Hockey hit last night
kcballboy
Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Did anyone see the clothes line last night from the Islanders/Rangers game? Probably one of the worst intentional hits I've ever seen. Simon's lucky he didn't do more damage than he did.
I agree that he should be suspended into next season.
I agree that he should be suspended into next season.
Travis
0
Comments
<< <i>Did anyone see the clothes line last night from the Islanders/Rangers game? Probably one of the worst intentional hits I've ever seen. Simon's lucky he didn't do more damage than he did.
I agree that he should be suspended into next season. >>
I saw that on TV this morning. Fines and suspensions don't seem to work, I would like to see a player who does something that intentional
get fired from the team and forbidden to ever play in the NHL again. Maybe when someone is parylised or killed they will wake up.
<< <i>Awful, but not as bad the the Bertuzzi incident a few years back >>
The result was worse in the Bertuzzi incident, but the intent was much more malicious in this situation IMO.
<< <i>
<< <i>Awful, but not as bad the the Bertuzzi incident a few years back >>
The result was worse in the Bertuzzi incident, but the intent was much more malicious in this situation IMO. >>
Yup. If his chin didn't get in the way, we could be talking a completely different matter today. Who knows what a clean shot to the throat would have done.
email bcmiller7@comcast.net
Jay
Bob
email bcmiller7@comcast.net
<< <i>Criminal charges should also be filed. He used that stick as a weapon. If I did that on a street hockey game, I would be in jail and sued. >>
disagree. the law should stay out of sports - tons of things happen on the fields of play that aren't legal in day to day life. The individual leagues do a good enough job policing themselves and don't need any outside help, IMO./
<< <i>
<< <i>Criminal charges should also be filed. He used that stick as a weapon. If I did that on a street hockey game, I would be in jail and sued. >>
disagree. the law should stay out of sports - tons of things happen on the fields of play that aren't legal in day to day life. The individual leagues do a good enough job policing themselves and don't need any outside help, IMO./ >>
I agree with certain aspects of both sides. My wife and I have discussed this before. I don't think criminal charges should be filed unless the result warrants it. If a player were severely injured because of such a malicious act, then criminal charges should be filed. Otherwise I think it's up to the leagues to dish out punishment. As jlb says, things allowed in sports are generally not allowed in everyday life without punishment. Fighting can land you in jail, but in sports it usually only gets you a suspension or time in the box. All sports teams need to reconsider putting players like this back into the game. Sure, I believe in second chances and all but considering the intent of this act, the next time the result could be MUCH worse.
Imagine the worst stick-swinging incident of the modern NHL era, complete with heavy wooden sticks and helmets nowhere in sight.
Voila, you have St. Louis' Wayne Maki opposite "Terrible" Ted Green of the Boston Bruins, circa 1969-70 in Ottawa.
In the midst of a pre-season game, Maki knocked Green down from behind. The latter retaliated by slashing Maki, who hit the ice. Maki speared Green, who again sent Maki flying. The pair soon exchanged vicious slashes until Maki clubbed Green over the head, fracturing his skull.
Green needed three major operations to save his life and had a steel plate inserted in his head. Maki was suspended for 30 days and Green for 12 games when he returned to action one year later. Assault charges were filed against both players, who were later acquitted.
Willi Plett
<< <i>Just b/c you are on ice with blue paint, a field with lines or a court of wood does not give someone carte blanche to do something the couldn't do outside of said veue. >>
Disagree if you consider it wouldn't be legal for me to put on a helmet and run down the street tackling people, but it's expected in the NFL.
<< <i>You could tackle people at random with a helmet, but why would you want to do that? >>
Why not?
<< <i>Disagree if you consider it wouldn't be legal for me to put on a helmet and run down the street tackling people, but it's expected in the NFL. >>
Yes, and it's within the rules that players knowingly accept by virtue of signing a contract and agreeing to play.
They do not agree to have their heads intentionally kicked while they are on the ground without a helmet. They don't agree to be sucker punched on the court. They don't expect to get intentionally whacked in the head with a stick.
Just because the "rules" may allow more contact than the typical person on the street should expect to endure, doesn't mean that anything goes. I think a few criminal assault charges against the most egregious offenders -- that actually stick in a legitimate trial -- might go a long way toward making some players think twice.
<< <i>
<< <i>Disagree if you consider it wouldn't be legal for me to put on a helmet and run down the street tackling people, but it's expected in the NFL. >>
Yes, and it's within the rules that players knowingly accept by virtue of signing a contract and agreeing to play.
They do not agree to have their heads intentionally kicked while they are on the ground without a helmet. They don't agree to be sucker punched on the court. They don't expect to get intentionally whacked in the head with a stick.
Just because the "rules" may allow more contact than the typical person on the street should expect to endure, doesn't mean that anything goes. I think a few criminal assault charges against the most egregious offenders -- that actually stick in a legitimate trial -- might go a long way toward making some players think twice. >>
Sports has penalties for things done against the rules. Fines and suspensions are for those who go above and beyond merely breaking the rules. This hit looked violent when you consider he used a stick and all, but that weapon is no different than a player using his helmet and trying to spear a player yet people usually aren't crying for legal charges to be brought fourth in that situation. What about a baseball player intentionally throwing a baseball at a guys head or a basketball player intentionally undercutting a guy going for a dunk? These are all extemely dangerous situations that many just accept as part of their respective game and assume that penalties and fines are generally punishment enough, even though in truth they aren't any less dangerous than the Simon incident IMO.
Further, most of these incident are done by players acting in the "heat of the moment". Most don't consider what they are doing until after it's happened. Legal repercussions would likely not factor into many players decision making process before doing these acts.
<< <i>This hit looked violent when you consider he used a stick and all, but that weapon is no different than a player using his helmet and trying to spear a player yet people usually aren't crying for legal charges to be brought fourth in that situation. What about a baseball player intentionally throwing a baseball at a guys head or a basketball player intentionally undercutting a guy going for a dunk? >>
This argument breaks down, IMO, because some acts are clearly more premeditated, and with more malicious intent, than others. And some willful/malicious acts are sufficiently indiscernible from accidents and mistakes that one would give the benefit of the doubt where potential criminal charges were concerned.
A slightly late hit in football can get the "benefit of a reasonable doubt" when in the context of bodies flying around and coming in a split second too late. Sometimes a blow to the head in football would be a blow to the body if the ball carrier didn't duck at the last instant -- again, reasonable doubt. Pitchers don't have perfect control and pitches can and do get away even among those who are not ever intentional headhunters. Still more reasonable doubt, even if the pitcher WAS aiming for the head.
Someone turns around and blatantly, willfully and obviously intentionally swings a deadly weapon at a guy's head? No such reasonable doubt. A boxer bites his opponent's ear off? No such reasonable doubt. Kermit Washington sucker punches Rudy T? No such reasonable doubt.
I think reasonable people can usually determine when there is enough reasonable doubt to let the game police itself, and when something is so far over the line that criminal charges should be pursued.
<< <i>
<< <i>This hit looked violent when you consider he used a stick and all, but that weapon is no different than a player using his helmet and trying to spear a player yet people usually aren't crying for legal charges to be brought fourth in that situation. What about a baseball player intentionally throwing a baseball at a guys head or a basketball player intentionally undercutting a guy going for a dunk? >>
This argument breaks down, IMO, because some acts are clearly more premeditated, and with more malicious intent, than others. And some willful/malicious acts are sufficiently indiscernible from accidents and mistakes that one would give the benefit of the doubt where potential criminal charges were concerned.
A slightly late hit in football can get the "benefit of a reasonable doubt" when in the context of bodies flying around and coming in a split second too late. Sometimes a blow to the head in football would be a blow to the body if the ball carrier didn't duck at the last instant -- again, reasonable doubt. Pitchers don't have perfect control and pitches can and do get away even among those who are not ever intentional headhunters. Still more reasonable doubt, even if the pitcher WAS aiming for the head.
Someone turns around and blatantly, willfully and obviously intentionally swings a deadly weapon at a guy's head? No such reasonable doubt. A boxer bites his opponent's ear off? No such reasonable doubt. Kermit Washington sucker punches Rudy T? No such reasonable doubt.
I think reasonable people can usually determine when there is enough reasonable doubt to let the game police itself, and when something is so far over the line that criminal charges should be pursued. >>
One can argue such, but what about Simons insinuation that he doesn't remember anything about it because he was so dazed from being hit into the boards? Isn't this also possible (I'm not saying likely, only possible), thus placing reasonable doubt as to malicious intent?
I wont say much.. other than to me it wasnt near as bad as many others. Simon will get a suspension, but if it is more than 10 games i would be surprised.
<< <i>Zack, step away from the law dictionary.
I wont say much.. other than to me it wasnt near as bad as many others. Simon will get a suspension, but if it is more than 10 games i would be surprised. >>
Hey Chris. His suspension is like 25 games or something...
Wings get Bert - lol.
Simon should have just gone after the guy that hit him from behind.. and dropped the gloves with him. Oh wait, the guy probably wouldnt have dropped them... because thats what the players are like now... no respect for each other.