Gazza, what I have failed to cover in that post is that Coventrys penalties were dished out on the night and are therefore deemed to have been dealt with. If the further scrutiny that the league have alluded to result in bans for one or two Blaze players all well and good but as far as the game and the league rules go, Kirkham has probably come to the right conclusions. This doesn't mean I think Coventry are blameless, far from it, but this week has seen people slagging off Olson for chinning a spectator who lunges at him (reasonable reaction in my eyes), people slagging off the echo for putting us on the front page (the brawl in itself wouldn't have registered as news, it was only when said spectator had his brain fart that it did), now people are slagging of the league for going by the book on the penalties on the night to bans ratio. I can see that on the surface it looks like we have been hard done by but if you take a rational and less emotive view of it (as if through the eyes of a neutral say) it seems that it has been called pretty fairly.
Bans from last night (as they stand)
- Thread starter Rempel16
- Start date
I'll accept The spectator got off VERY lightly.
I have no issues with the Echo printing the story.
I have no problems with the bans we got.
I just cannot believe there was not a single Match penalty in that fracas for the Blaze. Thompson didnt even get one for failing to control his bench!
That is my only problem with this. That and the fact a video showing Birbrear didnt throw a punch at Egener is still not being acknowledged.
I agree that Thommo should have a match and admit that I don't fully understand Frannys match for travesty of game resulting in 5 games but, as I said, if Max and Deeds had stayed in the dressing room the only match penalty we would have picked up after the buzzer would be Frannys. If the league use all the footage available, Thommo, Egener and Olson may yet pick up bans. If they stick to just the gamesheets though, that's the best we're going to get.
Don't get me wrong here. I agree fully with the rationale behind the bans that have been given. I'd try and explain but Gingers Husband has made the single most sensible post I've ever seen on this forum above, which covers everything I could say.
Frankly I think some of the reactions to the bans on here are worthy of the loony bin (see the boycott thread for example). In the cold light of day I'd hope some fans would look back and think they overdid it a bit.
However in any light of day I'd be livid if a slash like that was missed on one of my team. The refs miss penalties - it happens and I understand it. I just can't see how something so obvious even the Blaze fans winced was missed at the end. Any sane fan would be up in arms about that.
Frankly I think some of the reactions to the bans on here are worthy of the loony bin (see the boycott thread for example). In the cold light of day I'd hope some fans would look back and think they overdid it a bit.
However in any light of day I'd be livid if a slash like that was missed on one of my team. The refs miss penalties - it happens and I understand it. I just can't see how something so obvious even the Blaze fans winced was missed at the end. Any sane fan would be up in arms about that.
But therein lies the point to the uproar. That slash is missed (and it's a belter) then his hit on Sunday is missed. What on earth was Max meant to do? Lie on the ice and take it? Let both incidents go and take it like a mug? No, he got off the ice AFTER THE SECOND INCIDENT and had a pop and the "biggest dog in the yard" (Thommo's words not mine) and then what get's a 5 (then 8) match ban and Olson get's nothing.
Missing one is bad, missing both is confirming Devils fans fears, that the standard of officiating is not up to standard.
If it is the Blaze's intention to play in this manner it is the League's responsibility to police the game and administer the rules. It is not up to Max to get up, strike out then get the back of his head punched when he is on the Ice. To leave the ice with the aid of trainers because the officials on the ice cannot or will not protect him.
Please tell me that after these two instances of thuggery against Max by Olson that max is the one who should be serving an 8 game ban
Missing one is bad, missing both is confirming Devils fans fears, that the standard of officiating is not up to standard.
If it is the Blaze's intention to play in this manner it is the League's responsibility to police the game and administer the rules. It is not up to Max to get up, strike out then get the back of his head punched when he is on the Ice. To leave the ice with the aid of trainers because the officials on the ice cannot or will not protect him.
Please tell me that after these two instances of thuggery against Max by Olson that max is the one who should be serving an 8 game ban