Billkmc
Pro
Posts: 1,335
EIHL Team: Fife Flyers
NHL Team: Calgary Flames
|
Post by Billkmc on Feb 8, 2016 14:39:30 GMT
Credit where its due Flyers were deserving victors last night albeit against a weekened Clan squad, it's unfair to mention the mistake by Delahey leading to Clans first goal it loooked like he had too much time to think about what to do and it went skue wiff, he has been the steadiest player in the team this year and worthy of a return in my mind. I had to laugh at the DJ's choice of music when Clan got 2 checking to the head calls against them MYSTiFY ME, they clearly have a poor knowledge of the rules as both calls were extremely blatant, beside us they thought Rab Cowan was biased for Fife ......... not using their optician that's for sure. I saw three or four on Twitter and Facebook convinced that the ref had been told by the EIHL to make sure clan lost to stop them winning the league
|
|
|
Post by harlan on Feb 8, 2016 14:56:31 GMT
Highlights
The McIver hit to the head comes just before the 2.00 mark and Brooks swing to Paquets head at 4.45. The reaction from the Clan fans is sickening too
|
|
|
Post by swarfiga on Feb 8, 2016 16:26:04 GMT
The McIver 1 is a stinker and would have looked even worse if Tommy had went down, the problem for me is though it's debatable for me whether it's to head, from behind or boarding, it looks like Cowan doesn't have a clue either, the Brooks 1 is not checking to the head either, it's high sticks or cross checking for me, again still deserving of the big penalty but Cowan again making a mess of it. Agree with Delahey, he has improved every week but made a couple errors that almost cost us last night, but like most he would be near the top of the list to return.
|
|
flyersforlife01
Junior
Posts: 540
EIHL Team: Fife Flyers
NHL Team: Pittsburgh Penguins
|
Post by flyersforlife01 on Feb 8, 2016 19:10:50 GMT
The McIver 1 is a stinker and would have looked even worse if Tommy had went down, the problem for me is though it's debatable for me whether it's to head, from behind or boarding, it looks like Cowan doesn't have a clue either, the Brooks 1 is not checking to the head either, it's high sticks or cross checking for me, again still deserving of the big penalty but Cowan again making a mess of it. Agree with Delahey, he has improved every week but made a couple errors that almost cost us last night, but like most he would be near the top of the list to return. So if Brooks was cross checking, ain't that checking to the head.
|
|
|
Post by swarfiga on Feb 8, 2016 20:14:13 GMT
Surely a checking to the head penalty needs to be a proper check though rather than 2 guys standing still 1 then doing what Brooks done?
|
|
|
Post by riverrat on Feb 8, 2016 20:33:42 GMT
Surely a checking to the head penalty needs to be a proper check though rather than 2 guys standing still 1 then doing what Brooks done? This is the rule: RULE 124 – CHECKING TO THE HEAD OR NECK DEFINITION: A player who directs a hit of any sort, with any part of his body or equipment, to the head or neck of an opposing player or drives or forces the head of an opposing player into the protective glass or boards. This rule supersedes all similar actions regarding hits to the head and neck except those related to fighting. i. There is no such thing as a clean hit to the head. Whether accidental or intentional, every direct hit to the head or neck of an opponent will be penalized. ii. A player who directs a check to the head or neck of an opponent will be assessed one of: (1) a minor penalty and misconduct penalty; (2) a major penalty and automatic game-misconduct penalty; (3) a match penalty. So if any kind of hit is directed at the head it supersedes the crosscheck or whatever it was originally.
|
|
|
Post by swarfiga on Feb 8, 2016 20:36:17 GMT
Cheers for that Riverrat, looks like old Cowan does actually know a rule. Iv never seen it called for that in the way that happened!
|
|