Herning-backen kan nu være med i en eventuelt syvende finalekamp

Herning Blue Fox fik to karantæner efter den fjerde finalekamp på hjemmebane og valgte at appellere Patrick Madsens straf på tre spilledages karantæne med det resultat, at straffen nu er blevet nedsat til to dage, oplyser Danmarks Ishockey Unions disciplinærudvalg, DOPS.

Anken har været behandlet hos Lyle Seitz, Director of Hockey Operations hos den østrigsk-baserede WIN2DAY ICE HOCKEY LEAGUE og DOPS-chef i Champions Hockey League, og han har følgende argumentation for at nedsætte straffen:  

Regarding the verdict HBF player Patrick Madsen who was suspended for three games for an Illegal Check to the Head infraction:

  1. After reviewing the evidence based on the video: https://vimeo.com/820140196/8066c1c9de?share=copy
  1. In consultation of the 2 previous cases supplied in within the 2022/23 season resulting in a 1 game suspension:
  1. In consideration of the factors to add the following statements to the appeal:
  • White #53 is positioning himself in front of the goal to be available for a puck deflection and should expect physical contact – Yes in the fact White #53 should expect contact from Blue #73. Should not be expected in the from of the check delivered by Blue #16

  • White #53 is solely focused on the puck and puts himself in a vulnerable position – Correct, White #53 is focused on the puck and rightly so, but did not put himself in a vulnerable position to be checked by an unsuspecting opponent

  • White #53 has one skate in the crease – Non applicable as a factor in a CTH incident

  • White #53’s involvement with Blue #73 is on of a character that would prevent him for preparing for physical contact and not of a character that would make blue #16 be the so-called “third man in” – 3rd man-in is deemed a characteristic of the nature of the check, which could also be considered unsuspecting. It is wording used solely in reference/description to the cause of the check, but is not the determining factor

  • At the moment of contact the puck has just passed white #53 – The puck was shot in the direction of White #53, but White #53 did not have, immediately before or during the check, ever have possession or control of the puck

  • Blue #16 is not increasing his speed before the check – True. Which is taken into consideration

  • Blue #16 has both skates contacting the ice through-out the check  - Both skates on the ice is not a factor for excusing the initial contact was to the head of White #53

 With all factors considered, both by the appealing team and the League verdict, please find the following decision as a non-biased opinion, based on all supplied factors.

The body check ‘player Blue #16’ delivered is considered an illegal check in 2 regards:

  1. Illegal Check to the Head
  2. Interference

 Although players do have a responsibility to know their surroundings, in this specific case, with Blue #73 in pursuit of White #53 while skating to attain a net front presence and a regard for the area of the puck location, it is considered probable that White #53 would not and should not have a consideration for the location of Blue #16.

Blue #16, while located to the side of the net and at at the goal line, took a brief look at the puck location and then immediately focused on White #53. Visible by the head location (visual) of Blue #16, the skating lane and most prominent, the body preparation (wind up) to deliver a check. Considering the check did make initial contact to the head of White #53, it is deemed an illegal head contact check. Additionally, White #53 did not immediately before or at the time of body contact have possession of the puck, which is a form of interference by Blue #16.

It is considered that ‘battles’ do occur frequently within every game in the slot area of the net. However, this check is considered, beyond the form of a normal net front battle.

It is also taken into consideration, that although the check is deemed illegal, it is not overly forceful in the manner which eliminates a Category 3 – Intentional.

The DOPS/PSC of the League decision of a Category 2 – Reckless was the outcome of the check.

There is not sufficient evidence or factors supplied by the appealing team to consider reducing the incident from a category 2 – Reckless to a Category 1 – Careless infraction.

 The outcome, based on all supplied video evidence to the incident:

  • Remain a Category 2 – Reckless Verdict
  • However, it is felt that the the incident should be reduced to a ‘2 game suspension’
Anders Biel fortsætter i SønderjyskE LANDSHOLDET VENDER HJEM: Her er truppen til den kommende uge