Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Ridiculous or Not Ridiculous?

26 February 2010 - 12:44 PM

Brian Gionta Mark II?

In Topic: Colin White ignores eye risk and fights...

03 February 2010 - 02:50 PM

nice pun on 'sight' - however i suspect contract bridge or shuffleboard is more your speed.

now that we've dispensed with the trolling, athletes risk debilitating injury every time they step on to the playing surface, and many of them are left badly injured after their playing career is over, with permanent limps, brain damage, and so forth. colin white did what he thought was the right thing, and he'd probably do it again if given the choice. it's not for me to decide how colin white wants to act. was it stupid? of course it was - but is not some part of bravery a willingness to gloss over or forget about harm coming to one's self?

Well, you'd suspect wrong. I'm not only a fan, but have played for twenty something years at this point.

There's bravery and then there's stupidity, as well as the old edict of "discretion is the better part of valor" and all that.

And yes, DanykoIsGod, Collin consented to having his lights punched out, even it it meant going blind. You know, there's a fine line between stupid and clever . . .

In Topic: Colin White ignores eye risk and fights...

03 February 2010 - 01:50 PM

I don't know if he was scared, but I was scared for him. He showed a lot right there.

Yeah, he showed a lot of stupidity. It never ceases to amaze me how fans lose sight of reality -- hockey is a game played for the entertainment of the fans. We should applaud a player for risking total blindness to uphold some sort of "code" in this context? Please.

In Topic: Patrice Cormier Elbow

27 January 2010 - 03:44 PM

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. :whistling:

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

In Topic: Patrice Cormier Elbow

27 January 2010 - 02:54 PM

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?