Bertuzzi Suspension

[gekko]

Well, was it justified? Too harsh? Not harsh enough?

Personally, I think it was tough, but fair. If anything, I'd like to see it extended through the next season, as well. Why?

1) Bertuzzi has a history of such violent acts. From his 10-game suspension for leaving the bench to start a brawl to reports he could be counted on to take a dumb penalty in the juniors, Bertuzzi is a brawler. Whether he denies it or not, this act was very much in his character, and the league needs to make sure he knows this behavior will not be tolerated.

2) The act was premeditated. Of course, Bertuzzi and the Canucks deny this. I say that's bull. There are different levels of planning. I don't believe Bertuzzi planned on jumping the kid from behind, nor do I believe he hoped or wanted to put him in the hospital. However, there's no denying Bertuzzi wanted to get Moore back for the hit on Naslund. He wanted to hurt the kid; he wanted to punish him for hitting the Canuck's captain.

3) Bertuzzi broke every rule in the book, both written and unwritten. From tough guys to Colin Campbell, everyone agrees what Bertuzzi did was unforgivable. To those who say violence is part of the game, this is a key point. Tough guys - guys who fight and hit and play physical - tough guys don't hit their oponents from behind. Tough guys don't pick on players smaller than they are. Tough guys give their targets a chance to defend themselves.

When it comes down to it, Bertuzzi is a repeat offender who picked on a little kid, from behind, giving him no chance to defend himself. He deserved what he got, and he'll be lucky to escape harsh sentencing from the police, to boot.

I'm also curious to hear people's reactions to the quarter million dollar fine to the Canucks organization, the reactions from around the league, and violence in hockey in general.

gekko

[ShadowHM]

I liked Christie Blatchford's perspective in The Globe and Mail:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/Articl...stie+Blatchford

[Chaerophon]

nt

[Chaerophon]

First of all, I'd like to say one thing. I don't know what your background is like Gekko, so please don't take this as an attack on you, but I'm sick of hearing from "non-hockey" people about how terrible this is for two reasons:

1.) There have been countless actions with worse intent that could have had as bad or worse results in the past ten years alone.

2.) At this point, Bertuzzi has been crucified by the media for an act, which, in the greater scheme of hockey violence, was hardly what it has been made out to be. Never mind the fact that it has now been reported that Steve Moore will be back on the ice within 4-6 weeks, the act itself, while heinous in some sense, did not demonstrate a will to maim, only hurt. It was a gloved punch in the head. He didn't know his own strength. Those who say that he intentionally smashed his head into the ice need to go look at the picture in the Vancouver Province. He slipped on a stick that was on the ice, nothing more, and once Nikolishin jumped on top of him, far from attempting to take another shot at him, he tried to protect Moore's face! The same can't be said of many similar incidents in hockey history that received far lesser penalties.

Here's where I'm coming from:

I played five years of junior hockey at both the junior A and junior B levels in the Vancouver area. I was a "pesty" kind of player. I suffered 9 concussions in my career, one of which was the result of a savage attack from behind that left me unconscious for 9 minutes after having had my head repeatedly smashed into the ice by a player who had a hold on my hair. That had no place in hockey. Neither did Bertuzzi's punch. It was a disgusting display of violence.

HOWEVER, to put it into context...

I can sympathize with Bertuzzi's frustration on that night. A best friend and teammate had been injured by a HEADHUNTING hit two or three weeks previous. The player had not been penalized by the league. In the culture of hockey, Steve Moore had to pay the piper... and he never did. Matt Cooke wasn't the piper. Brad May, Todd Bertuzzi, even Sean Pronger would have been the piper. Sometimes you've got to face the music and take your lumps. In the culture of hockey, had Steve Moore not been injured, it would have been widely held tha the had done a dishonour to himself and his teammates in not taking the challenge.

A story for you: I'm only 5'10", I was about 195 pounds when I was working out all the time, about ten pounds lighter now. Not the biggest guy. In my first year of junior, when I was 16, I hipchecked one of the best players on the other team in the first round of the playoffs. It was a "clean hit" in the sense that it was legal, but I tore this players acl and mcl ligaments. I felt horrible. I actually apologized to the player before the game in the hallway, but I knew that I would have to "nut up" as they say, and "pay the piper". In the first period, I was challenged by a 6'2" enforcer type who was 21 and at the end of his career. I came out of it with a bloody nose, a black eye, and my pride intact. It was a part of the game, and if I was going to take liberties with their star players, I was going to have to pay the price. I accepted that in stepping on the ice.

It is worthy to note that players are very rarely actually injured in hockey fights. That's why there are referees.

Anyways, to address your points:

1) Bertuzzi has a history of such violent acts. From his 10-game suspension for leaving the bench to start a brawl to reports he could be counted on to take a dumb penalty in the juniors, Bertuzzi is a brawler. Whether he denies it or not, this act was very much in his character, and the league needs to make sure he knows this behavior will not be tolerated.

No he doesn't, not at this level. Tie Domi has a history of such violent acts. Brian Marchment and Claude Lemieux have histories of such violent acts. "Ulf" has a history, so does TONY GRANATO. As long as he's been in the NHL, which is all that matters for this case, Todd Bertuzzi has not committed a "violent act" of this magnitude. Jumping the bench to get in a fair fight is far from horrific. Based on precedent, he should not have received the suspension he was given.

2) The act was premeditated. Of course, Bertuzzi and the Canucks deny this. I say that's bull. There are different levels of planning. I don't believe Bertuzzi planned on jumping the kid from behind, nor do I believe he hoped or wanted to put him in the hospital. However, there's no denying Bertuzzi wanted to get Moore back for the hit on Naslund. He wanted to hurt the kid; he wanted to punish him for hitting the Canuck's captain.

Something that has been going on in hockey for as long as the sport has been around. Do you think that Matt Johnson sucker punched Jeff Beukeboom, ending his career just because he could? Do you think that Tony Granato two-handed Wilkinson over the head just cause he was on his knees? All acts of violence presuppose some sort of premeditation. What prompted the cheap shot was not the anger over the hit on Naslund, it was the frustration that Moore would not face the music. That's more like "third degree" than "first degree" premeditation.

3) Bertuzzi broke every rule in the book, both written and unwritten. From tough guys to Colin Campbell, everyone agrees what Bertuzzi did was unforgivable. To those who say violence is part of the game, this is a key point. Tough guys - guys who fight and hit and play physical - tough guys don't hit their oponents from behind. Tough guys don't pick on players smaller than they are. Tough guys give their targets a chance to defend themselves.

Tie Domi is popularly known as a tough guy. Lots of evidence of this in his play. Same with Bob Probert, Granato, Macsorley, Owen Nolan, and many others. Lots of them have committed acts with as bad, or worse intent in mind. With the exception of Macsorley, they didn't receive a suspension like Bertuzzi's. Also interestingly, Moore WAS given a chance to defend himself. He appeared to refuse.

When it comes down to it, Bertuzzi is a repeat offender who picked on a little kid

Steve Moore's 6'2", 200 plus pounds, from what I understand.

What you're seeing here is a clash of cultures. Here is a Harvard Grad coming out of American high school and then NCAA hockey where fighting is anethema and stickwork is king thanks in large part to the fact that players where full cages. I've seen it before, and many of my friends are currently playing it. It's the truth, and none of them like it. If that's what the NHL would become, I'd rather keep the "fear" of retribution in the game. Keep players honest, and you'll keep the game clean. It worked for 75 years until the NHL spread to the US and it was decided that fighting was far too violent. Never mind that 21 percent of NFL players have been charged with a serious criminal offence, never mind that there are murderers and rapists everywhere in the so-called 'American' sports, the image of a little fight is too much for the tender American audience?

Todd Bertuzzi's actions made me sick. I also have a tendency to think, based on his "above and beyond" work in the community that he is a good person. I feel for Steve Moore, and I understand what he is going through. I actually do! However, if I was to switch places with him, I would be embarrassed with my cowardice. He probably won't be. Perhaps that is an indictment of the old culture of hockey. Perhaps that is an indictment of the "new culture" of NHL hockey. I don't really know, but coming from a true "hockey guy" and a junior hockey coach, this incident has been blown WAY out of proportion...

[Mirajj]

...I'm not much of a hockey fan anymore. I might watch it if it's on, and nothing else is, but I used to play. Was a half decent goalie.

I've seen the hit, and the aftermath. I've never been big on violence in sports anyhow. But I'm not a sports fan, and don't need vicarious violence to get my kicks. Anyhow, I saw a suggestion in a local paper the other day about what kind of sentence/suspension could work for this guy, and I like the idea in general, and think that if applied, you'd keep the 'hits' in hockey, but that the game would improve quite a bit. The idea? Suspension without pay for every game your attackee misses as a result of your attack.

I bet if the players knew about a punishment like that, that things would clean up quite a bit. It's a game, and the players get their multimillion megabucks win or lose. There's no reason to get so worked up over a silly game. We mock people who take things like computer games too seriously, mayhaps it's time to consider mocking those who take games they aren't even involved in aside from watching too seriously. If the fans decide that it's a game, then maybe the players will realize that people want to see them play, not beat each other senseless. That's what we have boxing and wrestling for. I've never understood why sports have become so 'big' in culture.

[Cryptic]

Assault (from behind, no less, and leading to a broken neck) is illegal and immoral, whether it happens on the ice or in an alleyway. The fact that it was turned into public spectacle only makes it worse.

I don't think the punishment was too harsh; I'd lean on it being too lenient, unless the Canadian courts handle it in the proper manner.

Is this the way we truly want our sports to be?



Are you not entertained?

[Mirajj]

Are you not entertained?

Sports don't entertain me in the least. They bore me, actually. The only one I can watch without feeling like putting my eyes out is soccer. And you know how much violence there is in soccer. ;)

[LochnarITB]

Sports don't entertain me in the least. They bore me, actually.

I would have to mostly agree with that. All I can see in professional team sports is dollar signs running around. That being said, the one sport I do watch carries some of the biggest prizes and would be considered by most to be a real borefest, golf. I watch it because I can, on a good day, apply some of what I see there to my own play. The game is getting a bit out of hand, though, what with all the checking in the sand traps and tackling on the greens. :lol:

[DeeBye]

Assault (from behind, no less, and leading to a broken neck) is illegal and immoral, whether it happens on the ice or in an alleyway.

By this argument, a pitcher who throws a beanball at a batter should get criminally prosecuted; a football player who performs a tackle out of bounds should be criminally prosecuted; a basketball player who commits any sort of flagrant foul should be criminally prosecuted. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Hockey is not the only sport in which players injure other players outside of the bounds of the rules, yet for some reason it's the only that gets people worked up enough to yell "criminal prosecution!". Vicious acts of violence occur in all sports, so let's have the police investigate each sports league.

I'm sure the legal system would love that. They don't have enough to deal with.

Look, if a player doesn't want to risk being punched in the head or whacked with a stick, maybe he should find another job. Playing any team sport invloves a certain amount of physical risk, and that's why they get paid $millions to do it.

[Thenryb]

You know 1) that you have been playing too much Diablo and 2) that you are not a hockey fan when you think, as I did, that the above topic had to do with Blizzard banning someone from Battlenet:0

[Cryptic]

>>By this argument, a pitcher who throws a beanball at a batter should get criminally prosecuted; a football player who performs a tackle out of bounds should be criminally prosecuted; a basketball player who commits any sort of flagrant foul should be criminally prosecuted. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

The law usually stays off the playing field, so long as no one is seriously injured. But when someone *is* badly hurt, it becomes a civil matter and those involved should be prosecuted just like any other suspected criminal. If any of those instances above ended in a broken neck, I think there would be come outside commotion, and rightly so.

[DeeBye]

The law usually stays off the playing field, so long as no one is seriously injured.

Please define "serious injury" for me. Is it a broken neck, broken leg, broken pinkie finger, strained uvula, ingrown toenail, or something else? A "serious injury" is a subjective term. I hate it when I cut myself shaving, and sometimes I call in sick because it hurts so much. It seems serious to me ...

But when someone *is* badly hurt, it becomes a civil matter and those involved should be prosecuted just like any other suspected criminal.

Is it a civil matter or is it criminal? I don't understand what I quoted.

I have to assume that you mean that every professional sports athelete that has "seriously injured" (however you define it) another professional sports athlete must be criminally prosecuted. If you extend this ruling to every major sports league, major sports leagues will fold instantly.

I actually do not know the answer to this question, but did Mike Tyson ever face criminal charges for biting off Holyfield's ear?

[Vandiablo]

I feel for Steve Moore, and I understand what he is going through. I actually do! However, if I was to switch places with him, I would be embarrassed with my cowardice.

Oh, please. Is not responding-in-kind cowardice when you know the guy or his teammates are going to keep whacking you until you react or get an injury? Bertuzzi kept it up until, yep, down Moore went. If you do react, all that happens, usually, is that you lock arms, fall over and have the linesmen pull you apart. Which is safer?

(The rest is not a response to you specifically.)

For the record, Mr. B should get more than 21 games off without pay. What Bertuzzi did was worse than the little nudge that Dale Hunter gave to, uh Pierre uh or Sylvain uh somebody (Turgeon?), breaking the star forward's fragile little arm or shoulder or sumpthin'. Hunter got a quarter of a season off w/o pay, for a bump. Call it evenly, Bertuzzi's was worse, give him 25, 30.

It doesn't matter that Moore's coming back sooner than people expected, or that Moore got away with something in an earlier game.

I like the idea of an injury-based suspension time. Your victim misses x games, you miss x+2 or some such formula. And it wouldn't matter if you're a goon or a high-stickin' Harvard grad, whatever your style, you're out. (Tho I know it'll never happen...)

-V

Hockey credential: have played for years (scrub-level, retired now); have been in hockey fights; and was fanatical about NHL games for 17 out of the 25 years I've watched them. I don't follow it much any more, tho, it's just a game, ya know? And I ain't gonna pay fifty bucks for a frickin' nosebleed seat, and I got better things to do, ya know? Wait, what am I doing here?? Ack!

[Cryptic]

>>Please define "serious injury" for me. Is it a broken neck, broken leg, broken pinkie finger, strained uvula, ingrown toenail, or something else? A "serious injury" is a subjective term. I hate it when I cut myself shaving, and sometimes I call in sick because it hurts so much. It seems serious to me ...

I would define “serious injury” (in this instance) as any that is potentially life-threatening – you’d have to leave the particulars up to a doctor, which I’m not. If a hospital ward would classify the patient’s state as critical, then I feel that would qualify. So, a broken neck, yes; a broken leg or pinkie, no. The rest of your examples are facetious baiting and don’t deserve a serious response. But I am taking into account that you are in Canada and I am in Denver.
;)

>>Is it a civil matter or is it criminal? I don't understand what I quoted.

It’s criminal. A better word choice on my part would have been “public” as opposed to “civil”; the intended meaning was that when someone’s neck is broken, it is no longer just an offense to be handled by the sport alone. (Unless your counter-argument is that what is illegal on the street should be legal in a sports venue?)

>>I have to assume that you mean that every professional sports athelete that has "seriously injured" (however you define it) another professional sports athlete must be criminally prosecuted. If you extend this ruling to every major sports league, major sports leagues will fold instantly.

Actually, I don't think every sport would collapse overnight – they’d simply become more civil and sportsmanlike. Olympic codes of conduct, for example, tend to be rather stringent on criminal matters, and yet the games are one of the most popular spectacles in the world. It can be done, and done well, although it would make bloodthirsty fans unhappy.

http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/men/2003/04o...deofconduct.pdf

[Chaerophon]

Oh, please. Is not responding-in-kind cowardice when you know the guy or his teammates are going to keep whacking you until you react or get an injury? Bertuzzi kept it up until, yep, down Moore went. If you do react, all that happens, usually, is that you lock arms, fall over and have the linesmen pull you apart. Which is safer?

Nope. Responding-in-kind is actually a matter of honour. It's a code, and if he'd paid his dues in any real way, it would have been over, and the other team would have respected him for it, whether he came out whupped or not.

I'm going to e-mail the former owner of my team to see if he'll upload the video of my ass-kicking (not the real ugly one) back onto the team site so that I can post it. It ought to be good for a laugh! It used to be up, but it looks like they've taken it down.

[kandrathe]

A story for you: I'm only 5'10", I was about 195 pounds when I was working out all the time, about ten pounds lighter now. Not the biggest guy. In my first year of junior, when I was 16, I hipchecked one of the best players on the other team in the first round of the playoffs. It was a "clean hit" in the sense that it was legal, but I tore this players acl and mcl ligaments. I felt horrible. I actually apologized to the player before the game in the hallway, but I knew that I would have to "nut up" as they say, and "pay the piper". In the first period, I was challenged by a 6'2" enforcer type who was 21 and at the end of his career. I came out of it with a bloody nose, a black eye, and my pride intact. It was a part of the game, and if I was going to take liberties with their star players, I was going to have to pay the price. I accepted that in stepping on the ice.

I prefer my violence to be straight up and in your face, like, boxing, or kick boxing. If some manly egos need to be assuaged, then take it off the ice and make it a WWF type spectacle if that works. But, I prefer my hockey to be about skill, rather than brutes.

[Cybit]

I think he should have just kidney punched him. None of this jump on their back stuff, too much of a chance of something serious, kidney punch can drop anyone in a hurry.

[Occhidiangela]

Great way to put in all in perspective. And yes, I think the League can handle the justice, the Courts have more serious stuff to handle.


Had to chuckle at this.

My slight consolation springs rather from the mere fact of the continuing brouhaha, which says that all indications to the contrary notwithstanding, hockey still matters more in this country than most everything else. The day comes that Canadians are not searching the dark corners of the national soul about the state of the game, and predicting its imminent demise, is the day the music really dies.

Aye.

Is Wayne Gretzky's wedding anniversary still a national day of mourning in Canada? :D

[DeeBye]

Is Wayne Gretzky's wedding anniversary still a national day of mourning in Canada?  :D

I used to work with a guy who grew up in Brantford, Ontario. He played pick-up hockey with Wayne Gretzky when they were both young.

He once told me "Janet Gretzky is the Yoko Ono of the Edmonton Oilers".

[vor_lord]

Oh, please. Is not responding-in-kind cowardice when you know the guy or his teammates are going to keep whacking you until you react or get an injury? Bertuzzi kept it up until, yep, down Moore went. If you do react, all that happens, usually, is that you lock arms, fall over and have the linesmen pull you apart. Which is safer?

Amen, Vandiablo. I like the injury based suspension time idea as well. Of course, what do you do if you end someone's career (or their life)? And how do you judge if something was intentional? It's just not workable.

I must state up front that I am a fan of the Avalanche (I live in Colorado). You've heard the sympathy story for Bertuzzi, now everyone can hear how it's felt on the other side.

Chaerophon, it sounds like you're blaming Moore for Bertuzzi's cheap shot? It's his fault, because he wouldn't fight over and over? What if he'd held his own with Brad May, for example (I know, not likely, but it's possible he could get lucky)? They would've kept coming and coming.

Cowardice is hitting a guy in the head from behind.

Cowardice is Vancouver not taking care of their "urgent business" when they were in Colorado the last time these two teams met. If they were so angry about Moore's hit, just _bursting_ with loyalty to their man, why no peep in the Denver game? The reason is that Bertuzzi's act wasn't the result of a frustrated desire to give payback on behalf of his teammate. That was secondary. If this game was even remotely close, the Matt Cooke fight would've probably been enough, and we could've truly seen who is the best in the division this season. Bertuzzi lost it because Vancouver was being blown out on home ice, and that is frustrating for any competitor.

Nobody lost their cool in the Denver game. It was close--this is a division race, and points are important.

Cowardice is not taking responsibility for your own actions (you brought that up actually, indicating Steve Moore's lack of response during the game). If he's a coward, Bertuzzi is a much bigger one. He couldn't even take responsibility in his apology. Apologizing for "what happened" instead of "what I did" is not a real apology.

That said, I really believe he is sorry--kind of in disbelief. I think his punishment was appropriate, given the history of such things in the league. I don't think he is a terrible person. I agree with you, it doesn't look like he was really trying to drive his head into the ice. But you simply can't sucker punch someone. That's reprehensible, not "understandable".

I also think the league should address things so that things like this (which are NOT part of the code of hockey) don't keep happening. And I think hockey fans, especially Vancouver fans, should speak out against this kind of thing, not talk about how they "understand Todd's frustration", holding rallies to show support for the cheap shotter (yes, that is happening). Show your support for him when he comes back next year, you know, like "Hey buddy, you made a mistake, but you paid the price and you won't do it again."

Let's call it what it was: a dirty, dangerous cheap shot. Let's let Todd learn his lesson, and think about how we can try and keep this kind of thing from happening without hurting the game itself.

On an aside, Chaerophon.... it hasn't been reported here in Colorado that Moore will be back on the ice in 4-6 weeks. I hope that's true. It sounds like a lame rumor to help try and downplay the impact of Bertuzzi's stupidity on a young kid. Do you have a source for that?