Video Review: OC Hockey-Doerksen Jarvis Gaudette

2019-20 Season 

October 15, 2019 

Facts:

RDC has requested supplemental rulings based on video footage of three separate incidents arising from a Women’s Hockey game between Red Deer College and Olds College on October 10, 2019.

I have chosen to deal with all three incidents within the same ruling.

Ruling:

Article I Section 12 Rule 9.4 of the ACAC Operating Code reads as follows:

9.4.4. Any major penalty called in a game that has contact to the head must be reviewed by video i.e. the major penalty can be changed to a match penalty.

9.4.5. 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.

In addition, Article II Section 3 Rule 1.2 of the ACAC Operating Code reads as follows:

1.2. 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. (Amended Oct, 2013)

Incident #1

RDC suggests that OC’s Brynne Doerksen (#24) attempted to injure an RDC player with a hit to the head that resulted in the RDC player sliding onto the end boards after being struck by Ms. Doerksen.

No penalty was called on the play and the RDC player did not sustain an injury.

Video footage of the play is attached to the ruling.

In relation to this play, Rule 9.4 does not apply as a major penalty was not called nor was the RDC player injured. Therefore, the only possible basis for a ruling is under Rule 1.2 above. Based on that rule, a “serious act of misconduct” must have occurred if I am to interfere with the discretion of the game official in choosing not to penalize Ms. Doerksen on the play.

Having reviewed the video footage, it might have been possible for the referee to have called a penalty on the play. However, it was not clear to me upon review that there was head contact, boarding or that there was a deliberate intent to injure on the part of Ms. Doerksen.

In my view, there was no serious act of misconduct on the play which would warrant interfering with the discretion of the referee, who was in the proper position to observe the incident and elected to make no call on the play. Therefore, RDC’s request is denied.

Incident #2

RDC submits that OC’s Sarah Jarvis (#25) deliberately struck a RDC player in the upper body/head area. A minor penalty for boarding was called on the play but RDC feels that the call should have been either a major for boarding or a double minor for head contact. I have received no indication that the RDC player was injured on the play.

Video footage of the play is attached to the ruling.

Upon review, the referee was perfectly positioned to make the call, standing only a few feet away from where the play occurred. As with incident #1, a finding that there was a serious act of misconduct is required to interfere with the referee’s call on the ice. In this case, I do not find that RDC has satisfied this requirement and the request must be denied.

Incident #3

In this incident, RDC submits that there was deliberate knee-on-knee contact by OC’s Kassy Gaudette (#4). In addition, RDC suggests that Ms. Gaudette was also guilty of head contact. The referee called a minor penalty for kneeing. The RDC player in question was not injured on the play.

Video footage of the play is attached to the ruling.

Upon review of the incident, the referee was in good position to make the call. I observed no intent to injure on the part of Ms. Gaudette nor did I observe any head contact in my review of the video footage. As such, I do not find that there was a serious act of misconduct on the play and the referee’s call stands.

Conclusion

In its request for these rulings, RDC has referenced that it will be submitting the required $250 non-refundable fee pursuant to Rule 1.2, presumably on the assumption that a fee was required for only one of the video reviews as Rule 9.4 does not require payment of a fee. However, given my determination that Rule 9.4 does not apply to these incidents, each review was actually conducted pursuant to Rule 1.2, which means that a fee of $250 per review ought to have been provided, for a total payable of $750. Under the circumstances, I will make an exception but in future requests under Rule 1.2 the full amount must be paid by all institutions seeking such a review. Therefore, RDC is required to submit payment of $250 to the ACAC Office forthwith.

Sincerely,

Bill Hendsbee 
ACAC Commissioner