|
|
Post by habmeister on May 1, 2004 16:40:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 1, 2004 20:34:33 GMT -5
He deserves everything he gets, and more. Will these guys not learn?
And by they way, Garrett Stafford should be suspended as well -- and would have been automatically if he'd have connected with his swing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Madhabfan on May 1, 2004 20:41:45 GMT -5
Will somebody explain to me how this was worse than what Bertuzzi did?
I've read that a couple of times today.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 1, 2004 20:45:57 GMT -5
Actually it was pretty much the same as the Belak thing except Perezhogin had way more justification after Stafford tried to take his head off. And what did meek Belak get?
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on May 1, 2004 21:15:30 GMT -5
Actually it was pretty much the same as the Belak thing except Perezhogin had way more justification after Stafford tried to take his head off. And what did meek Belak get? If memory serves me correctly Belax got 8 games. But then again, he plays for Toronto, it was in the NHL and the Colorado player wasn't seriously injured because he was wearing a visor. Correct me if I am wrong. edit: It was 8 games, not 12 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2004 21:47:21 GMT -5
Scary, ugly incident that would jeapordize his entire hockey career. He may never play an NHL game, which is sad. But I could be just getting ahead of myself. As for this "are we jinxed" question; Perezhogin acted on his own, as an individual. I won't pass any judgment, because if somebody took a swing at my head, I'd give them a good shot, too. With either my fist or my foot.  |
|
|
|
Post by HullOlympiques on May 1, 2004 21:53:18 GMT -5
You're getting ahead of yourself. He'll play in the NHL if he has the talent, for sure. I've seen worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2004 21:58:58 GMT -5
You're getting ahead of yourself. He'll play in the NHL if he has the talent, for sure. I've seen worse. Perhaps if/when the Dogs are eliminated from post-season play, perhaps we should gripe like Canuck fans that Bertuzzi was suspended because the League doesn't want them to win the cup.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 2, 2004 4:47:26 GMT -5
Will somebody explain to me how this was worse than what Bertuzzi did? I've read that a couple of times today. I was one of the first to support Bertuzzi as he punched with a gloved hand. The injury cas compounded bu Bertuzzi falling on his neck. Perez took a viscious two hander with definite intent to commit major injury. Perez was much worse. Really unfortunate for the hab's organization, but Perezhogin deserves whatever punishment he is handed out. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 2, 2004 6:52:22 GMT -5
McKenzie: 'Hall of Shame' incident
TSN.ca Staff
5/1/2004
The immediate reaction to seeing Alexander Perezhogin swinging his stick, baseball bat-style, into Garrett Stafford's face is to say that it is worse than Todd Bertuzzi's sucker-punch on Steve Moore and that it's worse than Marty McSorley's stick attack on Donald Brashear.
That all depends on the context of the word 'worse'. I can only tell you this: in 25 years in this business, I'm not sure I've seen anything more sickening than the sight of Perezhogin striking Stafford in the face and Stafford lying there on the ice, convulsing.
In that regard, I don't hesitate to say it's the worst I've seen.
But, if it's the worst, it's also the most explainable, which is not to be confused with excusable, because there is no excuse for what Perezhogin did. He should be suspended for a good long time and if the Hamilton police choose to press charges, then so be it.
But, it was different.
Different because McSorley came at Brashear without warning. There were some earlier issues between those two guys but, when it comes to the actual incident itself, Brashear had no idea it was coming.
Moore was also ambushed, and what complicated that incident was that it was part of a running battle, involving vigilante justice, NHL-style.
What makes Perezhogin on Stafford different is that it happened in the heat of battle. Perezhogin and Stafford both battled in front of the net and fell to the ice. Stafford first swung his stick at Perezhogin's head and struck a glancing blow off the helmet. Perezhogin reacted, and reacted badly, with devastating consequences.
Of all of these 'Hall of Shame' incidents, Perezhogin's may be the most understandable. But, understanding it doesn't mean that we are not repulsed by it or that we can condonde it.
I'll leave it for others to call which was worse, but let's just call this for what it is: bad, very bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldthorpe on May 2, 2004 9:31:21 GMT -5
I was one of the first to support Bertuzzi as he punched with a gloved hand. The injury cas compounded bu Bertuzzi falling on his neck. Perez took a viscious two hander with definite intent to commit major injury. Perez was much worse. Really unfortunate for the hab's organization, but Perezhogin deserves whatever punishment he is handed out. I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to even remotely compare Perez with Bertuzzi accident. And say that the first is WORST than the second? Let's see Bertuzzi: - Big guy with history of big temper - Open ice, no game situation - 100% premeditated, comming from behind Perez now: - Small guy with no history of violence - In the crease, during play - No premeditation, in fact, I don't think Perez was even aware that Stafford had fallen! I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no comparaison. Bertuzzi hit was to attack and to hurt a specific player. Perez slash was reactive and more a sign of inexperience than anything else. It was a reckless stick slash, but it was definitively an accident. Perez will get 5 game suspensions, or maybe all the playoff, but nothing more. As for any possibility of suspension for Stafford, we all know it never gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 2, 2004 10:32:32 GMT -5
And around and around and around professional hockey goes... Rightly or wrongly, our entire criminal system, our sense of right and wrong, of crime and punishment, is based on the severity of the damage done to the victim. For example, if I point a gun at somebody, and shoot them in the leg, just to hurt them, I will be charged with, at worst, attempted murder. But, if I hit an artery, and that person dies, I will be charged with murder. The punishment is different, and more severe, even though my act, and intent, was the same in both cases. Similarily, if I drive drunk, and injury somebody while doing so, I will be charged with something like driving while impaired and causing bodily injury. However, if that person dies, I will be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Again, the severity of the punishment is different, even though in both cases my act - driving drunk - was the same, and even though I never had any intention of hurting anybody. Steal $200, get a fine. Steal $200,000, go to jail. I like Todd Bertuzzi as a player. We all do. I like the Vancouver Canucks, and I wanted them to come out of the West, perhaps setting up an All-Canadian Stanley Cup. But you can't ignore the actions. Todd Bertuzzi broke somebody's neck. It may not have been what he wanted to do (most certainly wasn't) but that's what he did. And he has to be punished for breaking somebody's neck.What Bertuzzi did wasn't "in the heat of the moment." He didn't attack Moore the second after Moore hit Naslund, or for the remainder of the game. He didn't even attack Moore the next time the Avs and Canucks played - this is the second game they have played since then. He didn't even attack Moore at the start of the game. He waited until the end of the game, when his team had no chance of winning. That's premeditated. That's deliberate. That's "I'm going to wait for the most opportune time, when it won't cost my team the game." That's NOT heat of the moment. I've been calling for stiffer suspensions for years now, ever since the McSorely incident. If it were up to me, Bertuzzi would get a year. As it is, anything less than the rest of the season AND the ENTIRE playoffs will be considered weak, by me. With the exception of the "heat of the moment" paragraph, pretty much everything else still stands. We cannot call for stiffer punishments for other team's players, and then cite mitigate circumstances when its one of our own. The truth is, Stafford didn't connect, Perezhoghin wasn't injured. Perezhogin DID connect, and Stafford was injured. I demanded a year for Bertuzzi, and as much as it pains me to say it, I demand a year for Perezhogin. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 2, 2004 11:00:19 GMT -5
And around and around and around professional hockey goes... We cannot call for stiffer punishments for other team's players, and then cite mitigate circumstances when its one of our own. Why not? That is one of the good uses of lawyers. Cry me a river. Sure punish Perezhogin for having better/worse luck with his swing of the stick. This is very much in the spirit of the NHL's "nail the retaliator" mentality. If Stafford had been whistled down as soon as he swung at Perezhogin's head there's a good chance events would not have reached the point that they did. The refs blew it and Perezhogin gets pilloried. I hope Stafford has learned never to swing at another player's head. I'm sure Perezhogin has learned not reply in kind to a coward when he is to be expected to be on his knees behind you. A tough lesson for both kids, but hopefully one that sticks (irregardless of the likely inappropriate official ruling). |
|
|
|
Post by patate on May 2, 2004 11:02:44 GMT -5
Moore stayed in hospital for 2 weeks, had a broken neck and nose, there was even some fear for his life. Stafford was release from the hospital the morning after the incident. He had a grade 3 concussion (Lindros had a dozen of those) and facial lacerations. No way Perezhogin get a year suspension.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 2, 2004 12:12:09 GMT -5
I hope Stafford has learned never to swing at another player's head. I'm sure Perezhogin has learned not reply in kind to a coward when he is to be expected to be on his knees behind you. A tough lesson for both kids, but hopefully one that sticks (irregardless of the likely inappropriate official ruling). So do you hope Steve Moore has learned never to hit a star player? Or to refuse a fight? If the refs can't control the game, then let the players do it? Since the refs didn't blow the play dead after Stafford swung and missed, Perezhoghin gets his free shot in? There are ALWAYS mitigating circumstances, to every single one of these things. Get a good enough lawyer, and everybody looks sympathetic. But the fact is, Perezhoghin swung his stick, and hit somebody hard in the face with it. Now, if you want to argue that Stafford should also be suspended, then fine. He probably should be. But I cannot agree with the sentiment that Perezoghin should get off lightly because Stafford is getting away with one. Its the same argument Vancouver Canuck fans used, saying that if Steve Moore had of been punished in the first place, Bertuzzi wouldn't have happened, or if Donald Brashear had of fought McSorely when he was challenged, that wouldn't have happened either. Its wrong. One year. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 2, 2004 12:53:23 GMT -5
So do you hope Steve Moore has learned never to hit a star player? Or to refuse a fight? Dirty hits can have dirty consequences. Beware. Hardly a free shot. It was earned via a knock-down crosscheck and an attempted decapitation, neither of which were flagged for the obvious fouls that they are. So it's OK to swing one's stick at another player's head - as long as you don't make contact? Yes, he should be. For instigating his own disfigurement. Accountability. Sometimes the only way to learn is through the school of hard knocks. I did not make that claim. I'd say that there would have been an excellent chance that we wouldn't have witnessed the ensuing mayhem if the law had been properly enforced in the first place. What is wrong, IMO, is the "nail the retaliator" and let the instigator skate away innocently whistling Dixie mentality that prevails in the NHL "justice" system. Nail the perps and cut everyone's losses. The playoffs. And a stern lecture to both boys to never, ever, pull that kind of Saperlipopette again. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 2, 2004 13:51:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to even remotely compare Perez with Bertuzzi accident. And say that the first is WORST than the second? Let's see Bertuzzi: - Big guy with history of big temper - Open ice, no game situation - 100% premeditated, comming from behind Perez now: - Small guy with no history of violence - In the crease, during play - No premeditation, in fact, I don't think Perez was even aware that Stafford had fallen! I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no comparaison. Bertuzzi hit was to attack and to hurt a specific player. Perez slash was reactive and more a sign of inexperience than anything else. It was a reckless stick slash, but it was definitively an accident. Perez will get 5 game suspensions, or maybe all the playoff, but nothing more. As for any possibility of suspension for Stafford, we all know it never gonna happen. I agree with all you have said except for your conclusion. Bertuzzi has a history of violence, he's big and he's strong. Perezhogin was prevoked and it wasn't premeditated. Michael Jackson has a history of child abuse and I don't. Does that mean I get a free pass to molest a child the first time. If a child is dressed in a provocative outfit, does that mitigate my crime. No! It's a crime and you just don't do it under any circumstances! The vicious swing with a stick to the head is unacceptable. Stafford was wrong and the ref was wrong, but it doesn't excuse Perez. I hope he is forgiven and the other contributing culprits are punished too, but if I'm earning a living in the NHL, I don't want anybody swinging sticks at my head under any circumstances. When I play oldtimers hockey I don't want anybody swinging a stick to my head. When I go buy a bag of groceries I don't want anybody swinging a stick at my head. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 2, 2004 13:53:32 GMT -5
Dirty hits can have dirty consequences. Beware. Yes, he should be. For instigating his own disfigurement. Accountability. Sometimes the only way to learn is through the school of hard knocks. What is wrong, IMO, is the "nail the retaliator" and let the instigator skate away innocently whistling Dixie mentality that prevails in the NHL "justice" system. Nail the perps and cut everyone's losses. The playoffs. And a stern lecture to both boys to never, ever, pull that kind of Saperlipopette again. Funny you know, I don't remember reading posts like this one, here at HabsRus, stating, in effect that Moore brought about his own disfigurement, that he needed to be taught some accountability in the school of hard knocks, and that he reaped what he sowed, and should have been suspended right alongside Bertuzzi, or that Bertuzzi should only be suspended for the playoffs, with nothing more than a stern lecture to "not do it again." In fact, I seem to remember reading posts like this: Are Todd Bertuzzi's tears truly shed for Steve Moore and his family? Or are they shed for Todd Bertuzzi? No matter to me, because his act was one that had absolutely no honour. It was the act of a punk. And for that the full weight of the law (in whatever court) should come down upon him. Call me old-fashioned. Call me an a-hole. I don't care. That's how I see it.Oh well. Guess things are different, when the guilty party is wearing the home-town sweater... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 2, 2004 14:07:17 GMT -5
You can't compare Moore to Stafford. I don't even think Moore's hit on Naslund was particularly dirty (and I'm a big Naslund fan), but even if it was, it comes nowhere close to what Stafford tried to do to Perez.
Frankly, I think a lot of players, maybe even a majority, would have reacted the same way as Perez did. I'm tempted to say they should receive exactly the same punishment for the same act, but there is a tradition (in law as well as in hockey) that the punishment should fit the consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 2, 2004 15:06:09 GMT -5
We often agree on things, but not in this case, BC. I have firmly believed that if the Bettmans of the world had set some very simple plain rules (eg, a dangerous infraction of any kind will earn you a 20 game suspension without pay) the players would learn to control their sticks, their elbows, their feet and cut down the number of serious injuries. To top it off, by bringing in the "instigator" rule, the league ensured that the players could not police themselves. Moore is a good example. There's a guy who is recognized as an agitator, and now has a blank cheque to not only disturb any player on a team, but to try and hurt them as well. I will not be convinced by any argument that he was not trying to hurt Naslund, because mine own eyes saw the event many times over. He sees Naslund in a stretched vulnerable position , and launches his elbow/shoulder at him. Result?....a cracked elbow for Naslund, and a concussion that never really went away. And absolutely no call on the play. If Moore gets a match penalty, a 20 game suspension, he hurts himself and then the Canucks feel appropriate punishment has been given. Instead, it's left to them to try and get justice. The problem is its difficult to control the level of 'justice' applied. I'm sure Betuzzi didn't want to cause that kind of injury, he want to fight Moore, who, being no fool and knowing the system protects him, wanted no part of it. While I empathize with Moore's medical situation, I have no sympathy at all for him personally. He abused his reponsibility toward his fellow players and he paid the price. I give Bertuzzi the 20 games I've mentioned and that's it. Of course, if the league had done their job in the first place it wouldn't have been necessary. Same thing with Perezhogin. He gets bashed hard to the side of the net, gets up and nearly meets lumber to his head. In his case I do exactly the same thing. When you're under those circumstances, thinking doesn't come into it. It's the fear factor and the 'fight or flight' reaction. He has a stick and has tried to guillotine you, you have a stick and you do it back. There's no reasoning, no consensus by committee, no time to address a mediator (you get labelled a pansy if you flee and then your career really is over). So it doesn't suprise me in the least that Alex clubbed Stafford in return. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Just don't whine when you get back what you deserve. I understand your viewpoint and I would agree with a good portion of it myself, if the last 10 to 15 years of hockey evolution hadn't put players in the position they're currently in. I've been silently complaining for many years, to make penalties for severe infractions, severe. let players know about it and the fact there will be no gray areas. Then when Belak tries to break someone in two, their own career is jeopardized. Perhaps that might even encourage a better quality of player in the league, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 2, 2004 16:05:54 GMT -5
Funny you know, I don't remember reading posts like this one, here at HabsRus, stating, in effect that Moore brought about his own disfigurement, that he needed to be taught some accountability in the school of hard knocks, and that he reaped what he sowed, and should have been suspended right alongside Bertuzzi, or that Bertuzzi should only be suspended for the playoffs, with nothing more than a stern lecture to "not do it again." In fact, I seem to remember reading posts like this: Are Todd Bertuzzi's tears truly shed for Steve Moore and his family? Or are they shed for Todd Bertuzzi? No matter to me, because his act was one that had absolutely no honour. It was the act of a punk. And for that the full weight of the law (in whatever court) should come down upon him. Call me old-fashioned. Call me an a-hole. I don't care. That's how I see it.Oh well. Guess things are different, when the guilty party is wearing the home-town sweater... Things indeed are different since I am talking about Perezhogin and Stafford in this thread, and was talking about Bertuzzi and Moore in the thread you quoted. Two different cases. Two different opinions. While transposing my remarks regarding the one instance to apply to the other is clever, it does nothing to change my perspectives on either incident. The mitigating circumstances, as has been pointed out, were radically different in both. A simple prophylactic action professional hockey could take, if it had the will and a sufficient number of competent officials, would be to relentlessly call games by the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 2, 2004 18:43:56 GMT -5
And around and around and around professional hockey goes... With the exception of the "heat of the moment" paragraph, pretty much everything else still stands. We cannot call for stiffer punishments for other team's players, and then cite mitigate circumstances when its one of our own. The truth is, Stafford didn't connect, Perezhoghin wasn't injured. Perezhogin DID connect, and Stafford was injured. I demanded a year for Bertuzzi, and as much as it pains me to say it, I demand a year for Perezhogin. I remember having this arguement with you during the whole Bertuzzi thing. I was of the opinion that if you penalize the act and not the result that the league would be cleaned up alot faster. The thing I feared was a player cross-checking from behind and doing no injury because one guy was better conditioned and then he returning the favour later on in the game and killing him. And now we have Perezhogin. Well I will use the arguement you used back then. "Shoot a guy in the leg = attempted murder ..... Shoot a guy and he dies = murder". What about "You shoot me and miss, I am not going to wait around to see if you intended to miss, bang." It is self-defense. Perezhogin was struck in the head by a deliberate attempt to hit him. And from the replays I saw there was a cross-check, then it looked as if one them tried to make the other fall down awkwardly by sloo-footing him (the reports say Perezhogi was guilty of this but to me it looked as if he was bracing for a fall and Stafford was trying to throw him down), and then he swings his stick. So that is three times he tried to injury Perexhogin, is Perezhogin expected to wait around and let him finish what was clearly his intentions? No. He says enough is enough and protected himself. It was obvious thatthe refs weren't going to (their job), or his teammates (their obligation), so the only recourse for him to not leave that game injured was to fight back. Now I don't agree with the method he chose. But I would think that 90% of people put in that situation (a cross check, a sloo-foot, a stick to the head to purposely injure you in a span of 20 seconds) would actually have tried to injure Stafford in one form or another. Just walking away was not an option because his career was on the line if the attempt was made again in the game. 3 times to me shows intent, and 3 times to me is enough. He will be suspended .... I say the rest of the season and 15 games next year, but in the courts it is self defense and self preservation all the way! Stafford gets off scott-free and the circle continues. It won't go away until the the Prepetrators are prosecuted as well as the retaliator. Punish the act regardless of the injury I say again! |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 2, 2004 20:04:09 GMT -5
While transposing my remarks regarding the one instance to apply to the other is clever, it does nothing to change my perspectives on either incident. The mitigating circumstances, as has been pointed out, were radically different in both. A simple prophylactic action professional hockey could take, if it had the will and a sufficient number of competent officials, would be to relentlessly call games by the book. It may be clever, but alas, not creative. I merely quoted your esteemed self. In this very thread. I asked, do you hope Steve Moore has learned never to hit a star player? Or to refuse a fight? to which you answered Dirty hits can have dirty consequences. Beware.The implication, of course, is that you do something and get away with it, then you should be free game. Moore got away with one, therefore he should have known dirty consequences were coming back his way. Similarily, Stafford got away with one (though Perezhoghin never actually took the time to see if the ref was calling anything, he clobbered him before he had even gotten off his knees), therefore Perezhoghin was well within his rights to mete out his own justice. Dirty act, dirty consequence. You said so when I asked you about Moore and Bertuzzi, and you then backed it up when I directly asked you about Stafford. Yes, he should be. For instigating his own disfigurement. Accountability. Sometimes the only way to learn is through the school of hard knocks.Why the backtrack? When it originally happened, you said Bertuzzi was a punk, who deserved to have the courts throw the book at him (you put the extra "s", in brackets, to emphasize it, and I'm going to assume that to mean both legal and NHL hanging judges). Now, however, you say that Moore had it coming to him, because of his cheap shot on Naslund. Dirty hits can have dirty consequences. Beware... Sometimes the only way to learn is through the school of hard knocks. Kudos to Bertuzzi for teaching that upstart punk Moore some manners? Kudos to Perezhoghin for defending himself in a manly, Don Cherry-ish way? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 2, 2004 20:16:06 GMT -5
I remember having this arguement with you during the whole Bertuzzi thing. I was of the opinion that if you penalize the act and not the result that the league would be cleaned up alot faster. The thing I feared was a player cross-checking from behind and doing no injury because one guy was better conditioned and then he returning the favour later on in the game and killing him. And now we have Perezhogin. Well I will use the arguement you used back then. "Shoot a guy in the leg = attempted murder ..... Shoot a guy and he dies = murder". What about "You shoot me and miss, I am not going to wait around to see if you intended to miss, bang." It is self-defense. The "shoot the guy in the leg" analogy was in response to those who said that we shouldn't look at the injury as a basis for the suspension, and that "those sorts of things happen all the time." I agree, to a point, that the actual injury should not be the sole decider of things, but I just wanted to point out that in all walks of life, the severity of the damage done to the wronged party plays a significant role. I have always been a proponent of calling the rules, and laying down stiff, stiff penalties. I am one of those who is of the opinion that we aren't far off from a player dying on the ice, and because I love hockey so much, I don't want to see that. See my next post, for something I wrote on another board, about how I think hockey needs to approach this. Perezhogin was struck in the head by a deliberate attempt to hit him. And from the replays I saw there was a cross-check, then it looked as if one them tried to make the other fall down awkwardly by sloo-footing him (the reports say Perezhogi was guilty of this but to me it looked as if he was bracing for a fall and Stafford was trying to throw him down), and then he swings his stick. So that is three times he tried to injury Perexhogin, is Perezhogin expected to wait around and let him finish what was clearly his intentions? No. He says enough is enough and protected himself. It was obvious thatthe refs weren't going to (their job), or his teammates (their obligation), so the only recourse for him to not leave that game injured was to fight back. Now I don't agree with the method he chose. But I would think that 90% of people put in that situation (a cross check, a sloo-foot, a stick to the head to purposely injure you in a span of 20 seconds) would actually have tried to injure Stafford in one form or another. Just walking away was not an option because his career was on the line if the attempt was made again in the game. 3 times to me shows intent, and 3 times to me is enough. He will be suspended .... I say the rest of the season and 15 games next year, but in the courts it is self defense and self preservation all the way! Stafford gets off scott-free and the circle continues. It won't go away until the the Prepetrators are prosecuted as well as the retaliator. Punish the act regardless of the injury I say again! This is all just justifications. You take any "horrendous play" and there are justifications. Moore shouldn't have hit Naslund. Moore should have fought Bertuzzi. Bertuzzi was just trying to fight him, and reacted. Brashear should have fought McSorely. McSorely was just trying to hit his shoulder. Belak was off balance, Worrell shouldn't have hit Niedermeyer, Niedermeyer should have kept his head up when Domi was coming, we can go on, and on, and on. As I said, there are ALWAYS mitigating circumstance. Now, hockey can make a choice. They can decide "well, there were mitigating circumstances, we'll let things go, we'll slap him on the wrist" and it will be business as usual. Hand out suspensions based on public perception. OR, and this is what I want, they can say "Enough is enough - it starts now. We crack down, and we crack down hard. Perezhoghin gets a year, and the next guy thinks twice. If the next is the originator, like Stafford, and not the retaliator, then he gets a year." Start laying down precedents. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 2, 2004 20:18:21 GMT -5
Something I posted on another board, after the Bertuzzi incident:
It has to be entrenched in the CBA. There has to be a sliding scale that sets out bare minimums, while still allowing for harsher punishment if circumstances warrant it.
The way the NHL does it now, everyone agrees, is silly. Nobody has any idea – even after the decision has allegedly been rendered – just how long a person is to be suspended. Look at all the discussion before today – will he get the rest of the regular season? one playoff round? two? the whole playoffs? a year? does the fact that the media is involved have an influence? why 12 games for Johnson, but 21 for Hunter? which is a better precedent? That’s all just crazy talk.
They need to build it into the rulebook, and the collective bargaining agreement. Make it clear what exactly is punishable, and what the punishment will be. And make the punishments harsh. 2 games is meaningless in an 82 game season.
* deliberate attempt to injure equals a minimum of 5 games
* striking somebody in the head with a stick equals 25 games
* taking out somebody’s knees equals 10 games
* sucker punching equals 20 games
* elbowing somebody in the head, with attempt to injure, equals 10 games
* First match penalty equals 5 games, second equals 10 games, third equals the season, or 30 games, which ever comes first
And for the love of god, get rid of the trash talking. The NFL banned the throat-slashing gesture within weeks of it first appearing. You talk bad about the league, and they’ll fine you a billion dollars. Do the same thing for the NHL. We all know the NHL has lousy officiating, there is no need to talk about it in the press. Nor is there any need to threaten players. The NHL is an entertainment product, in the entertainment industry, competing for entertainment dollars. No other industry in the world allows its employees to publicly bad-mouth its product or fellow employees the way the NHL does. Hand out HUGE fines to teams for insulting the league or ANY of its employees (including players, referees, coaches or management). Like $500,000 fines. There is no need for such negative publicity.
Spell out the rules, make punishments automatic, leave no room for interpretation, and make them harsh. As pointed out, when people knew that they couldn’t leave the bench, else they get a 10 game suspension, everybody stopped leaving the bench. Why? What happened to all the “heat of the moment” arguments? Truth is, heat of the moment only goes so far, and when people know they are going to get a 10 gamer, they cool off pretty quickly.
Look, we all love a good, hard-fought hockey game. Some of us have played at decent levels, and some of us have been on the giving and receiving end of solid, physical play. Most of us enjoy a good scrap, and a few of us have been involved in them as well. A small few will travel half-way across a province to get to one (hi Scotty!). We aren’t girly-men, or girly-girls. But this HAS to stop, for the love of the game. Because somebody WILL get killed, its only a matter of time, and then the NHL won’t be allowed to set its own rules anymore. THEN the game we all love will change, forever, and not necessarily for the better. And nobody wants to see that. The NHL has had enough warnings, they can’t turn around and say “we never saw this coming.”<br>
Now, is the perfect opportunity. There is a new CBA to be negotiated, and its going to be a tough one anyways. So take your time, and do it right. Spell it out, and leave NO room for debate. Our justice system doesn’t allow judges to “interpret,” they have very clear guideline under which to work. Lets do the same thing with the NHL.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 2, 2004 20:45:10 GMT -5
It may be clever, but alas, not creative. I merely quoted your esteemed self. I asked, "do you hope Steve Moore has learned never to hit a star player? Or to refuse a fight?" to which you answered Dirty hits can have dirty consequences. Beware.The implication, of course, is that you do something and get away with it, then you should be free game. Moore got away with one, therefore he should have no dirty consequences were coming back his way. I said *can* not *will*. To say that Moore was unaware that his style of play *could* have unpleasant consequences for himself would be naive. To predict their type and time and place of occurence is virtually impossible. Absolutely. It's a natural reaction in a lawless environment, especially when you've already been assaulted twice within a span of seconds. Once again I said *can* not *will*. I really don't understand why you keep bringing up Bertuzzi and Moore. Put in proper context that is what I said in reference specifically regarding Stafford. Moore had nothing at all to do with that statement. What backtrack? Yes, and I stand by that. No, those are your words. That is what you say. I was making a general statement within the context of the Stafford/Perezhogin incident. I made absolutely no reference to either Moore or Bertuzzi. You seem to equate the two incidents. That's fine. However, I see them as separate and unique and have been quite clear on that point in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 3, 2004 2:10:35 GMT -5
IMO, punishment should be threefold. The fact that Perezhogin is a Hab prospect has nothing to do with my opinion.
1. Perezhogin should get at least the rest of the playoffs and 20 games next year. If the league wants to take a bigger stand...all of next year. An "example" of the highest order? Banned from North American play. I would agree with the first two. The third, in light of the events that led to it, would be absurd. Perez was clearly provoked by a similar act.
2. Stafford came within two inches of trading places with Perezhogin. His rage and intent were clear. He should receive some punishment as well, although none is likely.
3. The referee, Langdon, should be suspended for the rest of the playoffs...and made to do some retraining in the junior ranks next year. He clearly missed two or three glaring infractions which occured before the incident.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BC....I too fear that someone will get killed. I'd like your outline to be included in the new CBA and set in stone for the NHL. No room for question.
Do the AHL players fall under the cloak of the NHLPA...or do they have their own association?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on May 3, 2004 2:50:29 GMT -5
3. The referee, Langdon, should be suspended for the rest of the playoffs...and made to do some retraining in the junior ranks next year. He clearly missed two or three glaring infractions which occured before the incident. regarding this, do you guys know if there is any system in place which evaluates how the refs perform and, according to that, awards the good ones with more games and suspends the bad ones after poor performances? I'm asking because it's a common practice in european soccer but I never heard about it in the NHL. R. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 3, 2004 9:13:16 GMT -5
They always say that sports is a micro-cosmism of life, and I wonder if this just typifies that.
Where I grew up, there used to be this railway crossing, that didn’t have any barriers on it. I was too young to remember, but I’ve heard the story. People in the area clamoured and clamoured for a train crossing with a gate, but never got anywhere. You know where this story is going. One day, a school bus full of kids got creamed by a train. In comes the gate.
Similarly, I used to work in a profession that did a lot of bridge inspections. What we found – and reported - a distressing number of times, is that bridges in Quebec and Ontario at least, are often in terrible, terrible, shape. I remember one train bridge that we could literally pull apart with our hands. This is a bridge that trains cross over. There are bridges I will not drive over (including a major Montreal bridge). As my ex-girlfriend would say, “it’s the same old line, every time…” No money to fix the bridges. No money for maintenance. No political or public will to do anything drastic, even though everyone can see disaster coming. Apparently, and I only have anecdotal stories of this, the same situation used to appear in the US, until, tragically, several of these bridges collapsed, killing dozens of people. Money was, obviously found then. “Its going to have to take a tragedy for Quebec to do anything.” the oldtimers always said.
This is how I see the NHL. Someday, I think sooner than later, somebody is going to die on the ice. We’ve come close, and you can’t keep dodging bullets. Players have died in other leagues, its only a matter of time before it happens (again, lets not forget Bill Masterton) in the NHL. Say, just for argument’s sake, Todd Bertuzzi lands on Steve Moore’s neck just a little differently. Say he snaps it a little higher up, and Moore is paralysed. What happens to the NHL then (never mind Moore)? Moore could sue the NHL for a billion dollars, and the NHL would have no defense. They knew it was going to happen – heck Mr. Bozo says Moore and Stafford are victims of their own dirty play, and it was inevitable, perhaps even merited, to accord some “accountability” to their actions (though strangely enough, he thought Bertuzzi should be punished severely by both the NHL and the courts) – Vancouver players said they were going to do it, there are precedents left and right that say it was going to happen, its actually some sort of “code” that says it MUST happen, and the NHL LET it happen. What is the NHL going to say? “Uh, well, Mr. Moore hit Mr. Naslund, and while we didn’t punish that, he shouldn’t have done it.”
Can you imagine the punitive damages that could be awarded, because the NHL created an unsafe workplace environment that led to a crippling injury??
The NHL CANNOT say they didn’t see this coming. People have said its going to happen for years now. I’m saying it right now. Right now, there exists a situation where the NHL, if not encouraging, at least tolerates, its employees exacting revenge on one another, where outsiders and insiders have tried repeatedly to warn the NHL that something really bad is going to happen, and where they have taken zero measures to ensure that nothing bad does in fact happen. So much so, that 3 times in the last few years police have been called in to investigate. Police get called to your house 3 times in 5 years to investigate violence, it looks real bad if later on something really violent happens there, and a “this is out of character” defense just isn’t going to fly.
The NHL has created, tolerated, and turned a blind eye to the impending disaster. For that reason, if and when it does come, it will be all the much worse. They HAVE to start cracking down somewhere, it CANNOT be business as usual, anymore. It just can’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 3, 2004 10:16:54 GMT -5
Vancouver players said they were going to do it, there are precedents left and right that say it was going to happen, its actually some sort of “code” that says it MUST happen, and the NHL LET it happen. That was my biggest concern. All the signs were there...even Crawford got into the threats. The problem is...imposing drastic fines for verbal threats of retribution, and players and coaches will just keep it in-house. There will be no way to prevent them from planning such action if they wish to see it done. Worse yet, kept hush-hush, there will be no way to prove it was pre-meditated. A schedule of heavy fines which you have proposed be set in stone is the only way to eradicate this behaviour. Repeat offenders...even stiffer. If referees are seen as incompetent in allowing such situations to escalate, they too should face the music. That's the difference in the Perezhogin-Stafford case. Langdon let two or three flagrant fouls go uncalled before Stafford took his vicious phantom swing. Slashing, cross-checking happened before that. I don't mind seeing a constant parade to the penalty box when "Slap Shot" antics are occuring out there. And they are. Can you imagine the punitive damages that could be awarded, because the NHL created an unsafe workplace environment that led to a crippling injury?? You know, I still haven't heard or read Bob Goodenow's take of the Bertuzzi-Moore incident, and how the NHLPA is going to punish/protect its members. If all the new CBA includes is caps, no-touch icings, and moving the goal-line back....this league's in big trouble. My theory on why violence in the NHL is escalating. It's got nothing to do with helmets or visors or Europeans. With 30 teams and more parity than ever, every year there's a chance for virtually any team to have a legitimate shot at the Cup...and to quote Steve Winwood, "If you see a chance, take it". Teams missing certain elements of skill and depth resort to goon tactics (high sticks, elbows, gloves to the head on bodychecks, lowbridging, hitting from behind) as well as clutch-grab to level the playing field even further. Now it's not making a hit to take a guy out of the play, it's to take a guy out of commission. Again, BC, your schedule of fines should do much to counteract this mindset. |
|
