Based on the rules recently posted on Twitter had Coventry asked for a review or the Referee highlighted it in his Match Report then I can't see how Bordy wouldn't have got 6 Games! It was nowhere near as bad as Cowick's but it falls into the same category... I can see why Braehead fans may be slightly peeved but until the EIHL change things so that incidents involving officials are automatically reviewed then things like this will happen.
Todd explained Hick's report did not include further action required against Bordy - and further verbal comment to him stating he didn't think Bordy's interaction with the lino warranted a penalty at the time hence no review. We can debate whether Hicks was right or wrong but he's the referee at the time and the guy with years of experience applying his professional subjective view on the incident.
I think people need to state what their gripe is with the whole process so that we can fully understand what it is they're moaning about.
Is it the perceived lack of visibility around the process? If so, then they haven't come across the statements and comments already in the public domain on how it works. It is pretty straight forward and would possibly clear up the arguments from fans about what is and isn't reviewed and therefore remove the perceived injustices when fans compare different altercations in different games and complain about the resultant punishment or no punishment is announced. Look at the process people.
Where I think there is room for debate is the punishment assessed to players when they've been found guilty. So for example should a tariff of a 2 game suspension be enough on Rutherford's hit to an opponents head. Many if not most would probably say there needs to be a longer ban so that all players will realise the severity of deliberately targeting a player's head. But the rules state that a plea of no intent is not a defence and therefore if the length of ban imposed on Rutherford is 6 games, the same would apply to Venus if you believed his was not intentional but rather reckless. Would everyone agree with that length of ban? Indeed, my opinion of Fitzgerald's hit on Bowns was intentional and so for me the ban would be 6 games there. However many people don't believe that was intentional (mostly Steelers fans) as he 'couldn't avoid Bowns' (disregard the blatant late movement into Bowns' head) and so that would be 'accidental' not deserving of a 6 game ban.
We now get into the area of changing the rule and splitting out intentional against accidental; but to do this would mean introducing another layer of subjectiveness i.e. those reviewing the incident would have to decide whether the player meant to do it - the fans would then be in uproar again as I'm sure we would all have our own subjective views on the incident.
All this is a minefield - and as Todd mentioned in his interview the league doesn't have the funds to cover a host of professional ex-players and referees to sit in week after week on studying all the plays in a game to determine whether foul play according to their interpretation of the rules of the game took place.
Simon Kirkham and the EIHL board I believe review the calls and assessed duration of punishments at the end of the season. Hence why adjustments are probably made for the following season which ironically then leads fans to moan when trying to compare length of bans from previous years.
For me, I think the process has to be a simple one so all teams can follow it (including Fife) - and the one we currently have is simple
There has to be consistency on what is automatically reviewed and we also have that in place. Teams are able to ask for other incidents to be reviewed either not seen by the officials on the night or maybe in their view at the time did not warrant a call. They have to pay if not upheld but there's nothing wrong with that.
Simon Kirkham has stated his vision of wanting all the EIHL officials to be at the same standard and reviews their performance on a regular basis. Is it perfect? No, nothing will ever be perfect. But at least they're trying and the intention is there. Interesting point here, apparently the IIHF hold our officials in high regard. Do they still get things wrong, of course they do. We all do. (For me a deliberate swing to the head with a stick whether you connect or not should be given a lengthy ban - but then we start debating what's deliberate lol. Also, a deliberate hit to the head when a player is vulnerable should have a lengthy ban - anyone agree with my subjective view that Fitzgerald's hit was one? No? Lol)
My belief is that what we have in place now is far better than what we had 2 or 3 years ago. Can it be improved? Yes. Almost everything can be improved. But it can also be made far worse so we need to be careful in what we perceive would be better when in practice it may be far worse.
On a lighter note, anyone agree with me when they study the Cowick incident that Darnell 'leant' a little in towards Cowick as he skated towards him? Or am I seeing things lol
Finally, I like what Todd said about player's reactions on the ice and their accountability. Stuff happens, players get angry, but they are still responsible for their actions and reactions to situations. Reacting badly to a ref is dumb guys. the ref 99.99% of the time will not change his mind so shouting abuse in his face is dumb. Feel aggrieved yes, get your Captain or Associate Captains to question why, but don't take it into your own hands. And as for Haddad [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Apologies for the length of the post
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
