Hockey, Olympics, Quebec, Bertuzzi

[Guest eureka]

Not to argue about trivial things, shoop, but "bigotry" is a noun.

[Argus]

... "Il y a une dizaine de jours, le capitaine de l'équipe des Coyotes de Phoenix faisait part de sa frustration aux quatre arbitres francophones qui veillaient à maintenir l'ordre dans la partie contre les Canadiens de Montréal. Visiblement insatisfait de la défaite qui semblait inévitable, Doan a traité les arbitres de «fucking Frenchmen» à quelques minutes de la fin du match."

This is so ridiculous, racism is socially accepted unless you think that the 4 referee where not credible enough to be considered a trustworthy proof... will they have to tape him next time ?

Two issues. One, it is not racist to hate Frenchmen. It is bigoted, which is a different creature entirely. Racism involves believing one race is genetically inferior or superior to another. Frenchmen are not a race. Bigotry is assuming all people of a group have the same unfavourable characteristics. And disliking all because of that.

Now, the real point here is there's no evidence Doan hates Frenchmen. He obviously didn't like those particular Frenchman, but who likes referees anyway? Especially NHL referees, who are generally recognized as the world's least competent.

If I get very angry at someone, I'm liable to call them a name. If I call a woman B*tch" does that mean I hate all women? If I use a physical characteristic (which happens quite often when people are mad) and call someone a fat so and so, or a bald so and so, or a dwarf, or whatever, does that really imply I hate all people with those physical characteristics, or am I just seizing on whatever is available?

If the refs involved had all been Swedes, or Ukrainians, or Irish, or German, I think Doan would have called them F'ing Swedes or F'ing Germans, etc.

In other words, get over it. Calling someone a name because you are angry and don't like what they did, even if the name contains some reference to ethnic, linguisitc, religious or other background, does not imply one is a member of the heritage front and is a racist and bigot who hates all those people.

[shoop]

Oops, my bad.

Not to argue about trivial things, shoop, but "bigotry" is a noun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Yaro]

Not exactly. Its understood in Football that the opposing team is going to hit you as hard as possible, within the rules, every chance that they get, and often with the intent of injuring you. Attempts to injure opponents that are outside the scope of the rules are not tolerated in football. You actually see players thrown out of footbll games for actions that would result in a minor penalty or less in hockey.

No football players attempt to break each others ankles whenever the opportunity arises. They attempt to dislocate hips, they attempt to break sternums. The fact that these actions are done within the rules of the game is completely irrelevant, Football players attempt to severely injure each other on every play whenever given the opportunity. Also keep in mind that until fairly recently players would also leap at each others heads in an apparent attempt to decapitate-thankfully this is now against the rules.

I wouldn't call what occurs in football violence, simply because everyone knows the rules of the game and that the rules are enforced strictly. Every receiver knows before they step on the field that if their QB hangs them out, they're going to get hit very very hard and they may not walk off the field, or ever again. They consent to that.

And everyone is aware of the rules in Hockey, whether the rules are written or unwritten is irrelevant. No player in the NHL doesn't realize that if they dish out a cheap shot at some point someone is going to give it back.

Moore never consented to being viciously mugged by a nutcase when he stepped on the ice that night. If Bertuzzi had broken Moore's neck with a vicious, but clean, open ice hit, that wouldn't be a problem in my mind.

Bertuzzi's actions would have only been a problem morally or legally if the logical or reasonable outcome would have been a broken neck. There is no reasonable basis to believe that Bertuzzi's actions might result in the severity of injury which more suffered, which as I stated before was not in any reasonable way a broken neck. The more severe injury by far was the moderate concussion that he received.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The fact that these actions are done within the rules of the game is completely irrelevant, Football players attempt to severely injure each other on every play whenever given the opportunity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care to provide an argument for that? It seems perfectly intuitive to me that there is a rather large difference betwen acts that are within the rules of the game and acts that go FAR beyond the scope of the rules.

For example, I'm sure most people would agree that biting the ear off your opponent in the ring is a lot different than throwing a very hard punch. Even though the punch is far more likely to result in very serious injury or death. Why? Because when you step into the ring, you KNOW the other guy is going to try to punch you, and you agree to that. When he bites off you ear, you have pretty solid grounds for complaint, wouldn't you say?

And everyone is aware of the rules in Hockey, whether the rules are written or unwritten is irrelevant. No player in the NHL doesn't realize that if they dish out a cheap shot at some point someone is going to give it back.

Sorry, chasing someone down the ice, throwing a haymaker from behind, and then pile driving them into the ice is NOT something that any hockey player (NHL or otherwise) expects to have happen to them.

Bertuzzi's actions would have only been a problem morally or legally if the logical or reasonable outcome would have been a broken neck.

I'm not sure that you're correct on the legal issue, but I know you're talking out of your backend on the moral issue. Sorry, theres a minimum level of judgment that grown ups are expected to show. Chasing someone down, throwing a haymaker from behind, and then pile driving their limp body head first into the ice is pretty clearly an act that a reasonable adult would expect to have a high probability of serious injury. Seriously... try it full force on 10 unsuspecting friends and report back to us how many ended up in the emergency room.

There are 3 possibilities with regards to Bertuzzi here:

1) He honestly didn't think that his actions could result in serious injury. A lack of judgment on that order is more than sufficient grounds for a lifetime ban due to the risk that it poses to all other players.

2) Bertuzzi was so enraged at Moore that his judgment was clouded. See above.

3) He intended to injure Moore. See above.

There is no reasonable basis to believe that Bertuzzi's actions might result in the severity of injury which more suffered, which as I stated before was not in any reasonable way a broken neck. The more severe injury by far was the moderate concussion that he received.

Not to trivialize concussions, but, again, you're talking out of your backend. First, if the "moderate concussion" that he received was the more severe injury resulting from the incident, you'd expect Moore to be playing again. You know, in much the same way that other players with concussions return to the game fairly quickly. Second, what would qualify, in your estimation, as a broken neck? Broken clear through? A severed spinal cord maybe? Three broken vertebrae is a broken neck, as far as I'm concerned.

[willy]

Time to let it go. Bert is on the team. Higher powers have decided.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Time to let it go. Bert is on the team. Higher powers have decided.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seeing that goon with an olympic medal around his neck would absolutely destroy any faith I have left in the spirit of the olympics.