Thread starter
#21
Emmerson ban
- Thread starter Sheincar
- Start date
This league is so amateur it’s unreal. It’s embarrassing.
You want to set an example for clubs breaking rules around footage. Fine, I get that, but how can punishing a player who receives a 2min penalty for a 10 game suspension fair. The fine should be enough. If not, then impose a 10 game suspension on the bench, meaning Caps have to play an import short. Don’t punish the stand out guy on a struggling franchise who for the first time in a long time look like they can be bothered to entertain fans. I can’t help feel this is part of a long term push tactic for this arena league that Black so desperately wants.
The league could not be more short sighted. If Emmerson decides to leave (I wouldn’t blame him), he is going to feed this all back to players, agents, coaches which in this small hockey world will have an impact on potential future signings.
You want to set an example for clubs breaking rules around footage. Fine, I get that, but how can punishing a player who receives a 2min penalty for a 10 game suspension fair. The fine should be enough. If not, then impose a 10 game suspension on the bench, meaning Caps have to play an import short. Don’t punish the stand out guy on a struggling franchise who for the first time in a long time look like they can be bothered to entertain fans. I can’t help feel this is part of a long term push tactic for this arena league that Black so desperately wants.
The league could not be more short sighted. If Emmerson decides to leave (I wouldn’t blame him), he is going to feed this all back to players, agents, coaches which in this small hockey world will have an impact on potential future signings.
Yes I saw Todd’s explanation on Twitter last night. Good to have some clarity on the decision made and I can’t fault him for addressing the concerns of fans. Although I think the newly appointed head of DPS should be doing so.
Rules are rules and as suggested, if Edinburgh like all clubs agreed to this then there is not much they can do. That said, I don’t agree with the ruling because of the potential for inconsistencies. I agree that player safety is paramount and the principle of reviewing an incident every time there is an injury is not a bad idea at all. However, if you are going to review every injury then you are going to be very busy. This is contact sport. On that rational, there will be 3 incidents that I can remember from our game against Coventry on Sunday alone that will automatically be reviewed.
It also raises the question of whether the league will only be announcing amendments to original penalties or even incidents that didn’t award a penalty. Josh Batch recently injured Lloyd, receiving a 2+10. This will have been reviewed but I don’t recall hearing anything about it.
Sometimes an incident is not caught by the rolling camera. For example, Stewart’s season ending hit on Faulkner was missed. He got 6 games reduced to 3 in the end (I think). Phillips has suspected concussion and plays the next night but Emerson gets 10 games because his club’s cameraman was in the toilet (hypothetical but you get my point).
If this is about punishing the club for not having the tape then fine but I think punishing the player to this extent does more long term damage to the league IMO. My suggestion as I referred before, perhaps consideration should be given to a club suspension, i.e. the bench has to suspend an import slot for 10 games.
Rules are rules and as suggested, if Edinburgh like all clubs agreed to this then there is not much they can do. That said, I don’t agree with the ruling because of the potential for inconsistencies. I agree that player safety is paramount and the principle of reviewing an incident every time there is an injury is not a bad idea at all. However, if you are going to review every injury then you are going to be very busy. This is contact sport. On that rational, there will be 3 incidents that I can remember from our game against Coventry on Sunday alone that will automatically be reviewed.
It also raises the question of whether the league will only be announcing amendments to original penalties or even incidents that didn’t award a penalty. Josh Batch recently injured Lloyd, receiving a 2+10. This will have been reviewed but I don’t recall hearing anything about it.
Sometimes an incident is not caught by the rolling camera. For example, Stewart’s season ending hit on Faulkner was missed. He got 6 games reduced to 3 in the end (I think). Phillips has suspected concussion and plays the next night but Emerson gets 10 games because his club’s cameraman was in the toilet (hypothetical but you get my point).
If this is about punishing the club for not having the tape then fine but I think punishing the player to this extent does more long term damage to the league IMO. My suggestion as I referred before, perhaps consideration should be given to a club suspension, i.e. the bench has to suspend an import slot for 10 games.
Yeah, however with Emmerson being probably the showpiece for all games vs Edinburgh this year, if he were to quit you're talking about an entire league suffering.
As was mentioned previously, the team should have to sit -1 import for ~3 games or something.
Belfast fans themselves said the hit wasn't that bad, and if Phillips had been concussed seriously then a lengthy ban could be called, however in this instance, given the non-reaction of any player on the ice & the refs calling a 2 minute penalty "on a whim" given that a player was down, i think 10 games is a little crazy & is the wrong way to punish a team/player.
The teams were all aware of the ruling, a hefty fine/-5 points deduction would have sufficed.
..to free the Edinburgh 1! ..oh and the other thingReduced to 3 games on appeal so he'll play us Sunday
http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/emmerson-b ... ed-p193698
http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/emmerson-b ... ed-p193698
Reduced to 3 games.
Why can't they just get decisions right on the first time of asking?
No further evidence has been used to consider the ban, as they knew Phillips was fit the game after issuing the 10 game ban - so what's changed in reducing the ban?
nevertheless, the correct decision.
What a surprise - he returns vs the Devils :lol: :lol:
Why can't they just get decisions right on the first time of asking?
No further evidence has been used to consider the ban, as they knew Phillips was fit the game after issuing the 10 game ban - so what's changed in reducing the ban?
nevertheless, the correct decision.
What a surprise - he returns vs the Devils :lol: :lol:
Were they statements from Belfast saying that the hit "was not that bad"? Or something similar.
And it was always going to be due to 'technical issues', that can vary greatly from Joe Bloggs forgetting to hit 'record' on the camera, a faulty camera, no battery in the camera, or even it being hit by a puck, with only the latter being the only real excuse :lol:
they were never going to come out and say "yeah we couldn't show you the footage so we deleted it" or something similar.
Hopefully statements were provided from Belfast about the nature of the hit, or from some neutral at the rink (ref/lino didn't see it? Maybe a goal judge??)
And it was always going to be due to 'technical issues', that can vary greatly from Joe Bloggs forgetting to hit 'record' on the camera, a faulty camera, no battery in the camera, or even it being hit by a puck, with only the latter being the only real excuse :lol:
they were never going to come out and say "yeah we couldn't show you the footage so we deleted it" or something similar.
Hopefully statements were provided from Belfast about the nature of the hit, or from some neutral at the rink (ref/lino didn't see it? Maybe a goal judge??)
The ban seemed to be more a punishment for the lack of footage than the hit though. That was the joke. How could you possibly give a 2 min pen in the game and then extend it to 10 games with nothing to review? It's unbelievable!! 3 games is still ridiculous, on what planet can a player get punished for the club's issues?
