Seriously?

Tyke Devil

Active Member
Thread starter #1
"David Simms‏@Simmsey

Both Ross venus and @craigkowalski33 were their targets this week - I can't believe @GAdams55 is behind this

David Simms‏@Simmsey

Since the @cardiffdevils @covblazehockey incident the Devils seem to be trying to get everyone banned & keeping Simon Kirkham busy"


Discuss?

IMHO.....Basically doing what all the other Southern Conference teams have been doing since Week 1.

What's good for the goose and all that Simmsey you plank!

Keeping Kirkham, the Steelers and Panthers busy is probably more accurate.

Yet another cheap dig at us....and go figure...just before a double header. YAWN!
 
#2
And that is why i have zero interest in entertaining the idiot with 'a night with david simms'
Who else exactly have we tried to get banned? Thats what I would like to know.
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
#4
I'm still not comfortable with our actions on the weekend.

We cited two ridiculous incidents. Venus was never going to get banned for what he did, and Kowalski never threw a blocker punch whcih is clear from the video which I hope we looked at before asking for the review.

This has nothing to do with the league.

We are responsible for our own actions. We gained nothing from citing it, we proved no point. All we did was waste free reviews we might need for real incidents later on in the year.

A rare miss from us, and we've lost the moral high ground in the future. We didnt need to stoop to others level, but we did.
 
#5
Thought it was a fairly good point by Simms. Was Adams, a coach who usually is "above" trying to get players banned by video, behind the citing of two players in very minor incidents or has Ragan started sticking his oar in to try and make a point after feeling a sense of injustice? Either way, as Gazza says, makes the club look very petty.
 

wildthing74

Well-Known Member
#6
J.B said:
Thought it was a fairly good point by Simms. Was Adams, a coach who usually is "above" trying to get players banned by video, behind the citing of two players in very minor incidents or has Ragan started sticking his oar in to try and make a point after feeling a sense of injustice? Either way, as Gazza says, makes the club look very petty.
Do you ever intend to post a constructive post J.B or do you plan to have a dig every post?
 

Chris

Administrator
#7
I can't actually see anything wrong with what J.B's posted really.

We've always stayed away from the citing nonsense after the game, it's probably easier to just quote what Gazza said...
We cited two ridiculous incidents. Venus was never going to get banned for what he did, and Kowalski never threw a blocker punch whcih is clear from the video which I hope we looked at before asking for the review.

This has nothing to do with the league.

We are responsible for our own actions. We gained nothing from citing it, we proved no point. All we did was waste free reviews we might need for real incidents later on in the year.

A rare miss from us, and we've lost the moral high ground in the future. We didnt need to stoop to others level, but we did.
Do we really think Adams would cite Venus? I'm not convinced he would. Appeal Didiomete's ban? yes. We've appealed bans in the past, some of the longer term ones to Voth spring to mind.

Genuine question, when was the last time before these two that we tried to cite other players?
 

Finny

Well-Known Member
#8
I don't see how it makes the club look petty when other clubs have been doing it for years.

We've sent a message out that we aren't afraid to ask for a review on anything in future.
 

Koop11

Well-Known Member
#9
Simmsy loves to provoke reaction. He gets off on it. The fact there is a thread on this means he’s got a quick win. I’ve learnt to ignore his comments as they ass very little to genuine debate. The boy is bad for UK hockey and the sooner he’s gone the better.

With regard to the Devils actions is seeking reviews of incidents – why not I say. We’ve been tucked up by the so called disciplinary committee for years now. We’ve taken the high moral ground and have still come off worse. I say any opportunity for something to be reviewed we should take.
 
Thread starter #10
It's not so much about the fact that we asked for a couple of incidents to be reviewed, that is within the "rules" and to be honest for supporters of other teams to think we are "petty" for doing so smarts of serious hyprocrisy.

Of course as Devils suporters we automatically reserve the right to think we have been petty........ ;)

It could have been anything really. Just the constant drivel this guy comes up with as a way of getting Devils fans to bite is becoming tiresome in the extreme. He really seems to get some joy out of it.

I, of course, have lost because I "bit" on this one. More fool me really.

Now...what I would really love to see on his Twitter account is a tweet about his forthcoming civil partnership ceremony to Thommo. It can only be a matter of time :)
 

DevilDom

Well-Known Member
#11
Finny said:
I don't see how it makes the club look petty when other clubs have been doing it for years.

We've sent a message out that we aren't afraid to ask for a review on anything in future.
What he said.

Whilst I don't neccessarily agree with the incidents cited I think it was important to send a message that we will no longer sit back and just take other teams trying to get our players banned.

While the review of Kolwaski didn't achieve anything the review of the deeds venus incident proved that venus got what was coming to him and Deeds didn't deserve a match ban so was in effect successful.

Sod the moral high ground. Its done us no good for the past 5 years G has been in charge.
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
#13
DevilDom said:
Finny said:
I don't see how it makes the club look petty when other clubs have been doing it for years.

We've sent a message out that we aren't afraid to ask for a review on anything in future.
What he said.

Whilst I don't neccessarily agree with the incidents cited I think it was important to send a message that we will no longer sit back and just take other teams trying to get our players banned.

While the review of Kolwaski didn't achieve anything the review of the deeds venus incident proved that venus got what was coming to him and Deeds didn't deserve a match ban so was in effect successful.

Sod the moral high ground. Its done us no good for the past 5 years G has been in charge.

But why did we have to Cite Venus to prove that? It was a match penalty that was going to be reviewed anyway. Why did it take us asking for Venus to be looked at for it to happen? It just doesnt make sense to me.


I really cannot see what sort of message we have sent out, other than we are silly enough to use free reviews to make a non point.

We had 3 free reviews between these two and the Coventry lot we have probably used them all. That's us potentially stuffed for the rest of the year because I cannot see us spending cash unless the cite is absoloutly nailed on.

I still havent seen one plausible argument about what we have gained by doing this?
 

Finny

Well-Known Member
#14
I'm not sure they would have looked at Venus too without our request.
They would have looked only at what Deeds was doing and not what led to him reacting as he did.

Though surely as they agreed he deserved a penalty (albeit only 2+2) we would have won the appeal anyway so it wouldn't have cost us?
 

Earnie

Well-Known Member
#15
I agree with Finney. Forcing a look at Venus ,abeit minor, made the committee look at the instigation as well as the retaliation. That way a positive result for Deeds was more likely.

As for Kwall I don't know what happened anyway.
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
#16
Finny said:
I'm not sure they would have looked at Venus too without our request.
They would have looked only at what Deeds was doing and not what led to him reacting as he did.

Though surely as they agreed he deserved a penalty (albeit only 2+2) we would have won the appeal anyway so it wouldn't have cost us?

But it was one of our free ones anyway. Unless of course you get to keep your freebie if you win?

I just cant get my head around the scenario though. If your reviewing the incident you have to look at the actions of both players. How can Kirkham sit there and not judge the actions of one player against the other?

Deeds was cleared regardless of Venus actions as all three incidents were seperately announced were they not?
 

voth26

Well-Known Member
#19
Gazza272 said:
Finny said:
I'm not sure they would have looked at Venus too without our request.
They would have looked only at what Deeds was doing and not what led to him reacting as he did.

Though surely as they agreed he deserved a penalty (albeit only 2+2) we would have won the appeal anyway so it wouldn't have cost us?

But it was one of our free ones anyway. Unless of course you get to keep your freebie if you win?

I just cant get my head around the scenario though. If your reviewing the incident you have to look at the actions of both players. How can Kirkham sit there and not judge the actions of one player against the other?

Deeds was cleared regardless of Venus actions as all three incidents were seperately announced were they not?
The way i read it, was deeds got off from a ban because they reviewed what venus did!!, if they hadnt of reviewed what venus did then i think they would have automatically banned deeds without thinking about it.
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
#20
voth26 said:
The way i read it, was deeds got off from a ban because they reviewed what venus did!!, if they hadnt of reviewed what venus did then i think they would have automatically banned deeds without thinking about it.

Cannot see anything on the EIHL press release which states that?

Didiomete was assessed a match penalty for excessive roughness in the third period (59:10). After the mandatory review, the disciplinary committee and the matchnight referee have decided that Didiomete’s match penalty will be revoked. It has been downgraded to a 5+game misconduct for roughing, so he will therefore not face a ban.
That is all it says in regards to Deeds Match penalty review. Nothing about Venus being cited being factored in. Below it then states we cited Venus and the outcome of that citing.

Although I will say the Thompson fine has me wetting myself on twitter watching Simmsey cry like a little girl because his mate has been finally reprimanded. He is dodging every question related to whether he knows EXACTLY what went on.

Very funny :lol:
 
Top