64 replies to this topic

[bdc30]

Though I'm sure it's been discussed in one of the random hockey threads here, I hadn't seen it anywhere and I know this hit generated a lot of discussion in the refs room this past weekend while I was doing some games so I thought I'd see what you guys thought.

If anyone hasn't seen the hit, it's HERE . HERE is the newspaper article about the suspension.

Today the OHL announced they've suspended Mike Liambas for the rest of the season. Is this just a case of him being dealt with so harshly because of the severity of the injury to the player?
If Fanelli had his helmet on properly (ie chinstrap not hanging way down below his neck like every player seems to) and had shaken off the check and come back to play the next game, would there have been any suspension at all?
Would there even have been the major penalty?

[Dubey]

I haven't heard anything about this hit, how bad was he injured?

It was a dirty hit, but there is no precedent for a year-long suspension, especially since the player turned away from the hit. I think 5 games would be a sufficient suspension

[bdc30]

I haven't heard anything about this hit, how bad was he injured?

Did you read the article I linked??

Fanelli's helmet flew off and he fell unconscious to the ice before he was taken to a local hospital in an ambulance. He was later airlifted to Hamilton General Hospital with skull and facial fractures.

Fanelli's condition has been upgraded from critical to serious, but stable.

[SBriand]

I watched it a few times and I don't quite understand how the "hit" was worth a full season suspension. I would say the broken orbital bone and head fractures is what made them go a little overboard. He didn't leave his feet, didn't get the elbows up, etc. He was coming the whole way and it looks like the kid looked and saw him coming and tried to turn away from the hit. I don't personally think this was worth any suspension or fine to be quite honest. Accidents happen, it's a tough sport, even when I was playing in a non-checking league. It's a shame he was injured so bad but the hit looked fairly clean.

Shit, you may as well take hitting out of the game completely with all the crap going on lately.

[Zach6668]

It was charging, IMO.

[bdc30]

I watched it a few times and I don't quite understand how the "hit" was worth a full season suspension. I would say the broken orbital bone and head fractures is what made them go a little overboard. He didn't leave his feet, didn't get the elbows up, etc. He was coming the whole way and it looks like the kid looked and saw him coming and tried to turn away from the hit.

fwiw this was the consensus of the 3 refs I worked with this weekend as well. You could for sure see a case for calling charging (he ran him from easily the top of the faceoff circle) or boarding - no issue with a penalty there, but a full season suspension?? Not a chance.

[SBriand]

I could agree with charging. I have never been fully clear on that penalty to be honest.

[bdc30]

textbook charging http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule47.html

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "Charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed, and an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

Similar to when we discussed boarding a couple days ago in the random hockey thread, the ambiguity is intentional here, to give the referees a lot of wiggle room to interpret what a reasonable "distance travelled" to check a player is.

Granted these are NHL rules and the play was from the OHL, but given the above definition, 5+gm misconduct for charging I think would have been a better call, and maybe 5-10 games given that they specifically mention injury to face or head right in the rule (which I didn't know actually...)

[MapleLeafpoker]

I think its charging (especially when you read the rule word-by-word), but I dont think it warranted a year suspension.

Then again, I dont know of any other conditions, such as Liambas' past. Its brutal, sad, but thats the sport they play.


I still to this day cant figure out who's fault it is when a guy is going to make a check, and the player turns. Is it Fanelli's fault that he turned there? Cause lets be honest, if he doesnt get hit from behind, this shouldnt be anywhere near as bad a result. The straight up hit would have hurt, and maybe busted a shoulder, but thats about it.
I just dont know the game well enough, as a player/ref, to make that call myself though.

[WestcoastCanuck]

You have to remember that the OHL has been cracking down on head shots more than any other league. You can't compare their discipline to the NHL, as the OHL usually comes down a lot harder on players.

[fryer98]

I still to this day cant figure out who's fault it is when a guy is going to make a check, and the player turns.

First off...I haven't seen the hit yet because my work computer blocks just about every video site...

Learning how to take a check is just as, if not more, important than learning how to give a check. Sometimes you might think that turning will help you avoid the check or spin off it, especially when reacting to a player moving at a high speed about to hit you. Sometimes it works, but when it doesn't it's never good.

[ajs510]

I'll go with charging, but the suspension is a staggering overreaction and a bad precedent to set IMO.

The kid that got hit was responsible for at least as much of the damage done as the guy who actually laid the check. You don't turn your back to a hit and you're responsible for ensuring that your own equipment is safe and secure.

Ridiculous punishment and I hope it gets overturned.

[serge]

I am really tired of hearing the same old bs...The guy that got hit was at fault..It was obviously a dirty hit and the guy should be suspended for a long time.

Its a cheap shot, charging, whatever you want to call it....Its a cop out to say the injured player was partly at fault...The guy is in a vulnerable position as a human being you shouldnt try to kill him..Thats what this guy did.

[MapleLeafpoker]

I like what I heard from OHL commish Branch on TSN's OTR.

Two reasons for severity of suspension:

1. Distance travelled to make the hit
2. The speed at which the hit was made

The hit could be made with less speed, less power....and therefore have more respect for other players, with less of a desire to hurt on a hit.
He uses the word "respect" for the opponent often.

It still feels like a harsh judgement, but I see both sides.

BEST NEWS: Fanelli had some positive news today. But long road still ahead.

[Zach6668]

The whole thing about punishing the result is the gayest thing ever. It's (the biggest part of) what's wrong with the discplinary system in the NHL right now.

[FCP Bob]

The whole thing about punishing the result is the gayest thing ever. It's (the biggest part of) what's wrong with the discplinary system in the NHL right now.

Why does it make you happy ?

[Dubey]

I like what I heard from OHL commish Branch on TSN's OTR.

Two reasons for severity of suspension:

1. Distance travelled to make the hit
2. The speed at which the hit was made

The hit could be made with less speed, less power....and therefore have more respect for other players, with less of a desire to hurt on a hit.
He uses the word "respect" for the opponent often.

It still feels like a harsh judgement, but I see both sides.

BEST NEWS: Fanelli had some positive news today. But long road still ahead.

It sounds like they are operating from an entirely different mindset from the NHL. What he just said describes a lot of hits that happen in the NHL on a regular basis.

[fryer98]

Then again, I dont know of any other conditions, such as Liambas' past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow7csCcRSKs

I'm wondering if there was enough of these types of hits to see a pattern and make the full year the right choice.

[gruven]

I applaud David Branch (OHL Commish).

He pulls no punches, answers all questions, and makes decisions based on what's good for his league.

His reasoning?

What is the purpose of a punishment? The purpose of a punishment is to provide a deterrant for both the perpetrator and future potential perpetrators from repeating the action. David Branch does not want players in vulnerable positions hit, and/or injured in his league. He sees no upside in allowing hits like this.
Therefore his punishment is designed to deter. Do you think it's effective? Do you think it will help accomplish the goal of helping to reduce and/or eliminate this type of hit?
Mission accomplished. NHL could take a lesson from David Branch..

[serge]

I applaud David Branch (OHL Commish).

He pulls no punches, answers all questions, and makes decisions based on what's good for his league.

His reasoning?

What is the purpose of a punishment? The purpose of a punishment is to provide a deterrant for both the perpetrator and future potential perpetrators from repeating the action. David Branch does not want players in vulnerable positions hit, and/or injured in his league. He sees no upside in allowing hits like this.
Therefore his punishment is designed to deter. Do you think it's effective? Do you think it will help accomplish the goal of helping to reduce and/or eliminate this type of hit?
Mission accomplished. NHL could take a lesson from David Branch..

exactly what Bettman should be doing...agree 10000%