Campbell assault upon vipers player

Koop11

Well-Known Member
#21
I personally feel the Campbell incident is no more than a game penalty. However, if we are comparing this to recent disciplinary action then I’d suggest a minimum of 8 games.

This is how pathetic it has become.
 

jimmy snels

Well-Known Member
#22
for my 2pence worth i think a ban of 2games for sucker punching opponent, 1game for match penalty and possibly an extra 2 for punching when on floor/lino trying to stop it. so 5 game ban for me
 
#23
From: http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/elite-leag ... ne-p168247

Sheffield Steelers forward Derek Campbell was handed a match penalty for fighting in the game against Newcastle Vipers on Saturday 18th December 2010.

This has been charged to his EIHL record and, as a result, Campbell is automatically suspended for one game for the match penalty, and another game as per the suspension tariffs, making a total of a two-game suspension.

As per Elite League rules, the disciplinary committee will review the penalty and Campbell may be subject to further discipline.
 
#25
smith83 said:
From: http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/elite-leag ... ne-p168247

Sheffield Steelers forward Derek Campbell was handed a match penalty for fighting in the game against Newcastle Vipers on Saturday 18th December 2010.

This has been charged to his EIHL record and, as a result, Campbell is automatically suspended for one game for the match penalty, and another game as per the suspension tariffs, making a total of a two-game suspension.

As per Elite League rules, the disciplinary committee will review the penalty and Campbell may be subject to further discipline.
so uncle bob, how much is it going to cost you this time :roll:
 

ASHIPP

Well-Known Member
#27
Every time Campbell is awarded a match penalty, it's doubled because of his penaly record this season. How useful is that to the Steelers? Surely it's time for Ben Simon to make a decision. :?

I love the irony, though. Simon's reactions in the press to the Steelers v Devils game suggested he was concerned that his players don't get 'protection' and that dangerous, unneccessary play should be punished. Campbell plays a needless bad check.....and (rightly) gets punished, leaving the Steelers short-benched again!
 
#28
ASHIPP said:
Every time Campbell is awarded a match penalty, it's doubled because of his penaly record this season. How useful is that to the Steelers? Surely it's time for Ben Simon to make a decision. :?

I love the irony, though. Simon's reactions in the press to the Steelers v Devils game suggested he was concerned that his players don't get 'protection' and that dangerous, unneccessary play should be punished. Campbell plays a needless bad check.....and (rightly) gets punished, leaving the Steelers short-benched again!
Sums up my thoughts tbh.

Maybe we aren't replacing Campbell because we don't have the funds.
 
#29
Joesteeler said:
ASHIPP said:
Every time Campbell is awarded a match penalty, it's doubled because of his penaly record this season. How useful is that to the Steelers? Surely it's time for Ben Simon to make a decision. :?

I love the irony, though. Simon's reactions in the press to the Steelers v Devils game suggested he was concerned that his players don't get 'protection' and that dangerous, unneccessary play should be punished. Campbell plays a needless bad check.....and (rightly) gets punished, leaving the Steelers short-benched again!
Sums up my thoughts tbh.

Maybe we aren't replacing Campbell because we don't have the funds.
TBH I'd rather we played short and got rid of DC, we did a good enough job of it before he came, and have had to during his bans
 

Skippy

Active Member
#30
steeler lass said:
TBH I'd rather we played short and got rid of DC, we did a good enough job of it before he came, and have had to during his bans

Its approaching Christmas I'd guess his days are numbered going on past seasons form.
 
Top