craigshaw45 (Login craigshaw45) Registered Members
Re: Cimadamore
April 5 2008, 9:33 PM
i didnt think a travesty of the game was available for a buyback? is this a new rule?
also of note looks like its turning into a gongshow in oakville tonight. two quick goals by markham and then 6 straight by oakville. hudes and free look to have had meltdowns.
You cannot buy back any gross misconducts this year, so if he was assessed one, either it was changed after the fact, or the opposing team might have a valid complaint.
Upon further review of the game tapes it was determined that Cimmadamore was innocent and did not deserve the penalty and he therefore played tonight. I asked the same question at the game and that's what I was told. Oakville must have requested the review.
What a lot of crap, since when can you appeal a referee's call?? I guess you can put this episode in the same category as Aurora's disallowed O/T goal last Monday night. Can't appeal a goal call, even though the ref-in-chief viewed the replay, but you can appeal a "travesty of game" penalty that carries a 2 game suspension, and have it reversed.
A total "crock", wouldn't you say Craig!!
craigshaw45 (Login craigshaw45) Registered Members
Re: Cimadamore
April 6 2008, 5:32 PM
yes i would say it was a mighty large crock if you ask me.
how about earlier in the year when aaron chambers got a 4 game suspension for the weakest high stick i saw all year and the league wouldnt reverse that decision. the ref called it a spear. awful awful call. unacceptable for the league to allow this to happen. even if the call was wrong stand behind your officials regardless of how awful they may be.
"Can of worms" Wex, you better believe it. Every call that results in a suspension will be appealed. The decision to reverse Cimadamore's suspension, is totally unacceptable. I don't know whether Markham abjected or not but judging how things are done in this league, the Waxers probably did not know a thing until they saw Cimadamore on the ice.
I'm not saying that this is the right decision. The call was brutal in the first place. Here you have a kid who will never play another game in this league stiring up something at the end of the game. It doesn't seem fair to give the kid who is moving on in the playoffs the same penalyt. Also, what does this have to do with Markham? Last time I checked they weren't playing in that game. It's up to the league.
A lot, Cimadamore is one of Oakville's top scorers. In last night's 6-3 Oakville win, he picked up 3 pts, a goal and 2 assists. He would not have been playing at all in that game or tomorrow night's game, had the suspension not been reversed. That's what it has to do with Markham.
It will be interesting to see how many goals and assists Cimadamore gets in tomorrow night's game. You can bet your bottom dollar he will be on the scoresheet somewhere.
Markham has nothing to do with the decision making process. It's up to the league. Heck if another team is upset it should be the tigers they actually played in that game. You are missing the point. I know he is a great player. Sure Markham would love to see him sit in the stands. But they have nothing to do with it. If the penalty occured in game one against Markham and the league changed there mind, then Markham would have a say in the matter. But it didn't. What's done is done, turn the page or should we go back to the high stick no goal call. Call the league see if they can over turn that call. Maybe the tigers can play in game two Monday night.
Not correct, Vanny, Markham can object to the reversing of the decision, in fact my sources tell me that they did but to no avail, which does not surprise me.
There's a process in the OHA for all of these things and that is the OHA's video tape policy. Basically, teams are allowed to request a video review, so long as they send the tape and a letter outlining their position to the OHA and the opposing team within 48 hours. Teams doing this must pay a non-refundable $100 fee. Within another 48 hours, a three-person panel with the OHA will review the tape and rule
Wexdog weren't you just explaining attendance numbers to someone. Here is just another example.
SMC, I'm sure Markham did challenge the ruling and good for them. It's my opinion that they shouldn't have the right to because the penalty didn't occur in a game they played in. In the end, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
I'm against this secret -leage-approved-tape-appeal-if-you-don't-like-the-call-cuz-little-Johnny-was-provoked-and-got -a-penalty-he-didn't-"deserve"-BS.
Surely the same "tape" had the phantom high stick goal which was disallowed? That, more than anything, should have been reviewed.
SpiritNation (Login SpiritNation) Registered Members
Re: Cimadamore
April 7 2008, 4:33 PM
This subject is healthy. First off, let's forget about the phantom high stick that cost Aurora their season. It seems to me that Tiger fans always tend to find an excuse for their team's losses circa two years ago, the phantom penalty and subsequent offside goal by Randy Johnson eliminating the Tigers.
Second, I agree that this league has to publicly announce their policy on video reviews, protests, buy backs, etc. Why have suspensions if they are reversed or bought out?
Third, I think that this conversation is supporting the fact that the officiating in the OP is so inconsistent and at times down right awful. With the better officials getting games in the O, the OP is often stuck with ref's that will never make it to the next level, or young officials getting their start. Maybe the league could invest all of the money from suspension buy backs to help develop the officials on the ice.
In conclusion...this appeal/video review process is going to get out of control unless addressed asap.
"First off, let's forget about the phantom high stick that cost Aurora their season."
Statement was made by a person who tends to dislike the Tigers.
"Third, I think that this conversation is supporting the fact that the officiating in the OP is so inconsistent and at times down right awful."
Either way you can not cut the legs out from under the refs. This has happened twice in the post season thus far. The first one was a misinterpretation of the rule, but this one was fully overruling the ref. Teams will probably start to protest everything they believe to be unjust.
The best thing is to have frequent and consistent evaluation of the refs. It all starts at the top, but without it we have a bunch of refs teaching themselves. I don't know anything about the evaluation process, so I'm not judging the league here. I am just stating that their needs to be a through system in place for evaluation.
Making mistakes is the only way to learn, but you'll never learn if you don't know you've made a mistake.
