| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TimHorton |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 06:07:13
Should the NHL ban players who have multiple suspensions for intentional injury ?
My though on this is:
Absolutely, the NHL like it or not is a business, these players are paid to play on these teams, it is their job. If we were to go to work and intenitonally injure one of our co-works we would be banned from work.
I am looking forward to how porkchop weighs in on this... |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fanoleaf |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 17:50:03
i don't know so much if the question is should they be banned.
maybe the reality is, can this be banned? Union / management issue?
I think most of us would agree that there needs to be serious consequences for "intentional injuries"
It than also becomes subjective and how would those incidents be handled. Sure there would be the clear cut infractions. but a lot of controversy also. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 16:37:39
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Bertuzzi on Moore was not intent to injure at all. It was an attempt at retribution and trying to get the kid to fight. There was an injury as a result of the play, but the intent was not to injure.
And if players were to be banned for attempt to injure, it would be about a year and there would be no one left to play hockey. Every single time a player hits another, it is intent to injure.
Bertuzzi most certainly intended to hurt Moore, if he was trying only to fight then you drop the gloves face to face and not blindly sucker punch someone from behind in the side of the head. We all have played the game at one level or another. If you hit someone like Bertuzzi did, you wanted to hurt them.
You also know that a check is an attempt to knock an opponent off the puck, often the most effective check doesn't even make a player lose balance but lose the puck instead. A blatant check from behind is attempting to hurt someone but a player throwing a good clean check does not intend to hurt anyone. Again we all played this great game and I do not recall I time when I threw a check that I was thinking "I hope I seriously injure this guy"
We can start debating the line between good clean hits and head hits and hits from behind, but the bottom line still is a player throwing a good clean hit never does it intentionally to injure. |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 16:05:49
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Bertuzzi on Moore was not intent to injure at all. It was an attempt at retribution and trying to get the kid to fight. There was an injury as a result of the play, but the intent was not to injure.
And if players were to be banned for attempt to injure, it would be about a year and there would be no one left to play hockey. Every single time a player hits another, it is intent to injure.
I totally disagree with that 100%. Bertuzzi was trying to get Moore to fight, yes, but he also meant to hurt him as badly as he could. That is why he gave him a full powered blow to the head and shoved his neck into the ice. But that is a whole new can of worms not worth getting into all over again.
Also, players are not trying to injure each other every time they hit an opposing player. Hitting was introduced as a means of getting the puck off of the opponent, and although big hits seem common they are much more of a rarity once looked upon. I still believe there is a respect in the NHL, and 99.8% of players do not mean to injure. The other .2 does.
To think each player, or even a majority intend to injure is a foolish thought, and a foolish assumption. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 15:48:23
Bertuzzi on Moore was not intent to injure at all. It was an attempt at retribution and trying to get the kid to fight. There was an injury as a result of the play, but the intent was not to injure.
And if players were to be banned for attempt to injure, it would be about a year and there would be no one left to play hockey. Every single time a player hits another, it is intent to injure.
|
| leigh |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 14:52:45
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
...I'm not sure when and/or if my job in an IT shop would/will ever become full contact, but as it is a building full of computer geeks, I relish the idea, might finally get a chance at advancement with a couple well placed hip checks at the water cooler...
Oh man this was priceless...I can relate! Nice one FER!!!!  |
| TimHorton |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 14:29:59
I am not talking about checking, I am talking about the league hot heads who go for all the glory, in my opinion I think some fans are partly to blame. How many times have you heard people complain about not enough hitting or fights. I know its part of the game but when you charge at somone knowing in your head that you are going to hurt that person should you be banned if it happens on a regular basis?
I am not dropping any gloves !!!! Just getting friendly conversation started. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 14:12:38
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6081
this is a stupid pool of course not whenever most players check someone (this apllies for me to) their trying to hit as hard as they can. Sounds like trying to hurt someone to me. So your saying everytime someone hits someone or gets in a fight they should be banned? We'd run out of players. The league would never ban crosby or ovechkin even if they killed someone.
First of all Guest6081 this is not stupid. Need I point out Chris Simon stepping on Ruuttu. That was intent to injure. Need I point out Todd Bertuzzi on Steve Moore, that was intent to injure. I am sure TimHorton was not talking about the checking in the game.
Secondly, are you dropping the gloves with me TimHorton?
Intending to injure another player is something rarely seen in the NHL although it does happen as in the scenarios I pointed out above. Lengthy suspensions and monetary fines is the best way. Of course like in the case of Bertuzzi the local law enforcement could get involved.
A 1 year ban and fining the entire years salary could be an answer. |
| Guest6081 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 13:57:10
this is a stupid pool of course not whenever most players check someone (this apllies for me to) their trying to hit as hard as they can. Sounds like trying to hurt someone to me. So your saying everytime someone hits someone or gets in a fight they should be banned? We'd run out of players. The league would never ban crosby or ovechkin even if they killed someone. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 07:12:14
"Absolutely, the NHL like it or not is a business, these players are paid to play on these teams, it is their job. If we were to go to work and intenitonally injure one of our co-works we would be banned from work."
I'm not sure when and/or if my job in an IT shop would/will ever become full contact, but as it is a building full of computer geeks, I relish the idea, might finally get a chance at advancement with a couple well placed hip checks at the water cooler...
To make any correlation from a pro athlete's 'job' to the rest of society is slightly naive...these are men/women playing a sport, not working for a living like the rest of us. Their contribution is of entertainment value only, so the same rules do not apply.
Hockey is a contact sport, meaning, part of the game is physical contact, and the lines are very gray regarding what is intent to injure and what is not. It's too subjective to blanket it and say that player should be banned for injuriing player b.
If a body check is thrown in a clean manner and the player being checked gets crushed and ends up injured, does that not constitute intent to injure on the checker? I'm pretty sure he wasn't driving the checkee into the boards out of affection..
Yes, the NHL is a business, but that's why the compensation to be an 'employee' in the business is as high as it is.....injuries are part of this business.
|
|
|
