Langway
In den Wolken
- Jul 7, 2006
- 32,481
- 9,194
Why do you keep trying to make legal arguments when discussing sports? You know this is a game with rules, and not criminal misconduct with laws, right?
The circumstances are COMPLETELY different. The complexities of the legal system in managing a diverse society with countless moving parts and competing interests vs rights is nowhere close to the same thing as a professional sports league with grown ass men playing a violent sport they all KNOW is violent.
But if you must insist on making this about law (another bizarre twist) then the NHL carries a known Assumption of Risk for all players. And when dealing with guys like Tom Wilson, everyone on the ice knows and assumes the risk involved. Same goes for two players willingly dropping the gloves. Or skating with your head down. Or going into the boards. Or lowering your head. Or....
All of these are things you seem to want to treat more like criminal beatings or offenses rather than willing combatants accidentally injuring each other.
Assumption of risk - Wikipedia
I'm just saying that there is some reason that outcome is considered in punishment in pretty much every legal system in the world, and I imagine that it's analogous to why outcome matters in the suspension of players in the NHL. One of the more interesting arguments that I read in favor of punishing outcome as well as intent is that if only intent mattered, then it would incentivize the perpetrator to be as injurious as possible since the outcome wouldn't be a factor, only the intent. If you're going to hit a player in the head, might as well get really good at turning their brain into dog food since the punishment will be the same regardless.
Punishing intent only also frees the perpetrator from any negligence from being better equipped to cause damage to another player. I think we can all agree that Tom Wilson is more likely to injure a player than Connor McDavid, based solely on the strength differential between the two players. Given that, doesn't Tom Wilson carry a greater responsibility to make sure his hits are legal since he should know that his negligence is more likely to cause a devastating outcome?
Are you also going to hold players with hard slapshots accountable for their injuries to players hit by the puck? Shouldn't they dial down their slapper speed to avoid injury?
You keep using the word “intent” and I didn’t. Did the player break the rule (intentionally or not). That is the bar. You get two minutes for tripping, it doesn’t matter if it’s on purpose, and it doesn’t matter if the player gets hurt.You’re basically entering a more philosophical argument at this point.
The NHL has made it crystal clear that injury is a factor when filing out punishment. I get why you might think that results shouldn’t matter and only intent, but there is a reason why legal systems around the world including in the US heavily factor in results and not just intent when doling out punishment.
I’m not really well equipped to argue the legal philosophy, but as is results do matter.
No, because slapshots are not against the rules. Clobbering someone in the head is against the rules.
You keep using the word “intent” and I didn’t. Did the player break the rule (intentionally or not). That is the bar. You get two minutes for tripping, it doesn’t matter if it’s on purpose, and it doesn’t matter if the player gets hurt.
HITS are not against the rules, either. But accidents happen. Injuries happen. It's part of the game. Anyone who's played a violent sport understands this, especially if it's fast developing.
If you're going to punish based on OUTCOME you're bringing in this massive factor that's partially random and/or unknown and out of the control of the player being punished. The same hit affects different people differently, even on different days/shifts/etc.
And you're asking for TW to dial back his hitting, but you're not making the same demand for guys who blast slappers. By your logic above regarding not punishing outcome, wouldn't players with hard shots be able to abuse the system and injure other players at will?
If the supposed goal is "player safety" then why are these shots still legal? How many slapshot injuries are there per season?
Still can't believe Philadelphia's response to losing Niskanen was Erik Gustafsson.
Hits are not against the rules, but clobbering someone's head into the boards in a violent way is against the rules, intentional or not. Again, if Tom Wilson hit someone with an open ice hit that broke the other player's sternum, caused his lungs to collapse, and the player died on the ice, as long as no rules were broken I'd say no punishment should be levied. But that's not what happened. He broke the rules by clobbering Brandon Carlo's head into the boards and turned his head into dog food.
As far as I can tell, slap shots are not against the rules. If they are illegal, please point me to where the rulebook says they are illegal, and I will happily revise my opinion.
If you could make a convincing argument that Shea Weber is not actually trying to score goals with his slap shots, but is rather trying to shatter the tibiae or tarsals of his foes, then I'd agree with you 100% and he should be suspended.
Are you a politician? Because you duck questions and turn issues upside down way too frequently for it to be a hobby.
In your world outcomes matter if the hit is illegal. Yet by the book nearly every hit beyond a bump could be called "violent" and against the rules.
So relying on hit legality to sort good from bad injury is highly subjective and ripe for abuse.
This does seem to be what we see now. Similar plays get totally different treatment.
It doesn't matter if slappers are legal now. If safety is the concern maybe they shouldn't be. Aren't they dangerous?
Tanev, Shattenkirk, Schultz, Brodie, Barrie, Gudas etc. we’re all UFAs at the time. Maybe try hard to sign any of them? Hell I might even take some of the dumpster dive guys. Gustafsson seems like a redundant player on that blue lineRealistically what else could they have done? It's not like there has been an active trade market since COVID struck.
Tanev, Shattenkirk, Schultz, Brodie, Barrie, Gudas etc. we’re all UFAs at the time. Maybe try hard to sign any of them? Hell I might even take some of the dumpster dive guys. Gustafsson seems like a redundant player on that blue line
8-3 Avs. Rant up to 43 points on the year and MacK up to 40. That’s a scary offence they have up there.
9-3 final. Bura with 2 goals. Up to 9 on the year.
8-3 Avs. Rant up to 43 points on the year and MacK up to 40. That’s a scary offence they have up there.
9-3 final. Bura with 2 goals. Up to 9 on the year.
I don't agree with twabby about this, but you asked this question to one of like three people here who always makes arguments in good faith. Really, for your own sake, take a hard look at your own posts and try to grasp at whatever fleeting self-awareness you do have to see the irony here.Are you a politician? Because you duck questions and turn issues upside down way too frequently for it to be a hobby.
To be clear, intent to hit a player in the head or intent to hit a player hard with indifference to whether the player's head might be hurt are different from intent to hit a player's head and turn his brain into dog food, and in theory at least those different degrees of intent would be met with different degrees of punishment.I'm just saying that there is some reason that outcome is considered in punishment in pretty much every legal system in the world, and I imagine that it's analogous to why outcome matters in the suspension of players in the NHL. One of the more interesting arguments that I read in favor of punishing outcome as well as intent is that if only intent mattered, then it would incentivize the perpetrator to be as injurious as possible since the outcome wouldn't be a factor, only the intent. If you're going to hit a player in the head, might as well get really good at turning their brain into dog food since the punishment will be the same regardless.