Guelph Storm 2018-19 Season Thread (Part 3)

[Millpond]

That may be up in the air. Since this is an automatic suspension, there may be a possibility you can buy it back. A disciplinary suspension, such as a hit to the head where the league reviews and assesses X amount of games, cannot be bought back.

However, automatic suspensions for some actions, such as second fight same stoppage of play, can be bought back because they are automatics. I don't believe this has come up in the postseason before this shooting the puck over the glass. But every time it has happened in the regular season, automatically it has been five games period. No review, nothing.

But this is the playoffs and is an automatic suspension. So we'll see what happens. But I'm leaning more towards the possibility that it can be bought back more so than not.

I bet the league office is trying to come up with an explanation every one will believe , when they reduce his suspension to, say, one game.

The logic behind it will fly out the window , because it is the playoffs. And people don't tend to get injured as easy by stray pucks in the playoffs. And a full building wouldn't have more targets.

We will see.

 

[EvenSteven]

I bet the league office is trying to come up with an explanation every one will believe , when they reduce his suspension to, say, one game.

The logic behind it will fly out the window , because it is the playoffs. And people don't tend to get injured as easy by stray pucks in the playoffs. And a full building wouldn't have more targets.

We will see.

I think it will boil down to whether or not this is a suspension that can be bought back. If it is, it will be and no games. If it isn't, it'll be five games. No in between.

I'm predicting it'll be able to be bought back.

 

[ohloutsider]

I think it will boil down to whether or not this is a suspension that can be bought back. If it is, it will be and no games. If it isn't, it'll be five games. No in between.

I'm predicting it'll be able to be bought back.

This is really the only out for the league - allowing Saginaw to buy the penalty back . It can be "explained" a lot easier if this is the way it ends up.

 

[swoopster]

No buy backs, he deserves it. A player of ours, ( yes I'm a Spirit fan ) a few years back, did similar and injured a fan. He was suspended 5 games. This man child needs a wake up call ! NO EXCUSES!

 

[storm surge]

Yes, it’s true that Ratcliffe stupidly lost composure on that play. BUT, the play by the Storm as the major penalty and game time was winding down was atrocious. You could see the momentum swinging before Ratcliffe even took the penalty.

Hoping to take two at home.

I see a D needing depth .. why am I not seeing half our D .. and it looks disorganized..Spirit frwds in behind them constantly.

 

[three dog night]

After Guelph got the two goals in the five minute power play I thought they sat on it and what was Ratcliffe thinking the good news next two games at home.

 

[EvenSteven]

No buy backs, he deserves it. A player of ours, ( yes I'm a Spirit fan ) a few years back, did similar and injured a fan. He was suspended 5 games. This man child needs a wake up call ! NO EXCUSES!

So, if this is the type of suspension that can be bought back, should we, just for this case only, change the rules? Because he needs a wake up call? Because he deserves it?

What happens when the next issue comes along that is a situation where under the rules, it is possible for a buyback? See if the player is deserving or needs to learn a lesson before a decision is made as to whether it could be bought back or not?

We're heading towards a slippery slope if that's the way we are going to follow the rules in this league.

If what you are meaning is that you want to revisit the possibility of changing the rules to eliminate all buybacks, that's a issue for the rules committee in the off-season. Otherwise, today's rule stands. And if this situation falls under the buyback rule, so be it.

 

[swoopster]

The point that I'm making is that even if the "suspension buy back" is in play, it has to initiated by the team of the suspended player. Right now, all the good that has happened with the Sprit rise towards a championship is undone if they do this. Accept the ruling and play on.

 

[bear6]

To me the buy back suspension is just a way for the league to make money, if they actually cared that much for the fans they would eliminate this bullshit buy back suspension stuff

 

[Millpond]

Of course, all of that would be moot, if/ when a fan is injured, or worse by such errant puck, and the league faces a lawsuit.

How to explain to a judge, they manipulate rules to mitigate a particular situation ?

Or how they reduced the penalty because they don't regard the action as being dangerous enough to warrant ?

 

[EvenSteven]

Of course, all of that would be moot, if/ when a fan is injured, or worse by such errant puck, and the league faces a lawsuit.

How to explain to a judge, they manipulate rules to mitigate a particular situation ?

Or how they reduced the penalty because they don't regard the action as being dangerous enough to warrant ?

I get it. If there is a mandatory 5 game suspension without the possibility of buy backs, lawsuits go away. But if there are buy backs, lawsuits go ahead.

Hmmm.

 

[EvenSteven]

To me the buy back suspension is just a way for the league to make money, if they actually cared that much for the fans they would eliminate this bull**** buy back suspension stuff

I believe it cost $1000 to buy back a suspension. Or at least that was the cost years ago.

The league must be getting rich on this since situations for buy backs rarely happen these days. Wow.

 

[bear6]

I believe it cost $1000 to buy back a suspension. Or at least that was the cost years ago.

The league must be getting rich on this since situations for buy backs rarely happen these days. Wow.

Not saying they are getting rich, just think if the Nhl did something like this there would be no suspension cause they would all be bought back. I was just stating that its stupid to buy back a suspension.

 

[bear6]

I believe it cost $1000 to buy back a suspension. Or at least that was the cost years ago.

The league must be getting rich on this since situations for buy backs rarely happen these days. Wow.

Or if they want to buy it back it should be a 1000 bucks per game to buy back

 

[Ward Cornell]

Not saying they are getting rich, just think if the Nhl did something like this there would be no suspension cause they would all be bought back. I was just stating that its stupid to buy back a suspension.

Don't let the government know about this...what a great scam. They get their officials to suspend players just so teams can buy back the suspensions!

 

[bobber]

Or if they want to buy it back it should be a 1000 bucks per game to buy back

It's kind of oxymoronic to be able to buy back a suspension if rules are in place to protect players and even fans with pucks being purposely shot into the crowd. Not sure that process is still in place. If it is this is just stupid.

 

[Hendy]

Flip puck into stands during play = 2 minutes for delay of game.
Flip puck into stands after whistle = 5 game suspension.
Fans are warned in venue and on ticket I think that pucks can leave the playing surface.
Makes no sense. Suspension buy-back should be an option.

 

[ohloutsider]

Or if they want to buy it back it should be a 1000 bucks per game to buy back

This is what I thought as well - 5 game buy back would be $5000. I also wonder if they can do a partial? say buy back 3 games for $3000 and let him sit for 2 games. No matter what the league will decide today and we will see the outcome. Also as others have posted elsewhere Lennox is not a bad second option. He is not really that much of a drop off, might be a bit rusty and head to head he is as good as Popovich.

 

[bcspragu]

Flip puck into stands during play = 2 minutes for delay of game.
Flip puck into stands after whistle = 5 game suspension.
Fans are warned in venue and on ticket I think that pucks can leave the playing surface.
Makes no sense. Suspension buy-back should be an option.

Not only that, but depending on where you are at on the ice i.e outside your own zone, you can flip the puck out of play for no penalty at all.

That said I think Ivan deserves a suspension (whether the team has to buy it back or not is a different story) intentional or not that was a dumb move.

If the league was interested in 100% fan safety and putting an end to people putting pucks out of play (way more of these incidents that I ever thought there were), they would put netting up around the entire playing surface and make it a requirement that glass height around the rink be uniform height (Saginaw at least has lower side glass than that behind the net, making even less protection for fans along the sides of the rink). But they don't. They want to maximize pricing for premium seats and not lose any ticket sales because people believe the glass or netting impedes sight lines.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

 

[EvenSteven]

The point that I'm making is that even if the "suspension buy back" is in play, it has to initiated by the team of the suspended player. Right now, all the good that has happened with the Sprit rise towards a championship is undone if they do this. Accept the ruling and play on.

It does not make any sense to allow your player to be suspended if there's a way out of it. That's why there is an appeals process for all suspensions.

No way any team allows it's number one goalie to be suspended for five games if there's a way out of it. Especially in the playoffs. Whether it's the "right" thing to do or not.

 

[EvenSteven]

It's kind of oxymoronic to be able to buy back a suspension if rules are in place to protect players and even fans with pucks being purposely shot into the crowd. Not sure that process is still in place. If it is this is just stupid.

Do you feel the same way about appealing a suspension?

 

[swoopster]

It does not make any sense to allow your player to be suspended if there's a way out of it. That's why there is an appeals process for all suspensions.

No way any team allows it's number one goalie to be suspended for five games if there's a way out of it. Especially in the playoffs. Whether it's the "right" thing to do or not.

Totally disagree with you on this... I appeal something if I feel that a bad call was made, not this. An OHL Championship would be forever tainted if he is allowed to play and the Spirit go on to win.

That's my opinion, and you have yours, and I'm OK with that.

 

[LR8]

This is an awful situation for all involved, however I would not be surprised if there is no way around the rule. It is a liability driven rule designed to protect patrons, and ultimately the CHL and it's owners. They have an obligation to protect fans and by way of extension, the themselves. Same reason there is netting at the ends of the rinks - that is not there to save the cost of the pucks! Liability issue, especially in US rinks.

 

[Finster8]

Swoopster, l have always respected your posts but what do you think management will do if they can buy him back? We all know that answer. As far as tainted maybe but if Ivan c
omes back and he can play it was a league decision and not Saginaws.