Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well it looks like spam bots have got pretty good, seeing as they must have some pretty good image recognition to pass even the image verfication part.
Now assuming that they are automated bots and someone is not registering for them, I May have a system that I thought of a while ago that could work.
My idea would work as so…
Before registering a user must use a image type authentication.
Eg. An image of the st kilda/st clair area with a message saying.. Please click on the ice rink.
With javascript you can capture mouse clicks and match them to an area of the of the image which resembles the ice rink or any other image with something a human has to find.
If the user clicks in the right place, it will allow them to register, and if not it will lock them out.
To make things even more secure you can list a few things they have to click on before they can register.
Well other than tuesday, which is going to run out soon because of A grade, the only other day I can make it is Friday.
Case Book: rule 556 – Broken Stick
Situation 4: A goalkeeper’s stick is thrown onto the ice to the goalkeeper from the player’s bench.
Ruling: No penalty shall be assessed to the goalkeeper, but the referee shall asses a penalty as outlined in rule 550(g, h) or rule 551(e, f)
550(g), If an Identified player, who is off the ice, throws a stick of any other object onto the playing surface from the player’s bench, he shall be assessed a:
> Minor penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct Penalty (2’+GM)
In the case where hes an unidentified player were to do the same you would issue a bench minor to the team.
Also its slightly different if its a team offical, an Identified team offical will be issued a game misconduct and unidentified will be a bench minor for the team.
Hope that clears things up.
Its in the section about replacing the goal keepers stick, I’m sure its a minor penaltie, as the player can only hand the stick to him.
I agree, however, its the players responsibility to play to the rules, not the ref to bend the rules to how the players want to play. As soon as a player brakes a rule it should be penalized and the ref should be consistent in this. If its a ruff game you will expect abit of roughness, but as long as the player makes a legal play at the puck he/she should be fine.
There is no reason a ref should not call a hooking or slashing or whatever just to keep the game “flowing” thats what delayed penalties are for, and it creates gray areas which the players don’t know what is going to be called.
I believe this is what new rule interpretations are about, to many refs (older) are set in there ways of letting the game “flow” as you call it and the gray area gets larger and large, its best to keep its black and white, things you can do and things you can’t.
Yes in fact it was to many men on the ice, but sadly he has final call.
In terms of that guy trying to start a fight, at times he did make contact with gloves on which can be deemed unnecessary roughness and could be given a minor, double minor or major penalty + GM. And like Kyle said “Offensive/Abusive language” which there was plenty of, and enticing an opponent will be assessed a misconduct penalty.
Unnecessary roughness is a good penalty to call when a game is rough like that, because it is just that… Unnecessary. Also It can be as little as a minor penalty or as high as sending someone to the dressing rooms.
IMO both Ryan and that guy earn’t them selves at lease 3 of misconducts for sportsmanship like behavior before the game was over, unfortunately my suggestions to the ref were only suggestions, and I did make suggestions and let the ref know what I was seeing.
There are lots of rules and penalties in place to stop this kind of thing.
I don’t Feel the game was called with an iron fist like it should have been, If players were assessed the penalties they deserved instead of passing it by as “part of the game” it would have set the tone early on in the game and hopefully prevented such acts.
As a linesmen in that game I could see the fights coming, small scraps by the net are not something to pass off as they will usually lead to something later, so catch it early imo.
Rule 450 – Offsides
Note 3: An intentional offside is made for the purpose of causing a stoppage of play regardless of the reason.If some one does it on purpose its intentional, eg a clear on the goalie while attacking players are in the attacking zone.
A person receiving a puck who skates in beore the puck cross or receives a pass by accident or misjudgment should not be an intentional offside because the player was not intentionally trying to stop the play, In that situation he has screwed up an opportunity for himself so is not intentional.
From the case book on rule 451 – Delayed Offside Proedure.
2. If there is a hard shot at or in the vicinity of the goalkeeper, the intentional offside rule shall apply
3. When an attacking player comes out of the end zone and deliberately plays the puck, or checks a defending player bringing the puck out, it shall be classified as an intentional offside.
Hope that clears it up a little bit
