Devils Vs Giants - League - 8th Oct 23 - 18:00 FO

[kettdevil1]

Happy to hear that news about Chad. Now waiting for some news from DOPS ?

It needs to be before Belfast next game and I am trying to think back, aren't they normally announced Wednesday?

 

[moggy#9]

More copy and pasting of the inferno on twitter I see. As finny said on there, why not come on here and debate the topic? Probably because that wouldn't satisfy their ego amongst their own fan base.

 

[kingmo19.1]

……. And still no Lloyd_Jeff to point us all in the right direction ?????

 

[BostonBart22]

It needs to be before Belfast next game and I am trying to think back, aren't they normally announced Wednesday?

Yes was always Wednesdays, but with such a blatant attempt to injure was shocked not announced ban day after sundays game.

 

[moggy#9]

Yes was always Wednesdays, but with such a blatant attempt to injure was shocked not announced ban day after sundays game.

Did he play in their CHL game?

 

[kettdevil1]

Did he play in their CHL game?

I presume so (although didn't actually watch) - I can't think of why he wouldn't unless I am missing something.

My guess is he will sit 2-3 out once DOPs get round to publishing their decision. Having said that the process at the start of the season is always a bit random so who knows?

 

[Wannabe2]

He certainly did play in their CHL game.

 

[BostonBart22]

Suspended only 1 game . Eihl website.

 

[BostonBart22]

Suspended only 1 game . Eihl website.

Only misses a challenge cup game v fife

 

[Mooney#16]

If you look at what they also gave to the Dundee player then there is consistency. As long as the tariffs stay similar throughout the year then not much to grumble about really.

 

[moggy#9]

If you look at what they also gave to the Dundee player then there is consistency. As long as the tariffs stay similar throughout the year then not much to grumble about really.

To be honest I think that the real issue here is there number of similar incidents we've seen already this season. Any one of those incidents could easily have resulted in something more severe.

There's obviously a balance to be stuck between education and punishment, but pros really should know better.

 

[Finny]

I think it is a sign of how fortunate the Giants have been with recent decisions from DOPS and the EIHL in general that so many of their fans are absolutely outraged with one of their players getting a one match ban. Not all of them I must stress, but a sizeable and very vocal number.
And it's not just the self-entitlement from them but the lack of basic knowledge. I lost count of how many of their 'expert fans' over the past couple of days were trying to justify the hit as clean without understanding the rules. And it would help if they knew the difference between Boarding (which was the call) and Checking From Behind (which it wasn't).

It was a bad hit. it was clear from the very first replay it was a bad hit. Chad was never in a hittable position and the fact he was constantly changing his position to try to control the puck doesn't change that. The responsibility lies with the hitter.

Personally, I think the one game ban is slightly lenient but consistent with what has happened so far this season. Pretty sure if this had happened a season or two ago it would have been 3 minimum.

 

[moggy#9]

I think it is a sign of how fortunate the Giants have been with recent decisions from DOPS and the EIHL in general that so many of their fans are absolutely outraged with one of their players getting a one match ban. Not all of them I must stress, but a sizeable and very vocal number.
And it's not just the self-entitlement from them but the lack of basic knowledge. I lost count of how many of their 'expert fans' over the past couple of days were trying to justify the hit as clean without understanding the rules. And it would help if they knew the difference between Boarding (which was the call) and Checking From Behind (which it wasn't).

It was a bad hit. it was clear from the very first replay it was a bad hit. Chad was never in a hittable position and the fact he was constantly changing his position to try to control the puck doesn't change that. The responsibility lies with the hitter.

Personally, I think the one game ban is slightly lenient but consistent with what has happened so far this season. Pretty sure if this had happened a season or two ago it would have been 3 minimum.

I absolutely agree with every word of that.

 

[E.D.S.]

I think it is a sign of how fortunate the Giants have been with recent decisions from DOPS and the EIHL in general that so many of their fans are absolutely outraged with one of their players getting a one match ban. Not all of them I must stress, but a sizeable and very vocal number.
And it's not just the self-entitlement from them but the lack of basic knowledge. I lost count of how many of their 'expert fans' over the past couple of days were trying to justify the hit as clean without understanding the rules. And it would help if they knew the difference between Boarding (which was the call) and Checking From Behind (which it wasn't).

It was a bad hit. it was clear from the very first replay it was a bad hit. Chad was never in a hittable position and the fact he was constantly changing his position to try to control the puck doesn't change that. The responsibility lies with the hitter.

Personally, I think the one game ban is slightly lenient but consistent with what has happened so far this season. Pretty sure if this had happened a season or two ago it would have been 3 minimum.

I love the DOPs wording about Chad "he could have done a better job of defending himself against an oncoming attacker"...WTaF??? He sold Printz down the river. Printz thought he was going in the same direction only for Chad to slam on the breaks and send him the wrong way. Printz hit's through the numbers as a result. WTaF was Chad supposed to do a better job of? A better job of being taller? Slower? Should he have allowed Printz to make a shoulder to shoulder hit and risk turning over the puck?

Absolutely clueless.