Suspension: NAIT Hockey - Darling |
(
Commissioner's Rulings
) |
2010-11 SeasonJanuary 20, 2011 Facts: MRU has asked for an extraordinary ruling in relation to the conduct of NAIT men’s hockey players Steven Pratt (#19) and Dion Darling (#32) during a January 8, 2011 game. MRU has provided video footage of the incidents in question, which has been shared with NAIT. MRU’s position is that the video footage shows Mr. Pratt body checking a MRU player who had his back turned, and was thereby unable to defend himself against the hit. Following the ensuing scrum, MRU alleges that Mr. Darling, who was sitting on the NAIT bench, twice punched a MRU player who was standing on the ice in front of the NAIT bench. MRU feels that both incidents reflect an intention to injure on the part of the NAIT players. NAIT’s submission is that Mr. Pratt’s response was the result of coming to the aid of a teammate who had just been struck from behind by a MRU player. As for Mr. Darling, Coach Serge Lavoie has indicated that Mr. Darling has acknowledged that his behaviour was inappropriate. Apparently, the verbal exchange between Mr. Darling and the MRU player in front of the bench escalated to the point where Mr. Darling did strike the MRU player in the facial area with his hockey glove. NAIT denies any attempt to injure on the part of either Mr. Pratt or Mr. Darling. Ruling: Article III Section 6 Rule 5.1 of the ACAC Operating Code is worded as follows: Disciplinary Cases 5.1. An institution may request an extraordinary ruling by the Commissioner within 72 hours of an incident and may use videotape or additional information pertinent to the incident. The request must be submitted to the ACAC Office within three working days of the incident and a $250.00 non-refundable fee is to be paid. In addition, Article III Section 5 Rule 1.2 of the Operating Code is worded as follows: 1.2. Videotape Review: The AD may submit videotape to the ACAC Commissioner to receive his/her extraordinary ruling. An infraction must have been called by the game official, a serious act of misconduct have occurred, or a major injury have resulted from the incident. The request, including a tape of the incident, must be submitted to the ACAC Office within three working days of the incident and a $250.00 non-refundable fee is to be paid. (Amended, October, 2010) I have reviewed the videotape of the incident carefully. Steven Pratt (#19) The incident began when a MRU player hit a NAIT player into the boards from behind. In the video footage, it is clear that the referee has raised his hand to penalize the MRU player and is skating towards the location of the hit. A scrum immediately ensues and Mr. Pratt is seen approaching from the left. He drops his gloves and jumps up and toward the MRU player, who is standing against the boards. Several NAIT and MRU players then engage in pushing and shoving though no actual fight breaks out. While it is arguable that Mr. Pratt should have been sanctioned for his actions, this incident took place within sight of the referee, who was skating toward the scrum from the right side of the videotape. In my opinion, it was open to the referee to impose sanctions and he chose not to. Mr. Pratt’s actions were a common reaction to a hit from behind. The MRU player struck by Mr. Pratt was not injured. Again, although the referee could possibly have called a penalty, I am not prepared to impose supplementary discipline under the circumstances. Dion Darling (#32) It is indisputable that Mr. Darling struck a MRU player from the bench. The video shows the two players engaging each other verbally. Mr. Darling then takes a swipe at the MRU player, striking him in the face with his hockey glove. Then, as the MRU player moves toward the scrum, Mr. Darling attempts to land another punch. Neither punch appears to have caused any injury to the MRU player. Mr. Darling’s actions appear to have taken place outside the view of the officials, all of whom were involved in trying to break up the scrum. In its request for this ruling, MRU suggests that the Mr. Darling should have received a match penalty. However, my review of the Hockey Canada rule book confirms that a match penalty is only appropriate where the offending player “deliberately attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent…in any manner.” In my opinion, there was no attempt to injure on the part of Mr. Darling. Emotions were clearly running high and Mr. Darling acted inappropriately, but I do not feel that a match penalty is appropriate. The appropriate call, had the referee seen the incident, would have been a gross misconduct, which is to be called where a player “makes a travesty of the game.” Although I appreciate that emotions were running high, and it is possible that the MRU player may have said something to provoke Mr. Darling, Mr. Darling’s actions did make a travesty of the game. Article I Section 13 Rule 9.3 of the Operating Code deals with gross misconducts. It is worded as follows: Gross Misconduct Penalty: 9.3.1. A player who has received a gross misconduct penalty shall normally be assessed a three-game suspension. 9.3.2. At the discretion of the Commissioner, further or fewer penalties may be applied. Having reviewed the entirety of this matter, I choose to exercise my discretion to reduce Mr. Darling’s suspension to two (2) games, to be served as follows:
Sincerely, Bill Hendsbee |