CP Hall of Shame (or fame?) - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Shawn_Cronin44 · 11-04-2008, 11:52 AM

The league website has been updated... The wheel of justice spit out the following....

77 - match penalty = 35 games
8 - major body check = 2 games
19 - gross = 5 games

Are these open to appeal or are these the final numbers?

jar_e · 11-04-2008, 11:53 AM

I'm not surprised with 77/19 but no way 8 needs to be in there. He should've just dropped the gloves and gotten two games than...

Locke · 11-04-2008, 11:57 AM

Wow, how many games do you play in a season? #77 just got raped by the wheel....

jayswin · 11-04-2008, 12:03 PM

Just got the following email...

77 - rest of season; match on an official. Apparantly players are usually punted from the league for life for this penalty, but due to us being drunk, he cut us some slack. So the lesson is, make sure you do everything drunk so you get a lighter sentance.

8 - 2 games; Major bodycheck. I don't remember this bodycheck, but then again, what do I remember?

19 - 5 games; Gross misconduct and verbal abuse of an official. Apparantly it was his verbal abuse that got him the 5 games, not the alleged stick incident.

Locke · 11-04-2008, 12:09 PM

#77 is not a CPer right? Thats rough.

jar_e · 11-04-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

#77 is not a CPer right? Thats rough.

Unfortunately none of those players (19/8/77) are.

Locke · 11-04-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jar_e

Unfortunately none of those players (19/8/77) are.

Maybe everyone on CP is an angel...

Jayems · 11-04-2008, 12:15 PM

I can live with the verbal thing for 19 because I can believe that... but I never believed that he chucked a stick in the direction of anyone... mostly because I saw the 'alleged' incident.

jayswin · 11-04-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

I can live with the verbal thing for 19 because I can believe that... but I never believed that he chucked a stick in the direction of anyone... mostly because I saw the 'alleged' incident.

I just got an email saying that there is an appeal process, but it has to be a written letter (or email) from the offending player. So no face to face meetings or phone calls.

Shawn_Cronin44 · 11-04-2008, 12:22 PM

I think there is a year probation that goes along with those suspensions as well? If I recall correctly each subsequent incident within a year results in a longer suspension. IE a second major within a year is an automatic 5 (or is it 10?) games. HNA has always been strict but they are also usually consistent in their discipline.

moon · 11-04-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm probably gonig to be blasted for being a prude but if I was the other team and had set aside my Friday night to play hockey - and the other team showed up drunk - I'd be pretty ticked.

You can playoff softball blitzed but hockey? No way. Pretty lame.

Is it any worse than the countless other games that these leagues often have where one team is miles and miles better than the other team?

At least these guys showed up with the intention to play and have a good time.

I would be much more pissed at the teams that sandbag it and have six ex-Junior A players in the "C" or "D" leagues.

I guess for me considering the horror stories that I have heard about some of these leagues that this would seem to be at worst a inconvience and likely better than some of the other games they played.

Perhaps I am still too young (29) but it seems like some harmless fun that prevented a game from being totally cancelled and in which a lot of guys got to enjoy themselves. Really isn't that what these leagues are about?

Jayems · 11-04-2008, 12:47 PM

Well, the issues I have is that the whole reason #8 got a suspension is because the other guy (#13) cold-cocked him out of the blue to begin with, yet he receives no suspension.

I think the communication between players and refs was non-existent. At no time did the refs approach us and let us know what his beef was and refused to speak with us after they canceled the game.

Either way, it's done with. I don't think 19 is going to appeal, even though he should have maybe only got 2 games. I just spoke with him and he's miffed, but, whatever. Lessons learned.

And as per Moon's comments, this league (HNA) is so much better about not facing ex-WHL'ers in a friggin D level NCHL game, but I find the refs in this league totally brutal. Sure, a handful are good, but there are some that blow my mind with the crap they call or don't call. But, them the digs, I guess.

In the NCHL, we constantly played a D level team with 2 crazy good people who would just dangle their way around everyone and score 9 goals a game and had well over 50 goals in like 12 games... it was so stupid. But here we sit, in the wrong division, already scheduled to face new division opponents (we stay in div 6, but div 7 guys move into ours, and the others move up) but we still have to finish out 10 games. So now, we're way behind the 8 ball, playing more games in a division we don't belong in, likely to go 0-10 (don't even get me started on how our legit win was taken away because of a power outage) and face a very up-hill battle to even make the playoffs. So here's hoping that the HNA follows the same rules as the NCHL whereas it's your wining % in the new division (even though we don't move divs) is taken, not your first 10 placement games. Or, every team makes the playoffs.

It probably wasn't the smartest thing to have a few drinks before the game, but at the end of the day, there was only one or two slaughtered, while most of the team was just tipsy or sober. This whole ordeal could have been prevented with communication, us having few drinks before was just the excuse.

I truly believe that the ref coming over and saying "hey guys, I'm fixin to shut this game down if you guys don't behave" would have prevented this disaster rather than just arbitrarily saying game over. That's what caused all the grief IMO, nothing to do with the drinking. 8 was sober, and would have made that move in any other game, yet #13 on the other team walks away scott free because their team was "sober" even though his sucker punch was just as deserving as a 2 game suspension.

He should have just fought him and got it over with, but was unaware of the rules. Now we know.

JiriHrdina · 11-04-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

Is it any worse than the countless other games that these leagues often have where one team is miles and miles better than the other team?

At least these guys showed up with the intention to play and have a good time.

I would be much more pissed at the teams that sandbag it and have six ex-Junior A players in the "C" or "D" leagues.

I guess for me considering the horror stories that I have heard about some of these leagues that this would seem to be at worst a inconvience and likely better than some of the other games they played.

Perhaps I am still too young (29) but it seems like some harmless fun that prevented a game from being totally cancelled and in which a lot of guys got to enjoy themselves. Really isn't that what these leagues are about?

Sorry I don't see it. Showing up drunk to a game is lame and dangerous. And I would wager if you talked to the other team i bet not everyone was thrilled with the situation.

JiriHrdina · 11-04-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

I truly believe that the ref coming over and saying "hey guys, I'm fixin to shut this game down if you guys don't behave" would have prevented this disaster rather than just arbitrarily saying game over. That's what caused all the grief IMO, nothing to do with the drinking..

Sorry man. You had guys on the ice drunk. The team put itself in the position to be treated like it was. As soon as that happens - you frankly don't have a leg to stand on with anything else.

Jayems · 11-04-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sorry man. You had guys on the ice drunk. The team put itself in the position to be treated like it was. As soon as that happens - you frankly don't have a leg to stand on with anything else.

Fair enough, but I think that was just the excuse. He made the call based on his perception gathered from 1 or 2 players and assumed that all 15 were tanked. He called the game after the body check, on a sober guy. Then things got out of hand because he called the game, not because everyone was drunk (although that was the reason given).

If he knew we were drunk, why did he even let the game start to begin with? It's because he knew there was only one or two.. and the rest were sober or fine to play. We had a good game going, a close game.

Either way, we did put a few drunks out on the ice but I think they were only dangerous to themselves, which is their own decisions, but I'm not arguing we put ourselves somewhat in that position.

What I'm trying to say is that because the other team was "sober" they're allowed to do lame and dangerous things on the ice without repercussions? See: sucker punch.

JiriHrdina · 11-04-2008, 01:22 PM

I agree - he should not have let the game even start. There are liability issues for both the league and the rink allowing that type of thing.

But I dispute the notion that those guys were only dangers to themselves.

Jayems · 11-04-2008, 01:27 PM

I should rephrase that:

"Sober guys can do equally as dangerous things as intoxicated ones can"

JiriHrdina · 11-04-2008, 01:31 PM

Perhaps but are drunk ones more likely to? I think so.

Jayems · 11-04-2008, 01:33 PM

I would agree they would be more likely, but thankfully, that wasn't the case.

Mean Mr. Mustard · 11-04-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

I would agree they would be more likely, but thankfully, that wasn't the case.

You had a player get ejected from the league for the remainder of the season due to abuse of an official during which time he (according to you) forced the official to the boards and began swearing at him.

Sorry but I used to be a ref and it is because of people like you that I don't do it anymore...