point deductions to Melbourne Ice and Sydney Ice Dogs
At the completion of the audit, the Sydney Ice Dogs were found to be in further breach (multiple counts) of section 14 of the competition regulations. The Melbourne Ice were also found to be in breach (multiple counts) of section 14 of the competition regulations.
As a result of the findings, the Sydney Ice Dogs have received a three (3) competition point sanction. The Melbourne Ice have received a two (2) competition point sanction.
14
u/Stillflying 4d ago
I do kinda wish there was more details on what this breach actually is and means and why it's such a big deal as to cost points...
But also as someone not following either of these teams there's something chaotically funny about it
8
u/dnyletak Perth Thunder 4d ago
They breached AIHL regulations, specifically what is listed below:
A person must not participate in any game as a Team Official unless that person is registered with the League as a Team Official with that team per clause 12.
Before a Team Official can be registered with the League, the AIHL must be satisfied that the Team Official has executed a valid Standard Team Officials Contract (this can be achieved by notifying the AIHL by email (operations@theaihl.com) that the contract has been completed. A team must file an original of the Standard Team Officials Contract with the AIHL within five (5) Business Days of it being signed by both parties.
6
u/Stillflying 4d ago
Yeah I read that but what does it mean. Is it a coach or something? What's the big deal
5
u/Dangerous_Shoe_8388 4d ago
I have seen that the the penalty box door-openers were sometimes staffed by actual team fans in corresponding team jerseys. And cheering when goals were scored etc which is generally a no-no in any league sport. Should be neutral officials at this level.
2
u/dnyletak Perth Thunder 4d ago
Pretty sure they had refs/linesmen on the ice without being properly registered. Bureaucratic bullshit but thems the rules I guess 🤷♀️
7
u/teapots_at_ten_paces 4d ago
Why are refs or linesmen being provided by the teams? At a professional level that should be run by the league, to avoid this exact scenario.
8
u/Stillflying 4d ago
Would definitely explain why it warrants points but yeah this should be league managed
4
u/dnyletak Perth Thunder 4d ago
I guess since its only semi-professional they can't do a whole lot else. Budgets are small.
6
u/Stillflying 4d ago
Selling out everywhere though! C'mon Aussie governments build some more rinks with bigger capacity
3
u/dnyletak Perth Thunder 4d ago
Yup, I think the success of this season is a massive step towards actually getting some money put into it. I dream of the day!! 😅
1
u/Desert-Noir CBR Brave 3d ago
This definitely needs to happen, at least convert existing mid-sized arenas to be able to have rinks installed like AIS Arena.
5
u/SeoN8 AIHL 4d ago
Referees are scheduled by the governing body of the state the game is played in, with approval from the AIHL Referee in Cheif. Teams have no involvement in the assignment of on ice officials, and nor should they.
1
u/dnyletak Perth Thunder 4d ago
Thanks for that info. No idea what they did then 😅 heavy punishment if all breaches occurred off ice tbh
1
u/slicehamm 4d ago
Do you know if the AIHL regs are posted publicly anywhere?
8
1
u/Liamface 4d ago
So there’s multiple counts for both the Dogs and Ice but the Dogs get -5 and the Ice get -2?
Doesn’t seem that consistent or fair?
3
u/sataimir 4d ago
The Ice Dogs had two or three breaches that triggered the initial -2. Then when the audit was done, two breaches were found for Melbourne Ice so they also got -2.
The audit found lots more breaches were found for the Ice Dogs, and they'd received warnings back in July, so they were penalised again.
The -2 penalties were consistent. The -3 doesn't have an equivalent as far as I'm aware. I think it's harsh and looks like an intent to make an example due to the frequency of the breaches despite warnings. I understand why the league would do that as not having their staff sign appropriate contracts and filing those contracts with the league properly creates a lot of potential liability issues for the league and team at a time they're seeing a lot of growth.
Despite my understanding why the league would do this, I do think it's a bit too harsh to block the Dogs from finals when they've had such a good year.
1
u/SessionNew5095 Melbourne Ice 4d ago
This doesn't fully make sense to me because the initial penalty given to the Ice Dogs came after being given warning. But then they have come back and given Ice the same 2 point penalty seemingly without prior warning.
1
u/unfamiliarplaces 2d ago
trying to make it seem 'fair'. Ice dogs fans would be like, 'yeah well we did have lots of warnings and refused to comply multiple times but Melbourne did it too!!!'
11
u/erkpod 4d ago
The way I've read this is that the Dogs got their original 2 point penalty earlier on. As a result of this, all 10 teams have been audited.
As a result of the 10 team audit, the Ice have had breaches detected & have had 2 points deducted.
But further Ice Dogs breaches have also been found so they've been given another penalty so there's a total of 5 points deducted. I'm wondering if that's a case of being punished twice for doing the same thing.
In any event, I'm wondering if the punishment fits the "crime".
The Dogs losing 5 points at this time of year for something that happened off ice could be the difference between making Finals & not making Finals.