In addition to the usual drama of the NHL trading deadline, hockey pundits have been busy discussing the goonery that occurred down at Vancouver’s GM Place last night. For those non-hockey fans, Vancouver Canuck star player Todd Bertuzzi sucker-punched Colorado Avalanche player Steve Moore, and then drove him into the ice. Moore fractured a couple of verterbrae, suffered a concussion and has multiple lacerations to his face. He’ll be out for months, but will apparently make a full recovery. There’s video of the incident here (WMV format, unfortunately).
Bertuzzi’s action was in part retribution for Moore’s dubious hit on Canuck player Markus Naslund, who sat out a week and a half with a concussion.
There has been much ringing of hands, Bertuzzi has been suspended pending a league disciplinary hearing on Wednesday, and the Vancouver police are investigating. The hearing will determine the duration of Bertuzzi’s suspension, which I’m guessing is going to be about 14 games.
While this was a cowardly, idiotic act, and Bertuzzi deserves a lengthy suspension, why are the police becoming involved? There are plenty of good reasons to keep the law out of this incident:
- Players participate in hockey with an expectation of heightened violence. Clearly, acts (dozens of them each game) that would get you arrested outside off the ice are permitted on the ice.
- There have been many, many other incidents where players suffered long-term injuries because of dirty plays that have gone uninvestigated. Two that immediately spring to mind are Suter’s crosscheck on Kariya and Claude Lemieux’s hit on Chris Draper. Why is this one exceptional?
- The Vancouver police department has plenty of more important, meaningful work to do than expending considerable resources (and they will be considerable, given the media attention this affair will receive) on investigating a nasty hit in hockey game.
In short, the law is being applied in a very peculiar fashion, and only by the Vancouver police department. Other cities permit similar (or worse) incidents go uninvestigated and unpunished.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
They did the same thing with Marty McSorely. The police investigated and I believe charges were laid. I still don’t see the point in that. He was banned from the NHL and suffered hefty fines. Unless a player brings a gun onto the ice and shoots to kill, I don’t think the police should be involved.
Indeed…somebody on a forum I read had some interesting comments with regards to the degree of intent to injure. Obviously, when you hit somebody in the head with your fist, you don’t expect to injure them (much). When you swing your stick at somebody’s head, clearly the intent is to inflict serious bodily harm. That’s the way the law sees it, and that’s the way the league will see it too.
I think the only case in which the police should be involved (short of “a player [bringing] a gun onto the ice and [shooting] to kill”) is if the offended party presses charges. (I’m reminded of a certain Brashear incident a few years back.) Otherwise, they should stay out of it, and like you said, deal with more pertinent issues.
I really don’t get the concept that the law is somehow changed during professional sports.
Since when is assault not assault?
I understand that during a contact sport things can get out of hand, but that goes outside of the definition of assault. If you come at someone with intent to harm and then proceed to accomplish that, I’m sorry, you should be charged.
I didn’t watch the game, so maybe I’m seeing this out of context, but I don’t recall a fist to the back of the head being a valid part of hockey. This is not a schoolyard, these are adults.
At times like these, sports fans make me ill.
Rog,
If you applied the law to hockey, the game would cease to exist. Technically illegal acts occur dozens of times in each game. After all, you can’t very well body check people on the street, can you? Clearly there’s some precedent that what occurs on the ice (or the field, or lacrosse box, or whereever) is not privy to the same judicial perspective that is applied off the ice. That fact is at the heart of my point.
What, specifically, makes you sick about sports fans at times like this?
Here’s the problem I have with that Darren:
If it’s a body check, or even a square fight, though technically it *could* be illegal, it’s really a consensual matter and that’s why charges are never pressed. Rights are waived that way and that’s generally acceptable behaviour, not just in sports but in society as a whole.
Punching another player in the back of the head is an ENTIRELY different matter.
I don’t see blurry lines on this issue. From everything I can see that was pure premeditated violence. I honestly hope that they don’t just press charges, I hope he gets serious jail time.
What I see is someone doing something very inherently wrong and I see a lot of people defending it based on context and sportsfan adoration. That’s what gives me the sick feeling in my stomach.
The conclusion you reach is entirely blurry: bodychecking someone is consensual, and the target waives his lawful rights, but striking a player in the back of the head is not? How about bodychecking a player from behind? How about striking a player with your stick? How about fighting with another player who does not want to fight?
All of these incidents occur all of the time in every game of hockey I see. In fact, players even get punched in the back of the head all of the time–in scrums along the boards, in front of the net, by the goalie if you fall on or near him. In short, players break the rules of the game all the time, often with violent and injurious results.
As such, simply distinguishing between the lawfulness of “a body check, or even a square fight” and “punching another player in the back of the head” is woefully inadequate.
Make some rules. What deserves judicial review and what doesn’t? Why? How will you define intent to injure in a sport where intentionally hitting other players (and, sometimes, injuring them) is commonplace?
I could show you ten incidents in the past decade that were as or more serious than what Bertuzzi did. All of them involved egregious misuse of the stick and resulted in serious injury. Do all of these players deserve jail time?
Incidentally, there’s no way Bertuzzi is going to jail and it’s unlikely he’ll be charged. McSorley (an aging goon playing for another team) whacked Donald Brashear in the head with his stick from behind and got an 18-month suspended sentence. The law feels considerably stronger about sticks than fists, so I’d say Bertuzzi’s in the clear.
Interesting to see that video. It changed my perception of the incident. Previously, I had thought Bertuzzi meant to throw the punch but not take him to the ice, but fell off balance. I can’t see any evidence of him being unsteady on his feet in this replay from two angles.
It’s also interesting that you raised the “intent” behind swinging a stick at someone – I had this same discussion earlier tonight with the hubby, and I argued that in hockey, there is a big difference between swinging your stick at someone’s head to hurt them, and high-sticking them. You can high-stick someone and hurt them badly, but you didn’t intend to *injure* them so it’s not a criminal matter. Using your stick as a weapon, on the other hand, is so completely outside of the typical mindset of a hockey player with his/her stick, that it can’t be disguised as anything unintentional – it requires premeditation, just like a direct punch to the back of someone’s head when they’re skating away from you. Actually I’d say that swinging the stick requires more premeditation than a punch, because you have to change your grip on the stick quite intentionally so that you can direct it accurately at the person’s head. With the punch, you just swing one body part. It’s more of a “gut instinct” in a punch – swinging a stick requires coordination and thought.
Anyhow, I don’t know where I was going with that but… thanks for posting the video.
And by the way, whose hands are ringing? Is everyone getting married? Or are we wringing our hands?
Oh, and as to my knowledge of the typical mindset of a hockey player – I’m not just a pretty face: (and maybe not even that) … I played hockey on rough n tumble boys teams for five years. I know all about sticks swinging into places they shouldn’t go.
Bodychecking within the rules is by the very definition consensual. That’s part of playing a game, you consent to the rules. There’s also a question of extremes. What happened appears to have been no accident, regardless of whether Bertuzzi intended to cause so much damage, by accounts he may have intended to cause bodily harm. That sure sounds to me like a case which the police/courts should determine.
Fighting someone who doesn’t want to fight? Hell yeah, that’s just WRONG. Hitting someone with a stick ala Hextal style, causing grevious bodily harm? Also wrong.
None of that belongs in the game, just as it wouldn’t elsewhere. If this was not in the context of a professional hockey game, you’d most certainly condemn Bertuzzi’s actions and consider them criminal. I’ll go as far to say that if it happened in a non-professional hockey game most people would still agree with a police investigation.
I’m dead certain this is about people’s beloved sport, not about any concept of justification, restraint or reasonable behaviour.
Let’s be very clear here, you’re making a distinction that hockey players should be somehow exempt when anger leads them to extreme violence. I find it ridiculous that people insist that an inherent weapon would have to be in use to make a difference.
Yes there are hundreds, thousands of examples of violence causing harm in hockey that’s occurred outside of the rules.
Most of the time I would agree, suspensions, fines and whatever other punishments the NHL determines are usually the most appropriate.
Why get watered down in whether other cases deserved attention, when this case so clearly does? Discussing fairness from that perspective seems absolutely absurd to me.
Shouldn’t the police should always have the option to step in and say “this is an extreme case” and investigate matters such as premeditation?
I haven’t thought about it long enough to decide what side of the fence I’m on but I have enjoyed reading all the comments, both sides make some valid points. The following comment did get me thinking …
“Unless a player brings a gun onto the ice and shoots to kill, I don’t think the police should be involved.”
Although I understand what Jen is saying, I have to wonder why the gun? Is a stick not a weapon? Someone’s hands? Another question I’d have to ask is, would any of you feel different had Steve Moore injuries been worse and he died as a result?
A guy sucker punches another guy in the head, then drives his head down into the ice, and continues to pound on him — and you’re saying he’s NOT attempting to injure him? HE BROKE HIS NECK, for goodness’ sake.
That sick bastard should be in jail and banned from the NHL for life. This was not a body check, or an errant stick. This was obviously done with intent to injure, and he should be forced to deal with the consequences of his action.
On the other hand, if he isn’t banned for life, he might just have a giant bull’s eye painted on his back when he returns to the ice, and then the sick f&^k will get what he deserves.
I can’t comment on what’s gone on in the past. I don’t follow hockey closely enough. But I’d be in favor of similar legal action against other such sick punks.
As for the gun comments: Maybe we should enforce a five day waiting period on all hockey stick purchases, and fingerprint all who buy them?
Or, maybe, hockey sticks don’t kill people. People do.
-Augie
Into the breach, Arjun, with you! And prepare yourself for what may ensue.
(Just some positive self talk folks before I write the following:)
I really think fighting should be outlawed in the NHL.
Hockey can be a mesmerizingly exciting and beautiful sport to watch. Dipsy doodling, crisp passes, amazing displays of skating speed and agility. Clean checks are one thing. But, what does it say about our values when in our national game, we actually allow two grown men to pummel each other. And, what happens when it gets out of hand?
We get one guy with a broken neck and an uncertain future. And we have a whole lot of people with broken spirits.
Its neither honourable or worthy of respect that we need “enforcers” in NHL line ups. Get rid of fighting. Make it a offence worthy of a suspension for a whole season.
Fighting in hockey appeals to the worst in all of us.
I’m not sure excactly how i feel about the courts involvement either…but my understanding of the police involvement (true or not) is that they are responsding to complaints from the public, so their PR person says. So it depends if we view asault as a crime against “common decency” or against another person. If playing a sport where violence escalates is okay with Bertuzzi and Moore, that doensn’t mean as a society we need to say that we agree. Now given there are heaps of laws that don’t reflect our supposed common sense of the laws.
I also think its a bit odd that these guys are rewarded (money, fans cheering etc) in many ways by being hard hitters and “tough” on the ice…so the culture of hockey dictates they should be…but when it goes “too far” it becomes all about one person (bertuzzi) and his decision and not about the culture of hockey.
Rog: So, to be clear, should ‘fighting someone who doesn’t want to fight’ or ‘hitting someone with a stick’ always result in a police investigation? If so, we’re going to waste a lot of the cops’ valuable time.
We need to consider other cases for precedent. And lines still need to be drawn between what is normal hockey and what is ‘an extreme case’. In this case, the act wasn’t that extraordinary (this sort of thing occurs all the time), but the result was (serious injury). How much of a factor should the latter be?
Augie said, “A guy sucker punches another guy in the head, then drives his head down into the ice, and continues to pound on him — and you’re saying he’s NOT attempting to injure him? HE BROKE HIS NECK, for goodness’ sake. ”
Please watch the replay. Once Moore and Bertuzzi hit the ice, they were jumped on by another player (on Moore’s team no less), and Bertuzzi couldn’t have “continued to pound on him” because he was being flattened.
Anyhow… I’ve got more to say, but it’s on my website now (to relieve Darren’s site of this lengthy rant of mine).
Hmm, I think I have to go with Rog on this one. If the injury had happened in what could be considered normal hockey play it’s one thing. Bertuzzi’s actions definately don’t fall in that category. If no injury had resulted then yes, he probably wouldn’t get charged, but it did, so suck it up and take the punishment. I don’t think any professional hockey player (regardless of the disgusting amount of money they make) should have to accept that what happened to Moore is all part of a day’s work.
The real issue in my opinion is that this type of act “wasn’t that extraordinary”. It should be. The game of hockey would be better for it.
kyle: agreed, agreed. and that’s all i have to say about that.
Augie: I wrote this up somewhere else, but thought it was pertinent to your comments about the nature of the injury:
Now, Bertuzzi did a goonish, idiotic, cowardly thing and deserves to bepunished. I was interested to read a Vancouver Sun article (subscription
required, so we’ll do without a link) that quotes a spinal surgeon commenting on Moore’s injury:
“Undisplaced fractures of the bone usually heal well without surgery and the overall prognosis in the majority of cases is that people are back to normal after a period of 6 to 12 weeks”.
Moore’s also concussed, and while he regained consciousness soon after the hit, there’s no word on the severity of that injury. Assuming the concussion isn’t serious, he’ll apparently be back within 3 months, possibly as soon as 6 weeks.
Plenty of nasty hockey incidents result in players being put out for longer than that. For example, Suter’s hit on Kariya put him out for 8 months.
Brashear missed 6 weeks after the McSorley incident.
As others have pointed out, part of people’s visceral reaction to this incident is because of the term “broken neck”. It sounds a heck of a lot worse than “broken leg”, even though both fractures would keep the player out of the line-up for a similar duration.
Let’s compare this to a slightly less violent profession: Say someone does customer service. Now, they’re expected to deal with the occasional angry customer. Not dealing with them would be irresponsible and probably wouldn’t keep them employed for long.
Say said angry customer starts getting offensive, swearing, threatening violence, etc. Is the customer service person expected to put up with that? I don’t know about you, but I hang up on people like that. It is not my job to be abused by people.
It is also not Steve Moore’s job to be abused by people. Hockey’s a rough sport, so a little roughness is to be expected. But a broken neck? He may have just lost his career. Yes, he’s expected to recover fully, but from what I’ve read, they still don’t know if he’s going to be able to play again.
That’s shit. Pure shit. I don’t give a rats ass what the intentions were, Bertuzzi’s directly responsible for that, and if you go out of your way to haul on someone as badly as he did, you deserve to go to jail… regardless of whether you did it at work, while playing a game, in a bar, on the street, etc.
This is not a case of the police having better things to do. This is a case of setting a precedent, telling people “Hey, it’s okay to break someones neck!” That’s irresponsible as hell.
Donna: Your comparison to customer service is specious, because as we’ve already discussed, an NHL hockey player has a consensual presumption of violence. 90% of what is permitted in a hockey game wouldn’t be permitted in a customer service department, would it?
Limbs are broken in dirty (or illegal, if you prefer) plays all the time in ice hockey. Should the perpetrators of those incidents all be charged with assault? Players concuss other players all the time. Should they go to jail too?
Here’s the current injury report for the NHL. It doesn’t indicate how many of these acts were caused by unsportsmanlike play, but it gives you a sense of the breadth of injury: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/injuries.
I’ve posed this question (or variations thereof), but nobody seems willing to draw clear lines among “acceptable hockey behaviour”, “dirty play punishable by the league” and “illegal acts punishable by the law”.
If you’re concerned with precedent, where were you for the rest of the 20th century? Ice hockey’s history is paved with dirty and egregious plays that have resulted in longer, more serious injury. Nobody has gone to jail yet (excepting Dino Cicarelli, and he only spent a day there). What’s changed?
Darren: I think your last comment “If you’re concerned with precedent, where were you for the rest of the 20th century? Ice hockey’s history is paved with dirty and egregious plays that have resulted in longer, more serious injury. Nobody has gone to jail yet (excepting Dino Cicarelli, and he only spent a day there). What’s changed?”
sums it up wonderfully.
And I’m willing to put money on the fact that those who think Bertuzzi deserves to be crucified (both literally and figuratively) are also the types who will blame guns (not people) for deaths, violent video games (not parents) for misbehaved children, and sports riots on the “violence in the sport” instead of a few idiots combined with mob mentality – when they don’t actually know anything *about* the true nature of the situations they’re rallying about.
And for the record (and Augie), my gun comment was facetious. I was simply trying to say that it should take an extraordinarily unlikely (within the context of a hockey game) show of violence before the police get involved. You would not expect a gun at a hockey game. You would expect some fisticuffs (however poorly executed) in a game where that type of violence is not only condoned, but encouraged.
Jen:
Well you’d be very wrong in my case, because I’m on CBC’s call list when it comes to issues of violent videogames as a “pro” expert. Not that I’m pro to violence, but it’s their perspective because I strongly believe that videogames do not contribute to real world violence.
I’m also in favour of gun control, but I believe it’s a matter of giving limitations to the people who own them. I’m certain we have a different perspective on that.
Crowd violence isn’t the same as player violence, I don’t believe crowd riots are caused by violence within a sport. How I’m bothered by the fans in this case is entirely different to that. I’m simply disturbed when people argue that this situation should be acceptable because it’s to be expected.
Those are other issues and thank you very much for lumping opinions into one basket. [/sarcasm]
Darren:
I think Kyle answered appropriately for me. I do consider this an extraordinary case because of the pre-game premeditation possibility, but if fans consider that to be not so unusual then hey, I’m just sickened even more.
Anyone who wants to downplay the extent of Moore’s injuries should try walking around for a day or two with a broken jaw and fractured vertabrae.
As for precedents, I’m certain that the investigators of this case would agree with me in saying that there have been no strong precedents in cases regarding sports (and specifically hockey) related violence. The few that have gone to court have not resulted in sentencing or exoneration in any meaningful way. You can’t argue that the lack of pressing charges is a valid precedent.
Darren:
On the subject of where the lines should be drawn… I feel like you are baiting. Plain and simple, here’s the case where lines should be drawn. The way that I personally think it should proceed is that this case should go to court and then afterwards it would be appropriate for the NHL to hold some sort of board of inquiry as to what the unacceptable level of violence should be.
Obviously it’s not easy to say where those lines are and I cringe everytime people claim you can’t have the sport if it were more answerable to legal reprocussions. But the point is, here’s a line: charge Bertuzzi.
To some degree I agree with Moxee, that there’s a shameful situation of blaming one player for something that’s been generally acceptable. I don’t think this is a witch hunt or a lynching however, I think this is enough is enough and issues about fairness for whom got away with something in the past should not murky the waters of this particular case.
Rog: There was a precedent set, actually, with the charging of Marty McSorley over the stick-to-the-head-of-Brashear incident. He got an 18-month suspended sentence, for what I believe to be a considerably-more egregious act. As discussed, ‘intent to injure’ (a dubious term in this context) with a stick is worse than intent to injure with a fist.
I’ve raised a whole bunch of possible scenarios for other equally-violent acts. Where do they fall compared to this one? What’s the minimum violent act that deserves investigation? What’s the minimum injury that merits a charge?
I’m not baiting…I’m asking you (and others) to offer sound reasoning on what’s acceptable and what’s not. I’m sure if you’re in favour of gun control, you have specific opinions about what guns should be owned by whom after what waiting period, etc.
I’m looking for the same granularity of logical thinking here. To form an educated opinion, we should consider the history of the sport, its endemic violence, the context of the incident, the letter of the law, and so on, shouldn’t we?
It’s noteworthy that the people who are least informed about the sport are the most outraged. Why is that? Because hockey fans recognize while this is a cowardly and idiotic act, it’s hardly unique in the sport.
As an aside, if Bertuzzi hits Moore and he sprains an ankle or breaks his wrist or is not injured, non-hockey fans wouldn’t have heard of this incident. There’d be no public outcry to incarcerate Bertuzzi, and the Sun’s front page would run something else.
I’m sorry Darren, but I doubt your motivation. I don’t think you’re really looking for a consistent and educated opinion, I think you just want the police to butt out of your favorite sport and I think you’ll water the issue down in all sorts of tangents just to avoid the point of the issue.
The point being that the police should have every right to investigate a situation of violence, regardless of the history of the sport of hockey, blah blah blah.
Or perhaps that is just my point and yours is the reverse, that you consider the history of the sport to be paramount as to keeping the police out of it?
I’m aware of the previous case with McSorley but I don’t see it as the same at all and I think no matter how much we discuss it you’re going to argue stick vs. fist whereas I see that as completely irrelevant to the point of premeditation and injury. It certainly doesn’t say to me that this case shouldn’t be investigated. If you’re arguing for precedent when it goes to court, well hey that’s great, because I’d like to see the case pursued, possibly to court.
If you want to debate what the minimum level of violence should be before the police are involved, haven’t I already given my opinion? I’ll sum it up again: that the semantics would be a huge and mostly pointless debate and that it’s something the police or courts should decide. Actually, preferably the NHL but I think it’s obvious that they have little motivation to reduce the violence in the sport.
Calling everyone with a dissenting opinion “uninformed” and inferring uneducated is just an insult and an attempt to invalidate those opinions, no matter how pretty your words. Poor and unfair assumptions, so perhaps dispelling them is warranted. I grew up attending Canuck practices and held season tickets behind the bench. My nephews play junior hockey and my cousin attended Roger Neilson’s Coach’s Clinic back when it was exclusive at Mr. Neilson’s own home. Nevertheless, I consider myself no longer a fan of the sport and in large part it’s because so many other fans treat it so religiously and with corresponding bloodlust.
This debate is degrading quickly, our two sides see it with completely different lenses, I can’t see it being resolved.
The prevailing opinion among a number of people in this thread seems to be: the guy broke his neck, and that’s bad, so the police should be involved. I think that’s incomplete, so that’s why I’m seeking some more detail. It seems apparent to me that a number of people (here and elsewhere) have had an emotional reaction and drawn conclusions based on a single incident. Note, for example, Augie and his upper case letters.
My point here is that people have seen the incident, become upset and called for Bertuzzi’s head. They’ve done so in the same way people called for a unilateral ban on guns after Columbine. Knee-jerk responses aren’t a good way to make policy, whether its in hockey or gun control.
I didn’t use the phrase ‘uninformed’, I said ‘least informed’, and that’s by their own admission. From this thread:
“I didn’t watch the game.”
“I don’t follow hockey closely enough.”
“I consider myself no longer a fan of the sport.”
It’s a reasonable conclusion to draw that those most outraged by the incident are not regular fans.
Regardless, you’re right, we’re not going to find any common ground. Thanks for the debate.
My apologies if I’ve taken anything too far Darren, but I appreciate your last post here to sum things up.
Bertuzzi can go hump a cow. =) it was worh ki llin stev mo0or
On bertuzzis defense hockey is a violent game. It always has been Police shouldn’t get involved unless someone uses a weapon like they take there skate to stab someone or swing a stick obsiously towards a head. Everyone has to remember that you when you join a sport like that you sign a release. If you watch that video bertuzzi cheap shots him and rides him down sure, but if you watch a third player from the other team jumps on both of them and that is what puts the pressure on that guys neck so are you going to arrest the third guy too?