Additional suspension for RPI - hit on Scali
Posted by sah67
Additional suspension for RPI - hit on Scali
Posted by: sah67 (---.64.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net)
Date: January 17, 2008 09:58PM
ECAC suspends Eric Burgdoerfer for an additional game beyond the one he already missed against Colgate last weekend under the Game DQ, making him ineligible for RPI vs. Union tomorrow night:
[www.collegehockeynews.com]
In other injury news, Scali, B. Nash, and P. Kennedy are listed as "probable" for this weekend according to CHN's injury report, but Gallagher and Taylor Davenport are listed as "questionable".
[www.collegehockeynews.com]
In other injury news, Scali, B. Nash, and P. Kennedy are listed as "probable" for this weekend according to CHN's injury report, but Gallagher and Taylor Davenport are listed as "questionable".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2008 10:00PM by sah67.
Re: Additional suspension for RPI - hit on Scali
Posted by: lynah80 (---.phlapa.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 18, 2008 01:17AM
Seems reasonable, given what happened. It's good that Scali wasn't hurt badly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2008 01:21AM by lynah80.
Re: Additional suspension for RPI - hit on Scali
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: January 18, 2008 12:36PM
For those who saw the hit was it really worth extra suspensions beyond the original one? I assume this means the league thought there was intent to injure.sah67
ECAC suspends Eric Burgdoerfer for an additional game beyond the one he already missed against Colgate last weekend under the Game DQ, making him ineligible for RPI vs. Union tomorrow night:
Rules question: I assume the xtra game isn't cumulative with any future DQ's, right? He would get two games for (e.g.) a fighting DQ, not three.
Re: Additional suspension for RPI - hit on Scali
Posted by: cbuckser (---.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net)
Date: January 18, 2008 12:55PM
To answer your questions: Yes and, I think, yes.
I don't believe that there was intent to injure, but the hit was extraordinarily reckless. It seemed to me to be significantly more dangerous that most hits from behind into the boards.
I think the ECAC big wigs deserve a lot of credit for handing out supplemental discipline although Joe Scali didn't miss a game. So often, the consequence of the offending act, rather than the risk that the act posed, provides the primary impetus for the suspension.
I don't believe that there was intent to injure, but the hit was extraordinarily reckless. It seemed to me to be significantly more dangerous that most hits from behind into the boards.
I think the ECAC big wigs deserve a lot of credit for handing out supplemental discipline although Joe Scali didn't miss a game. So often, the consequence of the offending act, rather than the risk that the act posed, provides the primary impetus for the suspension.
Re: Additional suspension for RPI - hit on Scali
Posted by: Cactus12 (---.med.nyu.edu)
Date: January 18, 2008 05:27PM
I also agree that the suspension was deserved. I don't think there was intent to injure, but it was an extremely dangerous play. This was not a situation where Scali turned his back to the play. The RPI player had time to let up and instead drilled him into the boards. It's one of those hits where you're glad no one has a concussion.
(As a side note, I think the AHL/NHL would have also handed down a suspension- and I think it's important that hockey at all levels is trying to cut down on these dangerous, disrespectful plays)
(As a side note, I think the AHL/NHL would have also handed down a suspension- and I think it's important that hockey at all levels is trying to cut down on these dangerous, disrespectful plays)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.