Chris Frank

DevilDom

Well-Known Member
#21
Interesting that the Elite League have offered no explanation either other than it is "upheld the call". Why would that be when Bannister was clearly not injured?
 
#22
I'll be honest, I'm not suprised that Frank has been given that ban. As has been said already, he has been working his way towards one. I'm starting to see him as a liability. He may be better than other defencemen that we have had in the past but I am struggling to remember a game this season where he hasn't been given a 5 minute major at the very least! Maybe it's just a case of the bigger, tougher guys who play for us not being liked but if I was in G's shoes, I think I'd probably be looking to see if we could get anyone else at the very least.

I've been saying ever since we found out that Mark Smith was going to be out for a longer period of time that first thought that we should pull some of the d men up from the enl. Stoney just seems a good fit given his experience in our league but then, what about the youngsters, I'm sure they would be very appreciative of the experience. Now seems like the time to put a call in to someone!!

On a complete wish, has anyone else noticed that Weller doesn't seem to be doing so well this year!? Maybe he should come back!! :D And yes, I am basing this purely on statistics on hockey db. :D I can dream! :lol:
 
#23
hockeyrocker26 said:
On a complete wish, has anyone else noticed that Weller doesn't seem to be doing so well this year!? Maybe he should come back!! :D And yes, I am basing this purely on statistics on hockey db. :D I can dream! :lol:
Where is Weller?
 

ASHIPP

Well-Known Member
#24
DevilDom said:
Interesting that the Elite League have offered no explanation either other than it is "upheld the call". Why would that be when Bannister was clearly not injured?
Thought the same myself. Detailed explanation given after Doucet's investigation...but that was as a result of a Braehead request.

The combination of Chris's cumulative misconducts and the nature of the check against Bannister have resulted looks to have resulted in a ban of 3 matches. Whether a player is injured or not appears to be irrelevant to the officiating panel.

The Devils were expecting it to be 3 matches, as stated earlier this week. I love Chris as a defenceman......but this incident hasn't helped him, and more crucially, the team who face 3 crucial league games with only 4 dmen. :evil:
 

Ger-Devils

Well-Known Member
#25
Gdraft said:
hockeyrocker26 said:
On a complete wish, has anyone else noticed that Weller doesn't seem to be doing so well this year!? Maybe he should come back!! :D And yes, I am basing this purely on statistics on hockey db. :D I can dream! :lol:
Where is Weller?
Austria and not happy it seems....
 
#29
Whilst I feel Frank is due a ban (for taking sooo many misconducts), the reason for this ban are kinda silly.

Bannister clearly wasn't injured - it's a shame the multi-angles cameras didn't pick him up skating around perfectly. As has been mentioned previously, this should have been downgraded to a game penalty.

But the elite league is a joke and things like this just ensure I that attend games less and less.
 

ASHIPP

Well-Known Member
#30
Scott said:
Whilst I feel Frank is due a ban (for taking sooo many misconducts), the reason for this ban are kinda silly.

Bannister clearly wasn't injured - it's a shame the multi-angles cameras didn't pick him up skating around perfectly. As has been mentioned previously, this should have been downgraded to a game penalty.

But the elite league is a joke and things like this just ensure I that attend games less and less.
And, unfortunately, may make some players think twice about playing in this league. It's hardly a secret what some current players around the League think of it....and previous ones who no longer want to play here. :cry:
 
#31
Thought the same myself. Detailed explanation given after Doucet's investigation...but that was as a result of a Braehead request.

The combination of Chris's cumulative misconducts and the nature of the check against Bannister have resulted looks to have resulted in a ban of 3 matches. Whether a player is injured or not appears to be irrelevant to the officiating panel.

The Devils were expecting it to be 3 matches, as stated earlier this week. I love Chris as a defenceman......but this incident hasn't helped him, and more crucially, the team who face 3 crucial league games with only 4 dmen
Agree, Franks a repeat offender so would of counted against him.. Hopefully Frank learns his lesson, I'm all for heavy hitting and fighting but not repeat cheap shots week in week out.. You maybe get the benefit of doubt after one possible two incidents, but Frank has numerous 10minute penalties this season and having seen a few clips and read other fans reports they have not been good...
 
#32
Obviously I'm commenting having still not seen a reply, but if the hit is as I thought on the night then this is the correct suspension I believe. The fact that Bannister was not injured has helped Frank in this case as the suspension would have been more than the 3 games he's received.

I'd love to see Frank hit more regularly and cleanly when he gets back and hopefully choosing to drop the gloves next time he wants to send a message :)
 
#33
oneill said:
Thought the same myself. Detailed explanation given after Doucet's investigation...but that was as a result of a Braehead request.

The combination of Chris's cumulative misconducts and the nature of the check against Bannister have resulted looks to have resulted in a ban of 3 matches. Whether a player is injured or not appears to be irrelevant to the officiating panel.

The Devils were expecting it to be 3 matches, as stated earlier this week. I love Chris as a defenceman......but this incident hasn't helped him, and more crucially, the team who face 3 crucial league games with only 4 dmen
Agree, Franks a repeat offender so would of counted against him.. Hopefully Frank learns his lesson, I'm all for heavy hitting and fighting but not repeat cheap shots week in week out.. You maybe get the benefit of doubt after one possible two incidents, but Frank has numerous 10minute penalties this season and having seen a few clips and read other fans reports they have not been good...
Is Frank a repeat offender for this particular offence though? He certainly hasn't been suspended before for checking from behind and and I don't believe he's had many/if any game misconducts.

I don't believe that should have had an impact in this case and I don't believe it has (it should from now on of course). That said I agree with the 3 games (based on my view on the night f course)
 

ASHIPP

Well-Known Member
#34
Soundwave1 said:
Is Frank a repeat offender for this particular offence though? He certainly hasn't been suspended before for checking from behind and and I don't believe he's had many/if any game misconducts.

I don't believe that should have had an impact in this case and I don't believe it has (it should from now on of course). That said I agree with the 3 games (based on my view on the night f course)
Chris's previous misconducts have been for other offences. This is the first time he has been punished for a check of that nature in this league. Perhaps we have to accept that any camera footage provided additional to the match report in evidence of this incident was sufficient for the panel to think it was an unacceptable move.....irrespective of whether Bannister was injured. A detailed explanation would have been good but perhaps that is only given after a team requests further investigation?

Let's hope this does not detract from Tank landing body hits and showing some grit AT THE RIGHT TIME, IN THE RIGHT WAY. It's a big part of his game even though his top priority will be to play a solid game defensively....which he has been doing very well.
He will be missed for the next 3 games. :? :(
 
#35
ASHIPP said:
Perhaps we have to accept that any camera footage provided additional to the match report in evidence of this incident was sufficient for the panel to think it was an unacceptable move
There was no footage of the check, the suspension was based on the referee's report.
 
#36
There was no footage of the check, the suspension was based on the referee's report.[/quote]

This would be the ref that put the "Ars" into Carson!!!

The EIHL Discipline Panel is not fit for purpose and do for consistent decision making what Sepp Blater does for Race Relations.
 
#37
Block 2 Noise Boys said:
There was no footage of the check, the suspension was based on the referee's report.
This would be the ref that put the "Ars" into Carson!!!

The EIHL Discipline Panel is not fit for purpose and do for consistent decision making what Sepp Blater does for Race Relations.[/quote]

They do for hockey what the Titanic did for winter cruises
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#38
Its true the actual hit was not caught on camera so it was not based on that, the club expected a 3 match ban and thats what we have got, so we now should just get on with it. This club has had players banned in the past, and probably if we are still here have players banned in the future, we have to live with that, its far from perfect, we would all like to have a full squad every game and always be playing with 5 skaters, but in the real world we dont unfortunately, even with the near perfect team we had last season we had players out suspended, not perfect but there you go.
 

Finny

Well-Known Member
#39
Soundwave1 said:
Is Frank a repeat offender for this particular offence though?
Yep. It's the 10th time this season he has cross-checked someone in the face.

I know none of us saw it like that, nor did Carson call it like that - but the Belfast fans reckon it must have been a cross-check.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#40
Finny said:
Soundwave1 said:
Is Frank a repeat offender for this particular offence though?
Yep. It's the 10th time this season he has cross-checked someone in the face.

I know none of us saw it like that, nor did Carson call it like that - but the Belfast fans reckon it must have been a cross-check.
That is so funny good on you, luv it.
 
Top