Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
It's almost like you can only hear every 8th word anyone ever says.

That actually works, if you let the voices in your head fill in the rest.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That actually works, if you let the voices in your head fill in the rest.

Just bc you don't have any hair on your head obstructing the clear flow of noise to the voices in your head does not mean that Thurgreed is right. Are you manopausal or something, bc you sure have been a real bitch lately.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How's that? If two guys went at it in the stands like the players do on the ice, you could charge both of them with assault. What's the justification for exemption for players generally? Some sort of consent to be assaulted while playing? If that's the basis, then what's the difference between a cheap shot in a fight and a cheap shot like this one? That it was more cheap? Fighting is tolerated under the rules of the game--are there Marquis of Queensbury rules that apply, but not spelled out? It's okay to fight a guy, but you have to square off first?

Fine, change the rules, or make it clear that any violation of those rules subjects you to possible criminal sanction by the authorities. But an ad hoc approach hardly seems the right one.

The heat of passion distinction doesn't get you there. Plenty of fights are premeditated set-ups, not like heat-of-the-moment, post-goal cross checks.

The problem with your line seems to me that it's not clear when something is reasonably part of the game and when it's not.

It wouldn't be the first know-it-when-you-see-it standard ever, would it?

Squaring up gives the person a chance to defend themselves. Is that the line you want to use? Use it.

As far as criminal sanctions go, doesn't the law already state that you will be held responsible for actions taken that aren't part of the game? Of course it's a hard line to draw. But you know when it's been crossed.

If Shaq comes down the court and stomps on Chauncey Billups' face when Chauncey is just laying there completely defenseless and ends up having every bone in his ugly mugg broken and is knocked out of the game forever, a 10 game suspension isn't the answer.

So, what's your line?

TM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
No question that in the heat of the moment, in a competitive atmosphere, you can lose it. But saying it was retaliation for a cheap shot by someone else seems to weaken your argument. No longer is it so heat-of-the-moment. Now it seems like he was waiting for the perfect opportunity to create as much damage as possible.

And this guy is 6' 4", 250 pounds, right? He hit that guy and he was out on his feet. I don't think you've ever hit anyone harder than that. You're not capable. And if you hit someone cheaper than that, I wonder what they did to deserve it.

TM

First, we watched that hit over and over again because it resulted in a broken neck. It looked savage, and horrible. But, watch ten hockey games, and you'll see two or three hits just as bad. Thing is, most such contact doesn't result in serious injury. Hurts like hell, but that's about it. This one, and most others that end in serious hurt, result from happenstance of a big hit at just the right spot and angle. I don't think anyone plans for that, or tries for it.

Second, I've hit receivers that hard and harder, helmet first, without any injuries. Not trying to hurt, but trying to cream, and sometimes in anger. Maybe different than what happened to this guy, but the difference is in degrees, I think.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, watch ten hockey games, and you'll see two or three hits just as bad.

Yes, if those ten hockey games involved Domi's hit on Niedermeyer, Cicarrelli's hit on Richardson, McSorley on Brashear, hell, even Tucker's hit on Peca - I could go on. But if you are talking about ten typical hockey games, maybe you are talking about junior or something. Because that does not go on typically in the NHL.

edited to note that it was the suckerpunch before the hit that was the problem. He would have probably been able to fall better and not break his neck if he had not been punched first. So if all you are talking about is the hit minus the punch, I might agree with you to some extent. But you can't separate one from the other.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Yes, if those ten hockey games involved Domi's hit on Niedermeyer, Cicarrelli's hit on Richardson, McSorley on Brashear, hell, even Tucker's hit on Peca - I could go on. But if you are talking about ten typical hockey games, maybe you are talking about junior or something. Because that does not go on typically in the NHL.

Yeah, I should probably talk about sports I know more about.

If you watch ten pro football games, . . .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall


So, what's your line?

TM

I gave it. In a game that tolerates/allows punching, any punch not involving equipment that's not permitted under the rules, is not a criminal act.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Bertuzzi is cheap shot scumbag and I agree with Frei of ESPN -needs to be suspended at least one year

Does anyone remember way back when someone tackled Bears QB Jim McMahon (sp?) well after the whistle -- I mean, the guy STARTED running after McMahon after the whistle -- someone proposed that the hitter should be suspended for as long as his victim is out of the game, plus some enhancement/multiplier (plus whatever fine). I like this idea, somehow.

I would do at least that to Bertuzzi, if not outright dismissal from the league. Plus a major fine. That was a seriously fucked-up hit.

And Bilmore, if you've really been hit harder and cheaper than that, that explains a lot.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
As far as criminal sanctions go, doesn't the law already state that you will be held responsible for actions taken that aren't part of the game? Of course it's a hard line to draw. But you know when it's been crossed.

TM

I preface this by saying I don't know shit about hockey, but I'm reading this conversation and racking my brain to remember the case from first year Torts -- which is the only thing I'm aware of that addresses any sort of standard within the context of sports.

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1979.
601 F.2d 516, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 931, 100 S.Ct. 275, 62 L.Ed.2d 188 (1979).

I'm not sure about the criminal standard, but consent to an intentional tort comes down to what is considered acceptable within the rules of the game and what isn't.

From what Gwinky says, fighting is within the rules of the game, at least tacitly. I assume if seen, cheap shots aren't -- i.e. they are given a penalty. Hell, do they give penalties for fighting?

I didn't see it, but if it went down as you say, the league should bury this guy from a public policy standpoint alone.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by bilmore

Second, I've hit receivers that hard and harder, helmet first, without any injuries.

Liar. They didn't wear helmets when you played.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Are you manopausal or something, bc you sure have been a real bitch lately.

VuvlaMae hasn't been putting out for me lately.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by spookyfish

From what Gwinky says, fighting is within the rules of the game, at least tacitly. I assume if seen, cheap shots aren't -- i.e. they are given a penalty. Hell, do they give penalties for fighting?

You can get 4 minutes for fighting - 2 minutes for roughing. You can also get 10 minute misconduct, game misconducts and suspensions depending on the level of the fight. So it is "permitted" but penalized - i.e. if you just fight, you get a penalty (offsetting) and don't have to leave the game.

The problem - as Slave noted, is the instigator rule. Then you don't get offsetting penalties for fighting as much so you run the risk of a power play for the other team. The cheap shots increase and you get people who shouldn't be fighting fighting because they are not allowed to be protected.

edited to note that is an awful explanation of the instigator rule, but I'm going to let it stand b/c I'm busy. Google probably has a way better explanation.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore

Second, I've hit receivers that hard and harder, helmet first, without any injuries. Not trying to hurt, but trying to cream, and sometimes in anger.

nttawwt

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
First, we watched that hit over and over again because it resulted in a broken neck. It looked savage, and horrible. But, watch ten hockey games, and you'll see two or three hits just as bad. Thing is, most such contact doesn't result in serious injury. Hurts like hell, but that's about it. This one, and most others that end in serious hurt, result from happenstance of a big hit at just the right spot and angle. I don't think anyone plans for that, or tries for it.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we're seeing it over and over again because it was such a vicious hit to someone who could not protect themselves. The fact that he was already unconscious when Bertuzzi decided to really get violent is why it's played again and again. You can't chicken and egg this one.

Originally posted by bilmore
Second, I've hit receivers that hard and harder, helmet first, without any injuries. Not trying to hurt, but trying to cream, and sometimes in anger. Maybe different than what happened to this guy, but the difference is in degrees, I think.

You're talking about a football hit. One, I assume you weren't aiming your helmet at the guy's jaw. Two, if you happened to hit the guy's jaw with your helmet, I'm pretty sure you didn't turn him around and jump on his back where his neck meets his head after he lost consciousness. Three, you are much, much smaller than Bertuzzi. Four, football players are much better protected than hockey players. Five, agreed, the difference is very much in degrees, to say the least. It's also in the nature of the hit. Yours sounds like it was part of the game and doesn't seem to be a cheap shot.* Bertuzzi's was not.

TM

* And I'm not talking cheap like Warren-Sapp-cheap. That was a legal hit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick


The problem - as Slave noted, is the instigator rule. Then you don't get offsetting penalties for fighting as much so you run the risk of a power play for the other team. The cheap shots increase and you get people who shouldn't be fighting fighting because they are not allowed to be protected.

Well, you can go further back. The problem is that it's assumed that fighting/hacking/cheap shots are appropriate recompense for a ref missing an initial cheap shot and not calling a penalty.

Does college hockey not have cheap shots? Because last time I checked, there's basically no fighting there because they give out game misconducts penalties for anyone who does, yet they seem to manage to get along without all the stick work of the NHL.