Jump to content

Welcome to SPHL Forums

Welcome to SPHL Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information. Take advantage of it immediately, Register Now or Sign In.

  • Start new topics and reply to other fans of the SPHL!
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Add events to our community calendar
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here


ShaunS

Suspensions from Peoria game

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, ShaunS said:

No surprise that these were coming, but a few more games for Howe than I initially had anticipated.

http://www.thesphl.com/view/thesphl/news/news_497256

 

Jeff Carr - one game (against Evansville)

Tyler Howe - eight games (through Jan 6)

 

Sphl getting a little too strict i believe and never consistent.  I agree with the 6 games would have been enough without the supplementary discipline.  But what did Carr get suspended for?  Is this another discipline for something your player did or am I missing something?  If it is how come Trudel didnt get suspended, fined, or anything when scott trask got suspended for leaving his bench for a fight?  Why was Trudel fined?  He get fined for his goaltender leaving his crease to fight but nothing happened to Phaneuf?  I really wish they would explain these fines and suspensions more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a rule that says the coach gets a suspension if a player gets what Howe did. I’ll have to dig it up.

It is odd Trudel caught something when Phaneuf got nothing for crossing the length of the ice intent on mixing it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Greg81102 said:

If it is how come Trudel didnt get suspended, fined, or anything when scott trask got suspended for leaving his bench for a fight? 

My first guess would be because Scott Trask plays for Huntsville.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured Howe would get 10 games by the time Combs stopped screwing us.  Six seemed appropriate to me.  He left the bench and he re-entered the ice rink after leaving.  That adds up.  The extra two is the Jim Combs Screwing Knoxville Tax.  I'm curious when the owners are going to stand up to him.  They get the short end of the stick in every matter involving the league office.

I thought there was an automatic suspension of a longer period of time (5 games maybe) for the coach of a team with players leaving the bench to join a fight.  Did Knoxville get a break there?

In the end, it should be fine.  Carr only uses Howe once about every 9 or 10 games anyway.  Maybe Howe can re-start the "David Segal injured/suspended over the holidays and takes a vacation" schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Greg81102 said:

Sphl getting a little too strict i believe and never consistent.  I agree with the 6 games would have been enough without the supplementary discipline.  But what did Carr get suspended for?  Is this another discipline for something your player did or am I missing something?  If it is how come Trudel didnt get suspended, fined, or anything when scott trask got suspended for leaving his bench for a fight?  Why was Trudel fined?  He get fined for his goaltender leaving his crease to fight but nothing happened to Phaneuf?  I really wish they would explain these fines and suspensions more.

Well, I'm not a rules expert, but I think I can clarify on some items here. I certainly don't see any inconsistency.

Howe should clearly get the six for both violations. Whether the +2 was because he racked both up in a row or not is harder to say. Honestly, I've got no problem with tacking a bonus on when you come on the ice twice in that fashion.

Carr is suspended by rule because of what Howe did. Part of Rule 70.10. This is consistent with recent incidents.

Quote

The Coach(es) of the team(s) whose player(s) (including goalkeepers) left the players’ bench(es) or penalty bench(es) during an altercation shall be suspended, pending a review by the Commissioner. The Coach(es) also will be fined a maximum of two hundred dollars ($200).

 

I don't know about the Trask situation.

Trudel's fine is harder to say. I'm sure he's been told clearly, but Rule 28 is broad. Pure conjecture would say it's either punishment for him chirping about something, or a result of the goalie being involved in fighting down the ice?

 

I can appreciate the desire to know more, but from a practical standpoint I'm not sure it helps the league. It probably wouldn't hurt, but there's always a measure of discretion with each penalty. People won't always agree, and providing the extra detail would be unlikely to change that. As long as the teams are being clearly informed it isn't impactful IMO.

 

Edit for reply posted while I was typing

Quote

I thought there was an automatic suspension of a longer period of time (5 games maybe) for the coach of a team with players leaving the bench to join a fight.  Did Knoxville get a break there?

I don't believe there's a fixed period of suspension.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TwistedBrass said:

My first guess would be because Scott Trask plays for Huntsville.

 

Why was Mark Richt not suspended?  He's lost control of the Havoc and Rivermen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShaunS said:

Well, I'm not a rules expert, but I think I can clarify on some items here. I certainly don't see any inconsistency.

Howe should clearly get the six for both violations. Whether the +2 was because he racked both up in a row or not is harder to say. Honestly, I've got no problem with tacking a bonus on when you come on the ice twice in that fashion.

Carr is suspended by rule because of what Howe did. Part of Rule 70.10. This is consistent with recent incidents.

 

I don't know about the Trask situation.

Trudel's fine is harder to say. I'm sure he's been told clearly, but Rule 28 is broad. Pure conjecture would say it's either punishment for him chirping about something, or a result of the goalie being involved in fighting down the ice?

 

I can appreciate the desire to know more, but from a practical standpoint I'm not sure it helps the league. It probably wouldn't hurt, but there's always a measure of discretion with each penalty. People won't always agree, and providing the extra detail would be unlikely to change that. As long as the teams are being clearly informed it isn't impactful IMO.

Shaun, why would you understand the tacking on of two games when coming onto the ice in that fashion?  The rule is pretty clear what the penalty is for each?  Why not just leave that consistent and able to be defended?  There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule if it's flexible to any degree.  Unless there is some repeat offender status from Howe's time in the league many years ago, I think that kind of added discipline is what creates doubt in the abilities of those in the league office.  I mean, why can't the referee just add a third minute to a minor penalty if he thinks it really sucked when it went down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do't post much, just love going to the games, but this has me a bit pissed off...

I wonder if the extra two game suspension is to keep Howe out of the next Peoria game?

Howe will miss Knoxville’s games against Evansville (December 23, 30), Fayetteville (December 26), Huntsville (December 29, January 5), Roanoke (December 31), Birmingham (January 2) and Peoria  (January 6).

Such crap in my opinion. "leaving the bench for the purpose of starting an altercation"...

What was Phaneuf doing across the centerline in the first place? He wasn't going to give anyone a hug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Photekut said:

I do't post much, just love going to the games, but this has me a bit pissed off...

I wonder if the extra two game suspension is to keep Howe out of the next Peoria game?

Howe will miss Knoxville’s games against Evansville (December 23, 30), Fayetteville (December 26), Huntsville (December 29, January 5), Roanoke (December 31), Birmingham (January 2) and Peoria  (January 6).

Such crap in my opinion. "leaving the bench for the purpose of starting an altercation"...

What was Phaneuf doing across the centerline in the first place? He wasn't going to give anyone a hug. 

You’re probably not wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ShaunS said:

Well, I'm not a rules expert, but I think I can clarify on some items here. I certainly don't see any inconsistency.

Howe should clearly get the six for both violations. Whether the +2 was because he racked both up in a row or not is harder to say. Honestly, I've got no problem with tacking a bonus on when you come on the ice twice in that fashion.

Carr is suspended by rule because of what Howe did. Part of Rule 70.10. This is consistent with recent incidents.

 

I don't know about the Trask situation.

Trudel's fine is harder to say. I'm sure he's been told clearly, but Rule 28 is broad. Pure conjecture would say it's either punishment for him chirping about something, or a result of the goalie being involved in fighting down the ice?

 

I can appreciate the desire to know more, but from a practical standpoint I'm not sure it helps the league. It probably wouldn't hurt, but there's always a measure of discretion with each penalty. People won't always agree, and providing the extra detail would be unlikely to change that. As long as the teams are being clearly informed it isn't impactful IMO.

 

Edit for reply posted while I was typing

I don't believe there's a fixed period of suspension.

Carr being suspended one game for someone leaving the bench to fight isnt consistent with what they been doing.  When Trask left the bench to fight for Peoria, but Trudel got no game suspension.  That is picking and choosing, not consistency.

http://www.thesphl.com/view/thesphl/news/news_496947

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they did explain more about the fines and suspensions they wouldnt have a whole message board undermining their authority which is going on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Photekut said:

I do't post much, just love going to the games, but this has me a bit pissed off...

I wonder if the extra two game suspension is to keep Howe out of the next Peoria game?

Howe will miss Knoxville’s games against Evansville (December 23, 30), Fayetteville (December 26), Huntsville (December 29, January 5), Roanoke (December 31), Birmingham (January 2) and Peoria  (January 6).

Such crap in my opinion. "leaving the bench for the purpose of starting an altercation"...

What was Phaneuf doing across the centerline in the first place? He wasn't going to give anyone a hug. 

It looks like the post-game punishments focused on behavior that the League is desperate to curb: Leaving the bench to fight, and coaches engaging in altercations and/or encouraging their players to do so.  Beyond that, I don't understand the severities of said punishments any more than any other fan does.

As for Phaneuf receiving just his 5 minutes for fighting, you have to remember that game time had expired before he crossed the center red line.  So he got the five for joining the altercation, but crossing the line wasn't officially "crossing the line" as the game was over.  Players get all mixed up on the ice surface after the final horn all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JMC-STL said:

It looks like the post-game punishments focused on behavior that the League is desperate to curb: Leaving the bench to fight, and coaches engaging in altercations and/or encouraging their players to do so.  Beyond that, I don't understand the severities of said punishments any more than any other fan does.

As for Phaneuf receiving just his 5 minutes for fighting, you have to remember that game time had expired before he crossed the center red line.  So he got the five for joining the altercation, but crossing the line wasn't officially "crossing the line" as the game was over.  Players get all mixed up on the ice surface after the final horn all the time.

JMC, the game actually was not over.  When the altercation started, the clock was stopped at about 3.6 seconds remaining.  As the altercation continued over to the benches, the clock mysteriously ran down to 0.  It was quite apparent that the officials did not want to line up for a face-off with 3 seconds remaining.  Phaneuf was on the ice, so I have no problem with him engaging in a fight on the ice.  He should get a game misconduct for his trip down ice, and the only ramification of that should be having it count towards his game misconducts for suspension.  The big problem I have is that when there was still time on the clock, Peoria had 6 to 8 guys come off the bench to engage (as did Knoxville).  The fact that there was really time on the clock means that each of those players should be suspended, too, as they ended up in some of the rough stuff.  Maybe the clock runoff was to save these guys, but if so, that is disingenuous.  In the end, the coaches each should have gotten a game for what looked like some misconduct.  Howe should have gotten the legitimate 6 games for what he did.  If they are serious about what they are doing, they should not manipulate the clock and there should be about 10 or 12 more suspensions (at least 6 for those pushing and shoving) if they genuinely are trying to end that kind of thing.  Personally, I don't think this was an out of control situation.  I think it was very tame, but in this day and age, I guess the snowflakes have to be appeased.  I understand stopping bench emptying brawls, but that's not what Howe did.  Howe was actually stepping on the ice to finish the game, but the man he was replacing did not get off the ice quickly enough.  Howe was standing in the doorway to come out.  He obviously intended to do what he did, but he was truly in the act of entering the game.   He didn't jump off the bench and onto the ice solely at that moment because of the scrum.  Technically, he came off the bench to start an altercation, though  Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The rule is pretty clear what the penalty is for each?  Why not just leave that consistent and able to be defended?  There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule if it's flexible to any degree.

Your verbiage is perfect, so I'll lean on it. The penalty for each offense is defined. However, I can appreciate the idea that racking up repeated infractions of disobedience might warrant more punishment than either individually. Consider it an "aggravating circumstances" penalty. It's not as if referees can actually stop players from fighting if they don't follow the rules. It's potentially very dangerous for someone to have ongoing violation of their instructions, and I'm sure the SPHL thinks they dodged a full on brawl here. I expect the extra two games is sending the message that they want to prevent them. The possibility of avoiding the next matchup is plausible, but who knows.

 

As for the second part, I'm not sure what you mean. There are defined punishments for the individual infractions, and those were both assessed exactly as written. There's another, broad rule that gives the league the flexibility to assess situations and deliver punishments accordingly. While we won't always agree with those punishments, it's silly to suggest that it shouldn't exist. You can't, nor should attempt to, legislate every possible scenario. You have the supplemental to handle those unusual times.

 

Quote

I think that kind of added discipline is what creates doubt in the abilities of those in the league office.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree here. My supposition is that the discussion of league fairness on this message board has no financial impact on the league or its teams. I also think it's overly optimistic to believe we'd not question them if they gave their logic.

 

Quote

 I mean, why can't the referee just add a third minute to a minor penalty if he thinks it really sucked when it went down?

I know you say this sarcastically, but they already have much leeway when it comes to discerning major vs minor infractions. Further, this is the league evaluating decisions made in "the heat of the moment" to make sure it adequately addresses the scenario.

 

Quote

Such crap in my opinion. "leaving the bench for the purpose of starting an altercation"...

Edit: We agree in your follow-up. He left the bench to fight. 

 

Quote

When Trask left the bench to fight for Peoria, but Trudel got no game suspension.  That is picking and choosing, not consistency.

Legitimate point, as I mentioned, I hadn't seen the detail here. I assume Trask did leave the bench and fight, as you've pointed out. In my memory the coaches have normally been suspended when a player's cited with this. Upon review though I do see that the rule doesn't outright require it. Still, I view the Trask situation as the exception, not this one.

 

Quote

As the altercation continued over to the benches, the clock mysteriously ran down to 0.

This certainly complicates any analysis, but it is what it is.

 

Quote

Personally, I don't think this was an out of control situation.  I think it was very tame, but in this day and age, I guess the snowflakes have to be appeased.  I understand stopping bench emptying brawls, but that's not what Howe did.

A distinction without a difference? Howe left the bench to start a fight... he literally did his part of starting a brawl, but because others didn't all engage it didn't escalate.

The best way for the league to stop brawls is to punish the people who take the actions that start them, not to punish people only when the final result happens.

 

TLDR / Summary takeaway:

I'm not opposed to the idea of giving Howe 6 games versus 8 games, but I do see a reasonable argument for two more.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ShaunS said:

Your verbiage is perfect, so I'll lean on it. The penalty for each offense is defined. However, I can appreciate the idea that racking up repeated infractions of disobedience might warrant more punishment than either individually. Consider it an "aggravating circumstances" penalty. It's not as if referees can actually stop players from fighting if they don't follow the rules. It's potentially very dangerous for someone to have ongoing violation of their instructions, and I'm sure the SPHL thinks they dodged a full on brawl here. I expect the extra two games is sending the message that they want to prevent them. The possibility of avoiding the next matchup is plausible, but who knows.

 

As for the second part, I'm not sure what you mean. There are defined punishments for the individual infractions, and those were both assessed exactly as written. There's another, broad rule that gives the league the flexibility to assess situations and deliver punishments accordingly. While we won't always agree with those punishments, it's silly to suggest that it shouldn't exist. You can't, nor should attempt to, legislate every possible scenario. You have the supplemental to handle those unusual times.

 

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree here. My supposition is that the discussion of league fairness on this message board has no financial impact on the league or its teams. I also think it's overly optimistic to believe we'd not question them if they gave their logic.

 

I know you say this sarcastically, but they already have much leeway when it comes to discerning major vs minor infractions. Further, this is the league evaluating decisions made in "the heat of the moment" to make sure it adequately addresses the scenario.

 

Edit: We agree in your follow-up. He left the bench to fight. 

 

Legitimate point, as I mentioned, I hadn't seen the detail here. I assume Trask did leave the bench and fight, as you've pointed out. In my memory the coaches have normally been suspended when a player's cited with this. Upon review though I do see that the rule doesn't outright require it. Still, I view the Trask situation as the exception, not this one.

 

This certainly complicates any analysis, but it is what it is.

 

A distinction without a difference? Howe left the bench to start a fight... he literally did his part of starting a brawl, but because others didn't all engage it didn't escalate.

The best way for the league to stop brawls is to punish the people who take the actions that start them, not to punish people only when the final result happens.

 

TLDR / Summary takeaway:

I'm not opposed to the idea of giving Howe 6 games versus 8 games, but I do see a reasonable argument for two more.

The reasonable argument is we play Peoria in 8 games not 6 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carey Mahoney said:

JMC, the game actually was not over.  When the altercation started, the clock was stopped at about 3.6 seconds remaining.  As the altercation continued over to the benches, the clock mysteriously ran down to 0. 

The game was in Knoxville- blame your own off-ice officials and the on-ice officials for this missing link of 3.6 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ShaunS said:

Your verbiage is perfect, so I'll lean on it. The penalty for each offense is defined. However, I can appreciate the idea that racking up repeated infractions of disobedience might warrant more punishment than either individually. Consider it an "aggravating circumstances" penalty. It's not as if referees can actually stop players from fighting if they don't follow the rules. It's potentially very dangerous for someone to have ongoing violation of their instructions, and I'm sure the SPHL thinks they dodged a full on brawl here. I expect the extra two games is sending the message that they want to prevent them. The possibility of avoiding the next matchup is plausible, but who knows.

 

As for the second part, I'm not sure what you mean. There are defined punishments for the individual infractions, and those were both assessed exactly as written. There's another, broad rule that gives the league the flexibility to assess situations and deliver punishments accordingly. While we won't always agree with those punishments, it's silly to suggest that it shouldn't exist. You can't, nor should attempt to, legislate every possible scenario. You have the supplemental to handle those unusual times.

 

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree here. My supposition is that the discussion of league fairness on this message board has no financial impact on the league or its teams. I also think it's overly optimistic to believe we'd not question them if they gave their logic.

 

I know you say this sarcastically, but they already have much leeway when it comes to discerning major vs minor infractions. Further, this is the league evaluating decisions made in "the heat of the moment" to make sure it adequately addresses the scenario.

 

Edit: We agree in your follow-up. He left the bench to fight. 

 

Legitimate point, as I mentioned, I hadn't seen the detail here. I assume Trask did leave the bench and fight, as you've pointed out. In my memory the coaches have normally been suspended when a player's cited with this. Upon review though I do see that the rule doesn't outright require it. Still, I view the Trask situation as the exception, not this one.

 

This certainly complicates any analysis, but it is what it is.

 

A distinction without a difference? Howe left the bench to start a fight... he literally did his part of starting a brawl, but because others didn't all engage it didn't escalate.

The best way for the league to stop brawls is to punish the people who take the actions that start them, not to punish people only when the final result happens.

 

TLDR / Summary takeaway:

I'm not opposed to the idea of giving Howe 6 games versus 8 games, but I do see a reasonable argument for two more.

Shaun, I could understand that if Howe were a problem.  Howe has been greatly behaved this year.  He's done nothing dirty to warrant any additional scrutiny.  I know this sounds stupid, but he's a model "goon" citizen.  I would also argue the circumstances of the play shouldn't warrant additional penalty.  Given about 2 or 3 more seconds, Howe would have been an active player on the ice not subject to this penalty (he was actively participating in an honest line change).  I understand following the letter of the law, but there are no circumstances here pushing for additional games.  I think everyone is right in that those games are to avoid the next matchup.  That's the only logical reasoning behind it.

Edited by Carey Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why blame anyone? Makes it sound like someone did something wrong. 

32 minutes ago, ShaunS said:

Howe left the bench to start a fight... he literally did his part of starting a brawl, but because others didn't all engage it didn't escalate.

As Carey pointed out, Howe was at the door ready for a line change when he saw Phaneuf cross the center line obviously intent on joining in the fray. Sounds more like protecting his goalie than starting a fight - or brawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PlannedObsolescence said:

The game was in Knoxville- blame your own off-ice officials and the on-ice officials for this missing link of 3.6 seconds.

I would love to know who ordered the clock to run.  I can't imagine the clock operator did that alone.  I suspect direction had to come from the on-ice officials.  That time was up there through the scrum and at the conclusion of the fight.  It disappeared somewhere between Howe leaving the ice and the scrum breaking out near the benches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalties are what they are, but here's what I thought was interesting...  When Howe came in and engaged Phaneuf, none of the Peoria players made a move to stop it - either before or during the altercation.  What that tells me is that his teammates didn't see Howe's move as egregious and that they, in turn, didn't perceive that Howe left the bench for the altercation.  In my experience, if anyone perceived this kind of activity, they would have jumped on the offending party, especially when a goalie was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RedJackson said:

The penalties are what they are, but here's what I thought was interesting...  When Howe came in and engaged Phaneuf, none of the Peoria players made a move to stop it - either before or during the altercation.  What that tells me is that his teammates didn't see Howe's move as egregious and that they, in turn, didn't perceive that Howe left the bench for the altercation.  In my experience, if anyone perceived this kind of activity, they would have jumped on the offending party, especially when a goalie was involved.

It was strange.  You'd think Dion would have grabbed Zoltan in retaliation while the Howe/Phaneuf fight was ongoing.  Once they cleared from the scrum in the net and the fight started, the on-ice problems pretty much ceased.  They only flared up again when everyone came together at the benches.  Honestly, the coaches mouthing and Flegel swinging his stick towards the bench created that situation and the return of Howe from the bench a second time.  Howe didn't even do anything on his second visit from bench.  He still has to get three games for going out there, but he grabbed Flegel and gave someone a high five to earn his second three game suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members
     
     

    No registered users viewing this page.

     
Premium Theme Designed By IBTheme.com

×