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?