DOPS Changes

E.D.S.

Well-Known Member
#41
Please bare with a bit of indulge as I will try and make the case for the no supplemental discipline using my experience in this area. Here goes!!

Lets start with the rule itself.

Rule 124 Checking to the head or neck.

A lot of fans think the exports get it wrong on a game by game basis!
Definition. There is no such thing as a clean check to the head. 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.


1. A player who directs a hit to the head or neck of an opponent will be assessed a minor and misconduct penalty.
2. A player who directs a hit to the head or neck of an opponent may also be assessed either a major and automatic game-misconduct penalty or a match penalty.
3. A penalty for checking to the head or neck will be assessed if one of the following occurs when a player checks an opponent:
 1) The player directs a hit with any part of his body or equipment to the head or neck of an opponent;
 2) The player drives or forces the head of an opponent into the protective glass or boards by using any part of his upper body;
 3) The player extends and directs any part of his upper body to make contact with the head or neck of an opponent;
 4) The player extends his body upward or outward in order to reach his opponent or uses any part of the upper body to make contact with an opponent’s head or neck;
 5) The player jumps (leaves his skates) to deliver a blow to the head or neck of an opponent.
4. If a skater skates with his head up, is in possession of the puck, and is expecting a bodycheck, an opponent does not have the right to hit him in the head or neck.
5. If the primary force of a blow is initially to the body area and then contact slides up to the head or neck area, a penalty for checking to the head or neck will not be assessed.
6. A skater who delivers a bodycheck to an opponent who is skating with the puck with his head down in the direction of the skater, and does not use an upward motion or drive his body up into the opponent, will not be penalized for checking to the head or neck.
7. If a skater maintains his position in the normal course of game action as an opponent runs into him, the ensuing contact will not be considered checking to the head or neck unless conditions in Rules 124-3 or 124-4 are violated.
Now in the Elite League case book there are further notes.



RULE 124—CHECKING TO THE HEAD OR NECK
Additional Notes
A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is the principal point of contact and such contact to the head is deemed to have been avoidable is not permitted.
In determining whether a hit to an opponent's head could have been avoided, the following should be considered:
1. The circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position, either by assuming a posture that made head contact unavoidable on an otherwise full body check or by materially changing the position of his body or head in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit; and
2. Whether every effort was made to hit squarely through the body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle, a reflexive attempt to ensure a hit is not "missed", or by intentional targeting.

Ok Now you have read all that and digested the rule. Now watch the incident in full speed and the slomo. (slomo always looks worse but does show the primary point of contact)


So incident watched and you are on the ice as an official your calls open to you are if you have deemed it’s a hit to the head.
2+10
5+game
Match

So that it itself is stating you can have a hit to the head that is NOT a suspension but is a hit to the head. Not the narrative that some are putting out that DOPS are saying he has got away with a hit to the head. He has not! Cardiff were penalised for a major penalty and Belfast failed to score in that 5 minutes not Cardiff’s fault. Side note huge much moaning wold there be if they scored say 3 on it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Also note that there have been at least 7 check to the heads of either 2+10 or 5+ games that have not resulted in anything extra.(3 Belfast). SO guess that blows any conspiracy theory?!

So move on to next stage as the clip would have been watch as per process.

Using the Information above and extra notes and looking at any bans that have happened you can break it down

  • Does catch him in the head and was primary point of contact = Yes
  • Did he target or pick the head. = No. You can watch the ones giving and you see the difference
  • Did he make body contact as part of the Hit = Yes
  • Was it a Hockey play = Yes Goodwin was the active player
  • Was it overly Excessive = No (again some may argue it was) but if you make that hit 99/100 and the checking technique was fine just unfortunate Goodwin was in a ducking type position. See the additional case book notes. Masi check was made squarely.


Penalty was called and deemed not a 2+10 but 5+G and that is what was agreed was the correct call.

Again I repeat as its important.
If every time a player gets hit in the head is it a suspension where there are three options of a penalty? Some people may not like that but that is the rule book and the same worldwide.

So now we move on to the Dops announcing/non announcement.

The process is clear and all clubs know it (and agreed by the clubs!!) as do the fan base if they digest the information.

Can you name another top league where they publish we are looking at this or this doesn’t get a penalty or this isn’t a suspension.
They just publish any fines or suspension with the reason breakdown.

As been pointed out elsewhere there is not the manpower to do it plus the rules are there so the answer is THE CALL ON THE ICE WAS SUFFICENT.
The demand in a lot of sports to know everything warts and all and the insane pressure of what looks like targeted social media is just bonkers.

Sorry for long post.
There is no place for this kind of logic on this forum. Ban them!!!

Really interesting read and some valid points made. The scale of punishment for the check to the head surprised me. I assumed it was just a game penalty and possible further suspension for all hits to the head.
A good thought provoking post. Thanks for this.
 
#42
Please bare with a bit of indulge as I will try and make the case for the no supplemental discipline using my experience in this area. Here goes!!

Lets start with the rule itself.

Rule 124 Checking to the head or neck


Thanks Dave for all that explanation.
 

Imp

Active Member
Thread starter #43
The demand in a lot of sports to know everything warts and all and the insane pressure of what looks like targeted social media is just bonkers.
Sorry for long post.
Excellent post. Sometimes they need to be long.

”The demand” to know maybe unreadonable but “The desire” to know is ultimately positive. All of these posts essential reduce to, “Will someone please explain the difference between A & B (because I can't see it).”
 
#44
“Does catch him in the head and was primary point of contact = Yes”

Glad we agree on that.

“Did he target or pick the head. = No. You can watch the ones giving and you see the difference”

His eyes are on Goodwin the entire time, Goodwins height and body position barely change through the entire motion of him going to the boards and passing the puck. His head was the target.

“Did he make body contact as part of the Hit = Yes”

Agreed that after hitting Goodwins head there is further contact on his body

“Was it a Hockey play = Yes Goodwin was the active player”

There was no attempt made to play the puck or to stop Goodwin from making his play, the intent was only to hit Goodwin, on his head.

“Was it overly Excessive = No (again some may argue it was) but if you make that hit 99/100 and the checking technique was fine just unfortunate Goodwin was in a ducking type position. See the additional case book notes. Masi check was made squarely.”

Goodwin was not ducking, again look at the video, Goodwin makes no sudden movements, and barely any change of height through the entire play.

Some other points not mentioned in you summary.
-Contact with Goodwins head was completely avoidable. Masi had plenty of time to make the principle point of contact Goodwins body.
-Goodwin was injured on the play, he did not play the rest of the game, we are unsure as of yet if he will miss more games due to this head hit.
- The hit was from behind. Goodwin was unable to defend himself as Masi was behind him on the play, so even though Goodwin had his head up during the play (to make a pass) he was completely unsuspecting of the hit coming, and so unable to defend himself against it.

Personally I’d consider it a 3 game ban, 0 games is a disgrace.
 
Last edited:

jenks33

Well-Known Member
#45
I do think Marjamaki should have had 2 or 3 games but I do roll my eyes when I see Belfast and Sheffield fans on twitter saying “We would be reacting like this if it was a player from any team” would they balls! And like a few others have said Belfast have had 3 checking to the head penalties this season without any suspensions. But obviously DOPS are corrupt in favour of Cardiff...
 

CaldicotDevil

Well-Known Member
#46
The DOPS before have come out in the past and released a statement why a player won't receive a ban. This press release normally comes with an explaination very similar to Daves great post. I feel if they did that this story wouldn't of grow as much as it has. The new DOPS has missed a chance to really set out a standard.

Even though I think it was a 3 game ban, imo it evens out us losing #88 for 4/5 games and Baldwin not getting banned.
 

Gisland

Active Member
#47
Belfast have had 3 checking to the head penalties this season without any suspensions. But obviously DOPS are corrupt in favour of Cardiff...[/QUOTE]
Swings and roundabouts.. Every team at some stage of the season will have this to deal with. Be interesting if It was the Steelers during the Cup Final. Or the Devils perhaps during a League deciding game..
Will it make any difference to either team if it was an important game ? Is the player "more deserving" of a ban dependent on the games importance. Or will it be, oh well DOPS said nothing so the refs got it right?
 

Finny

Well-Known Member
#48
“Does catch him in the head and was primary point of contact = Yes”

Glad we agree on that.

“Did he target or pick the head. = No. You can watch the ones giving and you see the difference”

His eyes are on Goodwin the entire time, Goodwins height and body position barely change through the entire motion of him going to the boards and passing the puck. His head was the target.

“Did he make body contact as part of the Hit = Yes”

Agreed that after hitting Goodwins head there is further contact on his body

“Was it a Hockey play = Yes Goodwin was the active player”

There was no attempt made to play the puck or to stop Goodwin from making his play, the intent was only to hit Goodwin, on his head.

“Was it overly Excessive = No (again some may argue it was) but if you make that hit 99/100 and the checking technique was fine just unfortunate Goodwin was in a ducking type position. See the additional case book notes. Masi check was made squarely.”

Goodwin was not ducking, again look at the video, Goodwin makes no sudden movements, and barely any change of height through the entire play.

Some other points not mentioned in you summary.
-Contact with Goodwins head was completely avoidable. Masi had plenty of time to make the principle point of contact Goodwins body.
-Goodwin was injured on the play, he did not play the rest of the game, we are unsure as of yet if he will miss more games due to this head hit.
- The hit was from behind. Goodwin was unable to defend himself as Masi was behind him on the play, so even though Goodwin had his head up during the play (to make a pass) he was completely unsuspecting of the hit coming, and so unable to defend himself against it.

Personally I’d consider it a 3 game ban, 0 games is a disgrace.
I suggest you go back and watch the highlights video, not the clip that AVFTB have done.
In that you can see clearly:
-Goodwin turns and sees Marjamaki coming. He knows he's going to get hit.
-As he approaches the puck and boards he lowers his body.
-Marjamaki sees that and lowers his body too, but not enough.
-The hit succeeded in stopping Goodwin clearing the puck. Richardson collects the loose puck as the whistle is blown.

Out of interest if you think that was worthy of a 3 game ban what do you think of the hits by Pelech, Farnham and Ward that also saw them given penalties for Checking to the Head, but no ban?
 

Koop11

Well-Known Member
#49
Having seen the footage, I think the right call on the night was make – 5+game for checking to the head.



It appears he makes contact with the head. What I dispute, which has been dramatized by Belfast fans, is that it is blindside and use of an elbow.



Both players are chasing down the puck towards the boards. Goodwin gets there first and moves the puck. He is entitled to be hit and Mari simply finishes his check. The check is not late as it’s a split second from the puck being released. The hit comes to the side of the body so not blindside. Mari doesn’t take his eyes of the play. Mari’s eblow remains tucked into his body. Mari’s body is set up for a legitimate body check. No arms, elbows or sticks are high. His feet are planted and he doesn’t change course.



IMO, the only illegal play is the contact with the head. It’s unfortunate that Goodwin’s body position is lower than Mari’s but that’s regardless. It appears to be that he makes contact with the head. For that, I would expect a 1 game ban, possibly 2. The calls for a 5 game+ are extreme to say the least.
 

jenks33

Well-Known Member
#51
What really winds me up is Sheffield and Belfast fans saying there’s a bias towards cardiff. Pathetic. Those two clubs have just as much clout as we do in this league, if not more in Sheffield’s case. I can live with Fife, dundee, Manchester etc whinging as they probably do get a harder time with dops. The “bigger” clubs in every sport and every league around the world probably do get an easier time with officials. Look at Manchester United in their pomp? They certainly used to get away with things more than other teams. But for Sheffield and Belfast fans to moan that we get an easier ride with dops than them? Nonsense
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#52
What really winds me up is Sheffield and Belfast fans saying there’s a bias towards cardiff. Pathetic. Those two clubs have just as much clout as we do in this league, if not more in Sheffield’s case. I can live with Fife, dundee, Manchester etc whinging as they probably do get a harder time with dops. The “bigger” clubs in every sport and every league around the world probably do get an easier time with officials. Look at Manchester United in their pomp? They certainly used to get away with things more than other teams. But for Sheffield and Belfast fans to moan that we get an easier ride with dops than them? Nonsense
It’s because as rightly so they see us as a huge threat to them winning trophies, so they want us weakened as much as possible, hence the moanin, whinging, and clap trap. If you can’t win it on the ice, try tiddlywinks
 

BostonBart22

Well-Known Member
#53
A player by the name of stewart ex giants i believe took out mac faulkner for the season , dont think anything was done about that at the time and pretty sure faulks didnt play again if my memory serves me right,,swings and roundabouts spring to mind
 

terry hunt

Well-Known Member
#54
Armstrong on Ben Bowns in the Cup Final Simms made no complaint about that.
Sorry i forgot his beloved Ben was suspended last week so he winds up daft Davies to make comments on a game he was not involved in.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#57
Don’t think so think he played the following season, think it was 12/13 season, and he played for us the following season 13/14.
 

august04

Well-Known Member
#58
It’s pointless referring to incidents years ago, they’re just not relevant anymore with the DOPS/Situation Room set up now. Let’s be honest if someone had smacked one of our players in the head like that, we’d be calling for supplementary discipline to be dished out. Marjamaki just can’t make that hit these days, and expect to get away with it. How he has, I’ll never know - he should have got 2 games for me.
 
Top