177 replies to this topic

[Devils731]

Now look at Cormier's hit. Do you honestly believe that any hockey player impliedly consents to that kind of contact?

- Jeff

Yes I do, it is not so uncommon to see an elbow thrown violently that causes injury, since this is something that is known to happen then the player is knowingly taking the risk of such a play happening to them. Otherwise any illegal play, such as the hit on Erik Cole, can be considered a criminal act since they are injurious plays that came as a result of a violent foul.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

On one hand:

Cormier's hit was clearly dirty and should be punished.

On the other hand:

We would not care so much if we hadn't seen that it caused a kid to convulse violently and almost die.

Should the result of a dirty play affect the severity of punishment? Most people would probably think not, but really why not? By almost killing Tam, Cormier did damage to the league's and sport's reputation. Why not punish players for the dirty act, and then add punishment on top of that dependent on how much damage they do to the other player as a punishment for terrible publicity and hurting someone severly? It may not seem "fair" but it's only unfair in that they do not have complete control over how much damage a dirty act does. Who cares? Let it be a random element of any dirty act that offenders must bear a cost dependent on the damage done on top of an initial bare minimum suspension for doing it in the first place. That may make some guys think twice about breaking the rules.

In any case, suspending Cormier for the rest of the season was the right thing to do, not just for the league but also for Patrice himself. He should just walk away from Juniors, take some time off and prepare for the next level. You don't want him playing any more and having one of Tam's teammates/friends doing something stupid to escalate it, also he should clear his head and mature a little.

edit: I'm only talking about currently suspendible hits btw, not any hit that causes an injury.

Edited by halfsharkalligatorhalfman, 25 January 2010 - 09:53 PM.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Should the result of a dirty play affect the severity of punishment? Most people would probably think not, but really why not? By almost killing Tam, Cormier did damage to the league's and sport's reputation. Why not punish players for the dirty act, and then add punishment on top of that dependent on how much damage they do to the other player as a punishment for terrible publicity and hurting someone severly? It may not seem "fair" but it's only unfair in that they do not have complete control over how much damage a dirty act does. Who cares? Let it be a random element of any dirty act that offenders must bear a cost dependent on the damage done on top of an initial bare minimum suspension for doing it in the first place. That may make some guys think twice about breaking the rules.

The problem with this is that clean plays can cause injury too. When the injury determines the punishment, where is the line drawn? Does it even matter anymore if the injury is caused by an illegal play or a legal one? Does it only matter that it resulted in injury?

If this was the case, Stevens woulda spent a lot of his career on the sidelines serving suspensions even though he only had four elbowing minors in his career.

[manbearpig]

The problem with this is that clean plays can cause injury too. When the injury determines the punishment, where is the line drawn? Does it even matter anymore if the injury is caused by an illegal play or a legal one? Does it only matter that it resulted in injury?

If this was the case, Stevens woulda spent a lot of his career on the sidelines serving suspensions even though he only had four elbowing minors in his career.

I am with DaneykoIsGod all the way on this one. You can't talk about judging someone on the results of the act and not the act itself on one hand, and talk about getting the criminal process involved on the other. The criminal process judges someone on the act, not the results, so that argument is out the window right there. Besides, I've been involved in too many adult league games over the years in Northern NJ in which somebody took a punch or a hit and called the cops after the game. The po-po should have no involvement in the sport what-so-ever on any level.
It was somewhere in the news feed that I read about a possible challenge allowed to coaches in replay. The author said a great way of doing it would be allowing coaches to dispute major penalties. A second look at these penalties would go a far way. White's hit the other night was obviously not of an attempt to injure, rather finishing his check, but he was assessed the penalty that way.
The video in Cormier's case is a little grainy for me to pass decision. If anyone here saw the hit that Mott's laid on Nielsen last year, they will know that hit was unintentional, but it was human nature trying to stop the guy and Mott's got his elbow up in Frans' grill. Again. I can't pass judgement unless I was there on the ice because this game moves so fast, we can't get inside of these kids minds unless we were there.

[Daniel]

funny, i see absolutely no addressing of 731's salient point re: erik cole here. if you're going to argue this hit is criminal and that that one isn't, what separates the two? degree? well, where's the line?

The line is intent to injure while doing something beyond what the rules of the game permit. So for instance, a whack to the head with a stick like Todd Bertuzzi could have been the subject of a criminal prosecution, as would Tie Domie's elbow on Nieds in 2001. While I can't say for sure how it would work in a Canadian court, in the US, whether there was an actual intent to cause serious injury would be a question for a jury to decide.

On the other hand, something like Colin White's hit on Saturday doesn't, in of itself, demonstrate an intent to injure.

Where Cormier fits in is hard to say. I think there would be enough to at least trigger an investigation as to what he was thinking. But, as I believe it will turn out, that it was just an idiotic, but not malicious, act on his part, I think he should not be prosecuted.

[sundstrom]

WALLACE!

This man happens to be my attorney.

[Triumph]

Now look at Cormier's hit. Do you honestly believe that any hockey player impliedly consents to that kind of contact?

- Jeff

no, but like 731 said, it's certainly not uncommon. you are going to have a very hard time differentiating 'a part of the game' (how about high cross checks that messier specialized in? claude lemieux's hit on kris draper? i can go on and on) from plays that do not have 'implied consent'. and when you're talking about mere inches between brutal contact and a near-miss, and millimeters between severe injury and just 'getting one's bell rung', i don't know how you can expect the law to parse all these things.

you can't say law is all about drawing lines, then draw what appears to me to be a totally arbitrary line.

whatever, he probably got what he deserved with this suspension.

Edited by Triumph, 26 January 2010 - 12:57 AM.

[manbearpig]

no, but like 731 said, it's certainly not uncommon. you are going to have a very hard time differentiating 'a part of the game' (how about high cross checks that messier specialized in? claude lemieux's hit on kris draper? i can go on and on) from plays that do not have 'implied consent'. and when you're talking about mere inches between brutal contact and a near-miss, and millimeters between severe injury and just 'getting one's bell rung', i don't know how you can expect the law to parse all these things.

you can't say law is all about drawing lines, then draw what appears to me to be a totally arbitrary line.

whatever, he probably got what he deserved with this suspension.

It truly is uncommon. How many times do you see this on ESPN or TSN or NHL Network... 2 or 3 times a year max. One incident doesn't show a player's character. I hate to be "that guy", but I played in a Men's League last year. I got cross-checked and interfered with when I stood in front of the net that my head rung and I didn't know where I was. I slashed the sh!t out of the guy that hit me when I got up and we both went to the box. I wanted all game to get back on the ice and punch this guy in the face. The thing I realized is that I'd probably get kicked out of the league I paid for and would actually hurt some poor bastard that would have to go to work to earn his living the next day. Moral of the story is that rage runs high in hockey players (albeit pro, minor league, junior or weekend-warriors). If this was done out of rage, he should have been able to rationalize this situation and leveled off his anger, but if this hit was out of poor anger, I agree with the suspension, but it should not affect the rest of his career.

[jsonnabend]

no, but like 731 said, it's certainly not uncommon. you are going to have a very hard time differentiating 'a part of the game' (how about high cross checks that messier specialized in? claude lemieux's hit on kris draper? i can go on and on) from plays that do not have 'implied consent'. and when you're talking about mere inches between brutal contact and a near-miss, and millimeters between severe injury and just 'getting one's bell rung', i don't know how you can expect the law to parse all these things.

you can't say law is all about drawing lines, then draw what appears to me to be a totally arbitrary line.

whatever, he probably got what he deserved with this suspension.

Triumph, the line is not arbitrary, and you answered the question on this line in particular (you answered "no" to my implied consent question). As for drawing lines elsewhere, that is what juries are for. And just because borderline (i.e., difficult) cases exist doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist or be enforced.

Also, everyone here crowing about "intent", intent is a critical element in much of criminal law (see "mens rea"). Did Cormier intend to injure the opposing player? I think so, but others may disagree. Again, that's what juries are for.

- Jeff

[jsonnabend]

Yes I do, it is not so uncommon to see an elbow thrown violently that causes injury, since this is something that is known to happen then the player is knowingly taking the risk of such a play happening to them. Otherwise any illegal play, such as the hit on Erik Cole, can be considered a criminal act since they are injurious plays that came as a result of a violent foul.

Well, that's where you and I differ. I don't think anyone consents to an opposing player committing a blatant infraction with intent to injure. Unfortunately, IMO, your view encapsulates all that is wrong with the sport -- blatant disrespect for another human being (no less fellow hockey player).

Hockey is a sport, the sole purpose of which is to entertain. That entertainment shouldn't come at the expense of fundamental human values.

- Jeff

Edited by jsonnabend, 26 January 2010 - 12:51 PM.

[Triumph]

Triumph, the line is not arbitrary, and you answered the question on this line in particular (you answered "no" to my implied consent question). As for drawing lines elsewhere, that is what juries are for. And just because borderline (i.e., difficult) cases exist doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist or be enforced.

Also, everyone here crowing about "intent", intent is a critical element in much of criminal law (see "mens rea"). Did Cormier intend to injure the opposing player? I think so, but others may disagree. Again, that's what juries are for.

- Jeff

that's what juries are for - let's get some people who have no idea about hockey to arbitrate a hockey play? i have absolutely no doubt that any group of 12 people with no knowledge of hockey would say that play represented an attempt to injure. i also have very little doubt that they are right, in the sense that physicality in hockey is meant to hurt. there's the problem - it's a sport where you are attempting to harm the players on the other team, and can do so legally. gee, i wonder why i think that courts could force hockey leagues to change their rulebooks.

Well, that's where you and I differ. I don't think anyone consents to an opposing player committing a blatant infraction with intent to injure. Unfortunately, IMO, your view encapsulates all that is wrong with the sport -- blatant disrespect for another human being (no less fellow hockey player).

Hockey is a sport, the sole purpose of which is to entertain. That entertainment shouldn't come at the expense of fundamental human values.

- Jeff

fine, great, i still don't see any references to the erik cole incident; has the statute of limitations run out on brooks orpik? it's nice to sound idealistic about hockey, but it's fundamentally a vicious game, always has been, and probably always will be.

Edited by Triumph, 26 January 2010 - 03:18 PM.

[DaneykoIsGod]

that's what juries are for - let's get some people who have no idea about hockey to arbitrate a hockey play? i have absolutely no doubt that any group of 12 people with no knowledge of hockey would say that play represented an attempt to injure. i also have very little doubt that they are right, in the sense that physicality in hockey is meant to hurt. there's the problem - it's a sport where you are attempting to harm the players on the other team, and can do so legally. gee, i wonder why i think that courts could force hockey leagues to change their rulebooks.

And by this token, clean hits would probably be deemed illegal by a jury too. Same goes for every tackle in a football game and every instance where a baserunner tries to knock the ball from a catcher's grasp.

[jim777]

He and his team are appealing the suspension. Here's one link but there are dozens out there.

[SteveStevens]

I doubt he will win the appeal although I do think that the rest of the season is more than a bit too much.

He's a kid, kids make mistakes and certainly this was larger than many others. He has apologized publicly for the incident which is a lot for a kid to do.

I say they have allow him to make a second public apology and allow him to play the last handful of games this season and the playoffs. It was a bad hit but I think he certainly is sorry for it.

[jsonnabend]

that's what juries are for - let's get some people who have no idea about hockey to arbitrate a hockey play? i have absolutely no doubt that any group of 12 people with no knowledge of hockey would say that play represented an attempt to injure. i also have very little doubt that they are right, in the sense that physicality in hockey is meant to hurt. there's the problem - it's a sport where you are attempting to harm the players on the other team, and can do so legally. gee, i wonder why i think that courts could force hockey leagues to change their rulebooks.



fine, great, i still don't see any references to the erik cole incident; has the statute of limitations run out on brooks orpik? it's nice to sound idealistic about hockey, but it's fundamentally a vicious game, always has been, and probably always will be.

Oh my, it's like talking to a wall.

First, there's a difference between hurt and injure. Clean hits hurt. Intent to injure through flagrant disregard of the rules is different. You admit time and time again that this was an attempt to injure and that the receiving player did not consent to such contact. What, then, is the issue?

Second, juries can't understand the concept of implied consent? Maybe not, the concept is beyond the capacity of many people around here. In my experience with juries, though, they are able to handle some pretty complicated concepts.

Finally, who said anything about "courts forcing leagues to change their rulebooks?" Where does that nonsense come from?

I don't recall the Erik Cole hit, so I can't comment on it. How about answering my question: what if a player swings his stick baseball style at another player's head? Criminal? It's just a high stick, isn't it?

[jsonnabend]

And by this token, clean hits would probably be deemed illegal by a jury too. Same goes for every tackle in a football game and every instance where a baserunner tries to knock the ball from a catcher's grasp.

No, hockey players consent to clean hits and to a range of infractions as well. Football players consent to tackles, catchers to contact at the plate, and boxers to punches to the face.

Is the concept of consent really that difficult?

[Triumph]

No, hockey players consent to clean hits and to a range of infractions as well. Football players consent to tackles, catchers to contact at the plate, and boxers to punches to the face.

Is the concept of consent really that difficult?

yes, it is, fellow wall - i think that's what you're not understanding. i don't think daneyko's examples are good, but how about the jack tatum hit on darryl stingley, for example? the issue of consent is very difficult to parse in sports, and you keep ducking the erik cole thing. how about spending 3 seconds on youtube finding it?



did cole consent to this? the point is that the line is extremely difficult to draw - tam had the puck, he could have been hit legally by cormier. i don't think malice can at all be proved - i've heard nothing about a previous incident with tam or anything, the play happened in overtime, it's nearly impossible to point to anything circumstantial to suggest that cormier did this intentionally.

Edited by Triumph, 27 January 2010 - 03:03 PM.

[jsonnabend]

yes, it is, fellow wall - i think that's what you're not understanding. i don't think daneyko's examples are good, but how about the jack tatum hit on darryl stingley, for example? the issue of consent is very difficult to parse in sports, and you keep ducking the erik cole thing. how about spending 3 seconds on youtube finding it?



did cole consent to this? the point is that the line is extremely difficult to draw - tam had the puck, he could have been hit legally by cormier. i don't think malice can at all be proved - i've heard nothing about a previous incident with tam or anything, the play happened in overtime, it's nearly impossible to point to anything circumstantial to suggest that cormier did this intentionally.

Thank you. I am brick.

The point is, law is all about line drawing, and juries make calls on those lines all the time. Like the difference between various flavors of manslaughter, for instance.

And drawing attention to other close cases (e.g., the Erik Cole hit) doesn't address the question. Whether I say the Cole hit was criminal or not doesn't affect this elbow, does it?

Oh, and your quoted post above states a different position than before. Now you're arguing the intent. Well, that I can't argue. It's a question of fact. I believe the video shows a hit with intent to injure behind it. Perhaps you think differently. Throw us in a room with ten other people and instructions on the law and we have a jury. Just don't say that no hit in sports can violate the law.

- Jeff