| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest0924
( )
|
 Posted - 11/03/2009 : 12:02:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
WOW! Have a look at this if you haven't already seen it. Michael Liambas, an overager from the Erie Otters absolutely destroys a guy from the Kitchener Rangers by the name of Ben Fanelli (16yrs old) behind the net. Apparently this kid is in the hospital with a fractured skull in critical, but stable condition! From the little bit i read and a few other youtube clips i saw, this Liambas kid looks like a real badass! Don't wanna say he intended to put this other kid in the hospital, but it's not his first big hit, that's for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPj-kCp1rGI
Not sure when this second clip is from, but i'd def call it a cheap shot on Tavares by the same guy (Liambas). Could have easily broken Tavares' neck!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow7csCcRSKs&feature=related
hey y'all-
i think you are all reading into this too much. banning the kid from hockey is not justified. sure, Liambas may not be very graceful or have gifted hands but why would he want to end another kid's career??
hockey is a dangerous, fast paced game and these things happen...
protect yourself near the boards; don't turn your back thinking that somehow means no one can hit you.
thanx for listening
|
 |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 14:16:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2120
Alex, in regards to your post hit reaction comment..
I can't remember if the complilation link I posted had it in there, but I watched a few clips this am. One of them showed Liambas continue skating behind the goal, shove to the ground the second defenseman(who rushed in), give the goalie a knock(in retaliation to the goalie wacking him with his stick) then skate towards his own bench. When he got to his bench the linesman pulls him away.
After skating with the linesman for a bit, Liambas is directed off the ice, by the zamboni entrance. As he leaves the ice, Fanelli is still down for the count.
I'm not sure what you want to make of his actions. To me it seems fairly typical after a play like this and I don't think too much can be made of it.
That being said, I couldn't find any clip of him crying? I know the person who mentioned that said he was at the game...but it seems like Liambas was escorted off the ice fairly quickly.
2120... What i've seen is after the hit, Liambas starts to skate away and not surprisingly, a Ranger player trys to nail him. He stands his ground and is obviously more solid as this guy ends up on his but. Immediately after that, the goalie takes a shot at him. You even hear the announcer say "Even Maxwell (the goalie) will give a shot to Micheal Fanelli....". Next i see him in the corner with ALL FOUR officials close by and one Ranger trying (not all that hard i'll add) to get to him? He's then skated over towards his bench by one of the linesmen who stays between him and the Rangers player who follows, mabye hoping to get at him buy certainly not trying too hard to do so? After that, for whatever reason (maybe there's no way to the dressing room from the benches there?), they escort him off the ice at the Zamboni gate right beside the fallen Fanelli.
I too don't think we can take anything from the way he reacted after the hit. I can't for a second imagine he had ANY idea of the damage he'd done to one persons life.
As far as the crying, that was apparently later, either in the dressing room or perhaps an interview? Haven't seen the footage either but for anyone to suggest it was acting, is purely insane.
|
|
|
|
Guest8933
( )
|
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 18:03:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Ok now I am going to give you the ac tual definition that is used for Charging as per Hockey Canada Referee's Case Book/Rule Combination 2008-2010.
Page 80.
Rule 6.3 Charging
(a) A Minor penalty or, at the discretion of the referee, a Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any other player who RUNS or JUMPS into or charges an oppnent. If injury results, a Major penalty and a Game Misconduct shall be assessed.
Note: if more then two steps or strides are taken, it shall be considered a charge.
(b) a Major penalty and a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed any player who charges a goaltender while the goaltender is in his crease or who injures a player as a result of a charge.
As a 20 + year player a 5th year referee and a 3rd year coach to me this is an unfortunate injury where the hitter had no chance to stop his forward motion. He is not skating when he hits the player he did not jump this is not a charge. Now as a referee I am still assesing a 5 minute Major and ill call a high hit or a chaarge whatever but only because the player is injured and that is what a ref is supposed to call in that situation.
Now I am agreeing with those of you who say grass roots hockey may be to blame for this injurie because alot of coaches are teaching theyre players to turn in the same fashion as this d-man did on this play. This is just stupid!! Dont get me wrong I hope the kids alright and can get back to doing what he loves and I also hope that the hitter can bounce back mentally after this incident.
Also anybody that says his tears were for himself, please find the nearest highway and well you get the point.
Now look up boarding the kids helmet was split in half he has a FRACTURED SKULL and is in CRITICAL CONDITION. It was charging and is boarding even in the short clip he takes more than two strides.( watch it at full speed) The defenceman is already turned before the forward reaches the net he had time to go by him but Chose to plow him into the boards. I have broken guys collarbones and dislocated shoulders with clean hits and not once was I given a penalty I did this on purpose once because I got slew footed with no call and the other time because I got nailed from behind after getting rid of the puck, with the ref following the play up the ice he didnt see me getting checked from behind.So I took it ino my own hands the hits i accomplished this with did not draw a penalty and technically wasnt illegal but it was dirty. The game does get exponetially faster the higher you go up but so does your reaction time if you are good enough to keep progressing. I for one am tired of the excuses made for these players. I am sure mike regrets what happened and his action in regard to the injury. I am not going to read his mind as some have in regard to his intent only he knows if he meant to hurt him but If he is honest to himself he would admit he didnt need to drive him into the boards. But that is what hockey has come to finishing your checks if the guy turns well its not my fault he turned. Body checking is in the game to disloge the player from the puck not to motivate your team by laying out a guy that doesnt have the puck and maybe has his head down or is watching the play after he got rid of it for a 2 count. This whole finishing your check bs is why people keep getting hurt and why is it you can watch a hockey game and see people pull up all the time when someone is in a vulnerable postion but certain guys just dont have the same reaction time. I always thought the point of the game was to score. ps I love hard hitting physical play but please tell me why these incidents happen in regular season and not the playoffs where more is at stake. I think it is self control playing within the rules and spirit of the game. I do agree 16 yr olds shouldnt be playing with 20 yr olds but dont know a soloution as some 16yr olds are too big to play with other 16 yr olds.. I feel bad for mike and for ben and wish something could or would be done but nothing will change. Those arguing that this is okay should follow up on Mike and ben in ten years or heaven forbid as beans says this is your child (either one of them).
Beans makes a valid point, we are fans the hit disturbs me but I dont have to live with it Ben and mike do and I wish them luck. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 19:19:30
|
quote:
:Originally posted by slozo
And lastly, no, it's not Dr. Slozo . . . I've been a security manager, teacher, private tutor, bar manager, bartender, bouncer, security guard, private investigator, property manager, salesman, painter, and a bunch of forgettable jobs I'd rather not mention. Never doctor, though.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
You forgot, FORUM MODERATOR
Forum moderator, by definition, is not a job, really . . . more like a combination of charity work and a hobby, I think! 
Alex, I guess you posted at almost the same time I did, didn't see your post until after I posted mine, and I appreciate the comments. I do agree that the clip you gave does show Liambas coming in with what appears to be a decent check when pausing at that point . . . however, I can't get away from the fact that to me, it's an obvious charge.
He broke his helmet, dude.
At some point, although normally I am against using the severity of an injury as a barometer for how to mete out justice - in extreme cases where the injury is truly severe (like this one), it really does merit consideration.
I'll take a step back, and say that Liambas deserves a decent sized suspension, but not banishment. 20 games.
'nuff said.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 11/03/2009 19:20:47 |
|
|
|
Guest3363
( )
|
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 19:47:27
|
| Bad hit...yes...dirty hit....no! He turned his back to the hit at the last second! There was no time to turn out and now this poor kid is in hospital because he put HIMSELF in a vulnerable position! Not to mention that he did not have his hemet done up properly which is probably what caused the injury in the first place. Players need to take responsibility for their own safety! |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 21:04:43
|
Perhaps in bad taste, but any hardcore Python fans will appreciate this.
CUIDADO! LIAMBAS!!!!!
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2010. |
Edited by - OILINONTARIO on 11/03/2009 21:06:42 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 21:27:05
|
quote:
Body checking is in the game to disloge the player from the puck not to motivate your team by laying out a guy that doesnt have the puck and maybe has his head down or is watching the play after he got rid of it for a 2 count. This whole finishing your check bs is why people keep getting hurt and why is it you can watch a hockey game and see people pull up all the time when someone is in a vulnerable postion but certain guys just dont have the same reaction time. I always thought the point of the game was to score. ps I love hard hitting physical play but please tell me why these incidents happen in regular season and not the playoffs where more is at stake.
This point is lost on so many people today.
Somewhere along the way, the body check has shifted from a smart hockey play to separate a man from the puck to a dangerous play in so many cases where a player attempts to separate a man from his own body parts.
I don't think there is a single fan who enjoyed watching this happen. Yet, so many fans encourage these unreasonably hard hits.
And things like this still happen in the playoffs, but far less. Maybe should be in a different topic, but guys like Downie et al aer normally not playing in the playoff, and not as many skill players are unreasonably physical. Some are (Phaneuf, Richards, etc) but more are softer checkers (Datsuyk, Crosby).
The best kind of checks are the ones where both players can skate away afterwards. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/04/2009 08:17:04 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 22:05:05
|
Guest 8933......
That may be the most confusing, yet with some nuggets of reason, post that I have ever read....
Without you taking the time, and giving the courtesy to the rest of the posters, to use any sort of structure to your ramble, it makes it almost impossible to find the bits of reason you are actually imparting. I had to read your post multiple times and then stare at it like one of those optical illusions that used to be popular a few years ago....I think I saw a velvet Elvis in there somewhere!!! It was great!!
I watched Nick Cage's horrible movie 'Knowing" the other night, and going through your post was like the note he got. I'm sure somewhere in your post, I found code that deciphered into something about Beans approaching Bettman with an idea of ice capades in the NHL, all the beauty ,none of the ugly, or something like that.  (sorry my friend, couldn't resist)
You're covering ground already covered in there somewhere and I am not sure WTF you are going on about with Kidzilla versus the Slewfoot et al., but I for one appreciate your enthusiasm. PLEASE, for the love all that is sensible, use some sort of form to your posts, I am too old to try and decipher the DaVinci code in a hockey forum...
Geez, there I go picking apart the literacy of some poor poster...
Who the hell do I think I am....Slozo (sorry my other friend, again, couldn't resist) |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 22:10:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Alex, I guess you posted at almost the same time I did, didn't see your post until after I posted mine, and I appreciate the comments. I do agree that the clip you gave does show Liambas coming in with what appears to be a decent check when pausing at that point . . . however, I can't get away from the fact that to me, it's an obvious charge.
He broke his helmet, dude.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Slozo, you mean to tell me that Moderator is an unpaid postition? Sheesh, what's the world coming to?
I'm glad you see the hit as i do and the more i see it and the more i read about the charging rule, i agree with you on that aspect. And, having said that, if that's a charge, he should be punished. The only problem is, similar hits that we see every game could be called a charge as well? Maybe something this serious will change the way the rule is called? Who knows? I do know this much, there's def a lot of people who are still judging this hit more harshly due to the injury which came from it. I guess that's similar to superstars being treated differently when it comes to suspensions?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 05:56:29
|
Yeah, I agree Alex - there are a ton of missed calls in the NHL, which is why you have so many injuries. IF the NHL actually policed itself properly, these kinds of incidents - and these kinds of players - would rarely exist.
Thank goodness we have fighting in the league to enforce this kind of stuff, otherwise you'd have a tonne of big stars out due to injury all the time! (sorry, couldn't resist)
FOR FAT ELVIS . . . I will take the time to edit Guest 8933's comment, which was a nice write-up, but was indeed a bit difficult to read. Below, with the only changes made for clarity, cohesiveness and legibility:
Now look up boarding: the kid's helmet was split in half - he has a FRACTURED SKULL and is in CRITICAL CONDITION.
It was charging and boarding, even in the short clip he takes more than two strides.( watch it at full speed) The defenceman is already turned before the forward reaches the net, and he had time to go by him but chose to plow him into the boards.
I have broken guy's collarbones and dislocated shoulders with clean hits, and not once was I given a penalty. I did this on purpose once, because I got slew-footed with no call; and the other time, because I got nailed from behind after getting rid of the puck, with the ref following the play up the ice he didnt see me getting checked from behind. So I took it ino my own hands! The hits i accomplished this with did not draw a penalty, and technically weren't illegal . . . but they were dirty.
The game does get exponetially faster the higher you go up, but so does your reaction time if you are good enough to keep progressing. I for one am tired of the excuses made for these players. I am sure Mike regrets what happened and his actions in regard to the injury. I am not going to read his mind as some have in regard to his intent - only he knows if he meant to hurt him but If he is honest to himself he would admit he didnt need to drive him into the boards.
But that is what hockey has come to: finishing your checks. If the guy turns? Well, it's not my fault he turned! Body checking is in the game to dislodge the player from the puck, not to motivate your team by laying out a guy that doesnt have the puck and maybe has his head down or is watching the play after he got rid of it for a 2 count. This whole finishing your check BS is why people keep getting hurt!
. . . and why is it you can watch a hockey game, and see people pull up all the time when someone is in a vulnerable postion, but certain guys just dont have the same reaction time? I always thought the point of the game was to score . . .
ps - I love hard hitting physical play ,but please tell me why these incidents happen in the regular season, and not the playoffs, where more is at stake? I think it is self control, playing within the rules and spirit of the game. I do agree that 16 yr olds shouldnt be playing with 20 yr olds, but don't know a soloution as some 16yr olds are too big to play with other 16 yr olds . . . I feel bad for Mike and for Ben, and wish something could or would be done but nothing will change. Those arguing that this is okay should follow up on Mike and Ben in ten years, or heaven forbid, as Beans says, imagine this is your child (either one of them).
Beans makes a valid point: we are fans, the hit disturbs me, but I dont have to live with it - Ben and Mike do, and I wish them luck.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 07:56:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Yeah, I agree Alex - there are a ton of missed calls in the NHL, which is why you have so many injuries. IF the NHL actually policed itself properly, these kinds of incidents - and these kinds of players - would rarely exist.............
Slozo, i'm not so sure they're "missed calls" so much as just the way the refs have either been told/taught to call it or simply the way these calls/rules have changed over the years. I can't get away from the fact that the wording in the rules is far from what the refs call. They seem to only call charging if a guy's feet leave the ice OR if the hit results in a serious injury. That's just not right......The NHL really needs to clear this issue up because imo, Liambas hit Fanelli in a way that goes uncalled much of the time, only this time, due to the outcome, he's screwed. I agree, he's part to blame if for nothing else, the speed he carried into the check but i still argue, hits like these happen all the time, just with less fanfare due to them usually not putting a 16 year old kid in the hospital in critical condition!
I really feel that this is one of those rules that the NHL and hockey in general should look at and consider for changes. The game has evolved over the years and the more we mention bigger guys, faster speed and harder padding, etc, the more a rule like this can affect the health of a player. There needs to be some change......
On a side note, Fanelli's condition has been upgraded from critical to serious as there's been some improvements. Here's hoping he continues on the road to good health.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/03/fanelli-hockey-hospital-condition596.html |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 08:18:14
|
Thanks much for the edit Slozo!..
The poster makes very valid points and I agree with most of what he says. I think the nail was hit on the head when he brought up the point that this was definately a boarding major, the much more pertinent call to make, rather than a debateable charging call.
That could be part of the answer to how to begin cleaning up some of the questionable hits in hockey. Some minor definintion tweaks here and there and enforcement, consistently.
Maybe something along the lines of an Unsportsmanlike Major.
That and the fact that, as mentioned by others, the respect factor needs to greatly improve. |
|
|
|
Guest9838
( )
|
|
|
sharksfan44
Rookie
Canada
228 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 11:52:46
|
| after reading everyones posts and watching the video some more, i would have to say many of u have persuaded me and i no longer consider this hit THAT dirty, but was indeed charging and/or boarding. i agree with what slozo said before that he should have gotten something near twenty games. now that we know he is done for the season, who agrees with this and who thinks its to harsh of a punishment. i would have to say its a little much. |
Edited by - sharksfan44 on 11/04/2009 11:58:00 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 13:39:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9838
Final result... suspended for the season
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=297187
Very interesting article. I read through the comments below (by users of the site) and was a little surprised by how many say it was a clean check. One even says, and this i haven't confirmed, that the TSN panel ALL agreed that it was a legal hit?
After further reviewing NHL.com, here's what the rule says boarding is:
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
The league really needs to have a look at their rules and how it want's their ref's to go about calling things. I watched the Canucks / NYR game last night and by this defintion above, there were prob 25 missed "boarding" calls! It sounds as though when these rules were made, you weren't allowed to hit a guy into the boards/glass?
As for Liambas' suspension, it's obvious they're throwing the book at a guy with a reputation of being reckless. As i've made clear many times already, IMO, he get's no suspension if Fanelli goes uninjured, and that's just not right! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 13:46:04
|
From a purely logistical standpoint, I would have to agree. A season long suspension for a 20 year old junior player, pretty much means he is done hockey at any significant level, and that does seem a bit excessive.
From a standpoint of responsibility and setting a standard, probably a fitting suspension. If it makes even one player safer, then the OHL has done the right thing, and they seem to be at the forefront of cleaning up hockey...Kudos to them!
|
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 16:42:40
|
I think the OHL got it right. One thing that is common opinion in this thread is that this was a vicious hit whether deemed dirty or clean. Vicious hits have no place in hockey at any level.
I also kept looking at this hit because I respect the opinions of some of the members here. I have eased up on my original opinion and can say Fanelli probably should not have turned his back when he did, I think he saw the check coming and should have known to play it a little different. I think Liambas still could have not laid the hit. Slowing the video down he had 2.8 secs to change his mind. That is an eternity in hockey. He did not need to make the hit and certainly did not need to hit Fanelli that hard. He meant to throw the hit that hard and he meant to hurt him. At no time did he appear in the video to try to avoid hitting or slow down. That is still my bottom line and for that he does not need to play again.
I applaud the OHL for its decision. |
|
|
|
Guest0209
( )
|
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 17:03:47
|
David Branch (Pres of the OHL) was on the Fan590 I think today talking about the suspension. He actually said, Liambas' history had nothing to do with it, that they judged the hit to be technically legal, that it wasn't a head shot and there was no intent to injure.
It was the distance covered, the speed and the damage incurred that led to the full year + playoff suspension.
|
|
|
|
Guest0209
( )
|
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 17:05:18
|
| Oh yeah they also spoke at length to the refs and all 4 said that even with no injury they would have called a penalty and would stand by a suspension. |
|
|
|
Guest2120
( )
|
|
|
Kirby
Top Prospect
Canada
66 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 23:54:55
|
I find this suspension too harsh. Downie was suspended like what, a month for his hit in the preseason on Mcamond? That hit was much worse with intent, just the injury was much less severe. Chris Simon got 25 games I believe for visciously slashing Hollweg to the face. Bertuzzi got under 30 games for his suspension I believe. Based on these previous suspensions, this is way too harsh. 20 games wouldve been fair, but now they may have ended this kids career because of an unfortunate outcome.
I skate where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.-Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 10:25:12
|
I've been looking all over the place for it, but must have missed it:
How many games does "the rest of the season" work out to be?
Just curious.
It does seem harsh, because I think the same, no-nonsense message could have been conveyed with a 20 gamer.
A lot of commentators all over the hockey world have claimed that the hit was clean in their eyes, but I disagree with them all as simply defending a hockey player under attack - you saw the same thing with many big incidents in hockey, there is always an apologist. And, the fact that these commentators are in a small way defending the game itself . . . a big brutal hit resulting in serious injury like this smears the game's reputation to some extent. And, like it or not, most hockey fans take all their cues from tv, radio and newspaper, and simply repeat opinions that are not formed on their own.
Thank goodness I know that everyone on this site always reaches an opinion through careful, unbiased study on their own, without any other opinion colouring their point of view!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 11/05/2009 10:27:02 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 10:54:44
|
The thing about suspensions is they are designed to not only punish the offender but also to deter players from repeating a similar action in the future.
That being said, OHL got this dead on right. This is the kind os suspensions that will make players think twice about doing stupid things and will eventually clean up the game.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 11:01:36
|
Slozo, i find it hard to believe that there are so called "experts" out there calling it clean. Then, there are others calling it dirty/illegal? I tell you, like i've been going on and on about, it's all in the wording of the rules AND how they are and how they have been enforced. I mean, if this were a crosscheck to the head, there'd be no debate, it's simply illegal. But his one's got guys arguing both sides and it's all to do with how you interpret the rules (charging, boarding, etc....)
Not sure how many games but assuming they're at the same or similar point in the season as the NHL'ers you'd have to think it's 60+ games AND the playoffs (although Erie is currently last in their division with a 5-9-2-1 record? Erie has played 17 games so assuming they play 80ish, that's 63? Maybe someone knows how many they play in the OHL but it's gotta be around there somewhere? Huge suspension, but what i really wonder is, if he was given say 30 games and Fanelli (hopefully not) doesn't recover very well, what sort of mindset would you find Liambas in and would he even be able to or want to play? I don't care what anyone says about him being a goon or reckless or anything like that, the fact is, this is a life changing incident for him too. For a guy who, as far as i can tell, has zero chance of a career in professional hockey, this could be the end for him even if they did allow him back? |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 17:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Slozo, you mean to tell me that Moderator is an unpaid postition? Sheesh, what's the world coming to?
Haha, tell me about it. I'm an "IRC Operator" on a network called "DAL.net" or simply DALnet. And sometimes I think I should be making $150K a year for it. lol.
Because out of the 50K or so daily active users, 25K are likely to get under your skin. ;)
All in favor of paid Moderator/Operator positions? lol
Irvine |
|
|
|
Guest9952
( )
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 20:18:45
|
| Did he get a penalty ? |
|
|
|
Guest9838
( )
|
|
|
Guest2120
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 16:45:51
|
OHL plays 68 games (wikipedia).
So it is a ~51 game suspension.
Probably too harsh, but Branch (I believe?) is obviously sending a msg. |
|
|
|
Guest8939
( )
|
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 08:15:08
|
| What if the sixteen year old ben fanelli had died. Nothing personal about Mike but he has scored five goals in his OHL career FIVE He is a forward. This suspension is a favour. |
|
|
|
Guest9934
( )
|
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 11:35:07
|
This hit was horrible not by Liambis but fanelli the guy who took the hit. The last thing u want to do when u have the puck and someone like Liambis(tough guy) is turn your body towards the boards i know it was a pass back the other way but in that case if someone is skating against u for a hit drop the puck back with a backhand instead of turning forward leaving u turned towards the boards. after the back pass lean in to take the hit. That way the puck is still with your team but u also still take the hit without injuring yourself.
I think this hit also happend because the way the game is today where if your facing the play and u have the puck wheather it be taking a pass from behind you or cutting across the zone the rule or way it has been taught is level the guy. There is no need to hurt the other guy with a huge hit but all you need to do is a little one to throw him off the puck. |
|
|
|
Guest6982
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 09:09:02
|
| The result of this hit is terrible but there is nothing illegal about this hit fanelli turns his back at the last second there was nothing liambas could've done he was already commited to the hit, and part of the reason the injury was so bad is because fanelli's helmet wasn't on properly so many junior players wear their helmets tilted back a bit so that the visor is up higher, had it been on properly the visor would've hit the glass first not his face and the helmet would've stayed on as he went down. It's an unfortunate situation but some of the blame has to lie with fanelli too |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 09:26:04
|
The suspension is ridiculus. If that hit is a charge then 99% of hits are charges by those standards, If the player had not turned at the LAST second he probably would have been fine and at worst Liambas would have got 2 minutes for boarding. For those of you saying that the length had something to do with Liambas history you should learn more about him. He has a history of winning humanitarian awards, he does one suspect hit and all of a sudden throw him out of hockey? Absolute Bull s***. I liked what Keith Jones said on that's hockey last week, "This was a good clean hit" And Fanelli turned to make the hit what it was.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 11:03:21
|
The hit was a charge, and a charge is illegal. What makes it illegal is the speed and length of run at the player, making it nearly impossible to make any correction for error when impact arrives.
It is an illegal hit! Forget about what the victim did, for cripes sake . . . it may have compounded what amounts to a now horrific injury, but it came from a play where the player was charging, and because he was charging, it became a boarding penalty as well because the checked player turned to the boards.
The whole thing I find wrong in the way they issued the judgement, is that they keep repeating that it was "a legal hit, but that the speed was excessive". Now, what do you think that really teaches our youngsters, and how confusing is that for them to contemplate?
Legal . . . but career ending. Nice.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest6982
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 11:13:55
|
slozo, i don't think your watching the same video because liambas didn't jump and he was gliding into the hit, im starting to question if you actually ever played hockey because you obviously don't know the rules that well. It was a clean hit, just an unfortunate situation caused by fanelli himself
|
|
|
|
Guest4813
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:07:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
The hit was a charge, and a charge is illegal. What makes it illegal is the speed and length of run at the player, making it nearly impossible to make any correction for error when impact arrives.
It is an illegal hit! Forget about what the victim did, for cripes sake . . . it may have compounded what amounts to a now horrific injury, but it came from a play where the player was charging, and because he was charging, it became a boarding penalty as well because the checked player turned to the boards.
The whole thing I find wrong in the way they issued the judgement, is that they keep repeating that it was "a legal hit, but that the speed was excessive". Now, what do you think that really teaches our youngsters, and how confusing is that for them to contemplate?
Legal . . . but career ending. Nice.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If that was a charge then every single hit in Hockey is a charge. When has a hit ever been made when the player didn't have to skate to get to the player he was hitting? And if you are saying that a charge warrents a life time ban then your a moron. The whole correcting should have started by Fanelli not turning his back to Liambas. If he had stayed facing him there wouldn't even be a topic on this site and there wouldn't have been stupid suspension. If you have ever played hockey you would no that you are likley going to get hit if you have the puck, and the first rule his don't turn your back to the person about to hit you. If you are going to let up on a hit when it is your job to hit you shouldn't be playing hockey in the first place. First thing a hockey player needs to no: You WILL Get Hit. |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:08:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4813
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
The hit was a charge, and a charge is illegal. What makes it illegal is the speed and length of run at the player, making it nearly impossible to make any correction for error when impact arrives.
It is an illegal hit! Forget about what the victim did, for cripes sake . . . it may have compounded what amounts to a now horrific injury, but it came from a play where the player was charging, and because he was charging, it became a boarding penalty as well because the checked player turned to the boards.
The whole thing I find wrong in the way they issued the judgement, is that they keep repeating that it was "a legal hit, but that the speed was excessive". Now, what do you think that really teaches our youngsters, and how confusing is that for them to contemplate?
Legal . . . but career ending. Nice.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If that was a charge then every single hit in Hockey is a charge. When has a hit ever been made when the player didn't have to skate to get to the player he was hitting? And if you are saying that a charge warrents a life time ban then your a moron. The whole correcting should have started by Fanelli not turning his back to Liambas. If he had stayed facing him there wouldn't even be a topic on this site and there wouldn't have been stupid suspension. If you have ever played hockey you would no that you are likley going to get hit if you have the puck, and the first rule his don't turn your back to the person about to hit you. If you are going to let up on a hit when it is your job to hit you shouldn't be playing hockey in the first place. First thing a hockey player needs to no: You WILL Get Hit.
That was me.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 12:25:23
|
First of all, let's not do the "if you think this you are a moron" talk. It adds nothing to the conversation.
Secondly, not every hit in hockey is charging. Not every time someone gets hit the guy doing the hitting skates from the centre ice line to behind the net at full speed.
Read the rule that was posted about boarding and charging. They are pretty clear and this hit was both.
Yes, the kid turned his back and that is also a problem. But, I firmly believe that kid still gets hurt(not as bad) if the doesn turn around. That was one of, if not the most violent hit I have ever watched in hockey at any level. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 13:19:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
First of all, let's not do the "if you think this you are a moron" talk. It adds nothing to the conversation.
Secondly, not every hit in hockey is charging. Not every time someone gets hit the guy doing the hitting skates from the centre ice line to behind the net at full speed.
Read the rule that was posted about boarding and charging. They are pretty clear and this hit was both.
Yes, the kid turned his back and that is also a problem. But, I firmly believe that kid still gets hurt(not as bad) if the doesn turn around. That was one of, if not the most violent hit I have ever watched in hockey at any level.
I'm simply amazed that anyone could find this hit "one of, if not the most violent" hits ever witnessed. The hit itself was crushing, yes, but, and again, i'm not placing the blame on the kid, had Fanellie faced Liambas and not turned to play the puck the other way, it would have been another hard hit against the end boards, one in which Fanelli would have likely been shaken up, but able to skate off eventually.
As i've babbled on thoughout this entire thread, the rules need "tweaking" and/or need to be rewritten. I agree with whoever just said, pretty much EVERY hit is charging as far as the current rule is written. As i mentioned in an earlier post, i will concede, due to the way the rules are defined, this was an illegal hit. However, that doesn't change my view that almost every other hit is too. For those either not having read this entire thread or maybe have forgotten, here's the charging rule which Slozo supplied for us earlier in the thread:
"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."
Now, tell me how almost every hit is not in fact a charge? What is distance travelled? What is "violently check"? It's too unclear.
Also, for those who keep saying Liambas "skates from the center line to behind the net at full speed" or "skated hard all the way from the red line", etc etc, please provide the rest of us with the link that shows this. I link i included, doesn't even show him in the clip until he's at the top of the faceoff circle! Yes, he's moving pretty fast (hockey's a fasy game you know), but anyone claiming he started at center with this hit in mind is really grasping here. How would he know, when still out at center ice, that this play was developing? I'm guessing it was a dump in that he was skating hard for on the forecheck, hoping the goalie misplayed it or he could pressure the dman, but many are making it sound like he was coming in with THAT hit in mind.
If the elbow were up or had he left his feet, i'd call it totally cheap, dirty and illegal. As it stands, i find it illegal as defined in the rules, but legal as far as the game of hockey is officiated at that level today. IMO, it was neither dirty, nor cheap. Funny how almost every "expert" on HNIC and other shows agrees. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 13:49:34
|
Ok so now I have watched a dozen NHL games since this hit and I would say that in at least half of those games this exact same play occurs.
The dman coming behind the net and a forechecking forward coming in on him. Each time the dman turns and reverses the puck and the checker aborts the hit and follows the puck instead of trying to drill the guy through the end boards or finishes his check but in a reasonable manor.
Why is it that no one gets injured on this play on the NHL level? I have read on here about it being Fanelli's fault for turning on the play. But I have watched this be a common play in both the NHL and junior levels and without the seriousness of the injury that Fanelli had.
I will tell you the difference. Most players use common sense in this situation, Liambas did not. Most players know they do not need to make this hit with excessive force like Liambas used. Liambas failed to use common sense on the play, hence the need for such a suspension. I can admit that this hit was technically legal but was not a clean hit because of the needless excessive force used in the hit.
So I ask those who say Fanelli should not have turned, why can this play happen without any injury on many other occasions in both the NHL and junior level? And, do you not think Fanelli would have still been seriously hurt had he not turned? I say hell yeah he would have been hurt. A hit thrown like that causes serious injury no matter what position the defender was in. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 13:54:59
|
I guess if the world was black and white, it would be easier to understand. However, things are grey. When you allow checking in the sport yet have rules stating things such as violent and or distance travelled, it becomes a matter of opinion over a matter of specifics.
To me, it is relative. During the normal case of a game, there are a couple of dozen hits ranging from the light brush off to the puck to both players a$$ over tea kettle on the ice. Some are more violent than others. However, in this case, how could you argue that the hit was not violent when the players helmet was cracked?? How many hits during the course of a hockey game crack a helmet?? Geez how many times has a puck went off a helmet and it not crack?? And there are COUNTLESS plays in hockey at all levels every day where a player starts skating in from the centre ice line to chase a dump in so I agree. However, not all of those plays have a hit at the end, and if you pay attention to the game, often times the players skating in to the dump in and does a hit often slows before the hit. Reason being is that if they miss the hit, they are hurling themselves into the boards.
And you think it wasn't violent??? Here's something to consider. If the defensemen wasn't there to hit and that guy slammed himself into the end boards, do you think he is getting up and skating away??? I don't.
It's a discussion of things being relative. In relation to the 'average' body check, I would suggest this hit was significantly more violent than most if not anything I have watched.
And really, "hockey is a fast game you know??" If you are attempting to annoy people with your comments, I have to say you are succeeding. Arguments work a lot better when you have a little respect for the people with differing views. People are not morons. I think we know hockey is a fast game. The point I am trying to make is that this play, regardless of the defensemen turning his body, would have resulted in an injury. There is no way that the kid skates off even if he takes the hit clean. That is neither part of the rules of the game technically, or is it something that should be part of the game morally or ethically.
Who cares if it's technically clean or not clean.
To be completely rediculous for a second, there is no specific rule against bringing a gun onto the ice and shooting your opponent in the kneecap. So technically speaking, this is legal as there is no rule against it.
All the 'experts' in my office right now agree.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Brutal OHL hit! 
