Should Todd Bertuzzi been banned for life?

[the_fan]

I would have given him attempted murder

 

[Zanon]

Kind of a weird and pointless question to ask at this point. Bertuzzi continued to play in the NHL for a multiple of different teams, including for his country at the Olympics, after the incident. Why would the NHL “ban” him now?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Kind of a weird and pointless question to ask at this point. Bertuzzi continued to play in the NHL for a multiple of different teams, including for his country at the Olympics, after the incident. Why would the NHL “ban” him now?

The phrasing in the subject line is awkward, but even a cursory reading of the thread tells you what you need to know about your question.

Hell, read the third sentence of the first post.

 

[Fixxer]

Reckless play by Moore on Naslund to begin with. Dirty revenge by Bertuzzi (even if Cooke fought with Moore the last game they met I believe?). So, he knocked Moore out cold with a sucker punch which was dirty enough as he fell down..... but the pileup is the sad result of this incident.

I'd compare it to McSorley on Brashear in terms of "gravity" of the initial impact (although a sucker punch vs a stick swing are different attacks, but literally attacks). Also, on McSorley's "event", the pileup happened somewhere else on the ice. Had Bertuzzi skated away from Moore before the pileup, he would have saved a LOT of drama! These things happen so fast and Bertuzzi intention's wasn't to injure the guy for life that way, but the emotions got the best of him. He was not known for such plays. It was one incident which turned out REALLY bad!

 

[Bougieman]

The bottom line is that if it didn’t happen in a hockey rink it would have been criminal and Bertuzzi would have faced jail time and would have had to pay a lot more than he did.

People always say this when they want to emphasise how flagrant an infraction in hockey was, and it makes nooooooo sense to me. 99% of hits, legal or otherwise, in a game would be considered criminal in court of law if you walked up and did them to someone innocent standing there on the street.

 

[ziggyjoe212]

Should Matt Martin been banned for life for intent to do the same thing as Bertuzzi did?
(starts at 1:38)

 

[newfy]

People always say this when they want to emphasise how flagrant an infraction in hockey was, and it makes nooooooo sense to me. 99% of hits, legal or otherwise, in a game would be considered criminal in court of law if you walked up and did them to someone innocent standing there on the street.

Yep, go walk down the street and whack a guy in the back of a leg with ah ockey stick, assault charge. 2 minute slashing that occurs every single game in a hockey rink though. Its a bad argument to make

 

[NotProkofievian]

Intentions don't matter when you deliver a haymaker to the back of an unsuspecting person's head. Bertuzzi should have served time in prison, but athletes are and have always been able to avoid the justice system. Craig MacTavish literally killed someone and served 1 year, and has enjoyed gainful employment in the NHL since.

 

[Jacob]

Intentions don't matter when you deliver a haymaker to the back of an unsuspecting person's head.

If that's all it was I could see why people compare it to other sucker punches or cross checks, but it was that after he sucker-punched him he pile-drove his face into the ice with all his body weight on top of it. To me that's why it's just not comparable to other incidents.

 

[NotProkofievian]

If that's all it was I could see why people compare it to other sucker punches or cross checks, but it was that after he sucker-punched him he pile-drove his face into the ice with all his body weight on top of it. To me that's why it's just not comparable to other incidents.

People will say in response to you that the result was tragic but the dog pile wasn't his ''intent.'' This is just a garbage argument. If we decide to do a william tell reenacment and I end up shooting you in the face, it was perhaps not my intent to do that. I'm still responsible in this case. This isn't ''punishing based on result.'' What he did was illegal by the rules of hockey, illegal in any place in the world, and could realistically be expected to cause severe, irreversible harm to the person. Thus the consequences of it are his responsibility, intent be damned.

 

[Zippgunn]

Considering the circumstances, yes absolutely.

 

[Zippgunn]

Not his fault no one other than Cooke would fight him. The Canucks didn’t have a tough guy at the time like Brashear. He was gone by that point.

Call someone up from the minors and tell him to beat the snot out of Moore. Then it’s over and done with and everyone can move on. Bertuzzi doesn’t get suspended, Morre doesn’t suffer a career ending injury, and we aren’t talking about this 15 years later.

Or do what Toews did when Mitchell knocked him into the middle of next week; get up, dust yourself off and continue with the task at hand, which is trying to win a Cup. Which he did, unlike, say, Naslund/Bertuzzi...

 

[blankall]

People always say this when they want to emphasise how flagrant an infraction in hockey was, and it makes nooooooo sense to me. 99% of hits, legal or otherwise, in a game would be considered criminal in court of law if you walked up and did them to someone innocent standing there on the street.

Bad argument. Some things are clearly outside of the nature of the game and criminal.

For example, the McSorley incident was found to be criminal. The question is was the Bertuzzi incident also criminal? Who knows, that's up to the courts to decide but it definitely could have been.

A full on punch in the back of the head followed by a tackle that has nothing to do with the play at hand is not part of hockey. And yes, the results, not just intent, do matter in how an incident is dealt with criminally.

 

[Zippgunn]

Using which rule, exactly? The rule that didn't get instituted until six years later after Savard's career was ended by Matt Cooke?

I also question how exactly it was head hunting when it was Moore's hip that made contact with Naslund's face. If Naslund stays on his skates, it's a clean hit.

This is obvious when you watch the video but I've lost count of how many times I've read that Moore "left his feet" or "elbowed Nazzy in the head" It was a perfectly legal check made worse by Naslund's compromised posture. THAT'S why the NHL brainstrust, after a long investigation, decided not to take any action against Moore, even though I'm betting they really wanted to (since it might have placated angry Canucks fans a bit). If Naslund hadn't played the game as if it were illegal to even touch him this whole event never happens...

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Should Matt Martin been banned for life for intent to do the same thing as Bertuzzi did?
(starts at 1:38)

If the result of what happened is someone's career being over because of a broken neck or some other debilitating injury that is likely going to remain with them for the rest of their lives then yeah. People need to stop with the notion that intent is all that matters. The intent AND the result both matter significantly.

 

[Zippgunn]

That had more to do with Moore's reputation than his skill level. He had already earned a cheapshot moniker and many considered this a "when you play with fire..." type situation.

55 career PIM, yeah what a thug...

 

[Zippgunn]

Obviously you aren't.

Moore was demanding more and more money even after 10 years. He made more than his actual duration of play. "I'm sure they started more threads on this than anyone". Provide proof of this instead of spouting nonsense.

It was unfortunate what happened to Moore as no one wants their career end like that, but he was overall a dirty little weasel and a completely unlikeable bottom six liner. His hits on Naslund and St.Louis was disgraceful and cheap. Going after star players and then fights the smallest player on the team. Little weasel. Obviously you are not bright enough to broaden your own horizon.

Avs fans whined just as badly over Bertuzzi's supplementary punishment and obviously based on this thread, they are not over it, and it's reached to a point that they are arguing with non-Canucks fans. So that's pretty telling.

Canucks deserved the misfortune of losing Rypien too? Get out of here with this trash. Comments like these are exactly why I will never support the avalanche in any way and I hope they will never have further success.

We didn't lose Rypien, the Jets did. We cut him loose because he was useless to us even as a goon, remember?

 

[Zippgunn]

The bottom line is that if it didn’t happen in a hockey rink it would have been criminal and Bertuzzi would have faced jail time and would have had to pay a lot more than he did.

Regardless, consequences can matter in court. A simple attack that yields a healable injury where the injured party walks away would result in more leniency to the attacker than if the victim was crippled for life and lost their income and livelihood.

Bertuzzi should have been easily banned for life. It was pre-meditated. It was purposeful. It did permanent damage. It was illegal in both the sport and in societal law.

Even more so than the response, the league should have never allowed it to get to that point.

Not sure what else the league could have done. They publicly warned the Canucks and Bettman even attended the next meeting between the teams (his only game in that time zone that season apparently) to show he was paying attention. Crawford should have been banned for life as well...

 

[ZiggyP]

Canucks were prime Stanley Cup Contenders in 2003 2004. They literally lost to the Stanley Cup Finalist Flames in OT of Game 7....without their starting goalie and their 2nd best player (maybe most impactful, especially in playoffs).

Canucks. Primed for cup and a piece of shit, no good fringe AHLer (Steve-o) takes a run at their top scorer/captain/art ross and hart candidate (Markus Naslund) and f***ing hurts him.

Next game.... who does he fight? A young Matt Cooke....not exactly known for fighting (he was known as an agitator). That game had been brutal all the way through. Multiple fights. Questionable plays. This all would have stopped Steve Moore manned the f*** up and didnt take some little 5'10 dude out of a scrum.

What should've happned was Steve Moore should've met whoever the f*** the Canucks wanted to send his way at centre ice and got his god damn bell rung in a fight. Then he should've went to the room and not played another shift in the game. This ALL could've been avoided. The players wouldve settled down and the game wouldve ended (it was a blowout).

Not saying what Bertuzzi did was right. It wasnt. It never will be. But up until that exact moment everyone tuning into that game was thinking the same thing, "f*** steve moore". If only Moore hadve turned around and dropped the mitts. If only 10 players didnt pile on top of him afterwards. If only Bert had've known the potentially catastrophic consequences for himself, his team, and Steve Moore's personal well-being.

It sucks what happened to Moore... and it sucks that the Canucks lost the chance to make a playoff run with what was (imo) the best team they ever had. And it sucked how this game put a black mark on Todd, the Canucks, and even the league as a whole to an extent.


But should Todd have been banned for life? f*** no.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

If he did it another time then it'd be worth the discussion, but he never did it again so...

 

[Statto]

You cannot separate the injury from the act. If you punch someone in a bar and they walk away it’s a slap on the wrist, if they die you go to jail. The injuries do matter, as when you assault someone regardless of intended outcome there is a risk of injury or worse. If injury occurs from an infraction the penalty should always be worse, players have a responsibility to always be in control and look out for each other on the ice.

First in response to asking if all players who sucker punch should be banned, the short answer is yes. Apart from it being the move of an absolute coward it, without doubt, is reckless and risks injury to the victim every time

I don’t think a sucker punch should automatically carry a life ban though, as with everything context is important. Was it spur of the moment, was it immediate retaliation for something etc. Personally I’d start at 1 game minimum, with a 2nd offence (in career, not season) much more heavily penalised perhaps 4 games and then after that get into double figures.

However in this specific incident given the context and the fact this carried many of the hallmarks of being premeditated there is at least the case for arguing a life ban. It could be argued that it was intent to injure, and if a player is found guilty of that offence (or whatever the current equivalent is) then IMO bans should start at 1 year with a maximum of life. FWIW, I think there was genuine remorse but I’m not sure if that was for the act or the fallout experienced. I’ve always just about given him the benefit of the doubt on this, but I did think at the time he seemed to feel a bit sorry for himself. Maybe I’m being harsh, but I was always a huge Bertuzzi fan before this, he really disappointed me. In this case because of the buildup and the fact he was wound up by his coach, life would have been too much IMO. So, I’d have sat him the rest of the season, plus the whole of the following season. The coach? He gets the life ban for me, his alleged behaviour was significantly worse.

Things like sucker punches, cross checks to the head, slashes above the waist and so on are the offences the league should punish in draconian fashion. There is no excuse or justification for it, none. It is just reckless violence, not a genuine ‘hockey offence’.

 

[Statto]

Canucks were prime Stanley Cup Contenders in 2003 2004. They literally lost to the Stanley Cup Finalist Flames in OT of Game 7....without their starting goalie and their 2nd best player (maybe most impactful, especially in playoffs).

Canucks. Primed for cup and a piece of ****, no good fringe AHLer (Steve-o) takes a run at their top scorer/captain/art ross and hart candidate (Markus Naslund) and ****ing hurts him.

Next game.... who does he fight? A young Matt Cooke....not exactly known for fighting (he was known as an agitator). That game had been brutal all the way through. Multiple fights. Questionable plays. This all would have stopped Steve Moore manned the **** up and didnt take some little 5'10 dude out of a scrum.

What should've happned was Steve Moore should've met whoever the **** the Canucks wanted to send his way at centre ice and got his god damn bell rung in a fight. Then he should've went to the room and not played another shift in the game. This ALL could've been avoided. The players wouldve settled down and the game wouldve ended (it was a blowout).

Not saying what Bertuzzi did was right. It wasnt. It never will be. But up until that exact moment everyone tuning into that game was thinking the same thing, "**** steve moore". If only Moore hadve turned around and dropped the mitts. If only 10 players didnt pile on top of him afterwards. If only Bert had've known the potentially catastrophic consequences for himself, his team, and Steve Moore's personal well-being.

It sucks what happened to Moore... and it sucks that the Canucks lost the chance to make a playoff run with what was (imo) the best team they ever had. And it sucked how this game put a black mark on Todd, the Canucks, and even the league as a whole to an extent.


But should Todd have been banned for life? **** no.

Sorry, but Moore isn’t responsible for the choices the Canucks players made. That’s on them.

 

[lowol]

What Todd Bertuzzi did that night was beyond reasonable doubt a premeditated attack that has nothing to do with the game of hockey itself. That is sufficient for me. I don't care about the hypothetical effect of the pile-up on the injury, Moore's initial hit, whether he should have fought a second time in that game, or the rest of Bertuzzi's history.

He should have been banned for life, and I would attest he should have been charged on criminal grounds.

 

[Voight]

McSorely smashed his stick across Brashear's head and was not banned for life, so no

Milbury went into the stands and beat a guy with his own shoes..... proceeded to play and them be a GM (maybe for the Islanders franchise it would have been better that Milbury was banned for life )

 

[ZiggyP]

Sorry, but Moore isn’t responsible for the choices the Canucks players made. That’s on them.

Using that logic it then seems that Bertuzzi isnt responsible for the Avs players piling on top of him, ultimately worsening Moore's injury.