Hotham banned for 2 games

[pjj365]

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.

And 4 officials would help

 

[KaneDevils]

And that's not even to mention a player getting 2 games for punching a spectator

This really puts it into perspective and makes the whole governing body look like one big joke.

 

[Devil_Abroad]

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.

The thing is a player is responsible for his use of the stick. Hotham probably wasn't trying to injure the player but by making contact like he did he could have done so; on this occasion he did. The rule he broke is pretty clear (it also states that contact to the opponent is not necessary for the penalty to be assessed);

The only time it isn't a penalty is if it is limited to hitting the stick of the puck carrier for the sole purpose of trying to make the opponent lose possession of the puck. I think this is what Hotham was trying to do. However, 'a player who injures or recklessly endangers an opponent by slashing will be assessed a major penalty and game-misconduct or a match penalty.

I was hoping for Game but they gave a Match. So that can't be argued against. It's a shame they did not explain the reason for the extra game given on top of the match as this is the grey area here.

I do think they also need to be more transparent on the tariffs handed out according to the severity of the offences assessed. I do think checking to the head is dangerous and the suspensions handed out this year are minimal. Also, how on earth a player that confronts a member of the public and allegedly makes contact with them is only assessed a 3 game suspension, with 6 games suspended depending on future conduct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Devil_Abroad]

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

I'm assuming DOPS put weight on injury to a player due to the offence. I think that's wrong. Intent is difficult to prove most of the time as in Hotham's incident, but Peacock only had one intention swinging the stick like that. Of course it probably isn't the kind of thing he would want to do but he lost control for a moment and so the intent was clear for that moment in time. So Peacock should have received a lengthy ban in my view.

We need transparency from DOPS on the tariffs for the various penalties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Russky]

So Hotham gets a ban from the DOPES, sorry DOPS or as it should be called: COATs Consortium Of Arena Teams ie Nottingham Belfast and Sheffield

 

[E.D.S.]

Just trying to make sense of this in my head..... Hotham slashes panthers and he gets hurt. Was it a malicious slash designed to injure (no?) and something that's part of the game, in every shift. That got a two game ban.
Someone can decide to start a fight, whether opponent is willing or other wise, and tries to intentionally hurt him by throwing haymakers at his head and he can get 5 minute penalty and be back out on the ice to play the rest of the game, with the likelihood of no follow up ban.
That's the bit I don't quite get. Am I over simplifying it and comparing apples with oranges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rabbitohs4]

I must say we were defensively amazing last night.. with hotham on the ice we might not have been. glad he was banned lol...

 

[Devil_Abroad]

Just trying to make sense of this in my head..... Hotham slashes panthers and he gets hurt. Was it a malicious slash designed to injure (no?) and something that's part of the game, in every shift. That got a two game ban.
Someone can decide to start a fight, whether opponent is willing or other wise, and tries to intentionally hurt him by throwing haymakers at his head and he can get 5 minute penalty and be back out on the ice to play the rest of the game, with the likelihood of no follow up ban.
That's the bit I don't quite get. Am I over simplifying it and comparing apples with oranges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You put across a good point. However, the referee at the time and DOPS when reviewing that after a fight can make a decision that one of the players did not want to fight; then the other player could be assessed more than a 5 min major. I may be wrong?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[E.D.S.]

You put across a good point. However, the referee at the time and DOPS when reviewing that after a fight can make a decision that one of the players did not want to fight; then the other player could be assessed more than a 5 min major. I may be wrong?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But would that player also be likely to incur a two game ban. I genuinely don't know. I didn't see the intent in Hotham's slash so couldn't comment but the intent in starting a fight is obvious.
It just feels a bit random I guess.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Devil_Abroad]

Neither do I lol I think a good way forward for DOPS would be to publish a guideline document which they use when applying the length of bans?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Finny]

Just trying to make sense of this in my head..... Hotham slashes panthers and he gets hurt. Was it a malicious slash designed to injure (no?) and something that's part of the game, in every shift. That got a two game ban.
Someone can decide to start a fight, whether opponent is willing or other wise, and tries to intentionally hurt him by throwing haymakers at his head and he can get 5 minute penalty and be back out on the ice to play the rest of the game, with the likelihood of no follow up ban.
That's the bit I don't quite get. Am I over simplifying it and comparing apples with oranges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been thinking along the same lines myself.
If injury determines the ban - does that mean we should have cited Janssen last season when he fought Tyson Marsh and the knockout saw him miss most of the rest of the season?

 

[Devil_Abroad]

I've been thinking along the same lines myself.
If injury determines the ban - does that mean we should have cited Janssen last season when he fought Tyson Marsh and the knockout saw him miss most of the rest of the season?

That's a good point


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk