Cardiff Devils v Belfast Giants - Sun 26 Nov 2017 - League - FO 6pm - Chat/Updates

I’m absolutely all for DOPS protecting players and reviewing dangerous plays that result in injury - but please operate with some transparency!

Good for us anyway. Fourns had a nice rest ready for the weekend, and we walked out of Edinburgh with the 2 points.

As wannabe would say ... HAPPY HOCKEY DAYS!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Foxy

Well-Known Member
I think the point of DOPS reviewing plays where an injury occurred is it might not be a penalty. I suspect the majority of incidents they review will be - legal hit, unfortunate outcome. The point is that DOPS is supposed to be about player safety and any injury of a player makes sense to review. Yes it seems crazy Keefe sent the guy back onto the ice (or the player knows how to fake the rinkside concussion test) but I'd much rather the DOPS be actually interested in player safety which has never been the case before.
But by the player returning how can they say when the injury was caused.............
 

Foxy

Well-Known Member
I suspect this was retaliation by Keefe because of the Ferland review
but it wasnt asked for review as far as i can tell....... so dont know why it was looked at. Dont get me wrong i like the new DOPS just baffled as to why it was looked at in the first place
 

Ocko

Well-Known Member
Because it was a bad hit? Anything can be mentioned in the referees report. The referee can refer to something to be looked at that he didn't see/give a penalty for.

It's a bad hit. The player was hurt at the time. No complaints. Look at it from the other teams point of view, if one of our players got hit to the head we'd expect a punishment. However it came about the important thing was that any penalty deserved was given. The review clearly shows a hit to the head.
 

pjj365

Well-Known Member
Because it was a bad hit? Anything can be mentioned in the referees report. The referee can refer to something to be looked at that he didn't see/give a penalty for.

It's a bad hit. The player was hurt at the time. No complaints. Look at it from the other teams point of view, if one of our players got hit to the head we'd expect a punishment. However it came about the important thing was that any penalty deserved was given. The review clearly shows a hit to the head.
BUT BUT- mentioned or not it falls outside DOPS criteria for automatic review unless there is hidden criteria for refs asking for a review if they thinker they missed something

Now that would be interesting but very professional
 
Clearly the official missed the call and Fournier should have been assessed a penalty and had there been 2 officials he might have been tossed at that point. As well, the official missed the Ferland hit on Batch, god only knows why he wasn't tossed . How does the league expect the players to abide by these new standards if the officials don't ? Those are clearly two instances where the official needs to take control of the game and make those calls. Fournier should at the minimum been given a 2+10 and Ferland should have been given a minimum a 5+game. Another thing, when is this league going to start with concussion protocol ???
 

Gospel

Active Member
I have a couple of issues with this Fournier incident.

As has been mentioned this wasn't a request by Belfast and the reason given by DOPs for the review was it resulted in an injury to the player. That's fair enough. However the problem then starts with why the hell was he allowed to skate on and then fight by Belfast? Was he seen by a Dr before being passed fit to resume play? If not that's very very dangerous by Belfast to even let him go back on the ice.

The next part is if DOPs have agreed that they cannot be certain it caused injury which they state in the video decision the reason for the review surely does not therefore apply so why give a one game suspension? The hit was high but no penalty was called on the play and doesn't seem to have been mentioned in a match report for DOPs to look at.

DOPs on this point have gone too far for me but certainly shows that further improvements are still needed.
 

Have Hope#35

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately no clubs have medical staff traveling with them that are qualified to carry out a Concussion check (the ones that are at games generally just stitch them up and send them back out)... however with the player supposedly so out of it that he had to crawl down to the changing room after the hit, I'd argue that no player or Coach should've let him back on the Ice - especially not to Fight!

Having said that if this ban wasn't on a Devils player I'd argue that most of us would be saying that Player Safety is more important than the wording of a newly written criteria that was put forward for the New DOPS to work to! Forgetting the criteria for one second I believe that Fournier has got off lightly, in any other situation I'd expect 2-3 for that. And looking at the bright side he's had a games rest and we've collected the 2pts :D
 
Unfortunately no clubs have medical staff traveling with them that are qualified to carry out a Concussion check (the ones that are at games generally just stitch them up and send them back out)... however with the player supposedly so out of it that he had to crawl down to the changing room after the hit, I'd argue that no player or Coach should've let him back on the Ice - especially not to Fight!

Having said that if this ban wasn't on a Devils player I'd argue that most of us would be saying that Player Safety is more important than the wording of a newly written criteria that was put forward for the New DOPS to work to! Forgetting the criteria for one second I believe that Fournier has got off lightly, in any other situation I'd expect 2-3 for that. And looking at the bright side he's had a games rest and we've collected the 2pts :D
 
A couple of things. You're right in that no team travels with their team but what kind of Dr's do the home teams have ? Surely they have some qualifications in concussions ? And can diagnose whether a player is "out of it " ??? But if you have no concussion protocol what's to stop a coach from putting out a player at risk ? And if you think a coach is going to protect that player and not put him back in the game, you're sadly mistaken. A vast majority of players will always say that they can go back out and play. You need to take it out of the coach's decision and into the hands of doctors, who are at every game and err on the side of caution. This is a league issue that needs to be addressed asap. That's why I mentioned in my post above, the league, at some point in the near future needs to put something in place that protects these players
 
I’m all for player safety, to a point. It’s a dangerous sport, intentional or not hits happen, but that’s why they have so much padding, helmets etc. I agree should a player be injured [emoji856] or potentially injured medical treatment is a priority. The danger with DOPS is it could potentially sterilise the sport to a point it becomes boring, as is seen in other sports.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I’m all for player safety, to a point. It’s a dangerous sport, intentional or not hits happen, but that’s why they have so much padding, helmets etc. I agree should a player be injured [emoji856] or potentially injured medical treatment is a priority. The danger with DOPS is it could potentially sterilise the sport to a point it becomes boring, as is seen in other sports.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There's no way DOPS could sterilize hockey. Hitting has and always be apart of the sport and that's not going to stop because players are disciplined tougher now than in the past . Players are bigger, stronger and faster than they were 5, 10, 20 years ago and injuries are going to happen but the head injuries are the injuries that need to be taken out of the game and I suspect that is what DOPS is trying to eliminate. NHL, AHL hockey has not been sterilized because they discipline tougher now than in the past and I don't see any evidence that other sports have become boring . Physicality will always be part of hockey
 

Ocko

Well-Known Member
We'e also been far from whiter than white with our concussion protocol. A number of players, Lord included, have had their bell rung and not missed a shift.
 

terry hunt

Well-Known Member
Bit confused... Did Keefe make a representation to the officials the player was hurt at the time of the hit, or did he make the claim after the match?
That is the mystery it was not an official requested review that must be paid for.
The wording suggest an injury may or may not have have been caused by the hit or the fight may have caused the injury.
I suggest the officials are covering themselves.
 

Devil94

Well-Known Member
The player was definitely injured after the hit, as he struggled to even skate back to the bench. Hicks or the linos probably saw him injured, and subsequently asked in his report to have a look at what happened as they didn't see it clearly. I can see no problem with this, and the correct decision was reached.
 

pjj365

Well-Known Member
The player was definitely injured after the hit, as he struggled to even skate back to the bench. Hicks or the linos probably saw him injured, and subsequently asked in his report to have a look at what happened as they didn't see it clearly. I can see no problem with this, and the correct decision was reached.
Likewise I see no issue IF it is included as a DOPS review category - it is not.

In fact I would welcome this approach
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
We'e also been far from whiter than white with our concussion protocol. A number of players, Lord included, have had their bell rung and not missed a shift.
When has this happened?

I clearly remember Bentivoligo being pulled in Belfast last season in the first period as they checked him over and deemed he had to sit out for the 7 days. He was desperate to get back on the ice but we sat him. And that was a vital game too, we could have easily glossed over it.
 
There's no way DOPS could sterilize hockey. Hitting has and always be apart of the sport and that's not going to stop because players are disciplined tougher now than in the past . Players are bigger, stronger and faster than they were 5, 10, 20 years ago and injuries are going to happen but the head injuries are the injuries that need to be taken out of the game and I suspect that is what DOPS is trying to eliminate. NHL, AHL hockey has not been sterilized because they discipline tougher now than in the past and I don't see any evidence that other sports have become boring . Physicality will always be part of hockey
So far this season, DOPS have increased the automatic game ban on 44% of all incidents they reviewed. If you look at incidents where head injury was a factor this raises to 65%, and 75% if you just look at just cases reviewed by the new DOPS. The numbers support a definite stamp down on head injuries.

As for my opinion, this was the right call. The DOPS this week sent a message; they were firm on what they believe should and should not be a part of the sport both in the punishments they dished out and the words they chose (none were minced for Deveaux, for example). There's a culture in the elite league that they are trying to change, and they won't be successful in doing so unless they come down hard on these things. While our concussion protocol may not have been whiter than white, that's the game we and every other team have been forced to play. It's been too easy to get away with dishing out head injuries so they've been more prevalent, and the 'luxury' of giving our players as basic a medical requirement as rest has fallen by the wayside.

You send a message, you change the attitude; you get a better sport where players aren't worried for their own health, and the team that wins isn't the one that's best at lamping people behind the ref's back. There might be the odd blunder along the way, such as this "automatic" review, but I'd consider it a small price to pay.
 
Top