By Alan

November 19, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

If you didn’t see that fight between Boulton and Orr, you can see it right here.

More thoughts after lunch.

By Sara

November 19, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

I love hockey fights as much as the next fan. They often can generate as much energy as a goal, sometimes even moreso. But I have to admit there is one aspect that bothers me, and I think it’s part of what hockey outsiders don’t get.

As Rawhide mentions, most teams carry an enforcer to be a deterent to cheap shots on star players. Here’s the inherent problem…why would any player think it is ok to take a cheap shot at someone else in order to give an advantage to their team? And we’re not talking about the minor big checks or stick-butts players give to each other. This is based on the major boarding calls, intentional hits to the knees - serious kind of stuff. If the only thing keeping one player from taking out another - from the game, the season, and even potentially ending a career (though I’m sure that isn’t the desired result) - if the only thing stopping that is the idea someone else might beat you up, I think there’s a character flaw there.

Why wouldn’t players naturally have enough respect for each other that they would not attempt to seriously injure someone else on purpose? I know I’ve been in discussions before that I think overall hockey players tend to have more strength of character than football players or basketball players. You certainly don’t typically see hockey players making the same ugly, negative headlines that other professional athletes do. Yet in those other sports, while there are cheap shot incidents, they do not have to police themselves as it were to keep their superstars safe from harm.

In other words, why should enforcement be necessary? As much as I love the fights and I don’t agree with taking fighting out of the game, I still have trouble accepting that some players out there are just that dishonorable and pathetic. Moreover, that the system allows for that in the game is disturbing. That coaches wouldn’t make it clear that serious cheap-shotting is not permissible. That guys like Chris Simon can take a two-handed chop at a guy’s throat and still be allowed to play.

It’s a physical and passionate sport and stuff is going to happen. But I think the sport does lack some accountability about where that physicality and passion crosses the line into reckless endangerment of someone else’s health and livelihood.

By Steve

November 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

I think fighting is a necessary part of the game and if we don’t retaliate against Brashear for what he did to Bogosian then JA will lose all credibility in my book. I’d call up Hoffman specifically for that game.

I believe I just found the greatest website I never knew about - http://www.hockeyfights.com/

As for the last to score a goal, I would say Boris since he probably will be back in Chicago soon.

By Scotty

November 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Wow, Sara said a mouthful. But as always it’s very thoughtful stuff. I have to say that there will always be a place in hockey for fighting. It’s just a part of the game and is needed for the reasons RH and Darrin Eliot pointed out.

If non-hockey fans don’t get it, then they just don’t get it.

I think Oystrick is last off of “Schneid Island”.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

November 19, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Rawhide — Valabik, that’s not his game, and he’ll have the least amount of NHL action to score a goal.

Steve — Try to ignore the user comments and voting about each fight you view…they’re amazingly ignorant at best.

Sara — That guys like Chris Simon can take a two-handed chop at a guy’s throat and still be allowed to play.

He swung a stick at one of the best (or worst, depending on how you see it) cheap shot artists in the league. Then Simon followed up that incident by stomping on the leg/skate of another player known more for his fisticuffs, elbows, and untimely hits than his scoring, passing, or defensive abilities. Perhaps he’s simply “enforcing”, as the players he’s targeted with his illegal actions have been other “enforcers”.

I’m not condoning his actions, but at least he didn’t two hand chop a Lady Byng candidate, but instead went after the Captain Douche Bag candidates.

But really, there’s always two sides (at least) to an action, such as when McSorley hit Brashear across the head with his stick. Would anybody here dare to claim that Brashear was an “innocent” victim to the situation? Likewise, would anybody claim that Hollweg or Ruutu were completely innocent before Simon went bat crazy on their asses and tried to dismember them?

Regardless, our job and the league’s job is not to route out people with character flaws. That’s over controlling the situation and the sport, similar to what football currently attempts to do (penalties for socks being too low is ridiculous). If those players have a niche talent, one that cannot be properly filled by people with more “honorable” character traits (I use that word loosely because obviously not all athletes are saints), then why shouldn’t they be allowed to play the sport?

If a player breaks a rule, they get suspended. Balance will prevail. When you try to limit the amount of enforcing or goonery by simply excluding personality types, you’re on the fringe of becoming a dictator, not a commissioner. So long as the sport allows fighting, the sport will have the players that only fill that one role. Just like there are players that are power play specialists, penalty kill specialists, defensive defenders, etc.

That being said, I have no respect for players like Hollweg, Brashear, et ali, but that doesn’t mean that they bring nothing of value to the game. That value is obviously subjective, but I don’t feel I or anyone else has the right to say “no, you’re not allowed to play, you’re too mean to the other grown-ups”.

By Nikita

November 19, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Agreeing with Sara here…

I like fighting, in general. I understand it as a deterrent to others, especially when the whole point is to discourage the kind of banging on each other than is unnecessary and disrespectful. There are rules regarding that, and I generally like to see them applied by the teams. Thank you, Eric Boulton. I would not enjoy fighting if people beat each other to a bloody pulp, or attacked each other without warning or cause.

On the other hand, I think hockey should take a harder stance on non-fighting roughing. I am happy about Jaarko Ruutu’s recent two-game suspension, and I think that sort of thing is a great idea. Because Ruutu isn’t mentally faking someone out, energizing his team, or applying a code — he’s aiming to hurt people. And he should be punished severely for it.

Last off Schneid’s island: Man, this is tough. But I’m going to say Eric Boulton, just barely. Boulton can’t hit the broad side of a barn. Slightly better is Ex. Haven’t seen Oystrick’s shots and Nic Havelid is still adjusting to playing offense, but has a decent number of assists. Valabik’s shots are o.k., but he doesn’t take many. Of course, Valabik or Oystrick could go back to the AHL.

First off: Thorburn or Havelid.

By Fred

November 19, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Did anyone notice the Carolina announcers kept calling him Nick Oystrick? At least 15 times before I lost count.

By Bob

November 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Fighting isn’t there to make sure the major penalies don’t happen. Those still do, from time to time, and no fight breaks out when they do. The offending player is immediately surrounded by the officials and kicked out of the game with a major, then possibly suspended.

Fighting is there to keep a balance on the little stuff you don’t notice up in the stands. The stickwork like chops at the wrists, in the ribs, etc., that’s what fighting is there to deter.

It’s also there to provide a spark to your club, as Derwood correctly points out.

By five_hole

November 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

I generally avoid blogging at work, but it’s really slow right now, so … .

IF the NHL wanted to outlaw fighting, they could do it. They could institute rules that penalize the player starting fights; if a player is injured, the fighter sits out more games than the injured player. They could penalize the team whose player started the fight, either monitarily, draft picks, or both.

The fact is that the NHL allows fighting because it draws fans. Face it; we are barbarians at the colliseum when it comes to fighting. Everyone cheers. What do people talk about first after the game; goal scoring or the fight (if it was a good one)?

As I’ve said before, back in the late ’80s / early ’90s, Brett Hull was the premier scorer on the team, but if you went to see the St. Louis Blues play, there were more Tony Twist jerseys in the stands than Hull jerseys. The Twister was the baddest man on the ice, and we loved to see him do his thing.

Now, the other truth is that fighting occurs because referees miss some things. When your star player gets speared and no penalty occurs, there is a need for “prairie justice”. And in a sport where there’s as much physical contact as hockey generates; where elbows get inadvertently raised and giving the other guy a “face wash” occur, there is a need to not only stand up for yourself, but for your teammates.

Who is the last to score? To be honest, I’d admit I couldn’t score at the Playboy mansion if I told them I was a billionaire (although my wife bought it). If we’re talking hockey, then I’ll pick X.

By d

November 19, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

We all know that five_hole is correct - fighting is allowed in the NHL b/c it helps fill the seats. Other contact sports such as Football do not rely (or permit) fighting - their ref’s are capable of managing most of the behaviour on the field. Why is is that hockey thrives at the youth and college level w/o fighting, but finds that fighting suddenly becomes justified in junior’s and the professional level?

By waffleboy

November 19, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

For those who missed it, here is a link to watch video of the Boulton-Orr fight.

So far, the fight of the year.

By Rawhide

November 19, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Five_Hole - if a player is injured, the fighter sits out more games than the injured player.

I like that idea. I’ll take it maybe a step further…would you advocate a suspension policy that stats if a player is ruled to have injured another player with intent, the the offending player is slapped with a “OUT-PLUS” type of suspension?

Case in point…Player A is injured by player B due to an intentional blow to the head. The Commish finds it worthy of suspension. Thus, he suspendes him “OUT-PLUS 5” games. Meaning, player A is “out” 10 games because of the injury so player B sits out those games as well…then when player A is able to play again, player B then begins his additional 5 games worth of suspension.

By waffleboy

November 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Another reason fighting is allowed in hockey as opposed to other sports is that it’s very difficult to land hard punches when you’re standing on skates. Players rarely get injured in fights. This is opposed to the NBA and MLB where fights generally lead to brawls and someone occassionally suffers some stupid injury.

By five_hole

November 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

RH Exactly. This occurred to me when Bertuzzi jumped on (forget his name) and sucker-punched him. The commissioner should have the option to assess a number of games in addition to however many games the injured player misses. If, as was the case for whomever Bertuzzi hurt, that player never plays again, neither does the fighter. Plus, as I say, the team could be assessed penalties for putting goons on the ice.

However, I maintain it will never happen. People love to see the fight. It’s Christians vs. the Lions at the Colleseum, all over again. Back then, the Romans rooted for the Lions, because we all love to see the blood. We like to think we’re more civilized, but we’re really not. We love steel cage matches. We love Thunderdome. 2 men go in, one comes out.

The NHL knows this is a draw for them. This is why LaRoque and Brasheer still have jobs.

By DWTOO

November 19, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

Best time to get a beer or pass a beer is during a fight. Everyone stays in their seat. Personally I feel that stricter rules enforcement and stiffer fines/suspesnions for thugs would go a long way towards deterring abhorent behavior.

By jen

November 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

So I think I would rather have seen Simon swinging sticks around at Hollweg rather than say a Jagr or (searches around for someone resembling a 1st liner on the Islanders) similar. I do subscribe to the school that enforcers provide a measure of protections for superstars and top flight skill players. I do not think the NHL is ever going to be able to legislate fighting out of the game, its just too ingrained in a sport that for the most part, really does embrace its roots, and while no one wants to the see a Mcsorley/Brashear incident or a Bertuzzi/Moore thing, this is by far the exception and not the rule. I think in certain cases the league can impose coincidental suspensions where players who are deemed egregious in their fouls recieve stiff penalties, but if Ruutu comes after Kovy blazing cheap hits to the head, I want blood spilt. I want X and Boulton laying into him like there’s no tomorrow. HEck, I’d even take a Marc Savard biting penality. These marginal guys can not be allowed to take liberties with elite players and if they knew they were going to pay a price for it, they might actually think twice.

BTW - kudos for the mention on Puck Daddy today Rawhide!

By Nikita

November 19, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

I really like Laraque, personally — when he’s on he’s a decent forward. Brashear is rarely skilled, and often cheap.

Great idea, Rawhide.

Also, sorry everyone for addressing violence in general rather than fighting, per se. But I am dragging my parents to their first hockey game ever this weekend, and they like most people who don’t know hckey all that well think of it as all the same thing.

By glovesave29

November 19, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this

The hard part about taking the fighting out of hockey is the physical nature and flow of the game itself. After 2+ periods of elbows to the ribs, taps on the wrist, can openers, and the two handed cross check to the kidney (to this day I do not understand how the refs let the players get away with this - COUGH COUGH Chris Pronger) the emotions spill over and thats where a good portion of the fighting happens. The adrenaline is flowing and you lose it. I’ve played goalie for years, you are taught to control those emotions and concentrate on the puck. But the players are human and sometimes they lose it. Chris Simon, Donald Brashear, Dave Schultz and Tie Domi excluded…those three are morons and do not (or did not) deserve to cash an NHL paycheck. Think about hockey…on the ice for 45-60 seconds and then off for two minutes then back on. Not enough time to lose the anger and the emotion of the cheap shot. You sit on the bench and stew…wating for your opportunity. That is why trouble begins. Football takes long breaks between plays, then when your unit is off the field, you may have 10 minutes to settle down. Hockey doesn’t offer that.

If the NHL is to institute a rule that states a a player that intentionally injures another (which is totally subjective) he must sit the equal amount of games as the injured player - there must be a caveat. The injured played must be cleared by an independant medical team. I would hate to see a lesser player staying out on purpose to keep the superstar that injured staying out as this can affect the standings and integrity of the game. Taking an extra game off for an injury that has healed, so the great player misses a game against another team that you are battling in the standings.

I miss old, tough players that could BOTH score goals and drop the gloves if needed…Willi Plett, Terry O’Rielly, Clark Gillies and the like. In the era of specialties, a throwback like that would be a welcome sight…

All that bing said…use your stick for anything other than for what it was intented…10 game suspension. No questions asked. If you hurt the player, games suspended go up from there. That is the most cowardly act in the game, and it MUST go. Also add 4 minutes in penalties….unsportmanlike conduct and intent to injure. The player must serve ALL FOUR MINUTES, no matter how many goals are scored…this chippyness will go away

By Sara

November 19, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this

ranallo does it really matter who Simon swung his stick at? Or that McSorley hit Brashear over the head? Even goons have family that loves them and depends on them. What do you think Hollweg’s parents thought of that? Steve Moore wasn’t a goon and his career was ended. IMO Bertuzzi’s should have been as well.

Really this isn’t even about fighting - not to me. It’s some of the underlying violence that goes on that troubles me. There are just some lines that shouldn’t be crossed and the League needs to do more to address that organically. Case in point, the memo that just went out about hits to the head. That’s been a major problem already this season. Instead of trying to write new rules for it (which would be virtually impossible anyway), the League is instead calling on the players to try to exercise more caution. It’s still going to be difficult - at real speed in a game, it can be hard to let up on a check when the guy turns to face the boards at the last minute. But by the same token, players could keep their elbows and sticks down when going in for a hit along the boards.

But in the interest of fairness I shall cop to my own hypocrisy. As I am typing all of this, one of my friend’s just sent me a text that she saw Dupuis and some other Pens at the Tavern and my response was to tell her to be sure and trip Crosby on the way by. :D

By Rawhide

November 19, 2008 8:31 PM | Link to this

I’m watching the Vancouver feed for their game against the Rangers on Center Ice tonight. The panel during the first intermission took up the question of whether or not the instagator penalty should be removed…if the guys are going to fight, then let ‘em have at it, being the logic

I bring this up because while they were discussing it some fight clips were being flashed on the TV. The first one was from last year when Ruutu took Kovy out along the boards…injuring him to the point that he missed a game or two…and then Steve McCarthy layed into him and beat his punk-a$$ across the boards in front of the Thrashers bench.

Classic!

Anyway…to me, that is prime example #1 when a fight was more than called for. Ruutu went into Kovy’s knee…even got an elbow up to try and smash his head…and Mac took care of business.

Offense commited…offense dealt with…case closed.

jen - Thanks for letting me know about the Puck Daddy mention…kewl!

By Nikita

November 19, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Rawhide, I’d agree, except that that injury lasted far longer than Ruutu’s a* kicking. And that’s the problem with fighting — it can’t make up for an injury that puts someone out for a few games or down for the rest of the season (which that one did — Kovy played the rest of the season less than 100%).

Fighting, IMO, is for short-term problems and an uncallable lack of respect. Suspensions and other such long-term, official punishment would be appropriate to attacks that have long-term consequences and a high probability of serious injury.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

November 20, 2008 4:46 AM | Link to this

Steve Moore wasn’t a goon and his career was ended.

Steve Moore was also not an innocent bystander, just skating his merry way along the ice then BOOM got knocked out and his neck broken for absolutely no reason. In the last game he played against Vancouver he hit the captain of the team in the head with a quasi-legal hit, and walked away without a scratch. Meanwhile, Vancouver lost their best player due to a shot to the head, and the league did nothing.

The next time they played Bertuzzi tried to start a fight with Moore (who is by no means an enforcer, but had been in fights in the past)…Moore simply turned around and ignored him. Bertuzzi (adrenaline pumping and memory fresh from the last time they played) let his emotions win and threw the infamous punch. He didn’t want to break Moore’s neck, nor end the guys career, and he’s paid in civil court since that moment (I believe that trial is still ongoing, or at least very recently ended). He also sat out from hockey for quite a long time.

People make mistakes, even in sports. A punch to the head and jumping on a person’s back is bad, yes, but so is the flying elbow checks, the hits to the face, etc. Yet, the league does not punish these infractions equally, so the more often types of play (elbows and hits to the head) get by, and sometimes get missed. Meanwhile the rare incidents like a stick to a head get publicity, and the elbows and hits to the head get forgotten.

Does anybody remember who knocked Patrice Bergeron out for the entire season last year?

Since coming back Bergeron basically said that it’s up to the players to control themselves when hitting an opponent, and to not put themselves into the position to be injured (by leaning over and staring at the puck on your stick when in a vulnerable part of the ice).

Of course hitting a player in the head with your stick is despicable, but it’s going to happen again no matter what the league or the players do. It’s a side effect of pumping adrenaline and extremely poor judgment. You’ve got 6 foot 200 pound MEN skating around at speeds that would put a good dent in a car if in a wreck. Bad things are going to happen, just like in every sport. Players throw baseballs at eachother, bite fingers and gouge eyes in football during many plays, give elbows to the kidneys and bang knees against eachother in basketball…it’s part of sports, and is something that when attempted to control too much ruins the sport entirely.

Would you enjoy the sport if it turned into a bunch of Crosby’s and Briere’s figure skating around the ice, barely touching eachother, and whining whenever they get bumped awkwardly because “that could end my career!”?? I wouldn’t. I also don’t enjoy the leagues that are seemingly only around to propagate fighting. The NHL is close to being in the middle of that type of game…and to be honest I enjoy it the way it is. The more tinkering that is done the more the game gets ruined, because people are trying to control it too much, in my opinion.

glovesave — I agree with the rule about making a player sit out the entirety of their penalty.

By wristshot

November 20, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

I love the Out Plus argument. The thought of sitting out at least as many games as your intended victim would definitely reduce some of the ridiculous headshots and hits from behind.

I would also love the NHL to take a page out of Don Cherry’s book and ban those huge, rock hard shoulder pads and elbow pads. That type of equipment has slowly evolved into an aggressive method of punishing opponents.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

November 20, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

wristshot — How do you define intention in instances where it is not blatantly obvious? For example, Doug Weight recently creamed Brandon Sutter in an accidental illegal hit to his head. Sutter has been out for 8 games due to a concussion, and Weight wasn’t penalized in the game or after the game. Should Weight be penalized for what appeared to be an accidental headshot?

Or, going back to the Simon-Hollweg incident…Hollweg played the next game. He wasn’t injured at all in the situation. So, should Simon have been penalized LESS than he received?

In my opinion it’s a slippery slope when you’re using the results of the incident to dictate the punishment. You’ll have players suspended “indefinitely” because the extent of the injury cannot be found, or as glovesave mentioned you’ll have lesser players hamming up their injuries in order to keep their opponent at a disadvantage. A head injury could be one year, one game, a career…does the person committing the penalty have to sit indefinitely until the player finally decides to hang up his skates?

It seems ridiculous to me. Building rules around one-off situations is over controlling the sport. Deal with those incidents as they occur, ban players who cannot control themselves after one such incident, but don’t punish every single individual in the sport because a few morons can’t control their temper.

I don’t like the Out Plus argument, it’s too arbitrary and dependent upon the incident.

By Rawhide

November 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

ranallo - Would the Bertuzzi incedent a few year’s back be a good definition of “intent to injure” in regards to the “OUT-PLUS” proposal?

By ranallo10 (in AT)

November 20, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

Rawhide — I would argue his intent was to inflict pain, not injure, and especially not to break the guys neck and/or end his career. I don’t believe there are many players at this level whose intent is to end a career with every hit they make or punch they throw.

But, looking at the mentality of people like Michael Strahan who admittedly tried to “hurt people” every game, perhaps I’m giving athletes far more credit than they deserve.

As for your question about that incident being a good example, I would say no. Moore was a fringe NHL player who was only up for his intensity on the grinding lines (he was an agitator, and not very good at it in my opinion). So to say that a career was “ended”, one that probably was in jeopardy in the first place, is not a good example of how the player inflicting the pain should be equally penalized plus a few games.

I felt Bertuzzi got what he deserved penalty wise (actually, I thought it was too harsh considering his “intent” is unable to be proven), and karma has kicked in by knocking him far below the pedestal his production in Vancouver rose him to.

By Rawhide

November 20, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

ranallo - I would argue his intent was to inflict pain, not injure, and especially not to break the guys neck and/or end his career.

But the “results” of his action was in fact a broken neck to Moore. He intentionally tracked him down…intentionaly struck him from behind when he was not looking…and intentionally took him face-first down into the ice.

My arguement is that if…IF…such a system were in place it would cut down on that type, as well as other “lesser” types, of flagrant assaults.

Responsibility for one’s actions.

Even if it doesn’t…at least it would be “fair” to make the offending party sit out at least as much time as the person who was injured due to his actions and his decisions on the ice.

By five_hole

November 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

How do you define intention in instances where it is not blatantly obvious? For example, Doug Weight recently creamed Brandon Sutter in an accidental illegal hit to his head. Sutter has been out for 8 games due to a concussion, and Weight wasn’t penalized in the game or after the game. - *ranallo10 (in AT) *

The NFL reviews plays after games and issues fines and even suspensions for actions which may or not be penalized during the game. I think the coach of the injured player could appeal that play to the NHL. That could start the review and they could determine intent to injure (did the offending player make a run at the injured player, etc).

By Tony C.

November 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

I like the “Out-Plus” concept.

By Jarndyce

November 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

First: That Doug Weight hit on Sutter was about as clean as could be. To quote Mystery Alaska, “Head was down! Head was down!” Sutter put himself in that position, first because he lost control of the puck, and second because he turned his head and tried to find the puck instead of paying attention to the 230 lb monster coming at him at 30 mph. It’s kinda of like running out into the street without looking, and then blaming a driver for hitting you with his car.

Second: The NFL is having a very difficult time with cheap shots. They try to legislate this with fines, etc., and post-game reviews. A Viking player just collected his most recent of several $25,000 fines for a bad hit. The problem is that players get paid several million dollars for being a dominating player and winning games, and at times a cheap hit on an opposing quarterback helps that cause. Pay $25,000 today to earn $3,000,000 next year? Um, yeah.

Fighting is all but impossible in the NFL. And they can’t police their players.

Fighting in the NHL is the remedy for players that break the unwritten rules. You don’t take questionable shots at our best player, because if you do, you’ll get a beating.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

November 20, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

five_hole — They do that already in the NHL. That’s how Kovalchuk got suspended last season, Pock recently got suspended, Ruutu got suspended…etc. Each incident is reviewed in Toronto, and any extra punishment is levied out from there if they deem it necessary.

It’s kinda of like running out into the street without looking, and then blaming a driver for hitting you with his car.

Yet in the US people do this, and win their cases. If you are hit in a crosswalk in the Atlanta city limits, the pedestrian has the right of way and thus the driver is at fault. It’s kind of like spilling coffee onto your lap then suing the fast food chain for not warning you how hot the coffee was…oh wait, that’s been done too.

My point about Sutter was that it was only legal because Sutter put himself into that position. Weight didn’t get penalized during the game or after the game (rightfully so in my opinion), because he was simply “playing hockey” and caught a player in an awkward situation. I’m sure most Carolina fans don’t consider that fair though, as Sutter is now sitting with a concussion.

If you’re allowing leeway for “accidental” injuries based on a perceived lack of “intent to injure”, how is it fair to impose a punishment based on the results of the players perceived intent?

Weights actions, though unintentional, means that Sutter has a concussion and could not play for at least 8 games. His actions, though unintentional, were illegal according to the rules against hitting a player in a vulnerable position and in a vulnerable spot of their body. Technically, according to your Out-Plus idea, he should have been penalized and should still be sitting until Sutter is able to lace-up his skates without assistance.

In my opinion that’s not fair to Weight, the player who committed the penalty (or non-penalty but injury inducing hit, in this instance).

By Alan

November 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

If you are hit in a crosswalk in the Atlanta city limits, the pedestrian has the right of way and thus the driver is at fault.

That’s because state law dictates that the pedestrian has the right of way. Comparing this to hot coffee doesn’t make sense, because coffee is hot — that’s just common sense. But the crosswalk thing is the law and it must be obeyed. As a matter of fact, it is Georgia state law that all vehicle traffic must yield the right of way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The signs are all over town, and even placed in the middle of the street so drivers can see it. Therefore, drivers have no excuse.

In other words, bringing up pedestrians was a very bad analogy, and running with it wasn’t all that great either.

By jerry

November 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Maybe they are fighting more because maybe they are losing their a$$ in the stock market. It’s enough to pi$$ anybody off.

By waffleboy

November 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

Patrice Bergeron was hit by Randy Jones of the Philadelphia Flyers. He received a two game suspension.

Here’s the hit.

Here’s the Weight hit on Sutter.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

November 20, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Most analogies I come up with are bad ones…it’s a gift I have.

Just because something is common sense doesn’t mean that all people will abide by it. Tell that to the woman that sued McDonald’s and won…she’ll show you her burn marks, show you her wad of cash won in the case, then laugh at you for telling her how stupid she is for failing to adhere to common sense.

By Nikita

November 20, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this

A. The hot coffee woman’s probably dead now, but she earned every penny. McDonald’s, though, might be thinking about the wisdom of the old “one in the hand” saying.

B. Fire on Ice alert. I hereby declare both Erik Christensen and Eric Perrin HOT. Ladies and Melvin, can I get an amen?

C. Also, am I insane, or is the team buffer this year? Or is it just the HDTV magic?

D. I don’t want to jinx it, but listening now and the game sounds…not horrible.

By Alan

November 20, 2008 7:37 PM | Link to this

Just because something is common sense doesn’t mean that all people will abide by it.

True. But hell, the hot coffee analogy made more sense than the pedestrian one. That’s the point.

By Nikita

November 20, 2008 11:18 PM | Link to this

So…case in frickin’ point. Todd White got CLOBBERED and there wasn’t even a penalty.

By Rawhide

November 20, 2008 11:25 PM | Link to this

Nikita - That looked like it should have been boarding, no doubt. Of course, they missed Satan’s interference on XLB that caused the 2 on 1 break for the Pens that led to Thorburn’s…interference call… which eventually led to the game-winning power play goal.

Now…under the “Out-Plus” suspension rule…if, IF, the league reviewed that play and concluded that it was a penalty…even though one was not called…they could rule the play suspensionable and if White misses any games because of it…then Letang would sit out as well.

By Nikita

November 20, 2008 11:42 PM | Link to this

Yep. My husband, mr. stickler for rules, noted that the hit was both high and made with enough distance to qualify as boarding. Todd White basically snapped down and his head accelerated into the boards. I hope he’s ok. But there was no call at all.

By Jarndyce

November 21, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

Just because I feel it necessary, the McDonald’s case is one of the most misunderstood issues to hit popular consciousness.

Facts of the case:

1) McDonald’s produced evidence that clearly showed that they were aware that the temperature at which they served coffee was dangerous to humans, and chose to continue to do so.

2) McDonald’s was settling hundreds of burn cases a year for serving coffee that was more than 30 degrees hotter than the level at which it would instantly burn human flesh.

3) The woman was not driving the car and the car was not moving.

4) The woman was taking the lid off of the coffee in order to put her cream and/or sugar in it.

5) The coffee was so hot that when it spilled onto her lap, it melted her clothes into the flesh of her legs, which later had to be surgically removed and replaced via skin grafting.

6) The woman’s originally complaint asked only for reimbursement of her medical expenses. The jury later added punitive damages.

7) The jury verdict was never paid. McDonald’s reached a confidential settlement with the woman, the amount of which is sealed and unknown to the public.