As I'm sure you are aware of by now, on Friday, October 30th, Kitchener Rangers defenseman Ben Fanelli was hit hard into the boards by Erie Otters forward Michael Liambas. As a result of the devastating hit, Fanelli had to be airlifted to Hamilton hospital and was treated for skull and facial fractures. Fanelli has since been upgraded from critical to serious condition and is apparently improving every day, which is obviously very promising news.
The situation received some closure today as Liambas was suspended for the remainder of the 2009-10 season (regular and playoffs). As an overager, this effectively ends his career in the OHL.
I've been relatively silent on this whole situation. I've been giving myself some time to process everything before I commented about it. The hit itself and now the suspension have generated quite the buzz, not only in the OHL community, but in the Provincial, National, and even International news. And stemming from this buzz are a whole host of angry OHL fans, some passionate about sending Liambas to the slaughter, while others are passionate about questioning Commissioner David Branch's agenda.
So where do I stand?
I think hits like the one Michael Liambas threw on Ben Fanelli have no place in the game. Seeing tape of the game, Liambas had Fanelli in his sights from the blueline and judging by the speed he was traveling, he had the intention of hitting Fanelli hard. For those saying the hit was clean, I suggest you take a look at the definition of charging as given by the OHL rulebook.
"A minor or major penalty (plus a game misconduct) shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice" (Page 56 of the 2009-10 OHL Rulebook).
Too many people simply correlate charging with the act of jumping, but the true definition of the call relates to the act of skating hard into a player from a great distance away. Liambas definitely did this. And if he didn't charge, he certainly could have been called for boarding.
"A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee" (Page 56 of the 2009-10 OHL Rulebook).
The hit was definitely not legal and as such deserved a suspension. Did it deserve the kind of suspension Liambas received? That, of course, is the million dollar question. My answer is absolutely not...and here's why.
1) As much as I want these hits eliminated from the game, they still occur at an alarming rate in the league. I would say that for every five games I watch, a hit similar to this one occurs. Yet, where are the suspensions for these hits? If David Branch's prerogative is to eliminate dangerous charges and boards from the OHL, why isn't every offense suspendable.
2) The hit was a result of a perfect storm (a term I saw used on a message board that I felt perfectly described the situation). While Liambas should ultimately wear the brunt of responsibility for the hit, there is something to say about the way Ben Fanelli took it. In watching the play, he did turn his back to the play at the last second, giving Liambas no chance to slow up on his hit. This is the type of thinking that can get you hurt, the assumption that the opposition has respect for your well being. Instead of coming in like a steam engine, Liambas could have easily won a puck battle along the boards against a much weaker Fanelli, should he chose to engage him rather than destroy him. There was also some bad luck on the play as Fanelli's head hit the border, rather than the glass, causing the damage to his helmet and likely the extent of his injuries. If his head hits the glass, we're likely looking at a mild concussion and nothing more.
3) Even though the hit was a charge (and a board), it was NOT a hit from behind. I also do not believe that the intent was there for Liambas to put Fanelli in the hospital. Obviously he had him lined up to make a big hit, but his motivation was likely to cause a turnover (since the hit was made on the forecheck), more than it was to seriously injure Fanelli. And while people have been quick to point to Liambas' goonish behaviour on the ice (his hit from behind on John Tavares last year, and his overall pugilist playing style), off the ice he's farthest from a goon. He's a 90% average high school student and one of the most active Otters in the community. He has also shown remorse for what he has done.
4) On the Fan 590 today (based out of Toronto), David Branch discussed the suspension. He said that the hit was not deemed illegal and not a hit from behind. He also said that the reasoning for the suspension was based upon the speed at which the hit was delivered (the charge) and the extent of the injuries suffered by Fanelli. This is what I have the most problem with. First and foremost, does Branch even know his own rule book? The hit was definitely illegal and to say the suspension was not based on that fact makes me question his decision. Mr. Branch has set quite the precedent by saying the suspension was due to the charge and injury. If we're suspending players for hitting at high speeds, should we not see a suspension every time a charging call is made on the ice?
The bottom line is the elimination of these hits from hockey. I'm not talking about a solid body check, or open ice hit to gain possession of the puck. Lord knows I love those as much as any hockey fan. What I'm talking about is a player hitting the ice and skating 50 feet with the intention of smashing someone's brains in. By suspending heavily only the players who actually injure people, are we really giving the impression that we want these hits out of the game? Or are we saying that these hits are OK as long as you don't get unlucky enough to injure someone? I have a problem with the inconsistencies among suspension rates for those guilty of similar crimes. I think I can speak for the majority of OHL fans when I say that we want to see hits like this erased from the game. However, I think I can speak for most OHL fans in saying that only punishing those who injure players is not the correct way to go about eliminating them. How many hits have we seen like the Fanelli/Liambas hit that haven't resulted in serious injury? By only suspending heavily those that inflict injury, coaches will continue to play the percentages. As will the players like Liambas, whose sole job on the ice is to stir things up and be a physical presence. For every one thousand hits you make like that, you might injure someone as severely as Ben Fanelli once. If it means continuing to get praise and a roster spot, you'll play those odds to stay in the league. And that, my friends, is the sad truth.
Michael Liambas was used as a scape goat by the Ontario Hockey League and David Branch. The minute this situation received National attention, Liambas probably knew he was done for. For a feeder league like the OHL, bad press can mean everything. David Branch has one of the toughest jobs in hockey, because his league only hits the National spotlight when something negative happens. Not only that, but he's also got to explain to parents deciding on his league that he'll ensure the safety of their son. Tough to do so if he's only handing out a slap on the wrist to a player who breaks the rules and nearly kills another player. By throwing Liambas under the bus and getting rid of him, all the people who suddenly peaked an interest in the OHL will be satisfied. They'll crawl back into their caves forgetting the OHL exists, thinking it's a safe league for their son to play in, and the Ben Fanelli incident will be forgotten and sent to the archives of a future TSN Sports Centre Top 10. Meanwhile, plays like this will continue to happen until suspension is consistent and NOT contingent on the injuries received.
If the Liambas suspension is the beginning of a new leaf for the league in eliminating dirty play, then it's great. But if it's merely a solution to cover up the greater evils and ward off negative press, then what's the point? Michael Liambas and Ben Fanelli's sacrifice will only mean something (because both players lost something this weekend) if David Branch has the balls to be consistent with his rulings and stick to his course of action. Only then will players learn to respect each others safety and realize the implications of their actions, regardless of the outcome.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this situation. I know you've get em.
As always, be sure to check out the Blog, "OHL Prospects."
Best wishes to Ben Fanelli for a speedy recovery.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Nice job Brock. I agree with everything you've said.
I have no idea what Branch was trying to say, but he sounded like a donkey. If it wasn't an illegal hit, then suspending Liambas for the season is ridiculous. So he's contradicting himself all over the place.
I can only hope that the league sticks with this standard, so that no player has to deal with what both Ben Fanelli and Michael Liambas are going through, and no fan has to see this kind of injury again.
I'm not optimistic that the league will man up, but I'm hopeful.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
NHL Central Scouting have released their complete rankings of 211 players for the 2010 NHL Entry Draft.
The International Scouting Services have released their Mid-Term Rankings for the 2010 NHL Entry Draft.
