| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest2142 |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 05:19:14
How many games should Randy Jones get for his vicious hit on Patrice Bergeron? |
| 32 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 19:00:27
Hitting from behind was legal for about 100 years and how many NHLers were paralyzed?
I do not know the answer off the top of my head, but I know that the number is small, if non-existant (I can't think of a single case). I realize that there have been junior players, minor hockey players, etc, that have been parayzed from hits from behind, and it has been and still is a huge concern. Younger players tend not to protect themselves, and do not have the same care on the ice.
Someone is always saying that the NHL will be sorry when "it" happens. But "it" never happens. People die and get paralyzed in car races all the time, but not in hockey. Even football players get paralyzed, at least one a year. NHL - not so much. Why not?
Because NHLers are, for the most part, respectful of one another, but even more importantly, smart enough to protect themselves from dangerous situations 99% of the time. Yes, I worry about the 1%, but like life, we can't live inside indestructable bubbles.
Someone will die on the ice someday, it's a statistical probability. However, it won't be because of "the NHL". It will be because a series of things went wrong all at once. Isn't that what we call an accident?
If the "NHL" is so stupid, go watch soccer. They need more fans anyway, and the players act like they've been paralyzed at least once a game. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 18:15:01
Think what you want to think, I present the evidence, and he is looking at his back, Bergeron was skating faster, he could stop, so Jones could stop, especially when he was travelling at less speed, he chose not to, and hit him from behind...
The NHL allows hits all the time from behind, and in this case there is egg all over their faces, but they are too stupid to admit it, until a player is paralysed, and that will be a sad day for hockey,and a little too late.
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 16:50:32
Unless you've been in a game as fast as the ones played in the NHL, or anything close to it, I think it's a mistake to try and assume what a guy's intent is at high speed. Stuff happens. Players know that. Smart ones protect themselves. Even then they can get hurt.
I'm not blaming the victims, but to say Jones wanted to grease Bergeron from behind goes against everything the guy has said after the incident, and against everything he's done in his hockey career to date. I think peeple who pretend to know what's in his head are being awfully presumptious. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 11:02:44
Speed of the play, give me a break...
Jones had intent to hit Bergeron from behind, and had all kinds of time to stop. He never took his eyes of Bergeron's back once he passed him. Because the NHL allows hitting from behind all the time.
If Bergereon had time to stop (and he was skating faster than Jones), then Jones had time to stop.
Bergeron even with Jones on chase to puck.
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc49/PuckNuts_photos/Bergeron1.jpg
At this time Bergereon decides I better stop so I do not skate right into the boards. But Jones he cannot stop he is to busy looking at Bergeron's number on his back, and figures he can use him to stop at the boards.
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc49/PuckNuts_photos/Bergeron3.jpg
Now Jones is so fascinated by the number on Bergeron's back that he is oblivious to whether Bergeron has even touched the puck yet.
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc49/PuckNuts_photos/Bergeron5.jpg
Too late now I am commited.
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc49/PuckNuts_photos/Bergeron6.jpg
sad sad sad...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 08:02:42
I am in the school that Bergeron played this dead wrong. I also disagree that part of his rehab should for him to think it's not his fault. In fact, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If Bergeron would have played this puck the way he should have, and more than likely was coached to, he would not have gotten hurt in the extent his was. If Bergeron skates through the puck, rather than trying to stop at the puck, he doesn't get hit from behind.
We have to remember that this happened at full speed and we have the chance to watch it slo-mo. At full speed, this Jones kid had a split second to react. He did choose wrong, and he got suspended for it. I still think that Jones could have "tried" to slow up. I am not saying in anyway that Jones slowing up would have changed the outcome. I think Bergeron still would have been hit and more than likely still hurt.
So now Bergeron is rehabing being told that he did nothing wrong?? We'll that's a really great way to make sure something like this happens again to him! He should be told that he was partly responsible. He should be told that putting himself is a position like this is dangerous and he could be hurt again if he does.
I still haven't heard any comments about my last post. Is it just me that these kind of injuries usually happen to forwards and not defensemen??
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/04/2007 : 07:47:30
Not to belabor the topic, but I thought there was an interesting exchange on Coaches Corner last night about this. Cherry continued to go on about Bergeron making a "mistake" and Ron MacLean mentioned what Peter Chiarelli is saying about Bergeron needing to think this incident was not his fault as part of his recovery.
I don't agree with Chiarelli, or at least find his point grossly exaggerated. It might even be helpful for Patrice, mentally, to acknowledge that he left himself exposed.
BUT, I do think that there was an important point which was kind of lost in Chiarelli's comment, because of his emphasis on Bergeron's recovery. And that is, many people are first and foremost looking at what Bergeron should have done here MORE THAN anything else. Beans used the term "bottom line" for instance in talking about Bergeron's positioning. I question that kind of reaction a bit, not because of its effect on Bergeron's recovery, but just because it's misplaced in my opinion.
And I'm not just talking about the suspension question anymore either, but about our general reactions to things like this. If you believe, as Willus seems to, that there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that Jones could have avoided doing what he did, that is one thing. I don't agree, but if that's your argument, I guess I can understand how you wouldn't emphasize that Jones did anything wrong.
But If you think Jones could have pulled up a bit, I think it is important to talk about that as much, if not more, than Bergeron's "mistake". This is where I disagree with the Cherry reaction a bit here. In my opinion, the "He could have pulled up" point has to be, if not the bottom line in terms of a cause and effect here, at least the "most important line" here, in terms of what is right and wrong, morally speaking that is.
Cherry acknowledging that he feels sorry for Bergeron last night was nice. I missed last week, but maybe he also said then that Jones should have let up (Beans first post seems to indicate that he did say this). I just think he should be saying it more, with as much strength as he speaks about Bergeron's mistake. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 18:39:30
Sorry to open old wounds by bringing up Bertuzzi again, guys.  |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 15:32:04
Ultimate, we have had this discussion 1000 times, so I won't open it up again. My view is that Naslund did see Moore and Naslund attempted to chip the puck and put himself in a bad position. Agree or disagree, that is what I seen and that is why I made the comparison.
My point is the player who was hit, in both cases, put themselves in a bad position. The players doing the hitting in both cases, made poor decisions.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
| Greg Smith |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 14:14:22
I agree with ultimate with the moore case, not so much with Moore, Naslund and Bertuzzi. Jones had no intent on hurting Bergeron, he was just trying to hit him. Obviously, It didn't come out how he wanted it to. Like Beans said this one is at a 50-50 fault.
After playing in the NHL, it's hard to watch hockey games. |
| ultimatetitman |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:52:47
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To me, this hit was similar to the Moore on Naslund hit. Naslund tried to avoid the hit, Moore had no where to go, and Moore made a poor decision to stick out his elbow. Bad call on Moore's part but Naslund was not 100% faultless.
Okay, I have kept my mouth shut on this for over a year now because it is old news... but here goes my rant. (and yes, this will come back to the Jones hit). Moore on Naslund was cheap and dirty. Easily as dirty as Bertuzzi's on Moore, if not more so. Find the clip, the whole clip, and watch it. He started at Naslund from 50 feet away, left his feet, and threw his whole body into Naslund's head. If Naslund has not seen his at the last second, it would have been a whole lot worse. It was a deliberate attempt to injure the best player from their biggest rival in order to make a name for himself. That's all I'm going to say about that.
To compare Jones' hit to that is insulting at best. I watched the clip several times, and at no point did Jones try to hurt Bergeron. He simply finished his check. Hell, he wasn't even looking at Bergeron as he hit him, he was looking for the puck. Like the announcer said, these types of hits happen every game, and the chances of everything falling into place so that someone would get hurt like that are very slim. It's terribly unfortunate that it happened this time.
The NHL got this absolutely right. Jones did nothing wrong, but they can't let a hit from behind go completely unpunished. Good job Colin Campbell.
"I didn't know Sedin was Swedish for punch me"-Brian Burke, 2002 |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:49:11
The absolute bottom line to me on this, after watching the hit countless times, is that if Bergeron doesn't put on the brakes when he gets to the puck, he may not have gotten hit or he would have taken it on the side, not the back. If he would have continued on his path of travel he, at worst, would have taken a killer clean hit into boards.
To me, this hit was similar to the Moore on Naslund hit. Naslund tried to avoid the hit, Moore had no where to go, and Moore made a poor decision to stick out his elbow. Bad call on Moore's part but Naslund was not 100% faultless.
Same situations here. Bergeron put on the brakes, Jones does not let up (some could argue he couldn't) and rocks Patrice into the end boards. Bad call on Jones' part, but Bergeron not 100% faultless.
Is it just me, or is it that most of the time these things happen it's to a forward?? Are defensemen taught something differernt or have they just learned their lesson?? Or am I sniffing glue again???
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 21:02:22
I agree Flyguy, intent is a very hard thing to know. BUT we, and the NHL guys, can (and should I believe) make an educated guess on that question. To me it's A LOT easier to guess that there was no intent this time than in the earlier two incidents. That distinction is very important I think.
And I also think the recklessness angle has to be considered more too. Even if it's clear that the player didn't have any intent to injure, should he have known that his actions might result in injury. Again, I'd say Jones gets off better on that question than the others too, BUT I think to a certain extent, all these incidents have as a common denominator that the hitter should have known some bad stuff might result from his actions (Willus buddy, I watched again - I still think Jones could have held off enough to make this much less of an incident without too much of an effort - certainly, with at least some effort).
Edit - I think it is a very good point though about "premeditation" being an important thing to look at, as a dirty hit can be premeditated without there necessarily being an "intent to injure". Anyway, intent to injure, recklessness AND premeditation are the types of things that have to be looked at first and foremost, much more than the way Bergeron was positioned against the boards.
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 20:25:33
Intent is tricky. I don't believe Jones intended to injure Bergeron. But then again, I don't think Bertuzzi intended to injure Moore either.
I've fought guys in hockey, and I can honestly say (cross my heart and hope to die), I never wanted to hurt anyone. I slashed a guy with a two handed chop across the thigh one time. He went down like a bur oak tree. I didn't intend to injure him, though. I was making a point - don't stick your elbow in my face just because I'm a rookie.
To the common observer of that game, it looked like I was trying to break his leg. Not at all. In fact, after I cracked him one, he got up and punched me in the face, and I was more hurt than he was. 
What Bertuzzi did was wrong. What Jones did was wrong. I think you almost need to look at result and conditions surrounding the event - was it premediatated - more than anything when deciding on the punishment. I know the league says they look at intent, but in truth, how can anyone really know that? Really - how can you know another guy's intentions?
You can't. Jones intended to slam Bergeron into the boards. Doesn't that cause pain? So maybe he intended to cause him pain, but yet he felt terrible when he did, which contradicts that.
It's weird, I know. That's what makes the idea of intent tricky. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 20:23:56
I don't think there was any intent to injure. Watch it at regular speed and tell me what else Jones would have been able to do. He probably expected Bergeron to turn and take the hit, which if he had done there wouldn't be an issue.
No way does this deserve a suspension.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 19:42:36
Beans, Willus and whoever else is talking about "responsibility" here. In my humble opinion, with respect to the particular "punishment" question that this poll is about, you guys are talking about a side issue.
The KEY by LEAPS and BOUNDS here is the question of whether Jones intended to injure Bergeron. Whether Bergeron put himself into a stupid position or not, the intent question needs to be analyzed much more by looking at Jone's actions leading up to and at the time of the hit than by looking at Bergeron's positioning (and it also needs to be looked at regardless of whether Bergeron got injured or not, but that's another point).
Sometimes I think we need to step back and realize just how basic some of the stuff we are talking about is with these situations. It may be cloudy sometimes, yes, but we also can distinguish things pretty well sometimes too. As we can with these last three incidents. If you start with the premises, "The guy didn't intend to injure, but perhaps, or even probably, should have known he was going to", it obviously deserves WAY less punishment than if you start with the premises, "The guy likely intended to injure or at least very well should have known he was going to", as in the last PHILLY dirty hit, or "The guy may have intended to injure or at least very well should have known he was going to", as in the PHILLY dirty hit before that.
I don't think he did intend to injure him. Neither did the NHL. It was, however, a hit to the back that I think Jones very easily could have held back on. He deserved to be punished for that to some degree and I am glad that he was.
The stuff you guys are talking about (players playing smart so that they don't get injured) is of course very important and needs to be discussed at league meetings and so on, but doesn't have a whole lot to do with this question. I'd like to think that the intent thing, and the intent thing alone, was 90% plus of the reason this was not 20/25 games like the others. Personally I wouldn't have allowed the "no intent" finding to discount it all the way down to 2 games, but that's okay, I don't think this is a huge miscarriage of justice either.
The main point is that Bergeron's positioning here, even if we give Beans, Willus and co. that point, shouldn't enter into the punishment question as much more than an afterthought, perhaps reducing the penalty by 1 or 2 games from 3 or 4 to 2, but not much more that. In other words, "no intent to injure" gets us from 25 to 4, the stuff you guys are talking about MAYBE takes it down 1 or 2 from there, though I personally wonder if it's even worth that much in this discussion.
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 18:56:54
PuckNuts, I REALLY don't want to blame the victim on these hits, but seriously, don't you think that players are aware of the fact that there is a rule against hitting from behind, and try to gain an advantage because of it? I KNOW they do!
I don't think they skate into the boards believing they will get hit - I think they assume the guy won't...or if he does, he''ll get a penalty. I see guys showing less respect for their own safety as much as each others.
Bergeron is a fool for going to the boards like that. No, Jones shouldn't have hit him, but there are ways to protect yourself that don't make you a wimp, they make you smart. Jones should have pulled up, but man, this is a contact sport...head on a swivel. Don't use the rule as your safety valve.
Comments that support my opinion at about 9:00 in. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 18:12:11
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
How do you dig for the puck without facing the boards?
I guess you could skate backwards in from the blue line if you are an opposing player this way you cannot get hit face first into the boards..
If I put my back to the boards the puck is in my feet, and I am just as useless as an ashtray on a bicycle now.
You have to face the boards, players of NHL calibre need to respect a player when he can see his back...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
I have to just say...HUH?
If a guy puts himself in the position facing the boards like that, not knowing what's happening around him, then he almost deserves to get leveled for being an idiot. You parallel the boards, like Beans said.
Watch a guy like Chelios. He's always looking around. He knows exactly what's coming for him. And he's rarely facing the boards. It's elementary and anyone who plays at that level should know it. I sometimes wonder if they do it purposely, banking on the fact that if they're facing the boards the guy won't hit him from behind therefore avoiding a hit.
It's got me wondering too, if that damn stop sign they make the kids where on their backs now so guys won't hit them from behind will just perpetuate the stupidity. Teach them how to protect themselves and not put themselves into dangerous positions.
The more I watch it the more I think Bergeron is as much at fault. He had no reason to be facing the boards. He knew that Jones was on him and he knew he had him beat to the puck.
Listen to what Brett Hull says at about 8 minutes in to this clip. Bingo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMbDKGBkE_M
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 17:45:40
I've got Bergeron in my pool, so I think, in response to this horrible injustice, that Paul Stastny should serve a 30 game suspension. I've got Gaborik, too, so maybe Heatly should sit out a few games to atone for his injury. If anybody even looks at Zetterberg the wrong way, I will be the first to call for corporal punishment to be enforced. Same goes for Rick Nash. I have too many injuries.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 17:31:56
You can't skate into the puck, parallel to the boards??
This may be a bad example, but I have seen others where it appears that a player will almost back into a check. That is careless, in my opinion.
2 games. It's about right. I think that the player doing the hitting has a little more responsibility in these cases. Also, the NHL has started discipline this year harsh to try to curb the dangerous situations. They couldn't stop now.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:41:25
How do you dig for the puck without facing the boards?
I guess you could skate backwards in from the blue line if you are an opposing player this way you cannot get hit face first into the boards..
If I put my back to the boards the puck is in my feet, and I am just as useless as an ashtray on a bicycle now.
You have to face the boards, players of NHL calibre need to respect a player when he can see his back...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| spade632 |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 11:48:29
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=221683&hubname=
Flyers' Jones suspended two games
The National Hockey League has suspended Philadelphia Flyers defenceman Randy Jones for two games for his hit on Boston Bruins forward Patrice Bergeron on Saturday.
Bergeron was diagnosed with a broken nose and a concussion after being hammered to the boards face-first by Jones in Boston's 2-1 loss to Philadelphia.
He was released from hospital on Sunday and the Bruins are expected to address his status today.
"While it is my determination that Jones did not intend to injure his opponent, he did deliver a hard check to a player who was in a vulnerable position," said NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell in a press release. "There have been suggestions by some that this hit was comparable to incidents earlier this season where players received significant game suspensions for blows to the head. These comparisons and suggestions are wrong," Campbell added.
Jones will forfeit $5,614.98 for the suspension. The money goes to the Players' Emergency Assistance Fund.
"Words really can't express the way that I feel right now. I am very apologetic for the hit and what I did," Jones said in a team-issued statement after the game. "It was not intentional. It is something that I have never done before and it is not part of my character. I am extremely sorry.
"I hope he does OK and everything works out for him. I wish him nothing but the best in his recovery."
Thoughts?
I agree with what's been said here on the boards. Players have to be responsible for their own position. At the same time, the player making the hit has responsibilty too. I don't think Jones was looking to injure Bergeron.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 10:23:07
Hey Puck, I agree that the guy doing the hitting, in this case Jones, is more responsibe. However, if you take the black and white out of the Cherry comment there is a valid point. The guy digging for the puck facing the boards is asking for an injury.
Take this exact situation but have Jones try to slow up, but lose and edge and far into Bergeron anyway. Is that still his fault??
All I am saying is that a player that put himself is a vulnerable position is more likely to get hurt. Just like the meatballs coming around the net with thier head down. They don't deserve to get hit like McAmmond did by Downie, but that play is more likely to result in an injury then the exact same play but with the player's head up looking at what's coming.
Just like Messier said, you gotta have your head on a swivel.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 15:21:05
Sorry but you would have to show me all the hits that a player turned to face the boards, and then was hit, and the player delivering the hit could not stop.
Any of the hits I have seen from behind the player delivering the hit could of held back or stopped, he chose not too, and should be punished accordingly...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 14:39:00
Don't get me wrong, Andyhack, I'm not blaming the victim here. I'm simply saying that turning into the boards has become an epidemic in the NHL, as Cherry said on HNIC last night. Guys need to remember this is a contact game, and if you are trying to draw a penalty by turning away from the hit, you may get more than you bargained for.
With that said, I don't think Bergeron was trying to draw a penalty. I agree with the assessment that two guys were racing for the puck, Jones was beat, and he hit Bergeron when he should have backed off.
Being in the moment, though, is different than cracking someone like Boulerice or Downey did. That's an important disinction come suspension time. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 10:36:30
I agree with what Pucknuts said on this one. And, in any event, as I've said before, what the victim does or doesn't do (no matter how stupid or irresponsible) should have little bearing on the assessment of the punishment to the dirty hitter.
Having said that, I think this is much more excusable on the "having to do with hockey" barometer than the other dirty stuff recently. With the other suspensions in mind, I think about 10 to 12 games would be appropriate in this case.
Edit - and, yes, the unqualified remorsefullness on Jone's part was nice. Not really relevant to the punishment question, but I thought it showed a lot of character on his part. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 10:16:27
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
This wasn't what I'd call a vicious hit. It's like Beans and Cherry said. Guys have to take responsibility for the positions they put themselves in.
These are vicious hits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAxYWeQWxE
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
I'd have to say that hit from behind on Draper by Claude Lemieux has to be the worst on that video. It's the one hit that actually could have killed the guy, and I think Lemieux knew it - that's the scary part. Bertuzzi's was bad, but in my opinion, the intent was not the same.
The most vicious incident I've ever seen that was not on the video was a cross check to the face of Thomas Sandstrom by Dave Brown. I couldn't find a clip of it, but if Brown did that in today's NHL, he'd get two years, and rightfully so. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 10:09:32
Link to the hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xAEetam6HQ
Don Cherry is full of it on this one.
Bergeon out skated Jones to the puck.
He has to turn slightly to stop, or skate into the boards at full speed.
Jones could see his back the whole time, and he never held up.
So I guess if you out skate a player you deserve to be hit from behind, I don't think so...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 10:05:11
Ya, I wouldn't call this a vicious hit by any stretch of the imagination. 2-5 at the most, but I doubt it should be anything. At least Randy Jones was remorseful after the hit, Downie and Boulderice handled themselves like a pair of jackasses. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 09:54:09
I voted 5-10 games. It was more careless than vicious. Both guys need to take more responsibility in their safety, but especially Jones in this case. If a guy is vulnerable, you back off a bit. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 08:47:30
This wasn't what I'd call a vicious hit. It's like Beans and Cherry said. Guys have to take responsibility for the positions they put themselves in.
These are vicious hits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAxYWeQWxE
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 07:41:45
This hit was a 50-50 fault. If you watched both games on HNIC last night, Cherry said is right. Bergeron should not be going into the boards like that, and Jones needs to slow up when he see the guys numbers like that. Suspension, maybe. If so, it should be slap on the wrist at the most.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
| Trevman12 |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 07:28:48
Sorry, I made this poll, I just forgot to log in when making it. |
|
|
