What are your thoughts? Was this a clean or dirty hit?

who cares, all that matters is if the boy is OK, does not matter what any one thinks about the hit, have some respect!

You obviously don't care. So why do you comment on here? Move along, you're just another LOSER.

you have to expect the worst everytime you are on the ice
typical coached forcheck hard agressive play, hit them hard and fast to force them to get rid of the puck earlier than they want
unfortunatly this is what happens when you have
a 16 year old kid playing with men

9:21 - well said. This one is a lose-lose situation where the player receiving the hit is probably done for hockey and the person hitting has just come to the end of his hockey as well. It's more of a problem with the game rather than the player initiating the hit.

Dirty is your answer.

Watch the video, then watch it again. Liambas, an 89 overage player, teed up 16 year old Fanelli from 30 feet away. He crushed him from behind and to the head with such force that Fanelli's skull and orbital bones were fractured. Can't get much dirtier than that.

Now, lets look at what Liambas is... A winger with 5 goals and 360 PIMS in his 4 year 130 game OHL career, you think he might be a goon? You think his coaches keep this talented winger on the bench for anything else?

What's sad is we have the same thing happenning in minor hockey too. Some coaches condone some recruit dangerous these players fortify and toughen their rosters. The SCC thread has a current discussion on this.

Yes, the question is should overaged players be allowed to play in the OHL? The physical difference between a 16 year old and a 20 year old may be too great.

11:06

You are certainly correct that there was a lot of force generated during the impact. What's questionable here is that this is a typical play that happens several times in hockey at minor, junior, NHL, etc. Its tough to determine if the intent was malicious.

If the intent was to maim Fanelli, then, by all means the punishment was warranted. This is the tough part though, was he really looking to make a clean hit?

The end results is unfortunate for both players. I hope the hockey minds will find a way to avert another mishap of this nature. I sympathise for all involved.

12:00

Did you see the video? Watch his angle of approach, his jump into the check, contact to the back of the players head, there is no doubt his intention was to put Fanelli through the boards.

the problem is 16 yr olds should not play with 20 yr olds. the physical strength of those two are very different.

so i guess you're against 18 & 19 year olds playing in the show too right?

the few 19/20 yr olds that play in the NHL are physically strong.

like stamkos, gagner, Bailey, Duchene, JT? even Crosby at that age?

none of these kids weigh over 200 lbs. what chance do they stand against a Komisarek, Neil etc. ?

It looked to me like the player turned at the last moment on a hard forecheck. But I only saw it at full speed.The game unfortunately is played at full speed.

4:53;

You are correct in that the hitter travelled from the circle towards the player. However, it looked normal at that point, where one could reason that he was in pursuit of puck and/or to apply pressure. I looked closely at hitter's feet, they were both on the ice at the time of impact. The tougher part was whether the shoulder or elbow of the hitter made contact with Fanelli's head or his shoulder that caused him to turn into the boards. This is where it gets tough to determine intent. Perhaps, another angle might give us some clues.

Does anyone know how the injured player is doing?

Kitchener, On: November 7, 2009


The Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club has been informed that Ben Fanelli was released from Hamilton General Hospital late last night.

"This is obviously an emotional day for the Fanelli family, our organization and community and really for the entire Ontario Hockey League's players and fans. It is still very early in Ben's recovery that will include out-patient treatments at the hospital along with additional supporting treatments at home" stated Rangers C.O.O., Steve Bienkowski.

Ben's mother, Susan Fanelli conveyed the following, "the support from the Kitchener Rangers organization has been wonderful. We are so appreciative it is hard to express."

Restrictions on visiting will remain in effect.

The Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club and the Fanelli family ask that the family's past requests for privacy continue to be honoured.

Any future information will continue to be released through the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club.

We again thank everyone for their support to both Ben and his family.

Perfectly clean hit.

read the definition of boarding. a 5 min major for boarding was called and rightly so. it was not a clean hit.

The boarding call was writen to protect players who are unable to protect themselves. When a player is prone near the boards you can't hit him. Ben Fanelli was able to protect himself, but decided not to, and he was not prone.

try again, and thanks for coming out:

http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule44.html

a. A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

(NOTE) Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is "boarding" and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging".

b. When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts for Boarding under Rule 44 (b), in either Regular Season or Playoffs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his Team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.

c. When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

That doesn't describe when to make a boarding call. Those are the conditions, after you make a boarding call, whether to apply a minor or major.

given that Fanelli is knocked unconscious and ends up in the hospital for a week with a fractured skull, how can you say he was not "prone" or vulnerable to injury?

and you do realize that the ref called a 5 minute major for boarding on the play?


finally, let's try those reading comprehension skills again:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/450222/learning_the_rules_of_ice_hockey_the.html

"Boarding is a penalty that is called whenever one player viciously body checks an opposing player into the boards in a potentially dangerous manner. Even if the check appears to be legal, meaning that the offending player properly executed the body check, rather than elbowing, cross checking, or other illegal contact, it can possibly be called a boarding penalty if the referee deems it necessary.

Boarding can cause serious injuries depending on how hard a player is hit and what angle the player happens to fall into the boards. An ugly boarding penalty can cause a player to break bones, get a concussion, or sustain other serious injuries.

According to USA hockey rules, if a player does happen to get injured by another player through a boarding penalty, the referee has no option other than giving the offending player a five minute major penalty and a game misconduct penalty."


even the god damn Americans understand it.

The ref did not call a penalty on the play..... he called a penalty on the injury.

lmao! is that the topic for the consolation round debate?? too funny.

That's so true! The ref did not call a penalty on the play, just the fact that the player was injured. This happens often in minor hockey as well where they don't make a call until a player is "perceived/apparently" injured. Failing this, the parents will scream loud enough until the ref awards a penalty to shut them up.

That's so true! The ref did not call a penalty on the play, just the fact that the player was injured. This happens often in minor hockey as well where they don't make a call until a player is "perceived/apparently" injured. Failing this, the parents will scream loud enough until the ref awards a penalty to shut them up - and to cover his butt.

I think the forecheckers intent on this particular play was to injure the defencemen. I also think he used the goalie to shield his approach towards his target. I do not think he should be suspended for life for the hit. It was more of a blindside than a hit from behind as the deman did turn his back at the last second.
One other thought I have about this type of play. Without T.V and video replay how does a minor league ref make the right call after such a hit if he is unsure of what happened exactly. Very tough call for minor league officials who do not have access to video replay. As the fallout from this play examplifies it is very important that the right call is made.

nobody wants to see anyone get hurt--and u can't take hitting out of the game--you can argue that the player turned at the last second--you can also argue that that the fore checker was too aggressive, take your pick--but what about the helmet?? was it fitted properly? do the chin straps do their job even when they are worn correctly. If the players helmet stayed on would the out come have been different? Maybe its time for a new helmet with a better chin strap!!

IF the average Joe had any idea as how that kind of thing is looked at and evaluated by game officials during real time you'd understand how and why no call was made right away....officials are trianed to not make a signal in this kind of thing until ALL other officials have been either asked for their opinion or what they saw.....and then the official will evaluate whether or not the player is "injured" or not. Then and only then will they make an appropraite call. In this case from all the angles shown and the hit made ...the officials got it right...Major for Boarding.

It was not a dirty or illegal check from the contact made...BUT from the force of which the player was thrown into the boards by result of the contact. Thus making it boarding... the OHL rules are somwhat different than Minor hockey or Hockey Canada rules but the definition of Boarding according to HC rules is as follows..

BOARDING

A Minor penalty or at the discretion of the Referee, a Major Penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty, based on THE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE OF THE IMPACT WITH THE BOARDS, shall be assessed any player who BODY CHECKS, elbows, charges or or trips an opponent in such amanner that causes the opponent to be thrown VIOLENTLY INTO THE BOARDS, if a player is injured a Major penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty MUST BE ASSESSED !!

IF the average Joe had any idea as how that kind of thing is looked at and evaluated by game officials during real time you'd understand how and why no call was made right away....officials are trianed to not make a signal in this kind of thing until ALL other officials have been either asked for their opinion or what they saw.....and then the official will evaluate whether or not the player is "injured" or not. Then and only then will they make an appropraite call. In this case from all the angles shown and the hit made ...the officials got it right...Major for Boarding.

It was not a dirty or illegal check from the contact made...BUT from the force of which the player was thrown into the boards by result of the contact. Thus making it boarding... the OHL rules are somwhat different than Minor hockey or Hockey Canada rules but the definition of Boarding according to HC rules is as follows..

BOARDING

A Minor penalty or at the discretion of the Referee, a Major Penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty, based on THE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE OF THE IMPACT WITH THE BOARDS, shall be assessed any player who BODY CHECKS, elbows, charges or or trips an opponent in such amanner that causes the opponent to be thrown VIOLENTLY INTO THE BOARDS, if a player is injured a Major penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty MUST BE ASSESSED !!

IF the average Joe had any idea as how that kind of thing is looked at and evaluated by game officials during real time you'd understand how and why no call was made right away....officials are trained to not make a signal in this kind of thing until ALL other officials have been either asked for their opinion or for what they saw occur.....and then the official will evaluate whether or not the player is "injured" or not.
Then and only then will they make an appropraite call.
In this case from all the angles shown and the hit made ...the officials got it right...Major for Boarding.

It was not a dirty or illegal check from the contact made...BUT from the force of which the player was thrown into the boards by result of that contact. Thus, making it boarding... the OHL rules are somewhat different than Minor hockey or Hockey Canada rules but the definition of Boarding according to HC rules is as follows..

BOARDING

A Minor penalty or at the discretion of the Referee, a Major Penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty, based on THE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE OF THE IMPACT WITH THE BOARDS, shall be assessed any player who BODY CHECKS, elbows, charges or or trips an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown VIOLENTLY INTO THE BOARDS, if a player is injured a Major penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty MUST BE ASSESSED !!

I think some of you get the picture. There was nothing wrong with the hit. In fact, if the Fanelli weighed 200+ pounds, or even closer to the weight of the hitter, I think we would not be talking about an injury. Secondly, he saw the forechecker coming and turned.

How does a referee determine how much force is enough to make the right play?

Someone said that the hitter used the goalie to shield his angle of approach. You should see the video again.


Again, losing both boys from the game is a loss for hockey.

If the boards in Kitchener weren't as hard as concrete.....

If his helmet stayed on his head......

If he knew how to properly take a bodycheck.....

If his goalie told him "heads up".....


Lots of things could have prevented it.

now that everyone has had time to fully digest the definition of boarding, it's pretty obvious that the right penalty call was made. so 1 aspect of the debate is concluded for the majority of (reasonable) people.

re: whether the hit was clean or dirty, the results speak for themselves. had Liambas not lined up the kid from so far away, or only checked him with enough force to separate Fanelli from the puck, then we would not be having this discussion. Liambas wanted to 'take the kid out'. he and every 3rd/4th line grinding checker has been taught to play the same way. i would suggest that he went too far, was too excessive, so whether his intent was to deliberately injure Fanelli or not, he must account for the end result. his failure to hold up and spare the kid, is indeed dirty. if he could sidestep the goalie, then he could have sidestepped the kid. in the end it was a dirty hit.

as to the suspension, this is what has people more mixed and lends to confusion on the dirty or clean aspect, as well as the penalty or not aspect. peole don't want to see a teenager carried out of a game on a stretcher with a fractured skull. likewise given a) the inheirant risk associated with a contact sport, b) the fact that Fanelli's helmet came off, and c) the unfortunate accident of Fanelli's injury being compounded due to hitting the stanchion, no one wants to see a player suspended for the entire season.

the punishment is more perplexing than whether it was clean or dity, whether it was boarding or not. the punishment is subjective with some basis on precedent, however i don't believe you can get many people to agree with a specific number of games or outright ban. you'll those demaning a lifetime ban to those that think a game or 2 is enough, and a pile of people somewhere in between; 7 games, 15 games, 20 games, 30 games, etc.

again, boarding or not, clean or dirty: simply look at the facts and consider what if it was your kid that got hurt. the punishment: 'your number of games suspension here'.

4:25, you haven't got the picture - strength or weight has nothing to do with it. the injured kid could have weighed 220 lbs and the result would have been the same. you could weigh 40 pounds more than me, however if I come at you at 30 kph and you're standing still, the outcome is obvious...not to mention the exacerbating of the injury due to helmet coming off which was part of the violent force.

I only saw the hit a couple of times on TV when Hebsher was discusing it somewhere last night on the tube.
Just looked to me that perhaps the goalie did at least partially obstruct his view of the forechecker. I know the goalie moved back into his net but by then he was only a few strides away. Maybe it did'nt contribute to the end result but I thought it might have been a contributing factor.
I appreciate the response to my thought about the referees call making process but my real query was how to help minor hockey refs make the right calls. Tough on the guys who don't have the benefit of off ice officials and replay technology.

4:57:

BINGO!!!

You have some good comments, but some are seemingly contradictory. In particular, I like your comment re: the player must "account for the end result."

You might be onto something here where the ruling should be based around the end result. So, a player will now be responsible for injuries caused to his opponent during a check; irrespective of intent. Accountability is clearly the way to go. This will also bring some element of respect into the equation. Your goal is to stop the player not to end his career.

All the other "STUFF" you said; some are irrelivant among other things. Example, how do you clearly rule what was intentional? Its a difficult thing to do especially since this was such a routine play.

How would you suggest to weed out the true injuries from the pretenders? Won't take kids/coaches long to figure out that if a player is going to be penalized for the extent of an injury, he'll dog it.

BANNED FOR LIFE sounds pretty harsh. Lets put it into perspective. The suspended player is an overager, he probably had 40 minutes of ice left in his OHL career, his team won't miss him, and maybe some other 16 year old will get to keep his head tact.

A strong message was sent using a zero value plug. Don't feel sorry for the player, his carreer was already over. Feel sorry for the game needing to do this.

Hey 1:28; I agree that a lifetime ban might be severe. Bertuzzi is still playing hockey.

Saying the guy only has 40 minutes of hockey left is a bit harsh though.

it looks like he's out of the woods for now, hopefully he'll return to hockey:
http://www.lfpress.com/sports/hockey/2009/11/11/11706096-sun.html


Sports Hockey
'I thought . . . he was going to check out'
By JOE WARMINGTON
Last Updated: 11th November 2009, 4:07am

OAKVILLE -- It seems the only person who hasn't seen "the Hit" is the very guy who took it.

He may not have seen it, but young hockey player Ben Fanelli lived it.

At least that's what doctors, his teammates and his loving family have told him.

Ben Fanelli also doesn't remember an opponent crashing into him, his head smashing into the glass, his blood pouring onto the ice, his teammates circled in prayer as he was carried off in front of a horrified Kitchener crowd before being flown to hospital in critical condition.

But one look in the mirror shows something drastic happened. That giant scar running down from his right eye tells the whole story of a kid who suffered a cracked skull and broken orbital bone.

Throw in that "fuzzy" feeling when he walks and the 16-year-old Oakville kid understands it must have been a heck of a wallop that prompted OHL Commissioner David Branch to suspend Erie's Mike Liambas for the remainder of the OHL season.

"I don't remember any of it," the talented Kitchener Rangers defenceman said with a laugh yesterday in his first public words about the Oct. 30 check seen across the country.

Of course his mortified parents certainly do, since they were at the game.

"It was my worst nightmare," his mom Susan said.

Firefighter dad Frank agreed, saying they are so grateful to have their son home because in the hours after this incident it was "touch and go."

"I thought for sure he was going to check out," he said. "If you had a child you would understand how that felt. I died inside."

Their son could have died, or been permanently disabled. But there they were yesterday.

Their son is home from hospital, healing and already looking ahead.

From the depths of darkness to relief.

"We want to thank everybody for their cards, well wishes and prayers," Susan said.

"And the Kitchener Rangers organization has been amazing," Frank added.

Ben adds he was shocked that so many cared -- everything from being mentioned on Hockey Night in Canada to having former NHLer Adam Graves come to visit him in hospital.

The product of the Mississauga Senators of the GTHL's focus now is to work with the doctors and recover from this unexpected road block in his career.

"I can't wait to get back on the bus and see the guys again," says an enthusiastic Ben.

Not so fast, say his parents. There are a number of steps to go through first.

"He is going back to McMaster (today) for more tests," said his dad, adding there are concerns over a "clot" as well as other potential damage.

While Ben's mom said, "there will be some discussion before he puts the skates on again" you could certainly tell by the look on Ben's face that if he has his way not only will he do that, but he'll be back out there on OHL ice as soon as humanly possible.

Those kinds of decisions will have to come in their proper time, Frank said.

"We don't know yet," he said of the long-term prognosis, adding there are more tests to come.

But he's certainly in a better place than a week ago. And it was a good sign to see young Ben yesterday throw on his Kitchener Rangers No. 4 and head out for a walk around the block with his mom and dad.

"I feel pretty good right now," Ben said with a smile.

Joe Warmington is a columnist for Sun media Newspapers.