Thread starter
#21
Another really awful incident. There really needs to be a clamp down on this. This is at least the 3rd time something like this had happened, and it's only September.
Hypocrisy
- Thread starter moggy#9
- Start date
I think the difference is that the EIHA is largely amateur, hence players have jobs outside hockey and so the consequences of being injured are financial for the individual player. So we saw multiple bans of 12 and even 20 games (which is a significant chunk of the season) given out by the EIHA
Players in the EIHL are almost all professional and so whilst I am definitely not condoning hits such as the Billingham one, there is no way it would get 12 games - more likely 5 maximum.
Whilst DOPS is frustratingly inconsistent, I would not like to go down the EIHA disciplinary route as I think it is far too punitive... other might disagree but I prefer the imperfect system we currently have
Players in the EIHL are almost all professional and so whilst I am definitely not condoning hits such as the Billingham one, there is no way it would get 12 games - more likely 5 maximum.
Whilst DOPS is frustratingly inconsistent, I would not like to go down the EIHA disciplinary route as I think it is far too punitive... other might disagree but I prefer the imperfect system we currently have
Thread starter
#28
I don't really accept that difference. DOPS is after all the department of player safety. Whether the players are professional or not, it's about the injury not the monitory cost of it to the individual. An injury from an incident like this could in an extreme case be career ending.
I accept that the difference in skill and experience at different level has a bearing on the view of offences. The thing with this sort of boarding though it's that it's when a player is most defenceless, which is why it's considered so seriously.
I accept that the difference in skill and experience at different level has a bearing on the view of offences. The thing with this sort of boarding though it's that it's when a player is most defenceless, which is why it's considered so seriously.
I certainly wouldn't argue that serious foul play should be punished severely however, I can't agree with not accepting the difference. The tariffs in the EIHA are (in my view) out of proportion to the offences - in a bored moment last season I was totting up the length of ban Brandt would have if he played in the lower league and he would miss almost 50% of our games and he wouldn't be the only one.
By all means come down harshly on plays such as from the Billingham player but I am old school when it comes to the EIHL, most battles should be sorted out on the ice, with DOPS being reserved for the most serious incidents.
By all means come down harshly on plays such as from the Billingham player but I am old school when it comes to the EIHL, most battles should be sorted out on the ice, with DOPS being reserved for the most serious incidents.
Which is why, if it was in the regular season, it would earn a ban. Looking at previous cases, I would suspect 2-3 games. Brandt would also have got 3 games for leaving the bench against Amiens so.... what tariffs would you give. The EIHA is likely to be maybe 6 or 12 for the Tansey case and similar for Brandt.
Apologies @moggy#9 , misreading the handbook. Brandt would have got either 4 or 8 games, Tansey 10 or 20. The full disciplinary guide is here: http://eiha.co.uk/wp/wp-content/upl...s-and-Procedures-2023-24-Rev-3-230907-1-1.pdf
Thread starter
#33
I think there's a clear difference in terms of offences here. Leaving the bench or 3rd man in for instance are disciplinary offences. Boarding can range from careless play, to reckless play right up to deliberate attempt to injure. All of these offences should be treated in their merits.
Absolutely - and the thing the EIHA does right is they publish the handbook and also have five separate tariffs (along with the mandatory ban and the totting up ban) according to the severity of the offence.
In principle I like the transparency of this approach but my issue is that it leads to lengthy bans for offences which are probably not worthy of a significant ban.
In principle I like the transparency of this approach but my issue is that it leads to lengthy bans for offences which are probably not worthy of a significant ban.
Agreed, however we're in murky waters with liability insurance, health coverage for officials, etc. It's independently scheduled for sure, but you could make the case it's officially 'sanctioned', even if the rules are, erm, 'fluid'.
Old school me wants it sorted on the ice for sure, but I also wouldn't want any player getting the bad outcome Marshy had after a team or a player has issued intent.
As ever, SNAFU League shizzle
Old school me wants it sorted on the ice for sure, but I also wouldn't want any player getting the bad outcome Marshy had after a team or a player has issued intent.
As ever, SNAFU League shizzle
You should not make a joke of this.This coach is desperate and probably trying to keep his job.This is the same stuff that Nottingham did against Tyson Marsh.Seriously injuring Thompsom may please their fans and cover his ass.
I hope Devils fans dont sink to this level.The players should sort their own problems not get an enforcer the chance to injure someone to build his reputation.
I hope Devils fans dont sink to this level.The players should sort their own problems not get an enforcer the chance to injure someone to build his reputation.
