The Bison bans from Saturday - reviewed
- Thread starter puck
- Start date
Here's the link to the Bison press release - http://www.bstokebison.co.uk/news.php?y ... 5&option=n
Interestingly both players got 2 games for a sucker punch. (Shanker got the extra two for thoring his kit on the ice)
Can we therfore assume that Voth's 'sucker-punch will be reduced to 2 games following the review of disciplinary proceedure??
Interestingly both players got 2 games for a sucker punch. (Shanker got the extra two for thoring his kit on the ice)
Can we therfore assume that Voth's 'sucker-punch will be reduced to 2 games following the review of disciplinary proceedure??
Both should only have been 2 minute penalties for 'Roughing'.
If you want consistency, where is the ban for Towe deliberately slashing Patrick?
EVERY punch thrown will now have to have a minimum 2 match ban.
The only one I would have thought deserves a ban is Cornish for the incident in Sunday's match, but he seems to have got away with it.
Absolutly crazy! :x
If you want consistency, where is the ban for Towe deliberately slashing Patrick?
EVERY punch thrown will now have to have a minimum 2 match ban.
The only one I would have thought deserves a ban is Cornish for the incident in Sunday's match, but he seems to have got away with it.
Absolutly crazy! :x
I'm conflicted to be honest. We have had the league screw over one of our players. Now we see other teams getting the same treatment. Part of me thinks well the other teams should be penalised to the same extent, but where is it going to end. Are we going to end up with every team (other than Sheffield of course who are whiter than white and never put a dirty hit in) down X number of players? We are only what 3 weeks into the season and we have Hull, Cardiff and Giants down one player, Basingstoke down 2 possibly another, and Vipers possibly down two too. Mostly for playing the game they were hired to play. I haven't seen the Hull or Giants incident so can't comment, but Voth and the Basingstoke 2 didn't deserve game even. Lets hope they get the review out of the way and cut some bans down in size and we can get back to enjoying hockey and not worrying that every check or hit might leave us short benched.
The Elite league definition of a 'sucker punch' as per the Brad Voth incident, is a punch where the player knows what's coming and can see, but doesn't necessarily want to fight.
Not so long ago it used to be called an 'instigator' and got you 2 mins, not 6 matches!
In my book a sucker punch is a strike to the rear of a player, who both cannot see, and has no reason to expect being hit from behind - i don't think any of these incidents qualify. If Prpich wound Shanker up to the point Brad hit him, then Prpich wouldn't have been suprsied one bit. A game misconduct for a cheap shot would be in order, but a ban?!?
Not so long ago it used to be called an 'instigator' and got you 2 mins, not 6 matches!
In my book a sucker punch is a strike to the rear of a player, who both cannot see, and has no reason to expect being hit from behind - i don't think any of these incidents qualify. If Prpich wound Shanker up to the point Brad hit him, then Prpich wouldn't have been suprsied one bit. A game misconduct for a cheap shot would be in order, but a ban?!?
that still doesnt make any sense. In all three cases there were 'phantom' sucker punches that never really existed. yet voth gets 6 games and the basingstoke players get 3 games? it just doesnt work out. Even if you say after the review it'll go down to 3 that still makes no difference because the review hasnt taken place yet. So there is zero consistency. to be honist i thought there would be more fans kicking up a fuss about this :? .
Because of these incidents i think its clear that the league have been backed into a corner.
I would guess that the league have now had to decide what the result of the review is going to be, before even having it! - the bans handed out this week are using the new tariff formula that will be agreed upon at the disciplinary review - at that time Voth's ban will be reduced to keep in-line with these new tariffs to probably 6 games (or 3 for the "sucker punch" <cough>.)
The other option for the league would have been to issue a load more draconian over the top bans this week (and consequently take the backlash), and then halve everything when the review is carried out!
I would guess that the league have now had to decide what the result of the review is going to be, before even having it! - the bans handed out this week are using the new tariff formula that will be agreed upon at the disciplinary review - at that time Voth's ban will be reduced to keep in-line with these new tariffs to probably 6 games (or 3 for the "sucker punch" <cough>.)
The other option for the league would have been to issue a load more draconian over the top bans this week (and consequently take the backlash), and then halve everything when the review is carried out!
And now mike we open a fresh set of worms.Club A has either a multi camera set up, or a very professional cameraman who dont miss a thing, and a incident happens, the tape is reviewed and the incident is there action is then taken against that player.
Club B doesnt have these fascilities, and a poor cameraman, the same offence happens but is not caught on camera, the tape again is reviewed but the incident isnt there, what now.
So is this a level playing field, i think not, we all know some clubs can afford things others cannot, and thats life, but if the league want fair justice for all, then they either insist a central camera is installed above the ice, covering all the playing area, and paying for it themselves, or insist the club installs it at tyhere cost. What you guys think, is the fairest way around this obvious problem.
Club B doesnt have these fascilities, and a poor cameraman, the same offence happens but is not caught on camera, the tape again is reviewed but the incident isnt there, what now.
So is this a level playing field, i think not, we all know some clubs can afford things others cannot, and thats life, but if the league want fair justice for all, then they either insist a central camera is installed above the ice, covering all the playing area, and paying for it themselves, or insist the club installs it at tyhere cost. What you guys think, is the fairest way around this obvious problem.
hehehe Sorry I couldn't resist these are sucker punches. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTM8ocJJkY4 Johnston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnKxV9ilsqo Domi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz9RE9RGrVY Bertuzzi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNX_grHq2Iw Purinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGY1-HQQNNE Neikar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnKxV9ilsqo Domi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz9RE9RGrVY Bertuzzi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNX_grHq2Iw Purinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGY1-HQQNNE Neikar