|
|
Post by nobabody on Jan 29, 2013 12:08:03 GMT
just wanting to give credit where it's due, asked the EIHL site to be a bit more informative/explanatory about the extra disciplinary/bans being given out. this post... www.eliteleague.co.uk/ban-for-hull-s-dulle-p181583is a good step forward, so well done Chris and thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by jamestkirk on Jan 29, 2013 12:12:47 GMT
This has been the process all season. Information and reasons for all bans have been released in a PR.
|
|
ronniemac
Pro
Posts: 1,520
NHL Team: Chicago Blackhawks
|
Post by ronniemac on Jan 29, 2013 15:03:41 GMT
Is it just me you get a 1 game ban for 2 x 5+ game penalties for checking to the head YET get 3 game penalty for a single punch to the back of the head of a man who was ducking away from you.
Not condoning Jasons actions at Dundee but crimes & fines don't add up to me ?
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jan 29, 2013 15:18:47 GMT
This has been the process all season. Information and reasons for all bans have been released in a PR. Not quite. They didn't explain clearly why certain bans were handed out. Instead they just said 'as is the normal penalty for this offense' or something to that affect. In other words, the below statement clarifies alot because had this not been mentioned, someone would have just compared this to another checking to the head penalty that someone else got (1st time they'd done it) and been like, what's with the inconsistency? Whereas with the above sentence, you can clearly see why a ban has been handed out in this scenario, but possibly not another. |
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jan 29, 2013 15:22:56 GMT
3 game penalty for a single punch to the back of the head of a man who was ducking away from you. ? If that happened as it sounds (sucker punch) then I think that's the right penalty. Checking to the head can sometimes be a bit of an unclear call. Sometimes a large player, say 6'4" can check a smaller player, say 5'9" and if the other player had been taller, it wouldn't have been a check to the head. A bit like the Tom Sestito incident a couple of months back. Thus you could not prove intent, even when it happens twice in a season. Whereas you can't exactly say 'sorry mate, didn't mean to punch you in the back of the head' can you? |
|
|
|
Post by coloradoflyer on Jan 29, 2013 15:23:51 GMT
you would think checking to head would be far more serious than boarding eh
|
|
|
|
Post by jamestkirk on Jan 29, 2013 15:32:43 GMT
Is it just me you get a 1 game ban for 2 x 5+ game penalties for checking to the head YET get 3 game penalty for a single punch to the back of the head of a man who was ducking away from you. Not condoning Jasons actions at Dundee but crimes & fines don't add up to me ? Those are the tariffs and the clubs and players are all aware of them. |
|
|
|
Post by jamestkirk on Jan 29, 2013 15:34:32 GMT
This has been the process all season. Information and reasons for all bans have been released in a PR. Not quite. They didn't explain clearly why certain bans were handed out. Instead they just said 'as is the normal penalty for this offense' or something to that affect. In other words, the below statement clarifies alot because had this not been mentioned, someone would have just compared this to another checking to the head penalty that someone else got (1st time they'd done it) and been like, what's with the inconsistency? Whereas with the above sentence, you can clearly see why a ban has been handed out in this scenario, but possibly not another. Not sure what you are trying to day as all the clubs and players are aware of this! |
|
|
|
Post by jamestkirk on Jan 29, 2013 15:35:02 GMT
you would think checking to head would be far more serious than boarding eh It is! That is why two such c to h pens result in a ban but similarly two b pens don't. |
|
|
|
Post by nobabody on Jan 29, 2013 15:37:58 GMT
Not quite. They didn't explain clearly why certain bans were handed out. Instead they just said 'as is the normal penalty for this offense' or something to that affect. In other words, the below statement clarifies alot because had this not been mentioned, someone would have just compared this to another checking to the head penalty that someone else got (1st time they'd done it) and been like, what's with the inconsistency? Whereas with the above sentence, you can clearly see why a ban has been handed out in this scenario, but possibly not another. Not sure what you are trying to day as all the clubs and players are aware of this! but the reason i asked for the clearer info was for fans not players |
|
ronniemac
Pro
Posts: 1,520
NHL Team: Chicago Blackhawks
|
Post by ronniemac on Jan 29, 2013 15:55:15 GMT
A head is a head whether its a sucker punch or a 2 hander with a stick in between, to me anyway, i think out the 2 i would much prefer the punch especially if the glove is still on the hand that delivered it and my hat was still on, believe me that doesn't hurt i've had it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamestkirk on Jan 29, 2013 16:03:42 GMT
A sucker punch is one that is unexpected and from the blindside - extremely dangerous!!!
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jan 29, 2013 16:11:24 GMT
A head is a head whether its a sucker punch or a 2 hander with a stick in between, to me anyway, i think out the 2 i would much prefer the punch especially if the glove is still on the hand that delivered it and my hat was still on, believe me that doesn't hurt i've had it. I think you're mistaking a Check to the Head with a Cross-Check to the head. If you someone was to Cross-Check you in the Head than that is much more serious and probably possible to prosecute under criminal law. |
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jan 29, 2013 16:14:12 GMT
Not quite. They didn't explain clearly why certain bans were handed out. Instead they just said 'as is the normal penalty for this offense' or something to that affect. In other words, the below statement clarifies alot because had this not been mentioned, someone would have just compared this to another checking to the head penalty that someone else got (1st time they'd done it) and been like, what's with the inconsistency? Whereas with the above sentence, you can clearly see why a ban has been handed out in this scenario, but possibly not another. Not sure what you are trying to day as all the clubs and players are aware of this! Not sure what you're trying to say here either. I would be astonished if clubs or players didn't know the rules. However, the information is requested in order to clarify things for us, as fans, so we can indeed see that A) The league is being transparent i.e. justifying the decisions it makes and B) That possible controversy is avoided because we, as fans, can examine each ban handed out, compare the reasons why and see that the league is neither bias nor favouring bigger/lesser bans for certain players/clubs for similar or the same offenses. |
|
flyers4eva
Rookie
Posts: 478
EIHL Team: Fife Flyers
NHL Team: New York Rangers
|
Post by flyers4eva on Jan 30, 2013 8:03:59 GMT
Look at JamesTKirk being Mr Know It All. If the league is so great and rules as so transparent why we're Fife never actually informed if Jaons Pitton's 3 game ban directly?
I had heard that the following game after cry baby Hutchins sent the clip of the incident in that Jason could have in fact iced as the team had never been told directly he was banned.
|
|
