Thread starter
#1
Myers banned for three games
- Thread starter benh84
- Start date
I want to see that hit again.
At the time it looked clean, from the side and to the shoulder. I couldn't work out how Goertzen got injured. The reaction of the Sheffield players who felt they should have been annoyed but weren't really sure why suggested they didn't see anything wrong with it either.
At the time it looked clean, from the side and to the shoulder. I couldn't work out how Goertzen got injured. The reaction of the Sheffield players who felt they should have been annoyed but weren't really sure why suggested they didn't see anything wrong with it either.
Squealers by name, Squealers by nature.
Dean Smith didn't see wrong with the hit, as he didn't call anything. I gather Dean subsequently reviewed the footage frame by frame, but the disciplinary ruling is worded as having been requested by Sheffield rather than the ref calling for it to be reviewed.
So having seen it real time the ref doesn't see anything wrong, having reviewed it frame by frame, still doesn't see the need to ask for it to be reviewed. Yet Hanson bows down to the Arena team - what does that say about how the Powers that be support their own appointed officials??
Unfortunate that Goertzen (sp) got injured, but isn't ice hockey supposed to be a physical game?
Dean Smith didn't see wrong with the hit, as he didn't call anything. I gather Dean subsequently reviewed the footage frame by frame, but the disciplinary ruling is worded as having been requested by Sheffield rather than the ref calling for it to be reviewed.
So having seen it real time the ref doesn't see anything wrong, having reviewed it frame by frame, still doesn't see the need to ask for it to be reviewed. Yet Hanson bows down to the Arena team - what does that say about how the Powers that be support their own appointed officials??
Unfortunate that Goertzen (sp) got injured, but isn't ice hockey supposed to be a physical game?
having been fortunate enough to have seen it a few times on Sunday my personal opinion is that by the letter of the law in hockey these days it is a 3 game ban. The contact was made to the numbers.
However Hanson's description is dead wrong, yes Myers travelled a fair way but it wasnt charging, and Goertzen even looks to see him coming, once myers commits to the hit Goertzen then changes his body angle to show his back to Myers. He didn't protect himself in anyway and Myers was never going to be able to pull out of the hit from there.
So Hanson's suggestion that Myers traveled a long way to hit the numbers is just plain wrong.
However Hanson's description is dead wrong, yes Myers travelled a fair way but it wasnt charging, and Goertzen even looks to see him coming, once myers commits to the hit Goertzen then changes his body angle to show his back to Myers. He didn't protect himself in anyway and Myers was never going to be able to pull out of the hit from there.
So Hanson's suggestion that Myers traveled a long way to hit the numbers is just plain wrong.
jester said:
??? So it is then it isn't ? 
WD
WD
No the insinuation is that Myers could see the numbers and went for a bad check. That isn't the case. When he committed to the check it was shoulder to shoulder and would have been fine. The description does not take into account Goertzen moved at the vital moment when he could see Myers coming.
He could have ridden the check fine, it was Goertzen who decided to move his body position.
Sadly hockey rules these days don't take into account players looking after themselves.
The confusing thing would be the consistency. Harvey took 5+game checking from behind penalties in concurrent games and got levied a one game ban. Somehow Myers has got levied an automatic three match ban. Where has that tariff discrepancy come from. The penalty should be for the offence not the injury. By precedent that should be a one match not three match. This is the frustration in discipline in the EIHL. The description is poor and tarif plucked at random.
The precedent is in the rule book though for injury and has been for years.
If seen to be checking from behind on the night and an injury occured then it would have been a match then and not a 5 & Game or 2&10.
That is what it has been now given after reveiw and the standard EIHL tarriff is 3 games.
Can only conclude the 5 & Game pens Harvey got did not result in an injury on the play and were not requested to be looked at and his one game was a totting up process for penalty points.
If seen to be checking from behind on the night and an injury occured then it would have been a match then and not a 5 & Game or 2&10.
That is what it has been now given after reveiw and the standard EIHL tarriff is 3 games.
Can only conclude the 5 & Game pens Harvey got did not result in an injury on the play and were not requested to be looked at and his one game was a totting up process for penalty points.
The Steelers can request supplementary discipline on any hit they may deem fit. The fact Smith doesn't see anything wrong is irrelevant. Hanson does and has awarded the recommended tariff. Just how is that bowing down to an arena team??
Maybe we should have accused Hanson of bowing down to Belfast when Baldwin got suspended for 5 games before Christmas. You win some, you lose some.
Maybe we should have accused Hanson of bowing down to Belfast when Baldwin got suspended for 5 games before Christmas. You win some, you lose some.
Fair enough. That's a good read and I agree. But when you levy a penalty to a player for 5+game for the same offence in concurrent games you have to be looking at a tarif on par to a match penalty otherwise its a lucky dip based on a number of game misconducts not offence specific. The injury just checking the book brings the auto match so no argument. For future reference though if Moray is going to give tariffs for accumulated second offending it should be at match tarif not random one game levy. Removes the disparity then and accusation of inconsistency. You stripes all stick together. I hate you all equally though.
The NHL does. From the disciplinary review on Tom Wilson's hit on Brayden Schenn earlier in the season:
"Shanahan said Wilson was not punished for boarding because Schenn began to turn his back to try to avoid contact after looking back at the Washington winger. It was the NHL department of player safety's determination that Schenn turning "actually contributes to making this hit worse." http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=696780
In fact that whole disciplinary review by Shanahan would apply to the Myers hit in my opinion but then I haven't had the advantage of seeing a replay yet.
"Shanahan said Wilson was not punished for boarding because Schenn began to turn his back to try to avoid contact after looking back at the Washington winger. It was the NHL department of player safety's determination that Schenn turning "actually contributes to making this hit worse." http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=696780
In fact that whole disciplinary review by Shanahan would apply to the Myers hit in my opinion but then I haven't had the advantage of seeing a replay yet.
The IIHF book does actually state if a player turns it's not checking from behind. It's stipulates the player checked shouldn't know the check is coming and doesn't have an opportunity to protect himself. Turning your back on a check being finished isn't a check from behind. Could drift into charging or boarding though but injuries on those plays can get a game or a match depending on severity.