Wednesday, April 29, 2009

To suspend . . . or not to suspend

Richard Doerksen, the WHL’s vice-president hockey, handles all of the league’s disciplinary issues.
He has been around the WHL longer than anyone. And the one word that always is used to describe him is “fair.” He doesn’t have a mean bone in his body and you can bet that he has yet to issue a suspension that he enjoyed handing out.
It was his decision not to suspend D Tyler Myers of the Kelowna Rockets for at least the first game of the WHL championship final. The Rockets are to open that series Friday night in Calgary against the Hitmen.
Myers received a major penalty for boarding and an automatic game misconduct at 7:51 of the third period in Game 6 of the Western Conference final on Monday night in Kelowna. Myers checked Vancouver Giants D Craig Schira and referees Pat Smith and Andy Thiessen chose to issue the boarding major.
The Rockets, of course, went on to win the game, 5-4 in overtime, thus taking the best-of-seven series, 4-2. And there immediately was speculation involving the immediate playing future of the 6-foot-8 Myers.
It should be noted that Doerksen reviews every major penalty that occurs in any WHL game. This one, then, would be no different.
“I was at the game so had seen it numerous times before talking to the officials after,” Doerksen said Wednesday.
He then explained a bit of the thought process involving the two referees.
“We have a double minor for checking from behind,” Doerksen said, pointing out that Vancouver D Nolan Toigo had been on the receiving end of exactly that call at 11:27 of the second period. “We don’t have a double minor for boarding.”
The establishing of these penalties go back to March 1, 1987, when Regina Pats forward Brad Hornung was left a quadriplegic after being on the receiving end of a hit from behind.
“We had a minor penalty or, if a player was injured, a major and a game misconduct,” Doerksen said. “Or if it was really severe it was a match penalty.”
But, as time wore on, something happened on the ice – some players tried to take advantage of the situation.
“What we were getting was . . . a guy would turn at the last second and the (checker) can’t hold up, now he hits him and the player is cut or injured and the (checker) is thrown out of the game,” Doerksen said. “There had to be some kind of break for (the checker) if the opponent turns. It’s not fair. He thinks he’s going to hit him legally and he turns on him.”
And, on Monday night, that was the situation Doerksen found himself facing.
“We reviewed this one immediately,” he said. “There’s no doubt on the play that Schira turns just before he gets hit. The referees didn’t pick that up. They didn’t think it was necessarily checking from behind so they went boarding. When the player was injured, it went to a major and a game misconduct because under boarding there is no double minor.”
Schira suffered a 10-stitch facial cut, a hand injury and a concussion.
“I hate it when players get injured . . . yet my policy over all these years has been that when the player turns in front,” Doerksen stated, “(the checker) is not intending to hit him from behind. Therefore, I don’t give a suspension on it.
“It gets amplified when that player is injured quite seriously. But, to be consistent on my rulings, and we had a couple this season that were very similar, there is no suspension assessed on the play.”
Had Schira been drilled from behind, Doerksen said, things would have been different.
“If I didn’t think there was a turning and (Myers) had just run him from behind,” Doerksen said, “we’d be talking how many games, not the one game everyone seems to think I should give just because a player got injured.
“I’m trying to be consistent with previous rulings.”
Doerksen added that this situation could perhaps lead the WHL’s competition committee into a discussion. Perhaps there could be a double minor option attached to a boarding foul.
In the meantime, Doerksen said, “My policy has been and will continue to be that there is no suspension given when the player turns.”
The turn by Schira, Doerksen said, “is the critical part of it.”
“Schira picks up the puck on his backhand and if he just keeps going with it, he’s going to get hit hard, there’s no doubt about it,” Doerksen said. “It’s going to be right on the shoulder from the side and there’s no penalty applicable. He looks over his shoulder and he sees the big guy coming – and (Myers) is a big guy – and he turns back . . . right as he’s getting hit and now it’s right in the numbers. And, unfortunately, he gets hurt.”
Doerksen understands that Vancouver fans are up in arms over his decision not to suspend Myers. And Doerksen knows that Kelowna fans are in full agreement with the decision. He knows, too, that were the skate on the other foot, the two groups would look at it the other way, too.
It is that passion that makes hockey in Canada such a great game.
And now Doerksen just wants to enjoy what he expects will be a great championship final.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Still chasing that white whale eh Ahab, I mean KFB.

Your obsession with Bartel is scary. Why don't you just get it over with and ask him out on a date.

Anonymous said...

Still not sure how Bartel has followers. I guess people who comment on blogs are followers. Wonder what Pederson's responders are called, he has a million of them that stroke his ego all the time.

Anyway, KBF thanks for making painting all Blazer fans with that bitter, retarded little brush of yours. Its comical now watching you freak out and even though I dont like Kelowna, I am hoping they continue to win just to watch you got suicidal.

You sure have alot to say for a fan of the worst playoff team this decade. Still no woman I see.

Bob said...

I can think of at least 2 or 3 situations this year when Blazer players (Shattock, Wasden, Ross, Dulle)were called for majors and game misconducts that upon replay were borderline even being penalties. And, in each of those cases, the Kamloops player got suspended at least one game. So, I would say Doerksen's argument about being "consistent with previous rulings" is laughable. Why can't he just come out and say it: "Hamilton is my boss and he says Myers gets to play."

Dylan said...

Do you have an opinion on the hit, Gregg?

Personally, looking at some of Doerksen's decisions over the years, the word I use to describe him isn't "fair", it's "clown". But I didn't see the hit, and everyone who's chimed in with an opinion seems to have at least a little bias...

Gregg Drinnan said...

I was on vacation and didn't see the game or the hit in question. (Don't know that I would have seen it had I been at home as I can't get cable, don't have StarChoice and am not at all enthralled with watching hockey on my computer.) . . . But if Richard Doerksen says Schira turned and thus got hit from behind, that is good enough for me. . . . I would suggest that anyone who questions Doerksen's integrity has no idea what they are talking about. . . . There may be people walking this planet with as much integrity as he has but there isn't once person who has more.

By the way . . . I deleted a comment in this string because of the use of an obscenity. Love the debate, but pls keep it clean.

gregg

Wangler said...

Take a look at the replay here:

http://www.chbcnews.ca/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=17669

It looks like a hit from behind to me.

I don't think Schira was trying to get a cheap call on Myers....

I certainly don't question Richard Doerksen's integrity, but I do question his opinion of this hit.

Goon said...

I would think that a 5 minute major and maybe a game is enough as far as suspensions go.

Bob said...

Having now watched the replay several times, I would say I can name many, many people with more integrity than a guy who chooses to defend that hit. It was very clear when Myers stepped into Schira that he was facing the boards, then he drives him into the boards. Myers clearly could've avoided injuring Schira on the play. However, if he keeps getting rewarded for injuring guys, why would he avoid it? Shame on Doerksen for defending the hit, and shame on the league for letting Bruce Hamilton make different rules for his team than the rest of the league!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, don't know what this guy is looking at but you can't get much clearer of a hit from behind than this! My god! The kid never even saw that train coming. How can you say he turned at the last second? His back was to Myers the whole time. And how about the elbow to the head as he pastes his face in to the glass? Vicious! No game suspension is a travesty and an outrage!

KBF said...

Yep, Doerksen can spin it any which way he wants, the fact is, it was a wreckless hit, and this so called "credibility" he has, has diminished if you ask me. Of course he's not going to come out and say, "I was under pressure from Mr.Hamilton to not suspend Myers, obviously so he can have his best defenceman ready for game 1".

And as for Rocket fans, yapping about how the call didn't warrant a suspension, come on now, we all know you would be the first ones yapping and crying if things were the other way around. But I guess, it's easy to forget that, when things are going your way right?

Hamilton and the Rockets have been the golden boys of the WHL, alot longer than the Giants have. We all saw how pissed off and sour Rocket fans became towards the Giants organization, because they stole their 15 minutes.

Stories from NHL.com

Stories from ESPN.com

Hockey News from Google

Loading...

  © Design byThirteen Letter

Back to TOP