craze Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'll admit, I was cheering too...because it was a hell of a hit and knocked him on his ass! But when he was down and I came back to normal mode and not wild, I was concerned because he did look out of it (which he was) That hit immediately came to my mind as well. Not too proud of my reaction to that one. It was a great hit but the celebration should really stop once somebody is not getting up.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Actually Spezza chimed in, too, so I don't remember which one was on OTF. But here are their comments: Jason Spezza, Senators: "I really think it was more bad luck than anything. It's a physical game, but nobody is trying to hurt each other." Chris Neil, Senators: "He's pretty honest and pretty physical. That's what makes him the defenseman he is. He's pretty physical and he finishes his checks. That's part of the game." A few other players' reactions, too: http://www.necn.com/03/10/11/NHL-reaction-to-Charas-hit/landing_sports.html?blockID=437327&feedID=6097 It was Spezza on OTF... But both comments are stupid, regardless. Bad luck? Yeah for the injury Bad Luck? Not the fact that Chara drilled him and seemed to have CLEAR intent.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Just read that Kubina is having a hearing today w/ the NHL later today... lets see how this turns out!
LGR4GM Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Anyone else actually really happy that pacioretty was talking and said he felt alright? This kid could play again and maybe just had a really close call to death... Hope he heals up and hope that the league feels ashamed.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Anyone else actually really happy that pacioretty was talking and said he felt alright? This kid could play again and maybe just had a really close call to death... Hope he heals up and hope that the league feels ashamed. I sure was. First thought I had was "Oh no..he's dead" I hope he plays again!
Taro T Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Air Canada gets into the mix Hit 'em where it hurts, the pocketbook. And once again, expediency rears its ugly head and bites the NHL in the posterior. So now the NHL is left with the following options: 1. Ignore Air Canada and hope they don't follow through on their threat to stop sponsoring the NHL. (Anyone know how long they have the naming rights to the new MLG +/or if there is an 'out' clause? I'd expect there's some sort of out for the Loafs and AC.) 2. Put in some new memo following the GM's meeting stating essentially that although every player realizes how dangerous it is to drive an opponent into the stanchion (or an open bench door) since they occassionally ignore this danger that henceforth they will now make it an enforceable offense to 'intentionally' drive their opponent into said stanchion. They conveniently can state they've had this rule all along as Murphy ruled Charo hadn't 'intentionally' made the hit into the stantion. (I still fail to see how the circumstances leading to this incident DON'T make it apparent that he intentionally put Pacioretti into the stanchion, but whatever.) 3. Revise their last decision and have either the recursed Campbell or the oft-times cursed Bettman overrule Murphy. Which will open the door to all sorts of issues for the league. None of these options seem particularily enticing. I'm expecting 1 to be the course the league follows (with an outside possibility of a very watered down message coming out of the GM's meeting). Had the league simply given the 2-3 game suspension that the hit warranted, they could have avoided a lot of additional headaches. But to have done that, they would have had to put the biggest star on arguably the most powerful owner's team on the shelf for a bit during the heart of the playoff race. Apparently, it's far easier and better to keep from getting chewed out by Jeremy than to actually do the right thing. I'm real interested in hearing what Cherry has to say about all this. I know he'll use it as another opportunity to rail for the repulsion of the 'instigator rule.' I'm more interested in hearing whether he thinks Charo should have been suspended, and if so, for how long. Don's been very vocal in his contention that the league should do away with touch-up icing due to the vulnerable position the D-men are in. I'd like to know if he sees this in the same light. I also don't see how this play shows how 'letting the players police it themselves' would have prevented this hit. Charo's the biggest guy in the league, and he was ready to go w/ any Hab that came his way after the hit. He wasn't worried about getting pounded after the hit; why would he have been worried about getting pounded before the hit? Or maybe in addition to getting rid of the 'instigator' the league also needs to do away w/ '3rd man in' and 'leaving the bench?' If all 19 Habs could have gone and pounded him w/ impunity, THEN he'd have been trembling. <_<
That Aud Smell Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 But the point is, how do you show intent in the Chara case? ... how am I to believe Chara willingly aimed and shoved his head into that partition at 20 MPH? Either Chara is an absolute evil being.....or the most stupid person on the planet. I believe he either intended to plant him in the bench, or if he did follow through at the end thought he'd get him on the glass in front of the box. It was a dangerous and poor sportsman decision....but to say he wanted to drive the guy's skull into the wedge doesn't make sense. If other players really believed that was his intent, don't worry...Chara will get his. The NHL knows that legal precident and all sorts of stuff is on the line by not suspending Chara. If they admit it was intentional, then they are inviting legal action and criminal action. Looks like it's coming anyway, but they have an alibi. the fallacy in the position you're outlining, ghost (and maybe it's one being prompted by what others are saying here), is that "intent" is a black and white, up or down issue. that's not what intent is; it's a continuum that can range from concepts like negligent (a preventable accident) to purposeful (knowing what you're doing and intending to cause what you cause). as i've said on this thread before, chara didn't just make an illegal play, he made a reckless play. the fact that the result of that play was far worse than he might have ever imagined is relevant to the analysis, but it doesn't exonerate him entirely (as the nhl found).
spndnchz Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 “It was the face-off, and we tried to set up a play, and basically the puck went to the other side, and we were racing for the puck,” Chara said. “I had no idea he was on the ice. I had no idea it was him.” linkage
Eleven Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 But the point is, how do you show intent in the Chara case? It was a dangerous play and not sportsmanlike to hit a guy near the bench at full speed in general. I am not denying that and it is dirty in that sense. However, people advocating that he intended to guide his head into a 90 degree angle wedge at 20mph......that is attempted murder. I was recently at a place I was not familiar with and some riffraff was walking towards me as I was stationary outside. I quickly assesed the situation, stayed put, but identified a pillar between me and the wall I was against. If worse came to worse, I could use the wedge it formed as a last ditch effort to survive a brutal jumping.....but even in that case, there is no turning back if I was to do something like that. This is true and happened just a few weeks ago, so when I see people saying Chara wanted to drive the guy's head into that wedge.....I say it almost can't be the case. If I could understand the brutal nature of doing something like that to any of 4 strangers who could be looking for trouble and outnumbered me in a strange city, but would only do so in the most dire of circumstances and probably STILL wouldn't do it....then how am I to believe Chara willingly aimed and shoved his head into that partition at 20 MPH? Either Chara is an absolute evil being.....or the most stupid person on the planet. I believe he either intended to plant him in the bench, or if he did follow through at the end thought he'd get him on the glass in front of the box. It was a dangerous and poor sportsman decision....but to say he wanted to drive the guy's skull into the wedge doesn't make sense. If other players really believed that was his intent, don't worry...Chara will get his. I think that's why Montreal didn't start a brawl right then. It's almost impossible to believe he wanted to kill the guy....and by purposely driving his head there....that is the intention. The NHL knows that legal precident and all sorts of stuff is on the line by not suspending Chara. If they admit it was intentional, then they are inviting legal action and criminal action. Looks like it's coming anyway, but they have an alibi. I don't condone the hit and especially the results. I am however a realist. And for those that feel the NHL is disgusting and feel others are celebrating violence in all this, I personally challange you to NOT WATCH ANY OF THE NEXT BRUINS/MONTREAL GAME!!!! I don't want to hear about it before the game, I don't want you watching the game, I don't want you looking for highlights. Avoid the travesty that is the NHL and the follow-up to their barbaric decision. And don't give me the "Oh...but it's a conference game with playoff implications." Bologna. You know that the potential is there for violence and vigilante justice, so if you are as disgusted as you say you are by this......avoid that game at all costs if you are sincere in your viewpoint. And for those that will tune in anyway after your public disgust about the "direction of the game", :oops: He certainly intended to hit him illegally. Doesn't matter if he intended to drive him into the stanchion.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 +100! Great post. :worthy: :thumbsup: The fact that people will turn in to see violence is kind of absurd. I mean I'll turn in to see what happens and if they try to attack Chara, but I'll watch it because I know they put on good games and all that; not just for the violence...UFC is for that (which I also love lol) The bolded comment is so true. Seems like a smart man, but his comments say otherwise. As far as the violence in the game itself.....I enjoy artistic, and moral, physical play. I never want to see a guy get injured, but I do enjoy seeing a punk learn a lesson. I want the guy to skate off the ice however, not get hurt. Hockey is one of the few places in society where you have to pay for your actions....at least historicaly it has been. If I have some lawyer threaten me for some rinkydink thing, or someone stiff me big $$ on a handshake deal of honor, there isn't much I can do. And the other party knows it...that's why immoral people do stuff like that. Don't you think the lawyer who is scavenging for a payday would think twice about harassing someone if they could show up at their house and slap the bejesus out of them without fear of legal action? That's what's great about hockey. If someone makes a bonejaring, clean hit....that's great stuff. Just like if I win playing poker. I'm not going to feel guilty I took your money....you knew the risks by sitting down at the table much like a player accepts the risk of stepping onto the ice. Now if I stole some of your chips when you went to the bathroom, or had an ace up my sleeve....then you should beat me down. Much like if someone sticks out a knee, or crosschecks from behind, or yes, rams a guy into the partition....he should face the music for his shoddy actions. In hockey....you have the luxury of making things right. And if the majority around you are moral people and have common sense, you have a great little society that functions just fine. How many times did Mike Ramsey send a guy assoverteakettle with a sound hipcheck? How many times would Dave Semenko glare someone down before they did something stupid like run Gretzky? How many crosschecks to the back did Rick Vaive take, but did so as the risk of establishing position in order to sacrifice his body for the good of the team and a goal? How many times would Scott Stevens jump you if you sprayed his goalie after the whistle, or crushed you if you got cute and came across looking down at the puck? That's how I grew up watching hockey, and ######, I think it's all great. If I want to watch a bunch of long hair, graceful skaters move across the ice for 60 minutes without the risk of physical failure for taking obsecene chances, I'll watch Sasha Cohen or whoever the hottie of the year is. Just like if I want to cuddle with a trainwreck of a woman and a box of kleenex, I'll go watch Terms of Endearment............but don't go telling me I'm wrong for thinking Goodfellas is the best movie out there. Hockey used to be all about Goodfellas, and I'm sick of being looked down upon by the Terms of Endearment crowd for thinking that's the way it should be. My name is Dwight Drane, and I'm sick and tired of a society that has lost it's moral compass, it's cultural traditions, and it's backbone. Pass the Tylenol.....
Robviously Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 linkage Chara chimes in with the "No, seriously, I'm not evil, just insanely stupid" defense. Why am I reminded of the book Of Mice and Men?
Wraith Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I also don't see how this play shows how 'letting the players police it themselves' would have prevented this hit. Charo's the biggest guy in the league, and he was ready to go w/ any Hab that came his way after the hit. He wasn't worried about getting pounded after the hit; why would he have been worried about getting pounded before the hit? Or maybe in addition to getting rid of the 'instigator' the league also needs to do away w/ '3rd man in' and 'leaving the bench?' If all 19 Habs could have gone and pounded him w/ impunity, THEN he'd have been trembling. <_< I was thinking the same thing. Scott Gomez was yelling in Chara's general direction after the hit, but realistically what could he or any other Hab do in that situation that would deter Chara? The only way to go after Chara is with a hockey stick, and I don't think anybody wants to see that.
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 But the point is, how do you show intent in the Chara case? It was a dangerous play and not sportsmanlike to hit a guy near the bench at full speed in general. I am not denying that and it is dirty in that sense. However, people advocating that he intended to guide his head into a 90 degree angle wedge at 20mph......that is attempted murder. I was recently at a place I was not familiar with and some riffraff was walking towards me as I was stationary outside. I quickly assesed the situation, stayed put, but identified a pillar between me and the wall I was against. If worse came to worse, I could use the wedge it formed as a last ditch effort to survive a brutal jumping.....but even in that case, there is no turning back if I was to do something like that. This is true and happened just a few weeks ago, so when I see people saying Chara wanted to drive the guy's head into that wedge.....I say it almost can't be the case. If I could understand the brutal nature of doing something like that to any of 4 strangers who could be looking for trouble and outnumbered me in a strange city, but would only do so in the most dire of circumstances and probably STILL wouldn't do it....then how am I to believe Chara willingly aimed and shoved his head into that partition at 20 MPH? Either Chara is an absolute evil being.....or the most stupid person on the planet. I believe he either intended to plant him in the bench, or if he did follow through at the end thought he'd get him on the glass in front of the box. It was a dangerous and poor sportsman decision....but to say he wanted to drive the guy's skull into the wedge doesn't make sense. If other players really believed that was his intent, don't worry...Chara will get his. I think that's why Montreal didn't start a brawl right then. It's almost impossible to believe he wanted to kill the guy....and by purposely driving his head there....that is the intention. The NHL knows that legal precident and all sorts of stuff is on the line by not suspending Chara. If they admit it was intentional, then they are inviting legal action and criminal action. Looks like it's coming anyway, but they have an alibi. I don't condone the hit and especially the results. I am however a realist. And for those that feel the NHL is disgusting and feel others are celebrating violence in all this, I personally challange you to NOT WATCH ANY OF THE NEXT BRUINS/MONTREAL GAME!!!! I don't want to hear about it before the game, I don't want you watching the game, I don't want you looking for highlights. Avoid the travesty that is the NHL and the follow-up to their barbaric decision. And don't give me the "Oh...but it's a conference game with playoff implications." Bologna. You know that the potential is there for violence and vigilante justice, so if you are as disgusted as you say you are by this......avoid that game at all costs if you are sincere in your viewpoint. And for those that will tune in anyway after your public disgust about the "direction of the game", :oops: I'll forego responding to the "don't watch the games" comment. I was merely responding to the legality of law enforcements involvement, someone obviously reported a crime, it's that simple really. As for Chara, the hit and the resulting outcome of such, what you are ommitting is the fact that Chara was already in the wrong, or in an illegal position the moment he started the hit. He was "interferring" with a player, impeding his ability to get to the puck which was already "long gone" before the hit started. By the very nature that he broke the rules and hit him anyways, resulting in most likely a career ending injury, the punishment in my opinion should be nothing less than a season suspension combined with a criminal inquiry "given the fact" that the injury resulted on a play "that broke the rules" to begin with. The NHL made a terrible, terrible decision here. They have abdicated any and all responsibility to all NHL players safety with this ruling in my opinion. If they loose sponsers, they deserve it.
LGR4GM Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 If this had happend in a sabres game on say ennis... I think Myers or more likely Weber would have pushed refs out of the way to get to chara. Tonight it will be interesting to see Chara play because it seems that he does kinda feel bad and he does not seem comfortable discussing it but we shall see if that translates to the ice.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 As far as the violence in the game itself.....I enjoy artistic, and moral, physical play. I never want to see a guy get injured, but I do enjoy seeing a punk learn a lesson. I want the guy to skate off the ice however, not get hurt. Hockey is one of the few places in society where you have to pay for your actions....at least historicaly it has been. If I have some lawyer threaten me for some rinkydink thing, or someone stiff me big $$ on a handshake deal of honor, there isn't much I can do. And the other party knows it...that's why immoral people do stuff like that. Don't you think the lawyer who is scavenging for a payday would think twice about harassing someone if they could show up at their house and slap the bejesus out of them without fear of legal action? That's what's great about hockey. If someone makes a bonejaring, clean hit....that's great stuff. Just like if I win playing poker. I'm not going to feel guilty I took your money....you knew the risks by sitting down at the table much like a player accepts the risk of stepping onto the ice. Now if I stole some of your chips when you went to the bathroom, or had an ace up my sleeve....then you should beat me down. Much like if someone sticks out a knee, or crosschecks from behind, or yes, rams a guy into the partition....he should face the music for his shoddy actions. In hockey....you have the luxury of making things right. And if the majority around you are moral people and have common sense, you have a great little society that functions just fine. How many times did Mike Ramsey send a guy assoverteakettle with a sound hipcheck? How many times would Dave Semenko glare someone down before they did something stupid like run Gretzky? How many crosschecks to the back did Rick Vaive take, but did so as the risk of establishing position in order to sacrifice his body for the good of the team and a goal? How many times would Scott Stevens jump you if you sprayed his goalie after the whistle, or crushed you if you got cute and came across looking down at the puck? That's how I grew up watching hockey, and ######, I think it's all great. If I want to watch a bunch of long hair, graceful skaters move across the ice for 60 minutes without the risk of physical failure for taking obsecene chances, I'll watch Sasha Cohen or whoever the hottie of the year is. Just like if I want to cuddle with a trainwreck of a woman and a box of kleenex, I'll go watch Terms of Endearment............but don't go telling me I'm wrong for thinking Goodfellas is the best movie out there. Hockey used to be all about Goodfellas, and I'm sick of being looked down upon by the Terms of Endearment crowd for thinking that's the way it should be. My name is Dwight Drane, and I'm sick and tired of a society that has lost it's moral compass, it's cultural traditions, and it's backbone. Pass the Tylenol..... Thats what it boils down to, unless someone is just a complete and total moron and likes people getting hurt. Obviously you are older and have more experience watching than I do, but I do remember the hard hitting hockey (seeing replays and video clips, etc), it was great! But people didnt use it as revenge or a cheap shot. I agree with the bolded paragraph 1000% It is true, if you lose or get nailed and its clean, no need for revenge; but if you cheat or its dirty to gain an advantage or cause harm, then there is a problem. Thats why (I think) some brawls/scrums start, not all, but some...the fact that players take offense to a CLEAN, hard hockey hit; what is included in that can vary based on opinion. Not that Im against brawls or scrums b/c they get fans into it on a physical side and shows a team backs it teammates.
... Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Apparently Bettman is standing behind the decision: "NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says Max Pacioretty's injury is horrific, but it's part of the game. Speaking after a U.S. congressional panel discussion about encouraging American kids to get into hockey, Bettman said most concussions and head injuries this year have been from accidents or players falling -- rather than as the result of hits. As for Air Canada threatening to pull its sponsorship over such injuries, Bettman says the league can find other carriers if Air Canada doesn't want the NHL's business."
shrader Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Apparently Bettman is standing behind the decision: "NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says Max Pacioretty's injury is horrific, but it's part of the game. Speaking after a U.S. congressional panel discussion about encouraging American kids to get into hockey, Bettman said most concussions and head injuries this year have been from accidents or players falling -- rather than as the result of hits. As for Air Canada threatening to pull its sponsorship over such injuries, Bettman says the league can find other carriers if Air Canada doesn't want the NHL's business." One word comes to mind: delusional
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 One word comes to mind: delusional Agreed. As I eluded to in an earlier post, interference is penalized for a reason.
Wraith Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 One word comes to mind: delusional Agreed. Can anyone name a concussion that has occurred as a result of a fall that wasn't the result of a hit?
Taro T Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'll forego responding to the "don't watch the games" comment. I was merely responding to the legality of law enforcements involvement, someone obviously reported a crime, it's that simple really. As for Chara, the hit and the resulting outcome of such, what you are ommitting is the fact that Chara was already in the wrong, or in an illegal position the moment he started the hit. He was "interferring" with a player, impeding his ability to get to the puck which was already "long gone" before the hit started. By the very nature that he broke the rules and hit him anyways, resulting in most likely a career ending injury, the punishment in my opinion should be nothing less than a season suspension combined with a criminal inquiry "given the fact" that the injury resulted on a play "that broke the rules" to begin with. The NHL made a terrible, terrible decision here. They have abdicated any and all responsibility to all NHL players safety with this ruling in my opinion. If they loose sponsers, they deserve it. The simple fact that he committed a penalty while driving Pacioretti's head into the stachion doesn't in itself make it deserving of 'nothing less than a season suspension combined with a crimial inquiry.' Had Charo tripped him when they 1st met and the bench door opened, he'd have been messed up as bad as he was with the actual hit but no one would be screaming for a suspension. The reason, IMHO, that Charo should have gotten a suspension is that he intentionally did something that he should have reasonably known would have a high probability of messing up his opponent. Every player on the ice knows where the benches are; even if Charo lost sight of where he was on the ice, when he realized where he was he could have not 'completed' the check. As I've stated before, I don't believe that Charo intentionally injured the hapless Hab; but I also don't see anything that indicated that he didn't want to HURT him. (Big difference between pain and injury, and guys that play physical are always looking to hurt their opponent; it affects the way the opponent plays, and helps his team.) Had he let up at all, I would agree that he shouldn't be suspended; and most likely Pacioretti would have been hurt nearly as badly. But he didn't let up at all, he made sure he finished the check, and he showed no respect for his opponent. No argument about the league making a(nother) bad decision on this one.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Agreed. Can anyone name a concussion that has occurred as a result of a fall that wasn't the result of a hit? May I rephrase that and say a hit that was clean and legal? Sometimes accidents do happen Bettman needs to go...him and the FIFA President are total morons and have there head up there ###### with money in mind.
shrader Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Actually, delusional isn't the right term. He's just spinning things to protect his own ass. The line about finding new sponsors is the only one that might be a bit delusional.
Taro T Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Agreed. Can anyone name a concussion that has occurred as a result of a fall that wasn't the result of a hit? The one LaFontaine suffered after colliding w/ his teammate Keane? Of course the collision had more force than the typical 'hit' so it probably doesn't (shouldn't?) count. But I do agree w/ your point.
Wraith Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The one LaFontaine suffered after colliding w/ his teammate Keane? Of course the collision had more force than the typical 'hit' so it probably doesn't (shouldn't?) count. But I do agree w/ your point. Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of this year, as Bettman claims most of the concussions this year are not from hits but rather from accidents and falls (as if guys are giving themselves concussions by tripping and falling). I'd love to know how the Pominville concussion is classified. I'd bet money some moron in the league office would argue it was due to a fall.
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The simple fact that he committed a penalty while driving Pacioretti's head into the stachion doesn't in itself make it deserving of 'nothing less than a season suspension combined with a crimial inquiry.' Had Charo tripped him when they 1st met and the bench door opened, he'd have been messed up as bad as he was with the actual hit but no one would be screaming for a suspension. The reason, IMHO, that Charo should have gotten a suspension is that he intentionally did something that he should have reasonably known would have a high probability of messing up his opponent. Every player on the ice knows where the benches are; even if Charo lost sight of where he was on the ice, when he realized where he was he could have not 'completed' the check. As I've stated before, I don't believe that Charo intentionally injured the hapless Hab; but I also don't see anything that indicated that he didn't want to HURT him. (Big difference between pain and injury, and guys that play physical are always looking to hurt their opponent; it affects the way the opponent plays, and helps his team.) Had he let up at all, I would agree that he shouldn't be suspended; and most likely Pacioretti would have been hurt nearly as badly. But he didn't let up at all, he made sure he finished the check, and he showed no respect for his opponent. No argument about the league making a(nother) bad decision on this one. Please elaborate on this explanation. He broke a rule in a sports contest that resulted in most likely a career ending injury. Why wouldn't severe punishment be at hand to stop that sort of behavior? And why wouldn't it be considered criminal investigation worthy, since he broke a rule and caused serious harm to an individual. As some one else once pointed out: If I'm driving my car, make a right on red without looking what is coming trafic wise and crash and seriously injure someone I can say I didn't intend to do that. Doesnt mean I'm not criminally negligent or liable.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.