|
|
Matt I thank you for putting us in, I just wished that we were higher when I say HH at #2 and Stoga at whatever, o well, we are the underdogs I guess
|
| |
|
|
|
He satisfied the USA Hockey Requirement of sitting out 1 game (last game of the SHSHL season against CB West). He is eligible for Flyers Cup...
|
| |
|
|
|
Maybe it's three SHSHL games and Flyers Cup doesn't count towards that? I don't know just taking a stab at why he wouldn't have to serve that last game in Flyers Cup. If I were the coach though and he was one of my star players, I'd find an exibition game, throw a bunch of JV players in the gamea and get him on that scoresheet as serving that last game. I don't know if that's allowed in the SHSHL or would be counted towards his suspension, but it's worth a shot.
|
| |
|
|
|
What happened last year in the LBCSHL finals? Didn't some Ryan kids get suspended for fighting in the last game of the Championship series with HGP? Were they allowed to play in the Flyers Cup?
|
| |
|
|
|
Last year the Ryan players did sit out the Flyers Cup game. The big difference being LBCSHL has a 1 game suspension the same as USA Hockey. This player under question is from SHSHL with a 3 game rule for league play.
|
| |
|
|
|
Matt, The official ruling on this was handed down the night of the Rock/East game. The East player is eligible for the Flyers Cup and dumpandchase summed up the reasoning pretty accurately.
The Flyers Cup uses the straight USA Hockey rulebook. The 3 game fighting rule is an SHSHL rule. The player met the USA Hockey requirement for his suspension in the final regular season game against CB West and will serve the two games remaining on the league suspension at the beginning of next season.
Like D&C correctly assumed, we treat these as non-league games because of the differences in the fighting penalties between leagues.
|
| |
|
|
|
As someone said before though they should get that in writing. I remember when we had a player who was supposed to serve the end of a ten minute misconduct. A league offical told us he didn't have to serve it, then after the game we were told we had to forfit because he was supposed to sit. Just saying dot your I's and cross your T's just to be on the safe side.
|
| |
|

|
quote: Originally posted by Matt Sacks: I'm fine with that, I just didn't want to see another forfeit due to assumptions.
Yea...yea... me either. With that said, I'm pretty sure they're safe. They should probably just go with it. Only kidding.
|
| |
| Posts: 299 | Location: Ridley Park | Registered: 26 February 2007 |    |
|