Hotham banned for 2 games
- Thread starter august04
- Start date
This is so unjust. I take you back to November, an incident occurred during a match between the Sheffield Steelers and the Belfast Giants, Rutherford is called for checking to the head, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a first offence and DOPS only felt it needed 2 games despite the Steelers player having a pretty serious injury, even needing to be stretchered off and taken to hospital.
Few months later Marv makes a silly slash (that isn't called, problems with refs again?) and connects with a players hand in a way that if you let him try to do it 100 times again it probably wouldn't happen but it is decide that that also merits a 2 game ban.
It must be some kind of joke? DOPS needs to be the number 1 priority over the summer, even ahead of goal line tech.
Few months later Marv makes a silly slash (that isn't called, problems with refs again?) and connects with a players hand in a way that if you let him try to do it 100 times again it probably wouldn't happen but it is decide that that also merits a 2 game ban.
It must be some kind of joke? DOPS needs to be the number 1 priority over the summer, even ahead of goal line tech.
Whilst true, this is a different argument. DOPS is the Department of Player Safety its number one priority should be exactly that, player safety. Hoth was reckless in his use of his stick and the result was that a key player for Nottingham now has a broken finger and is likely to be out for a period of time. In my mind this means that the offending player should sit for a few games..... reverse the situation, if Dinman had slashed Hotham, breaking his finger, then would we be arguing that two games is harsh?
On the issue of consistency, I totally agree but taking this episode in isolation, I am struggling to argue too much with two games.
On the issue of consistency, I totally agree but taking this episode in isolation, I am struggling to argue too much with two games.
I get what you're saying but incidents shouldn't be taken in isolation, otherwise it will open up all kinds of arguments. Is a check to head which doesn't injure a player worse than a legal check which does injure?
Should a slap shot aimed towards the goal where players are standing and results in a player being injured (like Mo) be considered reckless?
The type of contact Hotham made with Dimmen was so innocuous the ref didn't even see it as 2 minute. Like Electro said, had Dimmen not been injured then Nottingham would not have reviewed, does that make the play any more/less worthy of a ban? I really don't think it does.
There needs to be comparison and consistency, Hotham's play was definitely well below the severity of that of Rutherford on Hagos and Neilsen on the Fife fan yet all get the same punishment.
Should a slap shot aimed towards the goal where players are standing and results in a player being injured (like Mo) be considered reckless?
The type of contact Hotham made with Dimmen was so innocuous the ref didn't even see it as 2 minute. Like Electro said, had Dimmen not been injured then Nottingham would not have reviewed, does that make the play any more/less worthy of a ban? I really don't think it does.
There needs to be comparison and consistency, Hotham's play was definitely well below the severity of that of Rutherford on Hagos and Neilsen on the Fife fan yet all get the same punishment.
Totally agree about the consistency of penalties, I can't remember what Joey got for throwing a water bottle but comparing that with the Neilson incident would be interesting ..... but....... I would still argue that two wrongs don't make a right. Saying that because Rutherford should have received a bigger ban this means that Hotham should be let off is disingenuous and is in effect arguing that one mistake should lead to another.
What we need is a clearer tariff and for decisions to be made in line with this.
I would argue that Hotham's contact was not innocuous as it broke a players finger and really the referee should have dealt with there and then but..... he didn't and so we end up in the situation of using incorrect judgments to justify a punishment.
What we need is a clearer tariff and for decisions to be made in line with this.
I would argue that Hotham's contact was not innocuous as it broke a players finger and really the referee should have dealt with there and then but..... he didn't and so we end up in the situation of using incorrect judgments to justify a punishment.
If that's the case then I think Bordy will have something to say about it, respect or not he would have to step up and show he's not intimidated by Mcgrattan. Think this is a different scenario than Marsh tho, the only reason for the review was dimman's hand, majority of fans and both sets players didn't even see the slash!!
Totally agree but..... it goes back to the argument that two wrongs don't make a right. Peacock should have been given a lengthy ban but pointing out the fact that one person was incorrectly dealt with should not mean that we want another mistake to happen (although clearly as a Devils fan it would be nice if it was!)
Hoth was not in control of his stick, it caused damage, so I am struggling to think of the argument that he shouldn't have a suspension.
This is a tangent but personally I think that this could be a blessing in disguise. The team will be motivated by the injustice and one of our best players gets a rest.
Hoth was not in control of his stick, it caused damage, so I am struggling to think of the argument that he shouldn't have a suspension.
This is a tangent but personally I think that this could be a blessing in disguise. The team will be motivated by the injustice and one of our best players gets a rest.
But when Dops made the Peacock decision they would have regarded that as correct and as a result set the precedent for similar incidents.
Maybe stricter, initial guidelines are needed set by people not involved in Dops at the start of the season. Like a kind of tariff system. and incident will fall into tariff category and then the length of ban decided on the severity
Maybe stricter, initial guidelines are needed set by people not involved in Dops at the start of the season. Like a kind of tariff system. and incident will fall into tariff category and then the length of ban decided on the severity
Don't forget that the laughable DOPS didn't feel it necessary to take "any action at all" after Walser showed complete disrespect for the Wales national anthem and the Devils centre ice emblem during his prolonged "accidental" skate when he had every chance to get back in line with his team mates. Repeat offenders on some teams in many cases receive no bans. Go figure!
I don't think it should have been down to DOPS to do anything in this case as no players were hurt or in danger during his act of disrespect. It should have come directly from the league. Maybe change DOPS to a league disciplinary committee or player behaviour panel instead?
Back to Hotham, I get the two wrongs don't make a right but in the no action against peacock they set a standard which they chose to change with Hotham. They need standards set before a season starts, then if they feel they need changing it should be done between seasons not on the fly because they feel they want to up the ante on a new incident. I'd be much more accepting of the additional game if they gave a reason like he has a similar offence on his record.
Back to Hotham, I get the two wrongs don't make a right but in the no action against peacock they set a standard which they chose to change with Hotham. They need standards set before a season starts, then if they feel they need changing it should be done between seasons not on the fly because they feel they want to up the ante on a new incident. I'd be much more accepting of the additional game if they gave a reason like he has a similar offence on his record.
Thread starter
#37
There's provision in the IIHF rule book to give either a 5 + Game or Match Penalty for slashing when an injury occurs. Intent to injure/force of "slash" should be taken into account when deciding which of these should apply. That was not a slash with an intent to injure, no way. He may have got hit at an unlucky angle (modern gloves appear to have shrunk as well so I question whether they give as much protection as other equipment), or was just plain unlucky full stop to get injured but we see slashing incidents on sticks/gloves multiple times every game without penalty or injury, quite often far worse looking incidents than this. So he got injured, give a 5 + Game, even a Match penalty if you really feel the need (which I absolutely do not) but where the hell did the extra game come from? Utterly ridiculous. You cannot base the severity of a suspension on whether an injury occurred and the severity of that injury. It's unworkable. How many times do we see sometimes serious injuries from the most innocuous of incidents? That applies for all sports too. I've seen plenty of Instances in football where an injury occurs and the injured players gets replaced and is out for some time, while the offending player just gets a yellow card and isn't sent off or suspended. Then you see incidents where the offending player gets a red and is suspended usually when there Is obvious intent to injure/serious foul play. I see Hotham's slash in the first of those two scenarios, certainly not the latter. That's just the nature of sport. DOPS needs serious attention. This whole review request process is farcical and is being used more for tactical purposes by teams now. That provision for a team to request a review has to be stopped next season. Go with the referee on the night and employ an independent panel (including an ex player or two) to oversee all games and decide on incidents surrounding player safety - review requests absolutely should not be down to the clubs, who I'm afraid are now abusing this system to their own ends.
Im struggling to agree that this incident merited a 2 game ban. The only reason a ban of any kind was given was due to the injury. It sets yet another dangerous precedent, but in saying that DOPs dont really give a hoot about those anyway!
The way DOPs operates & the decisions given give it no credibility at all. Its done behind closed doors, nobody has any idea who is consulted or what experience they have & until that it resolved DOPs will carry no credibility.
I would have prefered that the EIHL sort out better training for the refs & a clear structure for situations like this that rather than goal line technology.
The way DOPs operates & the decisions given give it no credibility at all. Its done behind closed doors, nobody has any idea who is consulted or what experience they have & until that it resolved DOPs will carry no credibility.
I would have prefered that the EIHL sort out better training for the refs & a clear structure for situations like this that rather than goal line technology.