DarrenBarefoot.com

Indeed…somebody on a forum I read had some interesting comments with regards to the degree of intent to injure. Obviously, when you hit somebody in the head with your fist, you don’t expect to injure them (much). When you swing your stick at somebody’s head, clearly the intent is to inflict serious bodily harm. That’s the way the law sees it, and that’s the way the league will see it too.

[Reply]

I really don’t get the concept that the law is somehow changed during professional sports.

Since when is assault not assault?

I understand that during a contact sport things can get out of hand, but that goes outside of the definition of assault. If you come at someone with intent to harm and then proceed to accomplish that, I’m sorry, you should be charged.

I didn’t watch the game, so maybe I’m seeing this out of context, but I don’t recall a fist to the back of the head being a valid part of hockey. This is not a schoolyard, these are adults.

At times like these, sports fans make me ill.

[Reply]

Here’s the problem I have with that Darren:

If it’s a body check, or even a square fight, though technically it *could* be illegal, it’s really a consensual matter and that’s why charges are never pressed. Rights are waived that way and that’s generally acceptable behaviour, not just in sports but in society as a whole.

Punching another player in the back of the head is an ENTIRELY different matter.

I don’t see blurry lines on this issue. From everything I can see that was pure premeditated violence. I honestly hope that they don’t just press charges, I hope he gets serious jail time.

What I see is someone doing something very inherently wrong and I see a lot of people defending it based on context and sportsfan adoration. That’s what gives me the sick feeling in my stomach.

[Reply]

Interesting to see that video. It changed my perception of the incident. Previously, I had thought Bertuzzi meant to throw the punch but not take him to the ice, but fell off balance. I can’t see any evidence of him being unsteady on his feet in this replay from two angles.

It’s also interesting that you raised the “intent” behind swinging a stick at someone - I had this same discussion earlier tonight with the hubby, and I argued that in hockey, there is a big difference between swinging your stick at someone’s head to hurt them, and high-sticking them. You can high-stick someone and hurt them badly, but you didn’t intend to *injure* them so it’s not a criminal matter. Using your stick as a weapon, on the other hand, is so completely outside of the typical mindset of a hockey player with his/her stick, that it can’t be disguised as anything unintentional - it requires premeditation, just like a direct punch to the back of someone’s head when they’re skating away from you. Actually I’d say that swinging the stick requires more premeditation than a punch, because you have to change your grip on the stick quite intentionally so that you can direct it accurately at the person’s head. With the punch, you just swing one body part. It’s more of a “gut instinct” in a punch - swinging a stick requires coordination and thought.

Anyhow, I don’t know where I was going with that but… thanks for posting the video.

And by the way, whose hands are ringing? Is everyone getting married? Or are we wringing our hands?

[Reply]

Bodychecking within the rules is by the very definition consensual. That’s part of playing a game, you consent to the rules. There’s also a question of extremes. What happened appears to have been no accident, regardless of whether Bertuzzi intended to cause so much damage, by accounts he may have intended to cause bodily harm. That sure sounds to me like a case which the police/courts should determine.

Fighting someone who doesn’t want to fight? Hell yeah, that’s just WRONG. Hitting someone with a stick ala Hextal style, causing grevious bodily harm? Also wrong.

None of that belongs in the game, just as it wouldn’t elsewhere. If this was not in the context of a professional hockey game, you’d most certainly condemn Bertuzzi’s actions and consider them criminal. I’ll go as far to say that if it happened in a non-professional hockey game most people would still agree with a police investigation.

I’m dead certain this is about people’s beloved sport, not about any concept of justification, restraint or reasonable behaviour.

Let’s be very clear here, you’re making a distinction that hockey players should be somehow exempt when anger leads them to extreme violence. I find it ridiculous that people insist that an inherent weapon would have to be in use to make a difference.

[Reply]

I haven’t thought about it long enough to decide what side of the fence I’m on but I have enjoyed reading all the comments, both sides make some valid points. The following comment did get me thinking …

“Unless a player brings a gun onto the ice and shoots to kill, I don’t think the police should be involved.”

Although I understand what Jen is saying, I have to wonder why the gun? Is a stick not a weapon? Someone’s hands? Another question I’d have to ask is, would any of you feel different had Steve Moore injuries been worse and he died as a result?

[Reply]

Into the breach, Arjun, with you! And prepare yourself for what may ensue.
(Just some positive self talk folks before I write the following:)

I really think fighting should be outlawed in the NHL.

Hockey can be a mesmerizingly exciting and beautiful sport to watch. Dipsy doodling, crisp passes, amazing displays of skating speed and agility. Clean checks are one thing. But, what does it say about our values when in our national game, we actually allow two grown men to pummel each other. And, what happens when it gets out of hand?

We get one guy with a broken neck and an uncertain future. And we have a whole lot of people with broken spirits.

Its neither honourable or worthy of respect that we need “enforcers” in NHL line ups. Get rid of fighting. Make it a offence worthy of a suspension for a whole season.

Fighting in hockey appeals to the worst in all of us.

[Reply]

Rog: So, to be clear, should ‘fighting someone who doesn’t want to fight’ or ‘hitting someone with a stick’ always result in a police investigation? If so, we’re going to waste a lot of the cops’ valuable time.

We need to consider other cases for precedent. And lines still need to be drawn between what is normal hockey and what is ‘an extreme case’. In this case, the act wasn’t that extraordinary (this sort of thing occurs all the time), but the result was (serious injury). How much of a factor should the latter be?

[Reply]

Hmm, I think I have to go with Rog on this one. If the injury had happened in what could be considered normal hockey play it’s one thing. Bertuzzi’s actions definately don’t fall in that category. If no injury had resulted then yes, he probably wouldn’t get charged, but it did, so suck it up and take the punishment. I don’t think any professional hockey player (regardless of the disgusting amount of money they make) should have to accept that what happened to Moore is all part of a day’s work.

The real issue in my opinion is that this type of act “wasn’t that extraordinary”. It should be. The game of hockey would be better for it.

[Reply]

Augie: I wrote this up somewhere else, but thought it was pertinent to your comments about the nature of the injury:

Now, Bertuzzi did a goonish, idiotic, cowardly thing and deserves to bepunished. I was interested to read a Vancouver Sun article (subscription
required, so we’ll do without a link) that quotes a spinal surgeon commenting on Moore’s injury:

“Undisplaced fractures of the bone usually heal well without surgery and the overall prognosis in the majority of cases is that people are back to normal after a period of 6 to 12 weeks”.

Moore’s also concussed, and while he regained consciousness soon after the hit, there’s no word on the severity of that injury. Assuming the concussion isn’t serious, he’ll apparently be back within 3 months, possibly as soon as 6 weeks.

Plenty of nasty hockey incidents result in players being put out for longer than that. For example, Suter’s hit on Kariya put him out for 8 months.
Brashear missed 6 weeks after the McSorley incident.

As others have pointed out, part of people’s visceral reaction to this incident is because of the term “broken neck”. It sounds a heck of a lot worse than “broken leg”, even though both fractures would keep the player out of the line-up for a similar duration.

[Reply]

Donna: Your comparison to customer service is specious, because as we’ve already discussed, an NHL hockey player has a consensual presumption of violence. 90% of what is permitted in a hockey game wouldn’t be permitted in a customer service department, would it?

Limbs are broken in dirty (or illegal, if you prefer) plays all the time in ice hockey. Should the perpetrators of those incidents all be charged with assault? Players concuss other players all the time. Should they go to jail too?

Here’s the current injury report for the NHL. It doesn’t indicate how many of these acts were caused by unsportsmanlike play, but it gives you a sense of the breadth of injury: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/injuries.

I’ve posed this question (or variations thereof), but nobody seems willing to draw clear lines among “acceptable hockey behaviour”, “dirty play punishable by the league” and “illegal acts punishable by the law”.

If you’re concerned with precedent, where were you for the rest of the 20th century? Ice hockey’s history is paved with dirty and egregious plays that have resulted in longer, more serious injury. Nobody has gone to jail yet (excepting Dino Cicarelli, and he only spent a day there). What’s changed?

[Reply]

Jen:

Well you’d be very wrong in my case, because I’m on CBC’s call list when it comes to issues of violent videogames as a “pro” expert. Not that I’m pro to violence, but it’s their perspective because I strongly believe that videogames do not contribute to real world violence.

I’m also in favour of gun control, but I believe it’s a matter of giving limitations to the people who own them. I’m certain we have a different perspective on that.

Crowd violence isn’t the same as player violence, I don’t believe crowd riots are caused by violence within a sport. How I’m bothered by the fans in this case is entirely different to that. I’m simply disturbed when people argue that this situation should be acceptable because it’s to be expected.

Those are other issues and thank you very much for lumping opinions into one basket. [/sarcasm]

Darren:

I think Kyle answered appropriately for me. I do consider this an extraordinary case because of the pre-game premeditation possibility, but if fans consider that to be not so unusual then hey, I’m just sickened even more.

Anyone who wants to downplay the extent of Moore’s injuries should try walking around for a day or two with a broken jaw and fractured vertabrae.

As for precedents, I’m certain that the investigators of this case would agree with me in saying that there have been no strong precedents in cases regarding sports (and specifically hockey) related violence. The few that have gone to court have not resulted in sentencing or exoneration in any meaningful way. You can’t argue that the lack of pressing charges is a valid precedent.

[Reply]

Rog: There was a precedent set, actually, with the charging of Marty McSorley over the stick-to-the-head-of-Brashear incident. He got an 18-month suspended sentence, for what I believe to be a considerably-more egregious act. As discussed, ‘intent to injure’ (a dubious term in this context) with a stick is worse than intent to injure with a fist.

I’ve raised a whole bunch of possible scenarios for other equally-violent acts. Where do they fall compared to this one? What’s the minimum violent act that deserves investigation? What’s the minimum injury that merits a charge?

I’m not baiting…I’m asking you (and others) to offer sound reasoning on what’s acceptable and what’s not. I’m sure if you’re in favour of gun control, you have specific opinions about what guns should be owned by whom after what waiting period, etc.

I’m looking for the same granularity of logical thinking here. To form an educated opinion, we should consider the history of the sport, its endemic violence, the context of the incident, the letter of the law, and so on, shouldn’t we?

It’s noteworthy that the people who are least informed about the sport are the most outraged. Why is that? Because hockey fans recognize while this is a cowardly and idiotic act, it’s hardly unique in the sport.

As an aside, if Bertuzzi hits Moore and he sprains an ankle or breaks his wrist or is not injured, non-hockey fans wouldn’t have heard of this incident. There’d be no public outcry to incarcerate Bertuzzi, and the Sun’s front page would run something else.

[Reply]

The prevailing opinion among a number of people in this thread seems to be: the guy broke his neck, and that’s bad, so the police should be involved. I think that’s incomplete, so that’s why I’m seeking some more detail. It seems apparent to me that a number of people (here and elsewhere) have had an emotional reaction and drawn conclusions based on a single incident. Note, for example, Augie and his upper case letters.

My point here is that people have seen the incident, become upset and called for Bertuzzi’s head. They’ve done so in the same way people called for a unilateral ban on guns after Columbine. Knee-jerk responses aren’t a good way to make policy, whether its in hockey or gun control.

I didn’t use the phrase ‘uninformed’, I said ‘least informed’, and that’s by their own admission. From this thread:

“I didn’t watch the game.”
“I don’t follow hockey closely enough.”
“I consider myself no longer a fan of the sport.”

It’s a reasonable conclusion to draw that those most outraged by the incident are not regular fans.

Regardless, you’re right, we’re not going to find any common ground. Thanks for the debate.

[Reply]

Bertuzzi can go hump a cow. =) it was worh ki llin stev mo0or

[Reply]