Anyways, the crux of the article is thus: Patrice Cormier committed an illegal act that was of the most severe and heinous order. Upon review of the facts, there was no reason to doubt or alter the initial discipline board's decision. Of course, Cormier can appeal again to independent arbitration. (I expect him to do that)
So, Patrice Cormier, YOU SIT YOU SIT YOU SIT! (Courtesy: Sioux student section among others)
Here's the direct quote from QMJHL Commissioner Gilles Courteau:
"After hearing the testimonies, examining the evidence and meticulously analyzing the facts, I believe that Patrice Cormier’s gesture was very violent and susceptible of inflicting severe damage to the victim. The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Prefect follows the principals outlined by the League’s Board of Governors in the fall of 2008 regarding the elimination of gratuitous violence. Furthermore, the decision is consistent with the need to establish new and more severe disciplinary standards to dissuade players from taking these actions."
"Consequently, I declare that the Disciplinary Prefect’s decision to suspend Patrice Cormier is justified, reasonable and consistent with the League’s new policy."
NOW: To tie this into WCHA Hockey: Could you imagine McLeod saying that he'd like to impose some sort of stance such as the one the Q's Board of Governors took in 2008?
I can.
Do you think McLeod has the cohones to ENFORCE it like the Q's Discipline Board and now the Commissioner did?
Absolutely....not.
It would mean suspending a player for more than 2 games. It would also mean forming some sort of commission to enable the player's voice to be heard as well as the coach and AD of both schools. To be fair, that would probably benefit Gwozdecky. Then again.... I don't believe he ever has to worry about suspensions anyways.
To be honest, I don't think a discipline board is necessary in the WCHA. As aggravating as cheap hits are, the WCHA is lucky enough to not have them as too often an occurrence. But Virg Foss is right. The WCHA, and perhaps even the NCAA, doesn't have the safety of the players in mind.
I don't know what the answer is. I'm reluctant to allow fighting in NCAA hockey as I don't believe that fighting will always occur at the "right" times. That's a growing problem even in leagues that allow fighting. But at the same time, the officials, who have to step up if fighting isn't allowed, aren't stepping up.
Virg Foss (article here) said that the officials got reprimanded the last time UND was involved in a fight because they were allowed to fight. So, they stepped in on Lamoreaux and Marvin before it could have been settled. Well... now what?
It's now coming to the point that there SHOULD be a push by member schools to force the WCHA to take a hard stance on this topic: Either push the NCAA to allow fighting and structure the rules about fighting accordingly OR officials and the league disciplinary stance must be stepped up to protect the players at all costs. It seems to me, the only realistic and consistent way to do that is to take the judgment out of the hands of the officials. That means crackdown. It destroys the integrity of the game by forcing the hands of those officiating, sure, but when the officials cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for a variety of reasons (already covered) over time (aka a trend), it becomes a necessity (the Bina rule wasn't a new invention, remember).
I just hope something happens before someone gets another season ending injury of the cheap shot variety.
What are we talking about here, hits to the head, checking from behind or fighting? And, if we're talking about suspensions as well, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with suspending a player for off-ice infractions, like underage-drinking, so why do the individual schools have such difficulties addressing what amounts to illegal behavior in the athletic venue? Wouldn't an athletic director be showing some responsibility if he said, "Our players don't represent our institution properly when they attempt to decapitate an athletic opponent any more than if they were doing a similar thing in the dorm or downtown. We won't allow students that wear our uniform and represent our school to the public to operate as thugs, regardless of what the rules of the game or the actions of league officials might be. We expect all of our students, including members of the various athletic programs, to show sportsmanship and civilized behavior at all times. Should they fail at this, they should expect consequences." It really shouldn't even be necessary for the league to address this problem, except that schools that refuse to address it themselves should be looking at penalties from the conference.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePulverized Concepts - An interesting viewpoint I hadn't thought of, to be completely honest.
ReplyDeleteThank you. So, then, if I get the gist of what you are saying, SCSU's AD should have some fault in place for the Marvin situation?
Virg Foss suggested Hakstol be held accountable for sending Mario out to fight rather than suspending Mario for almost fighting. And maybe Hakstol should have been suspended a game.
However, the fact remains that the league is responsible for the enforcing of its rules and the ADs are responsible for following the rules and following the directions and instructions the league places upon them within the auspices of the league's jurisdiction. In other words, if School A commits an illegal act on the ice and the league says that School A's player must sit a game, the AD must ensure compliance. However, it is the league that is turned to for such things as the determination of guilt.
So what should the league do? When it says to the schools "HEY! This is wrong, do something about it," all the school really has to do is say they did "something." Sometimes, the school just had the coach sit down with the player and "talked to him." WTF?
We're not talking about acts of a 5 year old kid who doesn't know better. These are hockey players who have played hockey for up to 13 years before coming to college. True, checking has only been a part of their game for roughly 6 years prior to college but still... Talking to them about it? Since when are hockey coaches being turned into the counselor from South Park? "Illegal hits are bad, mmkay? Don't do them anymore, mkay?" Honestly...
Cheap hits aren't every game occurrences, thank god. But when they did, EVERYONE involved should step up and come down on the hitter to protect the players and integrity of the game. EVERYONE.
This league has a historical trend of having its own agenda for interpretting and enforcing the rules put down by the NCAA. When it is so variable, I'm not sure the ADs can take action that is fair to their own school when there is question as to how the league would react given a variety of factors when, in the past, the league has reacted differently every single time.
No standard stance, no standard expectation, no realistic and fair way for the AD to react that wouldn't run the risk of undue punishment to his school.
I understand that, if the AD took these acts more seriously, the league wouldn't need to address it. But they don't. So the league has to.
Also, so very often, emotion plays a role in competitive events. And the officials are tasked by the league to represent the integrity of the game and enforce league expectations of athletic performance during the game. When they cannot help but allow games to get out of hand, when they can do something about it AT THE TIME IT DEVELOPS, what do you expect the AD to do?
The league is wishywashy. They are run by buffoons. The AD's job is to be within compliance with NCAA mandates and produce a competitive team across the board (on the field/ice and in the classroom). The ADs cannot be held responsible for enforcing poor league performances within the same realm.
I thought the AD's were responsible for keeping their fanbases happy and raising money.
ReplyDelete