The operation of the SM league’s disciplinary system arouses disbelief again, writes Vesa Parviainen.
Tappara’s Casimir Jürgens avoided suspension, suspension and suspension. Mika Kylmäniemi / AOP
Even in the fall season, the League’s discipline could even be praised, when the lack of alignment of the years seemed to have changed to at least a budding solidity.
As the playoffs begin, the old confusion is here again.
The most unimaginable solution was letting Casimir Jürgens go like a dog from a leash yesterday, both on the ice and in post-processing.
If you become really understanding, you can still somehow understand that the really ugly transverse stick of Tappara-pak to Axel Ottosson’s neck was missed by the jury.
(Of course, this was also difficult for KooKoo to digest, because it took five minutes of superiority right before the start of the overtime).
But it is completely incomprehensible that the League, led by the situation room, washes its hands of the case without any justificationwhen the outrageous trick was not taken to the disciplinary delegation for consideration at all.
In the fall, praise could be given precisely for the fact that the bar in the direction of disciplinary proceedings was lowered and the decisions to release were also justified.
It helped both the players and the public following the sport to outline the line of discipline.
Now the grounds for Jürgens being released remain shrouded in obscurity. Many would like to hear those reasons.
Does Liiga think it’s okay to hit the neck with a cross stick so that the opponent gets hurt?
Is it much more ookoo than an upperhand strike to the jaw with a crossbar so that the opponent doesn’t get hurt?
According to KooKoo’s coach Olli Salo, Ottosson was injured as a result of Jürgens’ blow.
Lukon Anrei Hakulinen, who got hit by HIFK’s Ilari Melarti’s upper hand a day earlier, avoided injury, but the League still banned Melarti for two games.
In the previous game, Luko’s Samuli Piipponen received a five-game ban for a tackle, as a result of which HIFK’s Miro Väänänen was not injured.
Five matches is the starting point for tackles aimed at the head, which the League can tighten or relax.
Piipponen’s five matches was a completely appropriate sanction.
Or more precisely: it would be appropriate if Melart hadn’t been treated for a much more deliberate blow to the head with the Lukko pack compared to silk gloves.
Not to mention that case-Jürgens is completely swept under the rug.
It cannot happen simply on the basis that the hit was probably an accident. So was Piippon, but the long cake still came.
Besides, a hit to the neck with a cross stick meets the hallmarks of a tackle to the head, and a five-game suspension should be the starting point.
Rule 48.1. illegal tackling to the head or neck contains the following definition:
A player who tackles an opponent is penalized for an illegal tackle on the head or neck / neck if the player uses any part of his body or equipment to strike the opponent’s head or neck / neck.
Again, I have to say that in front of the League’s discipline, some are more equal than others.