No further action against Talbot or Voth

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chris592

Active Member
#61
#61
Mooney#16 said:
Michel Incident. http://www.u.tv/Sport/Shutout-for-Devils-in-Belfast/ca662cb2-2138-4ed5-bda8-1ab0631ae219
Right then. First Punch is from the front not from behind. I'm afraid at this point Welch knows he's in a fight as no doubt Michel will have told him so, so I'm afraid everything from then on can't be a sucker punch as your in a fight Danny boy just because you want to play on doesn't mean your not going to get one and the fact the punch is from the side is due to Welch turning. Michel hits him with another from the side and one from further to the front and then it is into a two sided fight. Now I'm not defending Michel here. He should have got three for Excessive Roughness. He instigated a fight yes. A punch Welch couldn't see coming. No.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you on this, in fact I think Welch should be banned for not knowing he was in a fight... ;)

In all seriousness though, it was clear that Michel mugged Welch, and he did come at him from behind. Welch is carrying the puck and focusing on playing hockey, he wasn’t to know Michel would mug him, personally I think he deserved a ban
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#62
#62
chris592 said:
Mooney#16 said:
Michel Incident. http://www.u.tv/Sport/Shutout-for-Devils-in-Belfast/ca662cb2-2138-4ed5-bda8-1ab0631ae219
Right then. First Punch is from the front not from behind. I'm afraid at this point Welch knows he's in a fight as no doubt Michel will have told him so, so I'm afraid everything from then on can't be a sucker punch as your in a fight Danny boy just because you want to play on doesn't mean your not going to get one and the fact the punch is from the side is due to Welch turning. Michel hits him with another from the side and one from further to the front and then it is into a two sided fight. Now I'm not defending Michel here. He should have got three for Excessive Roughness. He instigated a fight yes. A punch Welch couldn't see coming. No.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you on this, in fact I think Welch should be banned for not knowing he was in a fight... ;)

In all seriousness though, it was clear that Michel mugged Welch, and he did come at him from behind. Welch is carrying the puck and focusing on playing hockey, he wasn’t to know Michel would mug him, personally I think he deserved a ban
Click to expand...
Mooney does post that Michel should of got 3 for ex roughness !! NOT 5, its excessive and unjust. Full stop. Look at Lepine/Prpich, Talbot/Voth. INCONSISTENCY !
French himself stated, any hit that causes injury will result in a one game ban? (Mark and Sam Smith) Has he backed that statement up with action? No he has not. The league stinks of doggy doings!
 
J

jester

New Member
#63
#63
Mooney#16 said:
Jester I know your a giants fan so therefore the why's and wherefores of Michels ban are of great interest to you but that is a side issue to the one I'm actually trying to discuss namely was Talbot guilty of a sucker punch. I'm only using Michel/Welch as an example just as the disciplinary committee should have. I'm not debating the merits of that incident. It's been and gone.

Jesus mate do me a favour and don't draw a perfectly reasonable thread into another bicker fest as so often happens. If you've an opinion on the actual merits of the claim Talbot should or shouldn't have had a ban then pass them on.
Click to expand...
I didnt bring it up originally was just replying to other posts but NP. I will leave it at that :cool:
 
Mooney#16

Mooney#16

Well-Known Member
#64
#64
Got to say Finny thats a little out of order. I asked Jester to not turn it into a slanging match and and keep to the topic which he managed. Be a hypocrite if didn't ask the same of you.
 
Finny

Finny

Well-Known Member
#65
#65
You're probably right. I just get annoyed at people who act all high and mighty and then when they get proved wrong they go and hide. Too late to edit it now though anyway.
 
Finny

Finny

Well-Known Member
#67
#67
Thank you Skippy.

I assume there is nothing wrong with me asking in a more polite manner whether Jester will agree the video shows the suckerpunch is from the front not the back?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#68
#68
Just out of interest, serious question:

Why does it matter wether or not the punch is from the front or the back. Just because a punch is thrown by a player facing another doesn't mean that the punched player knows it's coming? Hope that makes sense :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#69
#69
Zed said:
Just out of interest, serious question:

Why does it matter wether or not the punch is from the front or the back. Just because a punch is thrown by a player facing another doesn't mean that the punched player knows it's coming? Hope that makes sense :D
Click to expand...
PS: Going back to Sawyers incident against Hull (3-3 CC game) he skated X amount of feet, facing the player the whole time then clobbered him. That was still deemed a "sucker punch"? Either the rules are mud clear or I just don't understand them.
 
Mooney#16

Mooney#16

Well-Known Member
#70
#70
I think its the matter of whether you're throwing a punch a guy can see coming or not. If its from the side or behind its almost definately not going to be seen so a guy can defend himself. From the front atleast he has a fighting chance of seeing it coming. I think Sawyers diluted it a little as its from the front but he's come through a crowd with the punch hence I don't think the guy had a clue it was coming. If the crowd wasn't there he'd have seen it. In both the Talbot and Michel cases there isn't a crowd to factor in.

As an aside having looked and paused the video a few times now when tylor drops his gloves he is actually facing Welch so my call that he knew it was coming seems to me to be justified hence why I'm pained to call his a sucker punch. Again though definately excessive roughness, He gets three free shots on Welch which is out of order. Talbot got five on Voth. Figure that one out.

The problem lies in that where is the difference between instigating i.e. throwing the first punch or sucker punching a guy i.e. hitting him when he doesn't know its coming. If another player says he wants to go and drops his gloves you have to assume he is going to start throwing at you. In which case you haven't been suckered he just instigated. It's down to the player if he wants to fight back. This is where Talbot falls down. I think he just throws a blind side bomb straight into Voths face without warning. Suckered.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#71
#71
Cheers mate.

Well to me Talbot sucker punched Voth, 4 or 5 times in fact. How he hasn't received at least a three game ban mystifies me along with those who think the 2 minute roughing call was correct. But there you have it. Were all entitled to our opinion, well most the time anyway. :lol:
 
C

Clare

New Member
#73
#73
There seems to be a lot of swearing (well, *********) in this thread!

When are the parents picking the toddlers up, does anyone know? I think I've just about had a gutsful now.
 
J

jester

New Member
#74
#74
Finny said:
You're probably right. I just get annoyed at people who act all high and mighty and then when they get proved wrong they go and hide. Too late to edit it now though anyway.
Click to expand...
Not hiding had just finished "work", and no-wherehad you proved me wrong.

In answer to your question first of many punches from behind.

Anways my mums here to pick me up now :mrgreen:
 
jimmy snels

jimmy snels

Well-Known Member
#75
#75
this is the complete lack of consistancy i was expecting, welch got mugged by michel, but it could be worse the devils got mugged by the whole frickin' league!!! AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! :cry:
 
S

samidevils

New Member
#76
#76
In October - "Sawyer is handed an automatic two-match ban for a sucker punch during Cardiff’s match with Hull Stingrays, also on Sunday 3rd October 2010." http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/derek-camp ... on-p154000

Tylor Michel: - "Cardiff Devils forward Tylor Michel has been handed a five-match ban for a sucker punch (excessive roughness) following a supplementary discipline review by the Elite League." http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/ban-for-michel-p169321

Brad Cruikshank: "Coventry Blaze forward Brad Cruikshank will be banned for three matches following an incident in the game against Hull Stingrays on Sunday 13th February 2011.
Cruikshank was handed a match penalty for excessive roughness (sucker punch) in the second period of the encounter at the Skydome. The suspension is mandatory for the offence, as per Elite League rules" http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/ban-for-cruikshank-p169397

On three separate occasions a "sucker punch" has resulted in a different MANDATORY ban been given each time.

Things like this make me angry, MANDATORY is MANDATORY, I can appreciate the incidents being different, and warrant different bans but the mandatory standard should be the same each "sucker punch".......
 
C

Clare

New Member
#80
#80
Haven't your mothers arrived yet?

I'm on the blower now... I know it means they'll have to leave work early to collect you but we just can't be having you all biting chunks of flesh off each other all afternoon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top