bring the edge AND quality that British Ice Hockey fans crave.
The league will crumble if they continue on this path.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 12:43:28 GMT
Every ban that DOPS has issued of late has been way OTT. They state in the report that their goal is for the league to be based around speed and skill, as though they are trying to justify the severity of these bans. This league is miles behind the all others in the world in terms of speed and skill, we don’t have the raw, homegrown talent to compete with the rest in this area. The league needs characters to grow, if they continue to dish out these ridiculous bans then they will eradicate any chance of foreign players joining who bring the edge AND quality that British Ice Hockey fans crave. The league will crumble if they continue on this path. Exactly what I've been saying.. in 5 years time this league will be aweful to watch.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Feb 14, 2019 13:12:58 GMT
Every ban that DOPS has issued of late has been way OTT. They state in the report that their goal is for the league to be based around speed and skill, as though they are trying to justify the severity of these bans. This league is miles behind the all others in the world in terms of speed and skill, we don’t have the raw, homegrown talent to compete with the rest in this area. The league needs characters to grow, if they continue to dish out these ridiculous bans then they will eradicate any chance of foreign players joining who bring the edge AND quality that British Ice Hockey fans crave. The league will crumble if they continue on this path. Exactly what I've been saying.. in 5 years time this league will be aweful to watch. It will be lucky to still be going in 5 years.
|
|
gump
Pat Casey
Posts: 348
|
Post by gump on Feb 14, 2019 14:22:35 GMT
Becoming Football on skates, take out the physical game u might as well just call it a non contact sport.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 14:38:17 GMT
Exactly what I've been saying.. in 5 years time this league will be aweful to watch. It will be lucky to still be going in 5 years. What will you lot moan about then?
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 14:46:10 GMT
Rissling 6 games Byers 1 game Mmmm,both “supposedly” checks to the head so why the big difference,especially when they deem Byers elevated himself and Rissling didn’t ? 1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 14:52:20 GMT
Rissling 6 games Byers 1 game Mmmm,both “supposedly” checks to the head so why the big difference,especially when they deem Byers elevated himself and Rissling didn’t ? 1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. Whay was the other check to the head? I presumed he got banned for it then as it was illegal yes? Finnerty is a repeat offender regards failure to control his bench ... did he get a ban this time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 14:52:57 GMT
Exactly what I've been saying.. in 5 years time this league will be aweful to watch. It will be lucky to still be going in 5 years. With a bit of luck
|
|
|
Post by SteelerBlade on Feb 14, 2019 15:09:09 GMT
Rissling 6 games Byers 1 game Mmmm,both “supposedly” checks to the head so why the big difference,especially when they deem Byers elevated himself and Rissling didn’t ? 1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. Crowder has been diagnosed with concussion and left the game.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Feb 14, 2019 15:11:16 GMT
Rissling 6 games Byers 1 game Mmmm,both “supposedly” checks to the head so why the big difference,especially when they deem Byers elevated himself and Rissling didn’t ? 1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. It’s not obvious at all. There may well have been no injury whatsoever from the Rissling check and the injury occurred when Mosey’s head hit the ice. You could throw the most perfect legal check ever and still badly injure somebody,but the fact a player gets injured shouldn’t mean the hitter automatically gets banned just because of injury. Injuring somebody with a legal hit is absolutely no different to shooting the puck at goal and hitting a player in the head,but you wouldn’t get a ban for that. Then again....you might if EIHL Dops were presiding over it ! 🙄
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 16:42:27 GMT
1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. Whay was the other check to the head? I presumed he got banned for it then as it was illegal yes? Finnerty is a repeat offender regards failure to control his bench ... did he get a ban this time? 1. The Martiinelli elbow. I quote DOPS "Although this is deemed an elbow with the physical force delivered through the elbow, this is also deemed a form of a Check to the Head, which has a high potential of a serious injury." He was suspended one game. 2. I quote DOPS again "Considering the responsible party(s), it would automatically be assumed that the coaches, being the responsible people to control their respective teams, would be considered responsible. The DOPS panel however feels that the coaches, although responsible for their team, had no direct influence on the incident starting or continuing. The responsibility is being put directly on the players involved and the teams as a whole." i.e. this incident is not deemed one about failing to control players. Therefore no repeat offender status.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 16:43:00 GMT
1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. Crowder has been diagnosed with concussion and left the game. Did not know that. Wonder if DOPS did?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 16:50:10 GMT
Crowder has been diagnosed with concussion and left the game. Did not know that. Wonder if DOPS did? They should gather all info before dishing out suspensions !
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 16:55:25 GMT
1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. It’s not obvious at all. There may well have been no injury whatsoever from the Rissling check and the injury occurred when Mosey’s head hit the ice. You could throw the most perfect legal check ever and still badly injure somebody,but the fact a player gets injured shouldn’t mean the hitter automatically gets banned just because of injury. Injuring somebody with a legal hit is absolutely no different to shooting the puck at goal and hitting a player in the head,but you wouldn’t get a ban for that. Then again....you might if EIHL Dops were presiding over it ! 🙄 No-one can freeze time at a nanosecond after the Rissling impact and ask Mosey if he's concussed yet. It looks for all the world to me that Mosey is out cold in mid-air. The lack of self-protection as he hits the ice also backs this up. The hit was deemed to be "reckless", so warrants a stricter interpretation and thus sanction than one which is "careless". Resulting injury can be used as a factor in weighing up suspensions. Rissling wasn't banned for injuring Mosey, he was banned for a reckless check to the head, which caused an obvious injury, while being a repeat offender. The fact that it caused an obvious and apparent injury to Mosey was a factor in this, but not the sole causal one. Rissling, as I recall, wasn't banned at all for the (legal) check on Venus, which put Venus out for how long again? You can't have it all ways.
|
|
calv
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 157
|
Post by calv on Feb 14, 2019 17:16:43 GMT
I get the impression, listening to Dutiaumes post-game interview and reading an interview with Bari McKenzie, that the Flyers were asking for the review for Moffatt skating into Crowders head rather than the hit,but I could be wrong.
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 14, 2019 17:16:47 GMT
Rissling 6 games Byers 1 game Mmmm,both “supposedly” checks to the head so why the big difference,especially when they deem Byers elevated himself and Rissling didn’t ? 1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. You should never ban someone on the basis of the injury sustained. It's the judged severity of the action & the damage it could cause as opposed to did/has caused.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 17:21:16 GMT
1. Obvious and continuing injury to Mosey, none to Crowder. 2. Rissling is a repeat offender for supplementary disciplinable checks to the head this season. Byers isn't. Obvious. You should never ban someone on the basis of the injury sustained. It's the judged severity of the action & the damage it could cause as opposed to did/has caused.
Agree completely. But...if the play did cause an obvious injury, that can be a factor used. A lot of perfectly legal plays have the potential to cause injury (or do actually cause an injury) but don't result in any ban. Venus etc.
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 14, 2019 19:03:20 GMT
You should never ban someone on the basis of the injury sustained. It's the judged severity of the action & the damage it could cause as opposed to did/has caused.
Agree completely. But...if the play did cause an obvious injury, that can be a factor used. A lot of perfectly legal plays have the potential to cause injury (or do actually cause an injury) but don't result in any ban. Venus etc. No, it can't at all because then you're letting the injury effect the outcome. There should be a list of do's & don'ts that are clear & measurable. That's it, plain & simple. No injury sustained should effect any decision, ever.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Feb 14, 2019 20:27:37 GMT
Agree completely. But...if the play did cause an obvious injury, that can be a factor used. A lot of perfectly legal plays have the potential to cause injury (or do actually cause an injury) but don't result in any ban. Venus etc. No, it can't at all because then you're letting the injury effect the outcome. There should be a list of do's & don'ts that are clear & measurable. That's it, plain & simple. No injury sustained should effect any decision, ever. I look forward to reading the list you propose. Or are you arguing that Rissling should have been suspended for the hit on Venus? It must have had the potential to cause injury, as it did, in fact, cause injury. So, despite it being a legal check, it had the potential to cause injury, so he should've been suspended?
|
|
Jord v4
Ken Westman
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 2,714
|
Post by Jord v4 on Feb 14, 2019 20:44:07 GMT
No, it can't at all because then you're letting the injury effect the outcome. There should be a list of do's & don'ts that are clear & measurable. That's it, plain & simple. No injury sustained should effect any decision, ever. I look forward to reading the list you propose. Or are you arguing that Rissling should have been suspended for the hit on Venus? It must have had the potential to cause injury, as it did, in fact, cause injury. So, despite it being a legal check, it had the potential to cause injury, so he should've been suspended? Rissling's hit on Venus was deemed clean - No ban. Rissling's hit on Mosey was deemed dirty - A ban. The injuries sustained by Venus & Mosey should have no correlation to either the judgement of the hits or any ban length forthcoming from those judgements.
|
|