It seems that Sheffield have actually be reprimanded for some of their rabble http://www.eliteleague.co.uk/social-media-fine--p199943
Devils @ Giants - Double Header - 16th & 17th Oct - Chat
- Thread starter Skippy
- Start date
Peacocks is a ban although don't actually agree principle point of contact was head he boarded him with CJ head being driven into the glass so it's still a check to the head major.
Lloyd and I feel dirty for even saying it I don't actually think is a good call. He got his hip behind Hothams and pushed him back in the hit flipping him but I'm not actually convinced he took Hothams skates which really is the trademark of a slew foot. Think DOPS a little harsh. Now I must go and shower myself
WD
Lloyd and I feel dirty for even saying it I don't actually think is a good call. He got his hip behind Hothams and pushed him back in the hit flipping him but I'm not actually convinced he took Hothams skates which really is the trademark of a slew foot. Think DOPS a little harsh. Now I must go and shower myself
WD
I don’t think the hit on Jones is a penalty at all if I’m honest. First point of contact looks to be shoulder to me. Jones wasn’t prepared for the hit and consequently got melted.
I didn’t notice the slew foot by Lloyd when watching the hit in real time. Slew footing is one of the cheapest plays in hockey. It could be argued he should have had more.
I didn’t notice the slew foot by Lloyd when watching the hit in real time. Slew footing is one of the cheapest plays in hockey. It could be argued he should have had more.
Re: Devils @ Giants - Double Header - 16th & 17th Oct - Chat
It's amazing how we all see things differently
The contact as I see it is Peacock's elbow to the side of Jones' head
The slew foot by Lloyd on Hotham can easily be missed as it isn't obvious at first but then a player wouldn't want it to be blatant unless of course it is unintentional. I did wonder at the time why Hotham was chasing Dean Smith around chatting to him - guess it's clear now
The tweet by Belfast of a different angle is also puzzling as they don't make it clear whether they're agreeing with the call or not. If not then I'm not sure whether they can issue an appeal as surely that's what they would have done rather than post the video.
Also, as I understand it, one a club pays for a review and it's upheld they receive the money back? So cost to Devils is nil other than Steelers having an easier game on Saturday
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's amazing how we all see things differently
The contact as I see it is Peacock's elbow to the side of Jones' head
The slew foot by Lloyd on Hotham can easily be missed as it isn't obvious at first but then a player wouldn't want it to be blatant unless of course it is unintentional. I did wonder at the time why Hotham was chasing Dean Smith around chatting to him - guess it's clear now
The tweet by Belfast of a different angle is also puzzling as they don't make it clear whether they're agreeing with the call or not. If not then I'm not sure whether they can issue an appeal as surely that's what they would have done rather than post the video.
Also, as I understand it, one a club pays for a review and it's upheld they receive the money back? So cost to Devils is nil other than Steelers having an easier game on Saturday
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a giants fan I think the Lloyd penalty was shocking, it was a good hit.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
The thing is a slew foot is so bad because you kick a guys skates from under him and it's impossible to defend yourself from. However if you can get your hip and centre of gravity below the other guys and lift him of his blades that is a fair hit. If you push his upper body back in the hit yes they will flip but it's still clean.
I dislike Lloyd as much as the next person but he didn't kick or interfere with Hothams skates he just managed to drive his hip in.
The problem I have is Devils got absolutely rag dolled by the EIHL disciplinary process in the past and we all cried foul when there were some shocking calls but the point is to make the system fair for all. For me Lloyd didn't slew foot. He shouldn't sit a ban. That's just common sense and justice. Belfast should be hammered with a ban for breaking protocol but if a Devils player was on the end of this call I would be tamping.
I dislike Lloyd as much as the next person but he didn't kick or interfere with Hothams skates he just managed to drive his hip in.
The problem I have is Devils got absolutely rag dolled by the EIHL disciplinary process in the past and we all cried foul when there were some shocking calls but the point is to make the system fair for all. For me Lloyd didn't slew foot. He shouldn't sit a ban. That's just common sense and justice. Belfast should be hammered with a ban for breaking protocol but if a Devils player was on the end of this call I would be tamping.
chris592 said:
As a giants fan I think the Lloyd penalty was shocking, it was a good hit.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
Re: Devils @ Giants - Double Header - 16th & 17th Oct - Chat
@munstermickey posted a still pick from this new angle on Twitter which in my opinion makes the case for a slew foot
People are assuming from the DOPS update that they would not have come to the same conclusion of the new video evidence would have been submitted - they don't say that in the release
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chris592 said:
As a giants fan I think the Lloyd penalty was shocking, it was a good hit.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
People are assuming from the DOPS update that they would not have come to the same conclusion of the new video evidence would have been submitted - they don't say that in the release
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree. I think the one match ban would still have stood. I wonder how quick Belfast would have found the extra footage if it would have been a Cardiff player offending on one of their players. That must be a flaw in the system, teams could send the bare minimum of footage if it's one of their own, but a whole lot of different angles to catch an opposing player. An advantage of playing at home I guess.
chris592 said:
As a giants fan I think the Lloyd penalty was shocking, it was a good hit.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
No penalty on the call, no evidence in the submitted video to show anything other than a good hit. DOPs review and pretty much just assumed without any clear evidence that it was a slew foot. How can they give a ban based on no evidence.
Now the Giants release a different angle, which clearly shows a good clean hit and no slew foot. DOPs clearly got it wrong. Its a pity for whatever reason we didn't submit this evidence sooner.
Is hockey now a non contact sport? how can DOPs ban someone with no evidence of showing what he was supposed to have done? shocking. I bet if it was Sheffield it would be a different outcome
As for the Peacock one I dont have a problem with a 1 game ban. I dont think it was too the head, but I think it was late and a 1 game ban is fair.
no where do DOPS say the other angle would have changed decision simply that it was submitted too late ........and likely said because Giants elected to release it and stir things up again
And fans using the "we were busy dealing with the One Direction concert" card to justify the tardiness of the submission is frankly laughable .....the we are a professional outfit refrain is trotted out at every opportunity if you are and you have players facing bans you make sure you do your homework !!
Re: Devils @ Giants - Double Header - 16th & 17th Oct - Chat
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... hMUwj7ZKVM
Block 15, Row B, Seat 21
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... hMUwj7ZKVM
Block 15, Row B, Seat 21
As an ardent Devils fan I find both Dops decisions against Belfast a bit harsh. The slew foot was inconclusive from what I have seen and the check against CJ looked a good hard hit. the contact seemed to be with the shoulder. It might have been a fraction late so for that a 2 minute minor was sufficient
I'm saying this because if these calls were against Devils players I think we'd all be slightly miffed to say the least.
Ultimately we are all looking for consistency with Dops, so long as we get that there shouldnt be any surprises.....hmmmmm??
I'm saying this because if these calls were against Devils players I think we'd all be slightly miffed to say the least.
Ultimately we are all looking for consistency with Dops, so long as we get that there shouldnt be any surprises.....hmmmmm??
I'm not sure if it was a slew foot or not from Lloyd but I'm glad it's been called. The guy has had form for doing it before and got of scott free. At least now it's on record so if he tries it again he'll be a repeat offender. If it makes him think twice before making another dangerous play I'm all for it.
Devils @ Giants - Double Header - 16th & 17th Oct - Chat
I actually think this is more conclusive than the other footage. Though Hotham already has one skate off the ice Lloyd lifts his right foot upwards so that his knee is behind Hotham whilst also pushing Hotham's upper torso from the front with his arms which leads to Hotham having both feet off the ice and therefore he isn't able to stop the backward motion caused by Lloyd's action.
Whether intentional or not it does look like a slew footing penalty is the correct call
That's only my opinion though
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I actually think this is more conclusive than the other footage. Though Hotham already has one skate off the ice Lloyd lifts his right foot upwards so that his knee is behind Hotham whilst also pushing Hotham's upper torso from the front with his arms which leads to Hotham having both feet off the ice and therefore he isn't able to stop the backward motion caused by Lloyd's action.
Whether intentional or not it does look like a slew footing penalty is the correct call
That's only my opinion though
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Devils @ Giants - Double Header - 16th & 17th Oct - Chat
Fully understand your point.
Agree that if one's opinion on the penalties is that they are incorrect then as Devils fans (or any other fan) you would also feel aggrieved by the decision taken by DOPS
On the other hand you could be a Devil's fan that agrees with the calls (I do) and therefore would have to accept the decisions from (DOPS)
Hence DOPS is always going to be vilified and applauded on almost all their calls regardless of which fan base they affect
Part of the debate
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully understand your point.
Agree that if one's opinion on the penalties is that they are incorrect then as Devils fans (or any other fan) you would also feel aggrieved by the decision taken by DOPS
On the other hand you could be a Devil's fan that agrees with the calls (I do) and therefore would have to accept the decisions from (DOPS)
Hence DOPS is always going to be vilified and applauded on almost all their calls regardless of which fan base they affect
Part of the debate
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk