Liambas banned from league.

I thought that this topic deserved a page of it's own and I am very interested to hear from various Gens fans on how they feel about it. The NOOF has their own page by now and I'm sure it will deteriorate into it's usual "pissing match" between supporters from each side of the "too much" or "just enough" argument.......at which point admin. will come in and shut it down....(either that or it will somehow turn into a thread about the knights!)
I guess it's hard to come up with a "too little" side of the argument without suggesting some sort of legal ramification, which could still come, but of course this is the limit to what Branch could do.

On another thread the reason why this should be of particular interest to Gens fans was mentioned and that is the Fenwick/Stokes incident of last year. When it comes to the law and court proceedings something known as precedent is commonly brought into play when considering a penalty for ones' actions. Last year, Fenwick picked Conors' head off the ice and slammed it back to the ground. Clear intent to injure. There is no other application for such an action then to purposefully injure somebody........to use the law further, he had both the guilty mind and the guilty action. Now Liambas. Lined his "prey" up from a fair distance........charging. Shoulder to shoulder check.....no infraction. Fanelli turned away and made himself vulnerable to injury.....very unfortunate. Fanelli's head hit the metal support on the glass......also, very unfortunate.......I have seen this play many times (literally and figuratively,) and I don't believe Liambas wanted this result. He was certainly looking to lay a big hit. He probably could have rounded the corner deeper hitting Fanelli toward open ice rather than boarding him, (another penalty,) but overall I believe that the consequence is a direct result of Fanelli's condition. At the risk of drawing the ire of others I think the penalty is steep, but mainly when you look at precedence......all things are relative.

I'm a fan of the big hit myself, like Valentine throwing a hip out and taking out the puck carrier, but to say you are "finishing your check" when the passer has gotten rid of the puck (3 seconds ago)and is out of the play (see Janssen on Kaberle) is a complete cop-out. Just because you can completely flatten a guy doesn't mean you should.





Get well soon, Ben.

It's crazy....you can compare it to so many other instances.... instances where the punishment was so much less for so much more.....

Branch made me sick when he said that the punishment was not because it was intentional, he believes as does that league that there was no intent to injure .... but because of the injury caused by the hit he deserves a year

so if we trip a player by accident and he falls and breaks his neck, are we suspended for the year?

come on Branch wake up!!!

what are u going to do with people who intended to injure on a play like that..... the bar is just way to high

I don't think its worth any games unless you want to give a game for charging possibly, but i can see why it warrents at least 5-20

wondering how long i'd be allowed in the GMC next sunday if I wore a Branch is a joke tshirt

p.s. anyone a way to contact the ohl head office, via email or postage mail?

i feel that i need to fire off my thoughts

and yes i know it will probably never be read by those idiots

there's a email on the ohl site u can write to the ohl good luck on getting a response from them tho,your'll probably won't get one.

I think it's a really tuff call for sure and I am sure glad I am not the one doing it. The underhanded hits and even stick work have gotten out of control over the recent years for sure. That being said, the example league...the NHL is not setting a standard at all. There are so many dirty players in that league that are masters at hiding it. The biggest stars in the league are guilty of it. They've just learned how to be sneaky about it. One of the sports shows did a highlight reel of this recently. Players eventually retaliate, maybe not in the same game, possibly a few weeks or months down the road, and the offender is dealt with by the players and it results in some sort of injury. The standard needs to be set by the NHL.

As for this hit. It was a bad one for sure. When you review the footage the kid didn't even make an effort to slow down. Looks like we need to have the big red stop signs on the back in the OHL as well. Every effort to slow down should have been made when he saw numbers facing him. BUT I think the helmet also needs to be looked at. Review the footage of the how the helmet was worn. Too many players skate around with the chin strap hanging way down and there is supposed to be a 2 finger rule. I don't agree with hitting like that and I feel the punishmnet was severe and past issues in earlier games with Liambas were taken into consideration (he hit 2 Guelph players earlier in October...separated shoulder and concussion). So while I agree with the punishment, there is an arguement to be made for all players being accountable for their own safety. Liambas may have an arguement if it can be proven the helmet was worn too lose. They should be tight like a bike helmet. You don't even have to measure it like you do with a stick you can see it with the naked eye!! Also is the arguement that there are concussion helmets available but they are more expensive and the teams are not mandated to provide them, it's players choice to get one. Make them mandatory and enforce them being worn properly. The league should look at this the way they looked at neck guards and make damn sure this never happens again. Eventually with a little bit of investigation it could turn into legal cases which none of us want to see.

Is the punishmnet too harsh. It's a tough call. If I am the parent of a kid sitting in a hospital in critical care then no it is not. But if my kid is being made an example of by league officials who have created this mess over the years then yes. Very interesting debate to say the least.

I think this situation as a whole is reflective of how hockey is changing with times. There's alot less you can do on the ice, and what you do is now perceived differently as well.

Please don't take this the wrong way or out of context. Here is what could happen to Liambas if it wasn't on the ice. In fact if it were you or I

Assault
266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 245; 1972, c. 13, s. 21; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 22; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 267; 1994, c. 44, s. 17.

Aggravated assault
268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Wheather i intended to hurt someone or not. It is assault or assaut causing bodily harm or agravatied assault. I would get the above sentence on the street. i would also have a criminal record.
This could be what happened to him off the ice. I agree with the time he got. Ben will likely not play again. I hope nothing criminal comes out of this. Branch did the max he could. I hope Branches punishment is all that happens to this young man. Again I will likely get climbed all over for this post. Liambas should count his lucky stars and get on with life.

Drifter the commisioner is not responsible for the law. He is not the police or the government. Your right maybe the law should be applied.... but only if your going to take checking and fighting out of the game completly.... from there it would be argued that the players no of there risk and thus waive there rights.... the hit was not above and beyond what one would assume could happen..... even if the injury is.....

so i would say the law is not valid here, especially when compared to the Bertuzzi incident which was clearly assault....

football, boxing, lacrosse, hockey, its a game and both parties have agreed to participate

the issue at least in my mind is when comparing the incident to other incidents and the punishment for those incidents is that it is so far off the scale of justice..... it is like giving one person 25 years for murder and another person getting 5 years for the exact same offence......

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE HERE

to make matters worse it has taken away from Ben and the real tragedy here

Branch is out of line.... if he wants to change the rules thats fine with me.... but you can't penalize someone for something they did before a rule or a law was written

drifter wrote:Please don't take this the wrong way or out of context. Here is what could happen to Liambas if it wasn't on the ice. In fact if it were you or I

Assault
266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 245; 1972, c. 13, s. 21; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 22; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 267; 1994, c. 44, s. 17.

Aggravated assault
268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Wheather i intended to hurt someone or not. It is assault or assaut causing bodily harm or agravatied assault. I would get the above sentence on the street. i would also have a criminal record.
This could be what happened to him off the ice. I agree with the time he got. Ben will likely not play again. I hope nothing criminal comes out of this. Branch did the max he could. I hope Branches punishment is all that happens to this young man. Again I will likely get climbed all over for this post. Liambas should count his lucky stars and get on with life.

I did take it out of context sorry. this was a body check into the glass, not Todd Bertuzzi on Steve Moore... please don't even get into an assault case with this situation. Upon watching the video several times, a couple things i noticed. The goalie came out behind the net and slowed the play down, causing Fanelli to get caught up with him, if Fanelli just kept skating he would have had more speed to combat the oncoming check. In no way did Liambias take more than two steps heading into the glide where he checked him, so it wasn't charging. Boarding yes. It was a simple accident that turned ugly, and David Branch just likes to feed his own ego when the media attention on the OHL is negative. I hope the kid makes it back to hockey, and more importantly resumes a normal life, but this decison by Branch is BS when you look at the situation of the guy who hit stokes last year on Kingston.. think it was Fenwick. If that inicident had made the main stream media then you could guarantee that Fenwick would have done for the season as well. .

You both took this the wrong way. I was just pointing out that if this was outside the boards. This would be the Consequence. I DO NOT WANT ANY LEGAL ACTION taken nor should there be.. I was just trying to point out what could have or even what can still happen.They both have suffered enough of a set back. Thats why I said don't take it the wrong way. It is a Tragedy for both partys. Liambias loses his last year in the O and Ben loses possibly his career. Both have lost such a lot with what was to be just a hard hit. This boarding and charging needs to be taken more seriously with the officials. They let a lot of this go as we have all seen. This would I think curve a lot of the injuries that happen. It is just such a bad thing to happen. I don't wish this on anybody. Get well soon Ben. We really want to see you back in the O. I hope the law stays out of this totally. Liambas has paid a steep price as well as Ben. I hope this clears up the way I ment. I wasn't wanting to have anything else happen to ethier party except please Ben get well.

I understand where your coming from Drifter.

Just making the point the justice is equality.

If its going to be reviewed legally then all checks need to be. Especially anyone where there is intent to injure. Waivers also need to be signed by all players from now on in that case.

If your going to suspend him..... then alot of other suspensions need to be handed down and the rules need to be changed

thats my opinion wasn't trying to jump on what you said