HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   OHL (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=148)
-   -   Bolland gets 4 games (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=240112)

JrHockeyFan 04-10-2006 03:48 PM

Bolland gets 4 games
 
I'm clearly going to be biased in this thing, but all things considered, 4 games in the playoffs is ridiculous.

Contact was made accidentally and some kind of suspension could be justified like high sticking. I would not be happy with 2 games, but it would at least show that consideration was given for all of the factors.

I am really not interested in how Ouzas got 4 games because: 1. the circumstances were different. 2. Missing 4 games in reg season is not the same as 4 in the playoffs. 3. Owen Sound fans disagreed with that suspension because it was just as goofy. 4. Ouzas didn't have a linesman spinning him around. 5. When contact was made Bolland couldn't even see Angelidis (who by the way was unrestrained and started the fracas with a cross check)

I guess despite the new rules it pays to stir up as must crap as possible with the best players in the league to take them out of the games. Especially after the whistle.

CharlieGirl 04-10-2006 05:12 PM

If the situation were reversed, and Angelidis kicked Bolland, would you feel that 4 games was too much? 4 games has been the standard for making a kicking motion.

There is no way that the kick was the result of the linesman swinging him around -- he may not have known he was going to make contact with Angelidis, but he definitely kicked.

I have to say that I'm surprised though... but I guess Mr. Branch really had no choice in this matter.

Ex Storm 04-10-2006 05:30 PM

Why would a player bend his knee and kick his leg up and back when the ref spun him around? I've never seen a hockey player do that. I think you're just looking for excuses.

I like Bolland, but he tried to kick him.

Chistov23 04-10-2006 06:15 PM

I havn't seen the tape so I'm not going to comment on the decision. The only thing I'll add is that 4 playoff games is obviously not the same as 4 regular season games. So IMO this is above the standard that was set.

Quiksilver 04-10-2006 06:17 PM

I found the video in this thread:
http://www.hockeyfights.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=51346

CharlieGirl 04-10-2006 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quiksilver

That thread is pretty funny...

Quote:

It's obvious The Attack pressed the league for a quick decision.
Yeah, Einstein... because there aren't playoffs going on and game 3 is tonight or anything!

hockeyfan85 04-10-2006 06:56 PM

Hopefully this will just get the rest of the Knights going ;)

I have to say that the on the video it does look deliberate. But I also agree that 4 games in the playoffs is a completely different story from 4 games in reg season... But at least now we know...

Ex Storm 04-10-2006 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chistov23
I havn't seen the tape so I'm not going to comment on the decision. The only thing I'll add is that 4 playoff games is obviously not the same as 4 regular season games. So IMO this is above the standard that was set.

But didn't Adam Keefe get 15 games for kicking? 4 is nowhere near 15.

Joe T Choker 04-10-2006 08:19 PM

what kind of moron kicks a player in the playoffs?

all these little **** need to be shown the Malarchuk video as to what happens when skate blades make contact with the flesh

I also love the title of the video "RoshamboOHLstyle"

EDIT: please don't circumvent the profanity filter

CharlieGirl 04-10-2006 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus O' Toole
I also love the title of the video "RoshamboOHLstyle"

Yeah... if you knew the guy who put it on the web, you'd understand... he's insane! :)

Ryan Van Horne 04-11-2006 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippyime
But didn't Adam Keefe get 15 games for kicking? 4 is nowhere near 15.

You're right. But remember this, Dave Branch, the Prince of Englightenment, has bigger fish to fry now. He's trying to get all the players to stop calling each other names on the ice. That nasty piece of work Brett Liscomb got give games for calling Steve Downie a f-g.

As kicks go, I don't think Bolland's was all that serious. Peckham was standing and the kick was not that high and Peckham wasn't hurt.

Still, Bolland deserved his suspension, you can't kick guys on the ice. The joke here is that Bolland got one less game than Liscomb did. Dave Branch sure uses some queer logic.

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 11:03 AM

Actually no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Girl
If the situation were reversed, and Angelidis kicked Bolland, would you feel that 4 games was too much? 4 games has been the standard for making a kicking motion.

There is no way that the kick was the result of the linesman swinging him around -- he may not have known he was going to make contact with Angelidis, but he definitely kicked.

I have to say that I'm surprised though... but I guess Mr. Branch really had no choice in this matter.

The deadly pirouette skate slap. Quite frankly, regardless of who it was getting this penalty, I wouldn't believe that 4 games was warranted by any stretch. I might have been less sympathetic, as Owen Sound fans (and some others) have been, but it would be baloney regardless.

I have watched this replay so many times I am sick of it, but clearly he is being turned around on one foot by the linesman. You can discount it all you want to but the linesman spun him around, period. To say it played no role in the incident is just wrong.

The quote from Angelidis in itself is quite hilarious today. He was hit by a "laser shot" to the crotch, "but I'm okay". The man should have more self respect than to lie like that. He was so severely affected by this "laser shot to the crotch" his first inclination was to gesture to the refs. The degree of contact was trivial. Meanwhile Koverko hits Kostitsyn in the face with a stick, draws blood, and gets 4 minutes with 1:46 left to play. So tell me that those standards make any sense whatsever. An "automatic" penalty without considering all the circumstances is senseless.

The Owen Sound strategy has been pretty obvious. Gang up on the best players with cheap shots and see what happens, just like Angelidis did with a cross check. So why didn't the linesman grab him? All this stuff after the whistles too. All the league is doing is telling these guys it is okay to do that. So why bother to have tighter enforcement of the rules if this stuff goes unchecked. They are actually rewarded for it.

Anyway what is done is done. We'll see what happens from here.

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 11:13 AM

Well then
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trippyime
Why would a player bend his knee and kick his leg up and back when the ref spun him around? I've never seen a hockey player do that. I think you're just looking for excuses.

I like Bolland, but he tried to kick him.

Let us say you are correct. What would be the point of landing such a trivial inconsequential level of contact if intentional? What are you suggesting he was trying to do while being spun around? If somebody means to kick a guy they kick him, just like Boris M on Bergman in 72.

What you are saying Bolland did makes no sense on any level.

PS: all things considered, the cross check by Angelidis was a much more violent act that really started things. Any skate contact with Angelidis was literally nothing. Angelidis has just moved into the Claude Lemieux/Matthew Barnaby class of shameless opportunists profiting from his own chippy play. Come to think of it he did a pretty good dive in last nights game.

CharlieGirl 04-11-2006 11:30 AM

QUOTE=JrHockeyFan

Quote:

I have watched this replay so many times I am sick of it, but clearly he is being turned around on one foot by the linesman. You can discount it all you want to but the linesman spun him around, period. To say it played no role in the incident is just wrong.
Had Bolland's skate hit Angelidis in the shin area, I would agree that it was 100% the result of being spun around.

Quote:

Meanwhile Koverko hits Kostitsyn in the face with a stick, draws blood, and gets 4 minutes with 1:46 left to play. So tell me that those standards make any sense whatsever. An "automatic" penalty without considering all the circumstances is senseless.
The penalty for a high stick that draws blood is 4 minutes, with no regard to the point in the game in the infraction occurred - what would you have had them call?

Ex Storm 04-11-2006 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
Let us say you are correct. What would be the point of landing such a trivial inconsequential level of contact if intentional? What are you suggesting he was trying to do while being spun around? If somebody means to kick a guy they kick him, just like Boris M on Bergman in 72.

What you are saying Bolland did makes no sense on any level.

PS: all things considered, the cross check by Angelidis was a much more violent act that really started things. Any skate contact with Angelidis was literally nothing. Angelidis has just moved into the Claude Lemieux/Matthew Barnaby class of shameless opportunists profiting from his own chippy play. Come to think of it he did a pretty good dive in last nights game.

What was the point? Revenge? Getting out a little steam? What's the point of any cheapshot that gets thrown on the ice? You're suggesting that Bolland is suddenly superior to the rest of the league in that he doesn't need to throw cheapshots. Every player gets pissed, every player throws cheapshots here and there. I've already said that Bolland is a great player and for the most part a very clean one. But it happens to everyone.

I certainly won't hold it against him in the future. But the fact remains he kicked him, the league agrees, time to deal with it.

Your argument about the Angelidis crosscheck is a just one, though. I've always thought that the act that brought retaliation should be taken into account. It doesn't make it right for Bolland to kick him or for anyone to retaliate in any fashion, but at least consider what made the player do such a thing.

Quiksilver 04-11-2006 06:15 PM

Anyone else read the statement released by Bolland on the Knights website? To me he comes across as immature and ignorant to the fact that he actually "kicked" someone. He was assessed a Match Penalty which automatically comes with a 4 game suspension, regardless of the player involved. Bolland can blame the linesman all he wants, fact is he kicked another player and I don't care where or how hard it made contact.

http://www.londonknights.com/default.asp

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 06:23 PM

No No No
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trippyime
What was the point? Revenge? Getting out a little steam? What's the point of any cheapshot that gets thrown on the ice? You're suggesting that Bolland is suddenly superior to the rest of the league in that he doesn't need to throw cheapshots. Every player gets pissed, every player throws cheapshots here and there. I've already said that Bolland is a great player and for the most part a very clean one. But it happens to everyone.

I certainly won't hold it against him in the future. But the fact remains he kicked him, the league agrees, time to deal with it.

Your argument about the Angelidis crosscheck is a just one, though. I've always thought that the act that brought retaliation should be taken into account. It doesn't make it right for Bolland to kick him or for anyone to retaliate in any fashion, but at least consider what made the player do such a thing.

Superior? No, not at all. But look at what happened. It was a "nothing" contact. Did it really look like somebody venting or blowing off steam to you? How about the more likely scenario he is trying to get away from the linesman?

I have never said that retaliation is the answer or an excuse. What I am saying is that it is clear what the Owen Sound strategy is. You stir things up often enough and get away with it, you never know what will happen. Each get two and London loses a top player? An extra two? A third man in? An injury? A major? A game misconduct? A match misconduct? It's the hackers strategy to gain an edge. Let's not pretend it isn't being done.

This from Mark Hunter:

"Angelidis went after Bolland and that is what started the whole scrum. It's concerning to us that Owen Sound is going after our best players. On that play, Theo Peckham (Attack tough guy, LFP)was paired up with Rob Schremp. Was that planned?"

This quote from Angelidis:
"I watched the tape about five times. It was a clear kick and I think four games is about right. I didn't expect it at all, but there's no way the linesman caused him to do it. He knew what he was doing and he caught me with a laser kick right in the crotch. But I'm alright. It's fine."

This statement was released by Dave Bolland today:

Quote:

Bolland issues statement regarding suspension
London, ON: David Bolland has the following statement regarding his thoughts on the suspension.

At this time I would like to issue the following statement on my suspension.

" I am shocked and embarassed by the suspension and think that it is unfortunate and ridiculous that because an over zealous linesman chose to manhandle me and throw me around during a scrum that I am now unable to play in my teamís next 4 games. Because this linesman chose to grab a hold of me and swing me around and manhandle me I am now unable to help my team and teammates with the London Knights as we play in the OHL Playoffs. I have played for the London Knights and Team Canada over the past 4 years and during that time I have played the game with intregrity, skill and character. I think it is totally ridiculous that I have been suspended for a situation that would have been completely avoided had the linesman that night chosen to not manhandle me. " I never kicked Mike Angelidis in the groin area. This is totally false. I have a very sour feeling about the situation. "

Sincerely,

David Bolland

David has asked not to make any further comments on the situation.

Jim McKellar
Assistant General Manager
London Knights Hockey Club
Everything that Bolland has said fits with what is on the tape. He knows his own intents and he knows what effect the linesman had in the incident. You watch the event in real time, the linesman is turning him around quickly. Again, why isn't the linesman grabbing Angelidis who initiated matters with a cross check?

Meanwhile, you have "Laser" Angelidis who had to watch replays (5 times no less) to form an opinion about this kick at the speed of light to his groin area. A "laser kick" so severe in intensity that his first act was to gesture to officials to beg for a penalty, which one official bought into. Glad to hear he is "fine'. Perhaps he figured that out on the replays too.

I will believe Bolland before "Laser" Angelidis any day of the week. Or are there any fans out there who actually saw a "laser kick to the crotch"? I'd like to say Angelidis is just embellishing things, but simply put he being untruthful.

Ex Storm 04-11-2006 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
Superior? No, not at all. But look at what happened. It was a "nothing" contact. Did it really look like somebody venting or blowing off steam to you? How about the more likely scenario he is trying to get away from the linesman?

But who kicks their leg up like that when you're trying to get away from a linesmen! I've never seen that in my years of watching and playing hockey. It was a completely unnatural movement, no one can convince me otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
I have never said that retaliation is the answer or an excuse. What I am saying is that it is clear what the Owen Sound strategy is. You stir things up often enough and get away with it, you never know what will happen. Each get two and London loses a top player? An extra two? A third man in? An injury? A major? A game misconduct? A match misconduct? It's the hackers strategy to gain an edge. Let's not pretend it isn't being done.

So now Owen Sound isn't allowed to play rough? Their strategy is exactly right for the situation they're in, and so far it's paying off. You just sound bitter that it's working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
This from Mark Hunter:

"Angelidis went after Bolland and that is what started the whole scrum. It's concerning to us that Owen Sound is going after our best players. On that play, Theo Peckham (Attack tough guy, LFP)was paired up with Rob Schremp. Was that planned?"

Mark Hunter sounds like a whiny *****. It's a physical game and it's a strategy to play physical against the other team's top players. Like I just said, the OS strategy is paying off and London fans and apparently their management are bitter for it because their precious stars can't take the body or a little roughing after the whistle. "It's concerning to us". Well why? Because it makes you not win? London fans and the entire team are spoiled right now. You can't always win. Don't ***** when things finally don't go your way. It's the playoffs, not a curling tournament. Things are going to get rough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
This quote from Angelidis:
"I watched the tape about five times. It was a clear kick and I think four games is about right. I didn't expect it at all, but there's no way the linesman caused him to do it. He knew what he was doing and he caught me with a laser kick right in the crotch. But I'm alright. It's fine."

I'm not really cheering for either team in this series, I think my team is capable of beating both of their possible opponents. But I have to agree with Angelidis here. It IS a clear kick. He's right, there's no way the linesman caused his leg to come up like that. The "laser kick" is funny and an exaggeration. I don't know how serious he was when he said it, but if I had to guess, it sounds like an attempt at humour. If he's serious, then he's badly exaggerating. It was a kick, but not a hard one with any potential to injure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
This statement was released by Dave Bolland today:

Everything that Bolland has said fits with what is on the tape. He knows his own intents and he knows what effect the linesman had in the incident. You watch the event in real time, the linesman is turning him around quickly. Again, why isn't the linesman grabbing Angelidis who initiated matters with a cross check?

What Bolland said is downright embarassing. He seems kind of illiterate, actually. I thought he was a classy kid but what he said there is just stupid. Everything he said doesn't fit with what's on the tape. It fits with a "cover my *** until I die" mentality, which is the immature way of handling it. He really didn't say manhandle enough. He should've stepped up and apologized to the team and the fans for doing something stupid. Instead, he sounds like a whiny ***** just like Mark Hunter does. Man-up and admit it already. Of course he knows his own intents, but don't be naive enough to believe he wouldn't lie to save his own reputation!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
Meanwhile, you have "Laser" Angelidis who had to watch replays (5 times no less) to form an opinion about this kick at the speed of light to his groin area. A "laser kick" so severe in intensity that his first act was to gesture to officials to beg for a penalty, which one official bought into. Glad to hear he is "fine'. Perhaps he figured that out on the replays too.

I'm assuming you've only watched the video once and formed your opinion on that? So what if he had to watch it 5 times? This seems like a childish attempt to deflect the heat off of your team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
I will believe Bolland before "Laser" Angelidis any day of the week. Or are there any fans out there who actually saw a "laser kick to the crotch"? I'd like to say Angelidis is just embellishing things, but simply put he being untruthful.

I have no doubt you'll believe Bolland over Angelidis (but especially the league, right?). That's what a homer is. We all are. But if Angelidis is being untruthful, then Bolland's pants must really be on fire.

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Girl
QUOTE=JrHockeyFan



Had Bolland's skate hit Angelidis in the shin area, I would agree that it was 100% the result of being spun around.



The penalty for a high stick that draws blood is 4 minutes, with no regard to the point in the game in the infraction occurred - what would you have had them call?

The point is not that it could be called differently than 4 minutes. The point is that the structure of things makes no sense.

You are going to call it a kick and I think it can be called accidental contact. I think deliberate kicking is serious. I just do not agree that it was a deliberate act. Meanwhile, guys are deliberately getting the sticks into the faces of players and nobody says anything. The guy has to be carried off on a stretcher before a match penalty gets called.

Valabik deliberately cross checked Foreman in the face. Foreman was on his knees playing the puck. Nothing was called. Even though the action by Valabik was many times more violent with much more potential for injury than Laser Angelidis could ever imagine. Valabik even got off scot free.

Be honest. There are so many stick fouls without any degree of urgency by the league or officials to seriously deal with it. These stick fouls are deliberate and common. Injuries are very common. Deliberate skate fouls are quite rare. Injuries even more rare.

Are you really suggesting Bolland was trying to kick Angelidis? If so it was not much of an effort. Are you really saying he was trying to injure Angelidis? If that was the case he would have been banned for life.

When Ouzas was suspended he was trying to kick a guy but missed. THAT was deliberate. And he certainly wasn't being spun around by a league official.

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 06:48 PM

Oh really?
 
Quote:

But who kicks their leg up like that when you're trying to get away from a linesmen! I've never seen that in my years of watching and playing hockey. It was a completely unnatural movement, no one can convince me otherwise.
When guys are fighting and spinning the other guy around, arms and legs and skates are flying all over the place. You think pivoting on one foot in hockey is unusual?

Quote:

So now Owen Sound isn't allowed to play rough? Their strategy is exactly right for the situation they're in, and so far it's paying off. You just sound bitter that it's working.
Hey, you want to get your biggest guys to go out there and check them into oblivion, go for it. I like seeing hitting. Maybe if the officiating permitted it we'd see more of it from both teams. I'm in favour of that. Playing tough hockey is fine. But if you think sending guys out to stick foul after the whistle is hockey, you have a different concept of seeing good hockey.

BTW: Like I mentioned before, Mark Hunter got a year for sending a guy out to fight with Passmore, and Guelph fans were okay with that suspension. Meanwhile Barr gets 15 games for sending a guy out to break Perry's wrist (Fergie would be proud). Now Owen Sound has done the same thing and profitted from it without any repercussions. Of course that would all make sense to you because it works?

Ex Storm 04-11-2006 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
When guys are fighting and spinning the other guy around, arms and legs and skates are flying all over the place. You think pivoting on one foot in hockey is unusual?

Come on! You don't kick your leg up like that! I've never seen it and I've never done it. If that's how he pivots, he's in the wrong ice sport.

CharlieGirl 04-11-2006 06:59 PM

I'm not sure where you're going with the Valabik vs Foreman thing... I didn't see the play, so I can't comment on it. If it went down as you say, then it should have been called.

We obviously have differing views of whether Bolland's kick was accidental or intentional. I do agree that it can't possibly be considered intent to injure though.

I think I understand your point - a high stick that draws blood gets 4 minutes; making a kicking motion gets 4 games. The only answer I have is that a kicking motion is a deliberate action; a high stick (other than swinging the stick) happens in the course of a game, and happens so quickly that it's almost impossible for a ref to determine whether it's accidental or intentional (I do think that the vast majority are the result of carelessness).

If a 4-game suspension were handed down for every high stick infraction, maybe players would learn to have more control over their sticks. There would also be a number of nights where teams couldn't play due to lack of players -- so that rule is never going to be introduced.

CharlieGirl 04-11-2006 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan
Now Owen Sound has done the same thing and profitted from it without any repercussions.

What exactly has Owen Sound done? And as far as profiting from anything... yes, they are better off with Bolland in the pressbox, but that is Bolland's doing, and no one else.

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 07:39 PM

Come on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trippyime
Come on! You don't kick your leg up like that! I've never seen it and I've never done it. If that's how he pivots, he's in the wrong ice sport.

Watch one of those whirling dervish fights and tell me that their feet are always straight up and down.

You have said so many things that make no sense it is hard to keep up with all of them.

Don't give me that "I don't care who wins routine" Laser Trippy. It doesn't play out at all. You will accuse me of bias while you put your own spin on things so let's not pretend here. You are not any less biased than I am in the matter. Like a Guelph fan doesn't care who wins this series? Who do you think you are kidding?

You already said:"It was a kick, but not a hard one with any potential to injure." So obviously you know that there was no force in the action. So if it was a deliberate kick, why do it that way? It makes no sense. It served no purpose in any context. And guess what? The league has to know that it was not deliberate too. Because if they thought it was he would be done period!

The kid has zero history of anything like this. He didn't have to release a statement at all, but he did. I see no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt when it was such a non-event. Of course you being so unbiased can't see it that way at all. Better to believe the "just making a joke laser Angelidis" who formulated an opinion from replays??? Think about that in the context of judging the event strictly by the limited video tape. Perhaps he realizes that it looks worse than what he actually experienced?

As for the league? What are they going to do? Admit that a league official played a part in the incident? Admit that the officials had no control of the game, when it was clear they were doing a poor job of it both ways? It took them until after 3 pm Monday to figure out what to say. That spoke volumes to me.

The kid should be held responsible for maintaining control of his equipment, i.e stick, skates, etc. But when it is obvious he is being spun around, by an official no less, that responsibilty has to be reduced a bit. 2 (and a half) games would be fair and recognize all the factors involved. An automatic 4 playoff games is not on par with what happened in the regular season. That is obvious to anyone who at least tries to be fair about this. Otherwise, I think Ouzas should have gotten 8 games because it is clear that he was trying to kick a player without any external factors. Instead he missed four regular season games. Big whoop.

JrHockeyFan 04-11-2006 07:45 PM

Of course
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Girl
What exactly has Owen Sound done? And as far as profiting from anything... yes, they are better off with Bolland in the pressbox, but that is Bolland's doing, and no one else.

Cross checked after the whistle. Peckham mugging Schremp. Bolland spun around by the linesman. The whole thing was done by Bolland. All that effort to make minimal contact with a skate against Angelidis thigh pad. Sure! It was all his doing. :sarcasm:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.