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?

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

Did you read the article I linked??

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.

It was charging, IMO.

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.

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

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



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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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%

Serious question though, would Branch be nearly as effective (or harsh for that matter) if there was such a thing as an OHLPA?

also, lol @ this from the charging definition "an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100)."
WTF how is this a deterrant? That's equivalent to fining me a quarter.

He put himself in the vulnerable position by turning his back to the hit at the last second, guaranteeing that he'd be driven into the boards headfirst. If he'd taken the hit on the shoulder like you're taught since the first day of checking league, it would just be another big hit and maybe, MAYBE a misconduct.

I'm with Zach, punishing the result rather than the act is totally wrong.

fwiw we're told in our ref clinics every year NOT to consider this as a factor in giving checking from behind/boarding penalties

Its a dirty hit and was punished justifiably. the guy ran at him from the blueline and CRUSHED him that is a by the word definition of charging and a prime example of why its illegal.

So how many other charging penalties in the OHL resulted in a one year suspension?


I do agree with the sentiment that players in the NHL and probably other leagues(I don't have access to anything other than NHL games) need to show more respect for players.

If you speed in your car, and get caught, it's a ticket. If you speed in your car, crash into someone and kill them, it's vehicular manslaughter.

If you get into an argument outside a bar, and punch someone in the nose, it's assault. If you punch them in the nose, they fall down and fracture their skull and die, its manslaughter.

the bottom line is, do you want to see guys being carried off the ice on a stretcher, their lives in danger? If you do, then fine. Your point is taken. If you don't.... David Branch doesnt want to see that. He is taking measures to stop it. I think it's the right move.

Well, he is taking measures if he keeps handing out suspensions like this one on other plays that result in a stretcher. We will have to wait and see I guess.

Obviously I don't think any one of us wants to see another player hurt. I am pretty confident about that.

In your second example the punch in the nose is actually battery. Assault is the threat.

But maybe Canada is probably different.

Technically sports like hockey have about 4-10 counts of assault and battery. Maybe all leagues again, should just take all hitting out of the sport and then no one gets hurt and no one has to make a judgment call.

Your earlier arguments are fine. The bolded part is probably the dumbest thing I've read on this forum. There isn't really any place to start as to explain why. Though the complete lack of evidence that a harsher penalty is a significant deterrant is helpful. Not to mention ther salient point several people have made, which is why punishments for similar hits with less harmful results were not just as severe.

Branch has not taken measures to stop injuries here, unless this is a precedent that all hits like this will receive huge suspensions, regardless of injury. What he has done here is unfairly singled someone out based on results he could not control.

And that goes to my earlier question...

How many other OHL players have received one year suspensions for charging?

I can't believe this is the only charge that ever injured someone in the game.

If he continues to severely punish plays like this one regardless of injury than good for him. Seriously. But I don't personally have much faith in that.

He should not be punishing players with 1 year suspensions on a regualr basis. Branch punished the hit based on the injury sustianed. had the injured player got up right after that hit and kept playing it probably would not have even been a penalty, or it would have been just 2 min.

The system is not perfect but at least it will hopefully prevent someone else from doing this.

But what makes it right to punish based on the injury? It certainly wasn't Liambas' intent to nearly end the guy's life. Not blaming the victim here, but if he doesn't turn his back at the last second, he escapes with maybe a bruise. Is it still a full season suspension for charging?

it doesnt matter what his intention was...When someone goes drinking and driving its not there intention to kill anyone.

When you are reckless and hit players in a vulnerable position, you have to be willing to pay the penalty.

You have the change the way these players think...The hitting from behind, cheapshots , boarding still is going on on a semi regular basis..

Until a big name NHL player is suspended for a season and forfeits millions, it doesnt get through their thick skulls..

Meh, I'm just against suspending based on the result. Suspend based on the action. His hit was certainly reckless, but say that hit happens 20 times, he's not going to suffer these same injuries each time. He should have to face the same penalty each time regardless, though. IMO.

We as a society have been punishing people based on result forever.
If I shoot you and you live its only attempted murder and assult with a deadly weapon. ill be on the streets in 5 years, 10 max.

If I shoot you in the same spot but you die its 1st degree murder, i might never get out and could get the death pen in some states

For what it's worth, I feel the same way about Bertuzzi. His action was not as violent as many others I've seen. Not even close. But Moore got really ****ed up, so Bertuzzi got a huge penalty.

I wish I had a study handy, but everything I've read indicating the the punishment matching the outcome, as opposed to the crime, is the reason that punishment simply isn't a significant deterrant to crime, and why recidivism is so ridiculously high.

I agree with the Bertuzzi thing, completely.

He was just trying to give him a hug!

I agree wholeheartedly that these types of things happen all the time with a far less drastic result.
But my point was, who ever said that the injury doesn't enter into consideration for the punishment? I believe only hockey fans think that should be the case. I've never heard the leagues say it....

That's because the leagues are political entities. The leagues have people to answer to when people get hurt, that they probably wouldn't if the same things were happening, but people weren't getting hurt.

Hockey fans have the luxury of being able to base our opinions on logic alone.

If you intentionally speed your car into someone and they die, it is murder. You spend 25 years in jail. If you intentionally speed your car into someone and they don't die, it is attempted murder, and you still probably go to jail for 25 years.

Depending on the circumstances of your bar rexample, the punch with no death could still wind up with some serious jail time.

I still agree with a harsh suspension, I just want to see dirty hits that don't hurt anyone suspended as well.

Many will laugh because they don't understand but it all boils down to the equipment being worn. The equipment is being designed to encase players in an armour-like suit. It gives players a sense of invulnerability and allows them to throw their body into others with reckless abandon. A player wouldn't be so quick to start a run from the neutral zone if there was a chance they could get hurt doing it.

If you are basing punishments on the resulting injuries of an act then I don't think you have created much of a deterrent. And that is where my issue lies.

If this happened and the guy on the wrong end walks away, then what? Any suspension? 5 games? 10? We don't know. That is why I kept asking, how many other charging plays resulted in one year suspensions.

If this one year suspension was a reaction to coll off the public and media attention, then fine, that is usually why most of these large suspensions happen. But don't say you are doing it to crack down on this type of play. To do that you need to give other people who charge a player in this fashion the same penalty regardless of the outcome. That is how you stop the behavior you wish to stop. Be consistent and punish the act not the results. But they won't. I hope they do if they truly mean to rid their league of this play, but I still think this suspension was handed down because of pressure to do something big.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=h7cWTh44EG...ies&f=false

hahahahahaha

I agree.



I think this was well put.

I read a quote somewhere (I wish I saved it now...it may have been in the Toronto Star though but I'm not sure - I'll try and find it though) that mentioned a recent game in which Liambis injured two members of the Guelph Storm in a game not long ago. Sounds like this may have been the final straw in getting rid of an overage goon who was going nowhere.

Is he really going nowhere though? Fast, feisty and being a hard-hitter is the only reason Patrick Kaleta is in the NHL, but the Sabres wouldn't be at the top of the Northeast without him, guaranteed. He's second in the league in Drawn Penalties (behind Steve Downie, who has played 3 more games than Kaleta) which gives the PP more chances to put points on the board, and he's one of the fiercest hitters in the league.

All I'm saying is that there will always be a place in the NHL for guys who take the body, as long as they aren't a total liability in other aspects of the game.

The question that remains is..... will this suspension cause other players to think twice before taking a long run at a player in a vulnerable position? If the answer is yes, it will... then the deterrent is successful. If the answer is no it wont, then it fails.

I am going to hang out on the ledge here and say it won't be a deterrent. Hits like this will continue. Some will cause injuries, others will not. Will we see a consistent policy on suspensions because of this hit with the means to deter players from continuing this type of play? I doubt it. Only if it is a serious injury.

I think there needs to be some sort of...I want to say education but probably not the best word for it...on respect. The game is fast, it is a violent game whether people like it or not, but as the years go by, and many of the old vets say it all the time, there is a decline of respect for other players in this game. Some blame helmets and visors, others blame different mindsets of the players of today vs players of old. I don't think anyone here can disagree that there is less respect on the ice. But suspensions for a hit one solve that problem.

Damn I gotta go. I will continue later

I think Scott Stevens and Dion Phanuef and many other big open ice hitters have proven that all that arour is for protecting against the puck and sticks, not people

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I think you're missing mine. The equipment is harder, lighter and more protective than ever. It gives players the ability to throw their body around at will and at high speeds. The higher speeds combined with the increased hardness is going to injure the target more often than it did in the past.