Jump to content

Shaggy Ry

Bertuzzi KO's Moore with a cheapshot...

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Deleterious

It is not crap, assault is defined as such:

A violent physical or verbal attack.

It says nothing about the other guys back turned. If I go up to a guy in a bar, face to face and hit him, its assault. Even if he wants to fight me, its assault. So by your standards every fight is assault, why not charge all of them?

I am not saying it wasnt cheap, it was. The whole thing was disgusting. When you enter a playing feild, you are playing by different rules then society has set, you are playing by the sports rules. Therefore the sport should govern itself and suspend him, or if the play was bad enough, ban him forever. This should not be settled in the court of law.

There's something that makes me uncomfortable about the idea that any activity, sports or whatever, shoud be outside the rule of the law. There's already too many athletes out there who see themselves as outside the normal rules of society as it is. I don't think that giving the green light for viscious attacks on others so long as they occur in the sanctuary of a stadium is such a great idea.

At what point does behavior in a sport go from being competitive to being potentially criminal? I don't know. Maybe it needs to mirror the Supreme Court's opinion on obscenity: "We can't define it, but we know it when we see it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by pvtpylot

There's something that makes me uncomfortable about the idea that any activity, sports or whatever, shoud be outside the rule of the law. There's already too many athletes out there who see themselves as outside the normal rules of society as it is. I don't think that giving the green light for viscious attacks on others so long as they occur in the sanctuary of a stadium is such a great idea.

At what point does behavior in a sport go from being competitive to being potentially criminal? I don't know. Maybe it needs to mirror the Supreme Court's opinion on obscenity: "We can't define it, but we know it when we see it"

Hmmm I didnt mean to sound like I put them above the law. I meant to say, when you step on the field things are different then on the street. Tomorrow at work, throw a hip check into your boss when he/she walks past, see what happens.

Another thing, I dont think people are outraged by the cheap shot, they are outraged by the injury. If he just punches him, and he goes down and there is a scrum and everyone walks away, not one word of a criminal charge is ever brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Deleterious

Hmmm I didnt mean to sound like I put them above the law. I meant to say, when you step on the field things are different then on the street. Tomorrow at work, throw a hip check into your boss when he/she walks past, see what happens.

If it's a required part of my job and all parties consent to that beforehand nothing happens. The only reason it would be considered illegal in my case is because there is no possible definition of my job that includes the need for hip checks, so there wouldn't be any implied consent on my boss's part. I'm pretty sure the law is already pretty clear on that.
Another thing, I dont think people are outraged by the cheap shot, they are outraged by the injury. If he just punches him, and he goes down and there is a scrum and everyone walks away, not one word of a criminal charge is ever brought up.
Unfortunately, I think you're absolutely right on the mark with this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just sucks that this is what it takes for people to talk about hockey. It's on every sports show in the country pretty much. This is how hockey gets a bad name. The only time non-hockey fans see a lot of it is when something ridiculous like this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by pvtpylot

If it's a required part of my job and all parties consent to that beforehand nothing happens. The only reason it would be considered illegal in my case is because there is no possible definition of my job that includes the need for hip checks, so there wouldn't be any implied consent on my boss's part. I'm pretty sure the law is already pretty clear on that.

Unfortunately, I think you're absolutely right on the mark with this point.

Yeah, and my point is, different things happen on the field of play then in the street. Different rules apply. You cant start mixing and matching when it suits you to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't consent to grevious bodily harm - with few exceptions(one being that you can reguarding medical procedures). If I ask you to cut off my arm with your rusty chainsaw and you do it - you are liable. If I ask you to sneak up behind me and knock me out, ask you to proceed to jam my head into the floor and the same injuries result - you are still liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Deleterious

Yeah, and my point is, different things happen on the field of play then in the street. Different rules apply. You cant start mixing and matching when it suits you to do so.

Where do you get that? The rule of prior consent is the same for everybody. If you take a job where you know physical contact will be required then you can't claim to be assaulted within those limits. When the contact crosses the line of implied consent it's criminal. There's no grey area, or "mixing and matching" at all. It's not like sports cases have never been tried in the courts before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by pvtpylot

Where do you get that? The rule of prior consent is the same for everybody. If you take a job where you know physical contact will be required then you can't claim to be assaulted within those limits. When the contact crosses the line of implied consent it's criminal. There's no grey area, or "mixing and matching" at all. It's not like sports cases have never been tried in the courts before.

Ok lets go it your way. Some consent is given that a hockey player will be hit etc. Are you going to prosecute for every high stick? Every hit from behind along the boards? What if someone hits me in the face with a puck? What if someone wants to fight me and I just stand there and take the beating, can I press charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Deleterious

Ok lets go it your way. Some consent is given that a hockey player will be hit etc. Are you going to prosecute for every high stick? Every hit from behind along the boards? What if someone hits me in the face with a puck? What if someone wants to fight me and I just stand there and take the beating, can I press charges?

Well, let's see. Deliberate high sticks with intent to injure have already been prosecuted several times in two countries, so the courts have already answered that one for you. Hits from behind, if intent to injure can be proven, why not? Getting hit by a puck is an occupational hazard, so no joy on that one. And, if someone is beating on someone else who is making no move to defend themselves, c'mon, do you really need an answer to that? Of course that's a crime. Why wouldn't it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...

this is going to sound like I'm defending Bertuzzi, and that's not my intention. He hurt Moore badly, and deserves whatever punishment comes his way.

That said, Moore knew guys were out for him. His hit on Naslund WAS a very cheap shot. His elbow cold-cocked a guy skating by...it looked very intentional to me. His hit, an inch to the right or left, could have killed Naslund.

Instead of skating away from the first fight, he should have just gotten it over with. You can't expect to be able to walk away from that type of situation.

Again, Bertuzzi's shot was cheap. Turn the guy around, and challenge him if you must fight. If he skates away, he's the laughing stock of the hockey world.

As Kenny Rogers said in his classic "Coward of the County"... "sometimes you've got to fight to be a man."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by DetroitFolly

Okay...

this is going to sound like I'm defending Bertuzzi, and that's not my intention. He hurt Moore badly, and deserves whatever punishment comes his way.

That said, Moore knew guys were out for him. His hit on Naslund WAS a very cheap shot. His elbow cold-cocked a guy skating by...it looked very intentional to me. His hit, an inch to the right or left, could have killed Naslund.

Instead of skating away from the first fight, he should have just gotten it over with. You can't expect to be able to walk away from that type of situation.

Again, Bertuzzi's shot was cheap. Turn the guy around, and challenge him if you must fight. If he skates away, he's the laughing stock of the hockey world.

As Kenny Rogers said in his classic "Coward of the County"... "sometimes you've got to fight to be a man."

He did fight Cooke, the first guy who challenged him, in the first period. He walked away from all of the challenges after that, assuming, correctly IMO, that the matter was now settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by pvtpylot

Well, let's see. Deliberate high sticks with intent to injure have already been prosecuted several times in two countries, so the courts have already answered that one for you. Hits from behind, if intent to injure can be proven, why not? Getting hit by a puck is an occupational hazard, so no joy on that one. And, if someone is beating on someone else who is making no move to defend themselves, c'mon, do you really need an answer to that? Of course that's a crime. Why wouldn't it be?

Would you have prosecuted McCarty for his attack on Lemiux?

We will never agree, thats just life. You make some good arguments and points and I respect those, but I just dont agree. Oh well, we can agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Deleterious

Would you have prosecuted McCarty for his attack on Lemiux?

Y'know, that's a tough call. My own recollection of that incident is that Lemiux saw McCarty coming and dropped the gloves right before the hit, but based on what I'm reading here I'm wondering if my memory isn't being clouded by personal bias. I'd have to see the tape again, but if he did cold-**** Lemiux without any warning then I'd have to say yeah, that would have qualified for some kind of action.
We will never agree, thats just life. You make some good arguments and points and I respect those, but I just dont agree. Oh well, we can agree to disagree.
Fair enough, and I certainly respect the thought and consideration you've put behind your opinions as well. I also appreciate your civil tone of debate. That's getting all too rare on bb's nowadays.

Just for the record, as a fan I don't want to see the law getting involved in sports, which is why I hope that the NHL does something to stop these kinds of incidents once and for all. Once something like this hits the national radar it's invariably people outside the sport who end up trying to "fix" things, and that's not good for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...