Sky Hockey Program

[Wannabe2]

Confused as to why the terrible incident between Stewart Keefe and Smith wasnt shown, it just went straight to Kentons slash and then the fracas that followed. The whole of the incident was caught on camera perfectly, so did the league think it too horrific to show, and also no mention or pictures about the Faulkner incident. I have watched it and it was truelly a disgrace, was it omitted because it was Belfast, or as i say because it was a shameful act. Whats your views.

 

[Diafol]

Maybe because when the programme was being recorded, the league were still looking at the incidents and the suspension hadn't been handed out ?

I would imagine it was filmed earlier this week as Dave Simms has been in Latvia with GB ?

It probably won't get mentioned next week either mind...

 

[jester]

How about the show was recorded before the league made a judgement, Ergo they couldn't show it.

 

[Martynwo]

I would think that as Belfast are appealing then the league may want to keep it inder wraps until the hearing..I mean, come on, do we think it would have been shown and then the top judge (fat boy simms) decide for the league what the outcome is

 

[Diafol]

Isn't that what normally happens ?

 

[Earnie]

I have noticed in the past that SKY avoids airing controversial items. It will probably get a mention next week but I do not expect any footage. Could be wrong.

 

[claretgiant]

Confused as to why the terrible incident between Stewart Keefe and Smith wasnt shown, it just went straight to Kentons slash and then the fracas that followed. The whole of the incident was caught on camera perfectly, so did the league think it too horrific to show, and also no mention or pictures about the Faulkner incident. I have watched it and it was truelly a disgrace, was it omitted because it was Belfast, or as i say because it was a shameful act. Whats your views.

WD WD WD

....like has been said, im sure it wasnt shown fully because at the time of filming it was still under review by the league.

I watched the Devils video of the events, dont see much arguement as regards the check to the head, made to look far worse with Keefe's challenge ( and im not trying to condone anything)
the second clip involving Faulkner is more difficult to catch in all honesty, but it seems the league were able to make their decision, therefore so be it.
But once more Wannabe you love to get carried away with comments like :- so did the league think it too horrific to show, and I have watched it and it was truelly a disgrace, was it omitted because it was Belfast, or as i say because it was a shameful act.
Comments like these dont help anything. Stewart has been banned, OK and the Giants will appeal against the decision, but so would any other team (like Devils did with Birbraer). As for these incidents being "horrific" is a bit strong to say the least. I know views on these incidents will differ between Devils/Giants fans, but the neutral fans view may help too.

 

[Wannabe2]

My view pal, like yours, don't like it, don't read it.

 

[Martynwo]

Honest question claretgiant, do you think Belfast should appeal?
Base it on the fact of the decision, extra 3 games because of the 2 incidents, not on the fact that DC wants him back earlier.

 

[claretgiant]

My view pal, like yours, don't like it, don't read it.

woohoo, you got something right, when i see a topic with your name on it i wont read it :lol:

 

[claretgiant]

Honest question claretgiant, do you think Belfast should appeal?
Base it on the fact of the decision, extra 3 games because of the 2 incidents, not on the fact that DC wants him back earlier.

as i said previously, 3 for check to head, yes.
3 for kneeing of very little/clear video evidence dubious, but taking into account Faulkner's injury, reluctantly yes
the 3 extra games, appeal definately

 

[Martynwo]

Why would you appeal against the extra 3 games, they were implemented for the 2 incidents in the game. If you successfully win that appeal then it makes a mockery of having that particular rule.
Quoted from the Elite web site
"With there being two serious match penalties during the game, Stewart has had an extra three matches added by the disciplinary committee to make a total of nine matches. The extra three matches can be appealed against.
Head of discipline, Simon Kirkham, said: "These two incidents in the game were worthy of match penalties and, after a review by the committee, we have decided to impose the minimum tariff for each incident.
"As both incidents are nasty and happen in the same game, we have decided to add an extra three matches to make a total of nine."

Cannot understand why the Giants would appeal, probably because they can, but I would think that they would gain a bit more credibility if they took the punnishment and got on with it.

I'm surprised that DC and or Keefe didn't get punnished for the foul language that DC had to appologise for.

Best to accept and move on...we are having to do such

 

[claretgiant]

Why would you appeal against the extra 3 games, they were implemented for the 2 incidents in the game. If you successfully win that appeal then it makes a mockery of having that particular rule.
Quoted from the Elite web site
"With there being two serious match penalties during the game, Stewart has had an extra three matches added by the disciplinary committee to make a total of nine matches. The extra three matches can be appealed against.
Head of discipline, Simon Kirkham, said: "These two incidents in the game were worthy of match penalties and, after a review by the committee, we have decided to impose the minimum tariff for each incident.
"As both incidents are nasty and happen in the same game, we have decided to add an extra three matches to make a total of nine."

Cannot understand why the Giants would appeal, probably because they can, but I would think that they would gain a bit more credibility if they took the punnishment and got on with it.

I'm surprised that DC and or Keefe didn't get punnished for the foul language that DC had to appologise for.

Best to accept and move on...we are having to do such

ALL teams would appeal against the extra 3. The league says the games are appealable, so thats what the Giants should and will do. We aren't in this for the credability, it a competition to win.
As for Falkners injury its unfortunate, and a great pity for Cardiff.
We will move on regardless, but to expect us not to try get the ban reduced is just not on, we are playing short as it is, common sense really.

 

[Nott Simpson]

The appeal could be deemed frivolous and increased from 9 games especially as more information is now known on the extent of Faulkner injuries.

 

[Martynwo]

Why would you appeal against the extra 3 games, they were implemented for the 2 incidents in the game. If you successfully win that appeal then it makes a mockery of having that particular rule.
Quoted from the Elite web site
"With there being two serious match penalties during the game, Stewart has had an extra three matches added by the disciplinary committee to make a total of nine matches. The extra three matches can be appealed against.
Head of discipline, Simon Kirkham, said: "These two incidents in the game were worthy of match penalties and, after a review by the committee, we have decided to impose the minimum tariff for each incident.
"As both incidents are nasty and happen in the same game, we have decided to add an extra three matches to make a total of nine."

Cannot understand why the Giants would appeal, probably because they can, but I would think that they would gain a bit more credibility if they took the punnishment and got on with it.

I'm surprised that DC and or Keefe didn't get punnished for the foul language that DC had to appologise for.

Best to accept and move on...we are having to do such

ALL teams would appeal against the extra 3. The league says the games are appealable, so thats what the Giants should and will do. We aren't in this for the credability, it a competition to win.
As for Falkners injury its unfortunate, and a great pity for Cardiff.
We will move on regardless, but to expect us not to try get the ban reduced is just not on, we are playing short as it is, common sense really.

quite ironic words in your reply, "playing short", we are playimg with 5D and 7F tonight due to injuries and GB and "common sense", something that the giants lack as well as class, take the punnishment and move on.
Classles players and coach.... apart from Taffy

 

[DevilDom]

The appeal could be deemed frivolous and increased from 9 games especially as more information is now known on the extent of Faulkner injuries.

This I would really like to happen but can't see it. It would go some way to restoring my faith in the sport in this country if it did.

 

[DevilsPete]

Confused as to why the terrible incident between Stewart Keefe and Smith wasnt shown, it just went straight to Kentons slash and then the fracas that followed. The whole of the incident was caught on camera perfectly, so did the league think it too horrific to show, and also no mention or pictures about the Faulkner incident. I have watched it and it was truelly a disgrace, was it omitted because it was Belfast, or as i say because it was a shameful act. Whats your views.

Do you even think before you post on here, the giants forum or thehockeyforum?

 

[claretgiant]

Why would you appeal against the extra 3 games, they were implemented for the 2 incidents in the game. If you successfully win that appeal then it makes a mockery of having that particular rule.
Quoted from the Elite web site
"With there being two serious match penalties during the game, Stewart has had an extra three matches added by the disciplinary committee to make a total of nine matches. The extra three matches can be appealed against.
Head of discipline, Simon Kirkham, said: "These two incidents in the game were worthy of match penalties and, after a review by the committee, we have decided to impose the minimum tariff for each incident.
"As both incidents are nasty and happen in the same game, we have decided to add an extra three matches to make a total of nine."

Cannot understand why the Giants would appeal, probably because they can, but I would think that they would gain a bit more credibility if they took the punnishment and got on with it.

I'm surprised that DC and or Keefe didn't get punnished for the foul language that DC had to appologise for.

Best to accept and move on...we are having to do such

ALL teams would appeal against the extra 3. The league says the games are appealable, so thats what the Giants should and will do. We aren't in this for the credability, it a competition to win.
As for Falkners injury its unfortunate, and a great pity for Cardiff.
We will move on regardless, but to expect us not to try get the ban reduced is just not on, we are playing short as it is, common sense really.

quite ironic words in your reply, "playing short", we are playimg with 5D and 7F tonight due to injuries and GB and "common sense", something that the giants lack as well as class, take the punnishment and move on.
Classles players and coach.... apart from Taffy

dont all teams have to agree to play games?
plenty didnt play or re-arranged games due to GB qualifying in Japan
so who's fault is it? one thing is for certain it isnt anything to do with the Giants.
Stewart will have to serve at least 6 game(cannot be appealled against) if the Giants appeal against the other 3 and they are overturned we will have taken the punishment, if it fails he serves the other 3, again punishment served.
and another thing this "Classless" view plenty have is getting a little old.
has this come about because they want to appeal against a ban?
im sure the Devils have never or never would appeal against any ban eh? :shock:

 

[claretgiant]

Confused as to why the terrible incident between Stewart Keefe and Smith wasnt shown, it just went straight to Kentons slash and then the fracas that followed. The whole of the incident was caught on camera perfectly, so did the league think it too horrific to show, and also no mention or pictures about the Faulkner incident. I have watched it and it was truelly a disgrace, was it omitted because it was Belfast, or as i say because it was a shameful act. Whats your views.

Do you even think before you post on here, the giants forum or thehockeyforum?

+1 :RAWK

 

[Earnie]

Is it not true that if you make an appeal and loose then the penalty could be increased?