Suspension Video Review-RDC Hockey-Wing

2016-17 Season

February 1, 2017

Facts:

During a January 26, 2017 game against MacEwan University, RDC’s Julia Wing (#13) violently body checked MacEwan’s Dominique Scheurer into the boards, resulting in serious injury to Ms. Scheurer. No penalty was called on the play.

According to MacEwan, Ms. Scheurer was unconscious for 1-2 minutes and was removed from the ice on a spinal board and taken to hospital by ambulance. She was diagnosed as having received a severe concussion and a neck injury and was placed on bed rest. At present, although she has shown some improvement, Ms. Scheurer has not yet returned to classes nor has she been able to return to playing hockey.

MacEwan is seeking a review under Rule 8.5.5 of the ACAC Operating Code.

Ruling:

Article I, Section 13, Rule 8.5.5 reads as follows:

8.5.5. Any incident where injury was done to the player’s head can be requested for review by that institution for further suspension without fee regardless of whether it was called or not. If not called, the institution must provide a doctor’s note with diagnosis of injury. That institution is required to provide the league with video evidence of the incident.

Of note, Rule 8.5.5 appears only in the Men’s Hockey section of the Operating Code. In my opinion, the principles expressed in this rule are equally applicable to Women’s Hockey and it is my view that the rule should be applied to the current circumstances. However, in the alternative, Article III, Section 1, Rule 1.4 also applies to these circumstances:

1.4. Request for Supplemental Ruling/Videotape: An athletic director may submit videotape to the ACAC Commissioner to receive an 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 videotape of the incident, or additional information pertinent to the incident, must be submitted to the ACAC Office within 72 hours of the incident and a $250.00 non-refundable fee is to be paid.

In support of its request, MacEwan has provided video footage of the incident in question, a copy of which is attached to this ruling. In addition, as required by the Rule 8.5.5, given that no penalty was called on the play, MacEwan has also provided a medical note substantiating that Ms. Scheurer sustained a concussion as a result of the hit by Ms. Wing.

I have had the opportunity to review the hit in question on a number of occasions. As I have said in previous rulings, I am reluctant to substitute my own call in place of the referee, particularly when the referee had an unobstructed view of the incident in question. In this case, however, although the referee appeared to have good position on the play, I am compelled to make an exception, based on the following:

• The puck was nowhere near Ms. Scheurer at the time of the hit
• It appears that Ms. Wing maintained constant eye contact with Ms. Scheurer leading up to the hit, appearing that she intended to make intentional contact
• Ms. Wing appeared to follow through with an elbow to Ms. Scheurer’s head as part of the hit
• The hit took place in the “danger zone,” approximately 3-5 feet from the boards, placing Ms. Scheurer in greater danger
• The hit appeared to be predatory in nature
• As this is a non-contact league, Ms. Scheurer was placed in a more vulnerable position as she would not have been expecting to be hit by Ms. Wing
• Ms. Scheurer has sustained a significant injury that has impacted her ability to attend school and play hockey

It is unclear why the referee did not make a call on the play. However, given the severity of this check, its location on the ice, the fact that Ms. Scheurer did not have the puck, was not expecting contact and was in an extremely vulnerable position, it is my view that this incident must be dealt with very severely.

We deal with very little violence within the Women’s game and there is little precedent to rely on in assessing the length of suspension to impose on Ms. Wing. However, in my opinion, the most applicable frame of reference is a match penalty, outlined at Rule 9.4 as follows:

9.4. Match Penalty

9.4.1. A player who has received a match penalty shall normally be assessed a three-game suspension.

9.4.2. At the discretion of the Commissioner, further or fewer penalties may be applied.

To be clear, I am not putting myself in the position of the referee and assessing a match penalty. However, under the circumstances, I feel that an appropriate starting point for considering an appropriate sanction is the three (3) game suspension referenced in Rule 9.4. In this case, the reasons outlined above justify imposing a lengthier suspension than is contemplated in Rule 9.4.1. Therefore, Ms. Wing is hereby suspended for four (4) games, to be served as follows:

• February 2, 2017 vs. Olds College
• February 4, 2017 vs. Olds College
• February 9, 2017 vs. SAIT
• February 11, 2017 vs. SAIT

Sincerely,

Bill Hendsbee
ACAC Commissioner