|
Post by sammy on Mar 10, 2004 8:23:22 GMT -5
I believe he deserves more then 15 games (at least a year) as it was a cheap shot that some one got injured with. Should have Moore been suspended for 15 games also because it was also a cheap shot that some one got injured with when he hit Naslund? Who knows, but personally I'm waiting for Don Cherry's rant on this one Saturday night. It should be good. I'm betting Cherry calls for under a 10 game suspension for Bertuzzi, because of the earlier hit on Naslund. Then he'll go off about the instigator rule again.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 10, 2004 8:33:35 GMT -5
Sammy, could you please tell me a little bit about the instigator rule. I've heard of it, but never looked for what it actually means?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 10, 2004 8:44:29 GMT -5
The instigator rule was implemented to cut back on the fighting. The person that starts the fight (drops his gloves first or actively persues the other player) is given 2 minutes for instigating the fight, 10 minutes for fighting and a game misconduct. The other player recieves only a 10 minute fighting major. If you start the fight, the other team has a 2 minute power play and you're gone for the game.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 10, 2004 8:54:01 GMT -5
Thanks, I have just written a mail to the Danish newspaper Ekstrabladet. The paper quote Naslund, Keane and other of Bertuzzi's team mates for supporting Todd 110 percent. While that might be true, I don't think they have made any comments to the media on the incidence. In fact, they have been told that the club will handle all contact with the press until a verdict has been made today. I guess that the newpaper simply invented the comments, and I have made that plain to the editor> Have you heard any Canucks players commenting on the incidence?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 10, 2004 9:29:09 GMT -5
The only thing we've heard over here from the Canucks so far is NO COMMENT and we'll support Bertuzzi in whatever happens.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 10, 2004 9:39:02 GMT -5
I guessed so. This is what Naslund and his team mates said according to the newspaper (my translation):
Mike Keane: "This is not something that people want to see, but its part of the game. Now Todd will get a long-term suspension, and we will have to make sure that he knows that our thoughts are with him"
Markus Naslund: "It is sad, and we send our deepest sympathy to Moore and his family. It's sad that the injury was was so serious, but I'll also like to say that we support Todd and his family. He will also face a tough time. I have played with him for seven years, and I know that he didn't meant to injure Moore. It was just an accident. We are 110 percent behind our team mate".
and so on...
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 10, 2004 11:27:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 10, 2004 13:24:04 GMT -5
The hearing is under way now.
I just learned that the average suspension handed down by the NHL for incidents similar to Bertuzzi's has been 11 games.
" Matt Johnson of the Los Angeles Kings was handed a 12 game suspension for deliberately injuring Jeff Beukeboom of the New York Rangers in 1998. Beukeboom's subsequent head injury eventually forced him out of the game. Philadelphia goalie Ron Hextall also received a 12 game suspension for attacking Montreal's Chris Chelios during a playoff game in 1989 while Owen Nolan , then of the San Jose Sharks, got 11 games for hitting Grant Marshall in the head in 2001. Winnipeg's Jimmy Mann got 10 games for sucker-punching Pittsburgh's Paul Gardner in 1982 while Ruslan Salei of Anaheim was hit with a 10 game suspension for hitting Mike Modano of the Dallas Stars from behind in 1999." source: TSN
So maybe we should expect a shorter suspension after all? This brings us back to Marrella's point.
Sammy, will you keep an eye with Don Cherry and make a short summary of his comments here?
|
|
|
Post by MarmotMike on Mar 11, 2004 0:18:03 GMT -5
Bertuzzi will get a heavy sentence for his ugly actions which has embarrassed and shocked all hockey fans and non-hockey followers.
I predict he'll get suspended for the rest of the regular season and the entire playoffs (the NHL would dread the prospects of a potential Canucks-Avs series with Bertuzzi in the line-up) minimum. Maybe he'll miss some or most of the next season (if there is another season).
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 11, 2004 22:05:06 GMT -5
First sentencing of Bertuzzi. Gone for the rest of the season and playoffs. More yet to come. Vancouver Canucks fined. I don't know the dollar value yet. Fined because they should have prevented an incident like this from happening. Bertuzzi breaks out crying at public statement of apology to Moore and pretty much everyone else in the world. I think he'll get at least a year, possibly 2. A real black eye for hockey and I think he's going to get slapped pretty hard.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 12, 2004 0:58:10 GMT -5
The other day Wayne Gretzky adviced the NHL to make a statement and it did. It followed marrella's sensible suggesion by taking a two-step approach: suspension for the rest of the season (incl. playoffs) and a later reevaluation which takes place at a time when we have a clearer picture of the length of Moore's injuries. In practise, Bertuzzi has been suspended indefinitely. A big applause to the NHL's disciplinary committee for taking that decision, but there's no reason to get excited. It's not that the NHL has lost its best power forward. We can live with that considering Bertuzzi's offense. It's more that the NHL has yet to admit that its facing a systemic issue. But there's more to it than that. The NHL claims that violence is not part of the game and should not be considered part of the game. But the fact is that the NHL actually embraces violence. It sells violence! (read first link) Why else would the NHL endorse a computer game like so-called 'official NHL 2004' where the commentators advice us (the console players) to play tougher and where they cheer every time we manage to beat the crap out of the players with a hard hit, and where they get excited evertime we 'decide' to start a fight (also a big part of the game play)? Links:Jim Kelley, ESPN.com, Blame Canada: Bertuzzi's a product of hockey's cultureChris Stevenson, Ottawa Sun, Wild and Crazy NHL Still Big on HypocrisyTerry Jones, Edmonton Sun, Cambell and Co Copped outRay Ratto, ESPN.com, NHL's latest problem: Foul-weather criticsAssociated Press, Does hockey need a death before violence stops?Barry Melrose, ESPN.com, No Cup for Canucks: The NHL sent the right messageWhat Don Cherry will have to say about this, we'll find out tomorrow at CBC's 'Coach Corners'. For us non-Canadian viewers, we can watch the video clip at: CBC Sports Online: Coach's CornerListen to what he said about what the Vancouver players should have done when Moore hit Näslund (clip from 21 Feb) cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/coach040221.ram
|
|
|
Post by marrella on Mar 13, 2004 16:03:30 GMT -5
I hate to admit it, but I do enjoy a good fight at a hockey game and think it does sometimes fire up the team (and definitely the fans). But in most of the fights, there aren't any real injuries since it's hard to get much leverage on skates unless you're up against the boards. Most of the time it's just a matter of holding onto each other until you're exhausted and throwing a few punches.
To me the issue isn't the fighting ... it's the high sticking, kneeing and boarding that needs to be cracked down on ... the stuff that can and does cause some serious damage.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 13, 2004 16:49:28 GMT -5
I agree with you. Take out the instigator penalty and let them police themselves. I know if a 250 pound goon was coming after me if I high sticked someone, I'd keep my stick down.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 14, 2004 1:13:24 GMT -5
We all know that the issue over fighting in NHL is highly emotional. The opponents of fighting, most of whom are located south of the Canadian border, believe that it adds nothing and that its continued presence prevents hockey from being attractive to a larger audience. The proponents of fighting believe that the elimination of fighting would lead to escalation of other, far more dangerous forms of contract, including raised sticks and cheap shots.
Whether fighting prevents hockey from being attractive to a larger audience is largely a speculative issue. However, scientifically based research indicates that fighting is positively related to attendance and that the relationship is highly significant. Teams that fight, controlling for all other factors such as team success and other location-specific factors, tend to attract more paying customers (cf. Rodney J. Paul, Variations in NHL attendance: the impact of violence, scoring and regional rivalries, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April 2003). Also there is no indication that the NHL attempts to crack down on fighting have increased the broader hockey audience – quite the contrary. To conclude, preventing fighting in the NHL will probably do more harm to the financial state of the sport.
Fighting is still ingrained in the Canadian hockey culture. It’s violent roots can be traced back to its origon (cf. the warrior-like way the game was played by the Mikmaqs) and its philosophy has later been summarized by Conn Smyth: “if you can’t beat them in the alley, you can’t beat them on the ice”. Sometimes the quote is turned around to: “if you can’t beat them on the ice, you’ve got to beat them in the alley”. The objective is partly to menacing the opponent team, to get the psychological upperhand. We witnessed the dark side of this doctrine when Bobby Clarke handslashed Soviet superstar Viktor Kharlamov’s sore ancle in game 6 in the Summit Series – a dirty move that was said to be the turning point of the series and that made Bobby Clarke a hero when he returned to Canada
In Europe, where hockey was founded by British university students, the sport developed a more gentlemen-like path with emphasis on skills, tactics and formal rules, including a no tolerance attitude to fighting. What later became the IIHF was founded by European countries, so it should come as no surprise that Europe got the upper hand when the international rules were written.
I hope this doesn’t sound too stereotypic. No doubt, in recent decades we have witnessed a certain convergence between North American and European hockey, but there are still fundamental differences when it comes to attitudes on how to police the game.
Let me be clear: no system is perfect. In Europe, there is a fundamental trust that the referees, and the referees only, should police the game. Neither retributions nor fightings are tolerated. The downside of this system is that there is clearly more stickwork in European hockey. In Canada, in contrast, it is generally believed that the players themselves should contribute to the policing. The socalled ‘Code’ says that if someone hits one of your players – even if it’s a clean hit – you’ve got to pay back. The ‘Code’ partly serves to scare opponents from using dirty tricks which could hurt your players (especially your star players) and it partly serves to scare your opponents in general (see above). So the NHL is probably the only league in the world which hire 250 pound goons whose only skill is that they can beat people up. It’s hardly a coincidence that most of the enforcers are LW/RW’s (since D’s and C’s are far more valuable and scarce in numbers) and that their TOI is limited.
Does the ‘Code’ keep down the number of injuries? There is plenty of anecdotical evidence –in short, the code makes common sense—but there is no hard evidence. On the contrary, it is clear that there are far more injuries in the NHL than in the European leagues, but that could be due to the higher intensity of the game, the smaller rinks and differences in rules (for instance, the removal of the red line offside creates more space and thus limits contacts). The number of injuries has increased significant since the introduction of the instigation rule in 1992, but this link is most likely spurious. A large scale Canadian study, published in the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine in July 1999 showed that numbers of NHL injuries had increased significantly since the early 1990s (from 12.99 injuries per 100 players in 1991/92 to 19.87 injuries per 100 players in 1996/97), but less than 10 percent were due to contact. More than 90 per cent were caused by muscle strain (mainly groin and abdominal injuries) and this indicates that the intensity of the game (and in terms of the number of games played) has increased.
So there is no hard evidence that a removal of the instigation rule would limit the number of injuries in the NHL. And it is questionable whether it will make the game less violent. This argument which is based on what Ken Dryden called the ‘drive/discharge’ theory seems to me to be highly dubious. Indeed, to quote Jeff Klein & Karl Eric Reif (The Death of Hockey)
“Of course this theory, based on long-discredited Freudian notions on the therapeutic value of catharsis, is inane. As Dryden pointed out even then [in 1983], psychologists had long known that behaviour repeated is behaviour learned, and acting out violence, therefore, only breeds the acting out of more violence.”
In short, violence breeds violence, and even on skates fighting can be very dangerous. It can in fact be deadly. In boxing, people have died from punches, and in those rinks the boxers kept their gloves on. It’s only a coincidence that it hasn’t happened in hockey. It actually only takes one punch to kill a guy. A hard punch to the neck can do it. Fortunately, we haven’t seen that yet, but you can rest assure that fighting in the North American hockey rinks will end when it happens. I am afraid it will happen.
In the past decade or so, the NHL has made a number of initiatives to crank down on fighting, but it has in fact created a half-baked house. The NHL (Bettman) says that it violence does not belong to the game, but the fact is –as I pointed out—that it still embraces violence. The NHL still tolerates the ‘pay-back’ code and it still tolerates fighting. Sure, the players who pay back and instigate fightings will pay a price – a price which many believes is still too steep – but the NHL only issues harsh penalties (read longer suspensions) if the payback is made by cheap shots which seriously injure the opponent player. Instigating fighting does not lead to long suspensions as long as its engage both fighters, even if the instigator seriously injure the opponent (like Lindros did a couple of months ago when he broke Thornton’s jaw). This rule philosophy is similar to frontier justice: if you shoot a guy in a clean gun fight, you will not be punished, but if the other guy does not stand up and you should him nevertheless, you will face a heavy punishment (you will be hanged).
(cont. next post)
.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 14, 2004 1:14:09 GMT -5
(cont...)
Such a ‘system’ is bound to create major troubles. Bertuzzi grew up with the pay-back code and he clearly believed that Moore would stand up so Bert could beat him sorely up without getting a suspension. This would have made him a hero in Vancouver. Never matter that he ought to have reasoned that Moore reckoned that he didn’t have a chance in such a fight (considering the size of Bertuzzi) and it was better to chicken out. In the heat, Bertuzzi didn’t have time to rethink since he was hellbent on paying back for what happened to Naslund. No wonder that he was confused afterwards: he followed a rule informally endosed by the NHL (you got the right to pay back), and he got slapped by another rule (but you must not seriously injure your opponent). He got caught by the fact that the NHL has created a half-baked house by accepting ‘frontier justice’ as long as it is relatively orderly (it has to be a clean gun fight, there will be no ‘shooting in the back’
You don’t have to agree with me on my assessment. I am neither trying to win an argument, nor to start a rant. In fact, I also hate to admit that I like a good fight (I particular like fights between goalies – these fights are hilarious). And surely, my views clearly reflect where I come from. If I was Canadian, I would no doubt think otherwise.
To avoid misunderstandings, I also want to make clear (once again) that I am a great admirer of Canadian hockey. It is no coincidence that Canada has won (almost) every vital trophy in recent year (almost, since Canada still needs to win the World Cup). Canada truly is the hockey nation of the world. For those, who still don't know, my admiration for Canadian hockey is also reflected in my handle.
Finally, I want to make clear, that I don’t think that the NHL should do away with fightings and its informal endorsement of the pay-back code. I implicitly made this point in the beginning when I noted that fightings do attract attendance. The NHL franchises have enough financial problems.
Instead, I would suggest that the NHL make some rule changes which could make more space on the ice. Since, I don’t believe that the NHL will abolish its small rink system (that will also be too costly), it has to remove the red line offside. This would also make it harder to employ the trap. So in addition to fewer injuries, we should see the number of goals go up. Also, the NHL should consider the introduction of rules that would modify elbow and shoulder pads (the plastic elbow pads currently used are lethal).
Recently, the NHL has only changed the rules for the width of the goalies’ leg pads and prohibited their handling the puck behind the red goal line. Whereas the latter change might curb defensive play, it is very likely that it would lead to more injuries. The change means that forecheckers will feel far more conficent about chasing pucks into the offensive zone and hammering retreating defensemen, to create more turnovers and scoring chances. As Toronto’s McCabe has said: “It will be a suicide mission every time we go back to get the puck. We don’t have a say in it, but someone is going to get hurt”. In my view, the NHL refrained from creating a win-win situation by not removing the red line instead.
|
|