DOPS Changes

Imp

Active Member
Thread starter #21
Slow Motion:
Live Action:
Most recent DOPS ruling on a check to the head that I could find:
https://www.eliteleague.co.uk/article/332-anthony-deluca-suspended-for-one-game
Key References:
  • Check to the head
  • Unsuspecting
  • Reckless and endangering
  • Category 1 – Careless
Personally, no idea what the technical differences are or how the lines are drawn. Maybe DOPS figure that contact can’t have been that significant if the plexiglass survived the impact?
 

Earnie

Well-Known Member
#23
Marjamaki hit- as I said before - seen far worse. Dropping the subject would be a good idea? He got his punishment of 5 + game.
 

Kevlar68

Well-Known Member
#26
I do like Masi and if you look at his youtube hits he's done allot worse, a 5 game ban people are talking about is ridiculous
 
#31
3 games was what i thought too. Stupid actions.

The Belfast fans just seem to have lost the plot with anything Devils related recently.
Don't flatter yourselves, its about player safety.....remember that when the was uproar after the Mosey hit? No im not comparing the hits, the fact is BOTH were reckless and dangerous. If DOPs don't hand down 3 to 5 game or even worse nothing at all, it makes a comple mockery of this so called panel that protects PLAYER SAFETY
 

E.D.S.

Well-Known Member
#32
Don't flatter yourselves, its about player safety.....remember that when the was uproar after the Mosey hit? No im not comparing the hits, the fact is BOTH were reckless and dangerous. If DOPs don't hand down 3 to 5 game or even worse nothing at all, it makes a comple mockery of this so called panel that protects PLAYER SAFETY
Agree not a good hit but I'd be keen to see how they view that hit versus Ben O'Connor's intentional cross check in terms of suspension. As said before one was part of the play (albeit, not executed well by Masi) and one was not hockey related at all and done with full intent.

As an aside.... do the Giants have a forum these days? I looked for it the other day and didn't get very far.
Thanks
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#34
Agree not a good hit but I'd be keen to see how they view that hit versus Ben O'Connor's intentional cross check in terms of suspension. As said before one was part of the play (albeit, not executed well by Masi) and one was not hockey related at all and done with full intent.

As an aside.... do the Giants have a forum these days? I looked for it the other day and didn't get very far.
Thanks
Giants don’t have a forum now, and haven’t for a number of years, View from the bridge I think it was called.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#35
Don't flatter yourselves, its about player safety.....remember that when the was uproar after the Mosey hit? No im not comparing the hits, the fact is BOTH were reckless and dangerous. If DOPs don't hand down 3 to 5 game or even worse nothing at all, it makes a comple mockery of this so called panel that protects PLAYER SAFETY
There was no player safety in Belfast when they signed that total crap goon Mc Morrow, a idiot who stayed for 1 season played 48 games, scored 2 goals, and took 310 pms, the master of pulling shirts over players heads, so his opponent couldn’t see to fight back, bloody coward and a total waste of space.
 

drainage

Well-Known Member
#36
Davies' first ban was for throwing a goal peg into the stands.
His second ban was picking up an opposition glove and wiping his blood with it.

He's effectively a repeat offender for being an idiot.
agreed his behaviour is very different to Masi , slew footing then check to head
Don't flatter yourselves, its about player safety.....remember that when the was uproar after the Mosey hit? No im not comparing the hits, the fact is BOTH were reckless and dangerous. If DOPs don't hand down 3 to 5 game or even worse nothing at all, it makes a comple mockery of this so called panel that protects PLAYER SAFETY
world of difference between a poor hit and a hit that demands the 5 plus games that’s been mentioned ! It was a poor hit Giants player was low at boards Masi appears to have hit with upper arm ......a poor hit doesn’t equate to a bad hit
 

august04

Well-Known Member
#37
I’m surprised he got away with that and don’t think there would have been many complaints with a 1 or 2 game ban. No more than that though on reflection. It does make you wonder at times just what’s going on and certainly adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists’ fire!
 

dave

Well-Known Member
#40
Please bare with a bit of indulge as I will try and make the case for the no supplemental discipline using my experience in this area. Here goes!!

Lets start with the rule itself.

Rule 124 Checking to the head or neck.

A lot of fans think the exports get it wrong on a game by game basis!
Definition. There is no such thing as a clean check to the head. A player who directs a hit of any sort, with any part of his body or equipment, to the head or neck of an opposing player or drives or forces the head of an opposing player into the protective glass or boards. This rule supersedes all similar actions regarding hits to the head and neck except those related to fighting.


1. A player who directs a hit to the head or neck of an opponent will be assessed a minor and misconduct penalty.
2. A player who directs a hit to the head or neck of an opponent may also be assessed either a major and automatic game-misconduct penalty or a match penalty.
3. A penalty for checking to the head or neck will be assessed if one of the following occurs when a player checks an opponent:
 1) The player directs a hit with any part of his body or equipment to the head or neck of an opponent;
 2) The player drives or forces the head of an opponent into the protective glass or boards by using any part of his upper body;
 3) The player extends and directs any part of his upper body to make contact with the head or neck of an opponent;
 4) The player extends his body upward or outward in order to reach his opponent or uses any part of the upper body to make contact with an opponent’s head or neck;
 5) The player jumps (leaves his skates) to deliver a blow to the head or neck of an opponent.
4. If a skater skates with his head up, is in possession of the puck, and is expecting a bodycheck, an opponent does not have the right to hit him in the head or neck.
5. If the primary force of a blow is initially to the body area and then contact slides up to the head or neck area, a penalty for checking to the head or neck will not be assessed.
6. A skater who delivers a bodycheck to an opponent who is skating with the puck with his head down in the direction of the skater, and does not use an upward motion or drive his body up into the opponent, will not be penalized for checking to the head or neck.
7. If a skater maintains his position in the normal course of game action as an opponent runs into him, the ensuing contact will not be considered checking to the head or neck unless conditions in Rules 124-3 or 124-4 are violated.
Now in the Elite League case book there are further notes.



RULE 124—CHECKING TO THE HEAD OR NECK
Additional Notes
A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is the principal point of contact and such contact to the head is deemed to have been avoidable is not permitted.
In determining whether a hit to an opponent's head could have been avoided, the following should be considered:
1. The circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position, either by assuming a posture that made head contact unavoidable on an otherwise full body check or by materially changing the position of his body or head in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit; and
2. Whether every effort was made to hit squarely through the body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle, a reflexive attempt to ensure a hit is not "missed", or by intentional targeting.

Ok Now you have read all that and digested the rule. Now watch the incident in full speed and the slomo. (slomo always looks worse but does show the primary point of contact)


So incident watched and you are on the ice as an official your calls open to you are if you have deemed it’s a hit to the head.
2+10
5+game
Match

So that it itself is stating you can have a hit to the head that is NOT a suspension but is a hit to the head. Not the narrative that some are putting out that DOPS are saying he has got away with a hit to the head. He has not! Cardiff were penalised for a major penalty and Belfast failed to score in that 5 minutes not Cardiff’s fault. Side note huge much moaning wold there be if they scored say 3 on it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Also note that there have been at least 7 check to the heads of either 2+10 or 5+ games that have not resulted in anything extra.(3 Belfast). SO guess that blows any conspiracy theory?!

So move on to next stage as the clip would have been watch as per process.

Using the Information above and extra notes and looking at any bans that have happened you can break it down

  • Does catch him in the head and was primary point of contact = Yes
  • Did he target or pick the head. = No. You can watch the ones giving and you see the difference
  • Did he make body contact as part of the Hit = Yes
  • Was it a Hockey play = Yes Goodwin was the active player
  • Was it overly Excessive = No (again some may argue it was) but if you make that hit 99/100 and the checking technique was fine just unfortunate Goodwin was in a ducking type position. See the additional case book notes. Masi check was made squarely.


Penalty was called and deemed not a 2+10 but 5+G and that is what was agreed was the correct call.

Again I repeat as its important.
If every time a player gets hit in the head is it a suspension where there are three options of a penalty? Some people may not like that but that is the rule book and the same worldwide.

So now we move on to the Dops announcing/non announcement.

The process is clear and all clubs know it (and agreed by the clubs!!) as do the fan base if they digest the information.

Can you name another top league where they publish we are looking at this or this doesn’t get a penalty or this isn’t a suspension.
They just publish any fines or suspension with the reason breakdown.

As been pointed out elsewhere there is not the manpower to do it plus the rules are there so the answer is THE CALL ON THE ICE WAS SUFFICENT.
The demand in a lot of sports to know everything warts and all and the insane pressure of what looks like targeted social media is just bonkers.

Sorry for long post.
 
Top