OHL Hit

[Kronthewall55 14]

It was a dirty hit.

All you wannabe hockey players can pretend it wasn't, but there was clearly intention to hurt the guy when he charges from the blueline. The OHL is used for developing players, not destroying players. So you guys can go on and on and on and on and on and say how you have proof it wasn't a dirty hit because there was "no elbow", but that's not even the issue. Both players are at fault, and it was a dirty hit for an overaged OHL player to make on an underaged OHL player trying to develop into an NHL player. And you can go on about how he will learn from this, but f*** no, he wont. What's he going to learn after he won't be able to play hockey again? I hope someone you know has this happen to you and watch all of you become hypocrites. If this happened to Lidstrom or Datsyuk, you'd call foul and say the intent was dirty too. I hope none of you posting here claiming this wasn't dirty think that Lapierre's hit on Lidstrom was dirty.

first off, you have no idea how much hockey i have played and its 15 years, but everyone has their opinion regardless of their backround. the charges from the blue line??? how was he supposed to get in to the zone with out making any strides whatsoever. with your logic, every single hit made by a foward entering the defensive zone at any point is a charge.

also, hoping a horrible accident happens on anyone just makes you sound like a jackass.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

first off, you have no idea how much hockey i have played and its 15 years, but everyone has their opinion regardless of their backround. the charges from the blue line??? how was he supposed to get in to the zone with out making any strides whatsoever. with your logic, every single hit made by a foward entering the defensive zone at any point is a charge.

also, hoping a horrible accident happens on anyone just makes you sound like a jackass.

The guy is a troll and a dickhead. Don't feed him. He fails to grasp the basic concept that people have a difference of opinion on the hit and that they are entitled to it. I'm as vocal and obnoxious about my opinions as anybody but this guy is taking it to a whole new level.

Classifying an entire sector of the boards as hockey wannabes and wishing that somebody we know go through something like this. Seriously? What a ******* loser.

I think its pretty much definitive now that we can write this guy off as nothing more than a psycho with an inferiority complex.

[Guest micah]

I think its pretty much definitive now that we can write this guy off as nothing more than a psycho with an inferiority complex.

I agree that he's wrong and he's been shown time and again how and why he's wrong, and that he makes himself look stupid by stubbornly standing by his ridiculous claims and lying by posting vidcaps without context,clearly selected to comvince his opponents that something happened when it in fact did not - BUT, IIRC isn't Four just a kid, like 18-20 years old? I wouldn't write him off so soon, he has a few years to come around yet.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Liambas is suspended for the season.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009...suspension.html

The Ontario Hockey League has reacted strongly to a hit that put a Kitchener Rangers defenceman in critical condition, suspending Michael Liambas of the Erie Otters for the remainder of the season.

Ben Fanelli, who is now listed in serious but stable condition, suffered skull and facial fractures after he was hit into the boards during the Oct. 30 game.

The suspension of Liambas, 20, will include the playoffs.

"Players must understand they shall be held accountable for their actions," OHL commissioner David Branch said in a statement. "We must all work towards improving the level of respect players have towards opposing players and the game in general."

Fanelli was handling the puck behind his own net in a game at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. The defender turned his head towards the boards as Liambis approached in stride.

While Liambis didn't lift his skates off the ground, the impact of the hit broke Fanelli's helmet. The teen's head appeared to strike the metal partition framing the glass at the Zamboni entrance.

He twitched on the ice before being attended to by team and arena staff.

Fanelli is recuperating at Hamilton General Hospital.

Commissioner's comments in bold. I cannot believe that he holds the hitter accountable for the hit but not the other player accountable for turning his back last second and not having his helmet strapped on correctly.

I do not like this suspension one bit.

[Carman 387]

Classic OHL there. Not surprised. Oh well.

Best wishes to both the kids.

[zettie85 106]

Liambas is suspended for the season.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009...suspension.html

Commissioner's comments in bold. I cannot believe that he holds the hitter accountable for the hit but not the other player accountable for turning his back last second and not having his helmet strapped on correctly.

I do not like this suspension one bit.

Is there any chance of an appeal???

[stevkrause 1,247]

Classic OHL there. Not surprised. Oh well.

Best wishes to both the kids.

agreed...

[Guest micah]

I do not like this suspension one bit.

In a bush league, you gotta expect bush league management. This suspension was handed out because there were two things, an injurry (which is not cause to conclude that a play is dirty) and publicity. Sucks.

[zettie85 106]

In a bush league, you gotta expect bush league management. This suspension was handed out because there were two things, an injurry (which is not cause to conclude that a play is dirty) and publicity. Sucks.

They use the injury rule in the NHL too.

[Carman 387]

They use the injury rule in the NHL too.

Bush league management.

[Guest micah]

Bush league management.

Yup. It's an embarassment to the league.

[Guest Four]

The guy is a troll and a dickhead. Don't feed him. He fails to grasp the basic concept that people have a difference of opinion on the hit and that they are entitled to it. I'm as vocal and obnoxious about my opinions as anybody but this guy is taking it to a whole new level.

Classifying an entire sector of the boards as hockey wannabes and wishing that somebody we know go through something like this. Seriously? What a ******* loser.

I think its pretty much definitive now that we can write this guy off as nothing more than a psycho with an inferiority complex.

I only responded to those who quoted me and argued against me for no reason. If instead, they just went on about how they thought it was clean and wished him better, I'd be fine with it. But no, they had to quote me and try and explain to me why I was wrong. I saw it a different way and people kept telling me I was wrong - is that allowing people to have difference of opinion when I try and post mine? I don't care if people think it's clean as long as they post why and don't accuse me of having "dirty eyes", but quoting me and centering me out, of course I'm going to argue back and annoy them, even if my "logic" and "evidence" is "flawed. Arguing with a 17 year old makes you any better? Okay. Was I wrong to say that stuff? Yes. Did I mean it? No, not really. It's just frustrating when you say something like "He fails to grasp the basic concept that people have a difference of opinion on the hit and that they are entitled to it." Yet I feel, no one has grasped that same "basic concept" that I have a difference of opinion and it doesn't make my "eyes dirty" and it doesn't mean I should be insulted for it.

I agree that he's wrong and he's been shown time and again how and why he's wrong, and that he makes himself look stupid by stubbornly standing by his ridiculous claims and lying by posting vidcaps without context,clearly selected to comvince his opponents that something happened when it in fact did not - BUT, IIRC isn't Four just a kid, like 18-20 years old? I wouldn't write him off so soon, he has a few years to come around yet.

Not even 18

[newfy 695]

I only responded to those who quoted me and argued against me for no reason. If instead, they just went on about how they thought it was clean and wished him better, I'd be fine with it. But no, they had to quote me and try and explain to me why I was wrong. I saw it a different way and people kept telling me I was wrong - is that allowing people to have difference of opinion when I try and post mine? I don't care if people think it's clean as long as they post why and don't accuse me of having "dirty eyes", but quoting me and centering me out, of course I'm going to argue back and annoy them, even if my "logic" and "evidence" is "flawed. Arguing with a 17 year old makes you any better? Okay. Was I wrong to say that stuff? Yes. Did I mean it? No, not really. It's just frustrating when you say something like "He fails to grasp the basic concept that people have a difference of opinion on the hit and that they are entitled to it." Yet I feel, no one has grasped that same "basic concept" that I have a difference of opinion and it doesn't make my "eyes dirty" and it doesn't mean I should be insulted for it.

Not even 18

If this thread goes on any longer you might need a chat with Dr. Phil.

But anyways horse s*** suspension, Liambas did his job and finished a check, it shouldn't matter that he's an overager adn the kids 16. They all play by the same rules so that argument is retarded. Liambas made a hit that wasn't dirty but had a poor end result. Better luck next time.

[Guest ZetterbergFourty]

Terrible to see this kind of crap happening in the junior leagues, or in any league really.

Season long suspension is fitting, you're not Chris Pronger buddy, siddown *****!

[Guest E_S_A_D]

You guys are all nuts, it's official. I'm the only sane one here.

[Guest Four]

You guys are all nuts, it's official. I'm the only sane one here.

I want to agree to that, oddly.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

Not even 18

Not even 18, and you call the rest of us "wannabe hockey players"? I've played hockey for more years than you've been alive!

This is a bulls*** suspension. As someone posted earlier, it's the injury and the publicity. Without the injury the publicity would be enormous anyway. It would be focussing on a monster hit, and then showing kids why you don't turn your back on freight train coming at you. Especially when you saw the ******* thing twice.

Still hoping for a recovery for the kid. I also hope this doesn't follow Liambas for years a la Bertuzzi.

[zettie85 106]

Terrible to see this kind of crap happening in the junior leagues, or in any league really.

Season long suspension is fitting, you're not Chris Pronger buddy, siddown *****!

It's a competitive league. The best Junior league in the world arguably. Junior is more intense then the NHL because it's faster and the league is made up of cocky teenagers fighting for a slight possibility of going pro. A dream they have all had since they were old enough to hold a stick. If guys didn't play like they were Chris Pronger they wouldn't be there. They would be cut in an instant and replaced with someone who would.

Edited November 5, 2009 by zettie85

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Whole season is ******* ridiculous, if I was Limbias, I'd join the mens adult league in Ontario and tell David Branch to suck it, I didnt like the hit, but that's much too harse.

[Guest Four]

Not even 18, and you call the rest of us "wannabe hockey players"? I've played hockey for more years than you've been alive!

This is a bulls*** suspension. As someone posted earlier, it's the injury and the publicity. Without the injury the publicity would be enormous anyway. It would be focussing on a monster hit, and then showing kids why you don't turn your back on freight train coming at you. Especially when you saw the ******* thing twice.

Still hoping for a recovery for the kid. I also hope this doesn't follow Liambas for years a la Bertuzzi.

Competitive hockey for longer than I've been born would mean you are either in a beer league or the NHL.. Wonder which one

And, they said they suspended him to set an example.. Although I too believe it was too long.

[Inultus 12]

Don't feed the troll boys!

Clean hit.

[dicksmack 33]

OHL rulebook:

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 the 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 considered “chargingâ€.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of boarding an opponent.

42.3 Major plus Game Misconduct Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty plus a game misconduct, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards; to a player or goalkeeper guilty of boarding an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.

Rule 43 - Charging

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty (plus a game misconduct) shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper 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 a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

This is a dirty hit: boarding or charging, take your pick. Though Fanelli turned at the last moment, perhaps he wouldn't have done so if the goaltender hadn't been obscuring his view. The charging hitter would reasonably have known that, as he bore directly down on Fanelli, his position and speed would have been blocked from view. This places Fanelli in a vulnerable position. Fanelli looked over his shoulder but this happened well before the goalie blocked his view, so it was rather limited information. The hitter took advantage of the situation.

In any case, it is still a charge. One of the reasons that charging is illegal is because when you have built up excess momentum as a result of the distance travelled, you can't let up if the play takes a dangerous turn. Obviously, the ref can call only one initial penalty and he chose charging as he saw Fanelli go into the boards face first. The amount of discretion allotted for the call is a perfect for this situation. Many good checks cause someone to be "violently thrown into the boards" but this isn't a good hit.

I don't have a problem with the suspension. Perhaps the suspension just accelerated the 20 year-old hitter's transition to rec. hockey by one year. When a penalty causes a serious injury, the penalty gets serious consequences, just ask Todd Bertuzzi. These are very different situations but share the same reaction from the leagues given the injuries involved.

[Doggy 130]

I still have more concern for the kid whose life was shortened over one whose season was shortened.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

Competitive hockey for longer than I've been born would mean you are either in a beer league or the NHL.. Wonder which one

And, they said they suspended him to set an example.. Although I too believe it was too long.

Man I would love to have gone into the NHL, as I'm sure many on LGW would. The fact is that I was not good enough for it. If you think that's a sore spot for me, you are wrong. It would have been fun, but I would not have done many other things that I've done in my life. I went into the Army, where I met my wife then had two beautiful daughters. When I saw that I had no chance, it didn't change my life. It let me get on with the life I had started. I served my country and then built a family. So, when you do the tongue sticking out thing with the emoticon, you are just showing the maturity of a seventeen year old. Maybe a seventeen year old troll, maybe not. I couldn't care less about trolls on the forums. When you grow up, you will probably learn to be able to say that you were wrong. Throughout this whole thread, you posted opinions as fact coupled with inaccurate video stills. A man would have said "Hey, you are right, I see it now". A little boy stomps his feet and says "No, no, no! I'm right! You have to see it my way", even when the proof is staring him in the face.

And nobody should be made an example of. Enforce the rules or don't.

[Doc Holiday 0]

OHL rulebook:

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 the 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 considered “chargingâ€.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of boarding an opponent.

42.3 Major plus Game Misconduct Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty plus a game misconduct, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards; to a player or goalkeeper guilty of boarding an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.

Rule 43 - Charging

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty (plus a game misconduct) shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper 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 a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

This is a dirty hit: boarding or charging, take your pick. Though Fanelli turned at the last moment, perhaps he wouldn't have done so if the goaltender hadn't been obscuring his view. The charging hitter would reasonably have known that, as he bore directly down on Fanelli, his position and speed would have been blocked from view. This places Fanelli in a vulnerable position. Fanelli looked over his shoulder but this happened well before the goalie blocked his view, so it was rather limited information. The hitter took advantage of the situation.

In any case, it is still a charge. One of the reasons that charging is illegal is because when you have built up excess momentum as a result of the distance travelled, you can't let up if the play takes a dangerous turn. Obviously, the ref can call only one initial penalty and he chose charging as he saw Fanelli go into the boards face first. The amount of discretion allotted for the call is a perfect for this situation. Many good checks cause someone to be "violently thrown into the boards" but this isn't a good hit.

I don't have a problem with the suspension. Perhaps the suspension just accelerated the 20 year-old hitter's transition to rec. hockey by one year. When a penalty causes a serious injury, the penalty gets serious consequences, just ask Todd Bertuzzi. These are very different situations but share the same reaction from the leagues given the injuries involved.

Do you even know what those rules mean? Because you completely butchered them.

That was not a boarding call. If you consider that a boarding call then you would have to believe that Abdelkader's hit in the Flames game was a boarding (I mean he did hit him into the boards and everything). Second, the player was inches from making contact before he turned, so how exactly was he supposed to let up? I don't care if he didn't see him or not, it is not the hitter's responsibility to read another player's mind and make sure he knows he is coming. That isn't a penalty.

Your charging interpretation also applies to just about any big hit that is made in the OHL and NHL, so I'm not even going to bother discussing that rule in detail. You've already shown you don't understand it whatsoever.

I would also like to know why the hitter should let up just because the guy he is hititng may or may not know he is coming. If his back isn't turned and he has the puck, he is fair game. Once he was making the hit, his back was still not turned, and only at the last second (before he could stop from making contact) he turned his back. That isn't the hitter's fault.

And finally, you say this hit is dirty. Why exactly? Elbows up? Aim for the head? Jump? Do any of those apply to the hit? No, they don't, which is why I wonder why you believe this hit to be dirty.

A yearly suspension is a joke, and it's a shame that a player got that suspension from making a hit.