|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 25, 2005 20:16:14 GMT -5
www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=122861Personally I don't think he paid enough. In my world, a player guilty of intentionally hurting another should only start his suspension after the hurt player is back on the ice. In any case, McSorley got 23 games for an incident that didn't even have the disastrous impact that this one has. Bertuzzi's suspension HAS to raise the bar the way the McSorley one did. IMO he shouldn't be reinstated. Zhogin got a full season suspension in the AHL, so should Bertuzzi IMO. Of course I'm talking about a played season...
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Apr 28, 2005 13:42:19 GMT -5
www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=122861Personally I don't think he paid enough. In my world, a player guilty of intentionally hurting another should only start his suspension after the hurt player is back on the ice. In any case, McSorley got 23 games for an incident that didn't even have the disastrous impact that this one has. Bertuzzi's suspension HAS to raise the bar the way the McSorley one did. IMO he shouldn't be reinstated. Zhogin got a full season suspension in the AHL, so should Bertuzzi IMO. Of course I'm talking about a played season... I agree. The Perezhogin incident should be the benchmark. He got suspended for a year and his victim's injuries were nowhere close to Moore's. And what makes Bertuzzi's case even worse, is that it was premeditated. He, and the Canucks, talked about getting Moore back weeks before the actual incident occurred. Perezhogin's hit, as gruesome as it was, wasn't planned from ahead of time and he still got suspended for a year. I have a feeling that Bettman is going to really make an example out of Bertuzzi. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Big Bert is asked to sit out even longer... perhaps for a full played season. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 14:47:04 GMT -5
I hope nothing goes wrong with Bertuzzi's hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 29, 2005 12:56:28 GMT -5
I'm sure that Bettman won't make a hasty decision and will draw this out a couple of years.
Reiterating my position, Bertuzzi made a mistake and was overly agressive. He tried to lure him into a face to face fight and when he refused, Bertuzzi socked him in the back of the head with a padded glove. The resulting injure was a rare freakish occurance caused when his head struck the ice with Bertuzzi's weight on his neck, not a result of the punch. People in hockey get injured and you can Blame Bertuzzi for poor judgement, but keeping him out of hockey for an offense much less vicious than Perezhogin's stick swinging slash to the head is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 30, 2005 18:43:31 GMT -5
Bertuzzi, along with every other NHL player, is in a state of suspended animation because of the lockout. The clock may have been stopped on his supension, but it should be turned on again before play is resumed so that an appropriate outcome is reached in his case. At that time the league will have better information on Moore's status.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 30, 2005 21:35:54 GMT -5
Moore is claiming that he will never be able to play hockey again. He may never have played again (resigned) at the NHL level regardless, as his skills and ability were suspect.
This will not be addressed (I'm back and forth as to whether it should be).
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 30, 2005 23:55:40 GMT -5
In my world, a player guilty of intentionally hurting another should only start his suspension after the hurt player is back on the ice. Given how in hockey injuries occur on barely over the ledge incidents, or sometimes don't happen on terrible hits, I'd want to punish the act, not the consequences. And for blatant pre-meditated aggression like this, one full year of played hockey would be the starting point. IMO Bert should lose the next full 82-games of regular season hockey along with a playoff participation. The Zhogin incident is a benchmark - it should apply to other players as well, otherwise it's still the jungle out there. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 30, 2005 23:56:47 GMT -5
This will not be addressed (I'm back and forth as to whether it should be). I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be. Is murder less severe because you kill the local plumber or a succesful lawyer ? It shouldn't be, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 1, 2005 16:17:54 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be. Is murder less severe because you kill the local plumber or a succesful lawyer ? It shouldn't be, IMO. No . . . but awards in civil lawsuits are often based more on potential lost earnings . . . and if there are no potential earnings, then . . . |
|
