The Chicoutimi Cucumber

It's like asking what are the odds the Bruins have class. Zero.

The Bruins are dangerous to the safety of our players because our players have humiliated them on an ongoing basis. It really, truly is a pathetic state of affairs. In hockey terms we simply own those f*ckers. So all they can do is, quite literally, try to physically injure us. Ironically, the best way to stop it would be to let the Bruins win a few! Ease their humiliation, then they'll start playing actual hockey. Unfortunately, the rest of the league and media don't follow the Habs/Bruins closely enough to understand the real dynamics here. To them, the Chara incident is just some stuff that happened to occur in a rivalry game. They're not looking for an explanation of the patterns Wamsley demonstrates. And therefore the league is systematically rewarding the Bruins for this kind of play. In any case, as others have said, there's no retaliation we can realistically bring to the table (except perhaps a knee on knee job on someone other than Chara). This is unfortunate; and it's one time where a hulking 7'0 goon, sent out with the sole purpose of smashing Chara's head in, would be a real asset for our franchise. But in today's NHL the only authentic deterrent is overall team size and toughness. We aren't built on that model. Our players simply have to keep their heads up, play hard, and win. We're kinda like the 1970s Soviets in that sense.

It IS a little surprising that Chara's absence of intent has been taken as gospel just because he has no track record. I mean, consider the circumstances: -a prior personal beef with the injured player, including previous unsatisfied attempts to go after him -a grudge match against a rival team that has your number in a humiliating way -the injured player publicly stating that he felt himself a target prior the game -the score conventiently out of reach, such that taking a penalty won't hurt the team These are all classic signs of intent to injure. At least three of these apply to the Bertuzzi atrocity, for instance. In any case, set all that aside. Chara's defenders are all consistent about one thing. They all assume that if you didn't intend to injure a guy, you shouldn't be suspended. I think they are well-meaning and sincere in this belief; they believe it to be an appropriate standard and, despite Wamsley's convincing counter-example, they believe it to be the established NHL standard. If this truly is your standard, then you can reasonably give Chara the benefit of the doubt given the uncertainty of proving intent for a player who is not known as a headhunter. It's the standard itself that's f*cked up. What astounds me is just how many of these 'experts' simply can't see that - and that's a direct contributor to the culture of disrespect that is guaranteed to kills someone one day.

One angle that came up on Vancouver radio today was the possibility that the league is worried about another Steve Moore-type legal situation. If they suspend Chara, then they open Chara up to a lawsuit by Patches in the event that Pacioretty is permanently damaged or his career compromised. If they declare it an 'unfortunate' hockey play, it makes the legal waters much murkier. It's an interesting thought. Anyway, we've been around and around this particular wagon wheel. The bottom line is that as long as INTENT is the key consideration, players will continue to practice dangerous plays, until someone is crippled for life or killed. Then they will get serious. Unless and until the NHL decides to focus on players' responsibility for their actions and the effects of those actions - a responsibility that all normal people bear in everyday life, and players bear in other areas of play, such as shooting the puck over the boards - it's guilty of criminal negligence in my book. As for revenge - I have to laugh. WHO on the Habs is going to succeed in injuring Chara even if they wanted to? It's like trying to injure a gorilla. The only revenge we will be able to enjoy is beating the Bruins on the scoreboard. (I confess, though, that IF a habs were to somehow drill a puck at 100mph into Chara's face, I would rather enjoy hearing them argue that 'it was a hockey play' and an 'unfortunate incident.' Oh well).

Look, I thought he was dead. I really did. So in some sense this is good news. Whether he will ever be the same player is another question - a very good question, but tangential to the main issue, which is a young man's basic mental and physical well being. What haunts me most is the close-up filming of his peaceful, almost angelic face as he lay unconscious. You realized just how young he is - really just a kid starting his life. Absolutely horrific. There's a discussion to be had about what this means for the Habs in hockey terms - both for this season, as we have lost a very important player for the playoffs (our only legitimate scoring power forward), and for the future, as he was emerging as an obvious piece of our core for years to come and now may never be the same. That discussion, however, is for another day. For now, it's all about Mr. Pacioretty and his family.

It boils down to whether you think intent is the key variable or not. Looking at the slow-motion replay, it really does appear to be a deliberate act, but Wamsley is right that guessing at intention - unless you're a repeat offender with a history of such 'unfortunate incidents,' in which case intention can be inferred - is a mug's game. If you think 'intent' is indeed the key variable then you will give Chara the benefit of the doubt. This is the position of almost all the official commentators outside Montreal, including sober people like Ray Ferraro and Bob McKenzie. And I agree with them that IF intention is the key consideration, Chara should get only a modest suspension. However, I completely disagree with that principle. My view is that the entire philosophy that stresses intent rather than the action as such and its effects is responsible for the life-threatening proliferation of head-shots and dirty plays in the NHL. The appropriate philosophy is one that says that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS ON THE ICE, in precisely the same way that you are responsible for shooting the puck over the glass or high-sticking a guy and drawing blood. If I run a stop sign, without any intention to hit anybody, but I inadvertently end up running down a pedestrian, nobody gives a sh*t that I didn't mean to do it. I pay the price. Until the same principle becomes the guiding principle of NHL discipline, the brutality will not end. And any of these commentators who simultaneously bemoan the 'lack of respect,' AND who advocate an intentionality-based system of discipline, are contradicting themselves in my book. The latter creates the conditions in which the former can flourish.

100%. What will happen is that one of the days a young man will get killed in front of 20 000 people by exactly such an 'unfortunate event.' And his life will indirectly be on the hands of all those smug old-boys-network bastards who have done nothing in the past and will do nothing now. All i can say is, thank God it wasn't Patches.

Yeah; and the lesson is, if you want to kill a guy, be discreet in expressing your intention to do so. Then the NHL will give you a twinkie instead of suspending you appropriately. The question should be: were you responsible for this very dangerous play that led to grave injury? Then have fun golfing, chump, 'cause you're gone.

Not one bit. But you're absolutely right: the NHL and its drooling commentariat will continue to dance along to the tune of 'intent' and 'accident' and 'unfortunate incident' until finally, someone winds up either dead or paraplegic.

I'd like to agree, but Wamsley's right, it probably won't stand up in court. My concern is more that the NHL will use the perceived ambiguity around Chara's intentions ('did he "merely" intend to hurt Pacioretty, or to kill him?') as a rationale for only minor disciplinary action. Wansley's words are gold here: HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULT. And he should be held accountable. You shouldn't need mind readers in order to have justice.

Bingo. Sorry to keep posting, I am truly upset about this, on a human level as much as anything.

I don't know what he was thinking. What I know is that he is responsible for his actions - or would be if the NHL were not run by a bunch of smug, pious accomplices to brutality. This.

It's the same thing every time someone's life is nearly destroyed: the old guard stands up and makes excuses and apologetics. Anything except demand that players take responsibility. The ONLY time this doesn't happen is when the player committing the act is a notorious and universally loathed cheap-shot artist like Cooke. In short, if they hate you, then they want to see you suspended. Otherwise, it's all just some 'unfortunate' stuff that happens. Scumbags. EDIT: Wamsley, I'm glad you agree since I respect your opinion so highly. WE have to take responsibility for our actions in our lives, when we destroy others. It should be no different for hockey players. Intent is irrelevant, or at best marginally relevant: it's the deed itself that counts.

See, one of the basic problems with the NHL and dangerous plays is the whole notion that if it was unintentional, then it's somehow OK. Chara didn't MEAN to almost kill Pacioretty. What's his name didn't MEAN to hit Crosby's head. Blah blah blah blah. Who gives a sh*t what he 'meant' to do? If I run you over with my car unintentionally, I am still legally liable for the damage I do. I love how a league that makes a point of totally discounting player intent when it comes to delay of game penalties (shooting the puck over the boards! Ooooooo!) or high sticking drawing blood, suddenly makes all these pious noises about how 'so and so didn't REALLY mean it' when it comes to life-threatening, career-jeopardizing acts of savage brutality. THE PLAYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. PERIOD. In my book, CHARA IS SUSPENDED FOR THE SEASON AND THE MOTHERFU**ING PLAYOFFS. Either that, or he is suspended for as long as Pacioretty is injured. Like my earlier idea of docking a team two points in these circumstances, such measures would put a stop to this tripe real quick. (Lest I be accused of having lost perspective because I'm a Habs fan, I've said repearedly that I'm appalled by these proliferating attempts to injure. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back). Finally - Bertuzzi is an ape who should have been suspended for the length of time that his actions prevented Steve Moore from playing (i.e., forever). Moore's hit was unacceptable, but not on the scale of the retaliation, or the horror we witnessed tonight.

Yeah, I've been following that whole issue. And that's mostly why I'm so upset about this. These concussions can compromise a person's entire life. Forget hockey. We're talking about people who cannot think clearly or function normally for the rest of their lives. Hell, the Vancouver Sun just had an article on Steve Moore, who has suffered permanent brain damage from Bertuzzi's assault. On a gut level I cannot understand how an informed hockey player could choose to do that to someone else.

Well, on some level I just don't understand it. Chippy play, even dirty play, these are one thing. Attempted murder is another. If the Bruins players are not in shock at what they just saw, then they are not emotionally normal human beings.

You called it. I knew that Patches and Subban were too good to be true - it was only a matter of time before one (or both) faced a catastrophic injury. Lo and behold.

Honestly, I'm surprised the Bruins don't have the simple human decency to mail in the third period and go home. They're not going to win, a young man's career and life may have been radically altered for the worst tonight - for God's sake, show an ounce of class.

It's not just this hit, it's the recurring pattern of vicious, career- and life-jeopardizing hits that has marked the NHL over the last while. It is unbelievable to me that a teammate who has seen up close what happened to Marc Savard - whose career is over and whose entire life may now be compromised by a savage cheap-shot - would willfully do the same thing on another player. This is a league where Sidney Crosby, the greatest player of his generation, can be, potentially, permanently damaged by thugs, with absolutely zero consequences. Someone will die if this doesn't change. It is, simply, sick.

I feel sick to my stomach. Pacioretty is lucky to be alive. Thank GOD he is not paralyzed. Chara will maybe get a slap on the wrist. The ######ing monkeys in the NHL head office probably feel that this is 'just' retaliation for Patches' shove of Chara after scoring a few games ago. You know what would stop this? If the team whose player was found guilty of deliberately injuring another player were to forfeit the points from the game - or better, forfeit two points the team already holds in the standings. They do that, BAM! This lunacy ends. This is the first time in my life I feel like not even following hockey any more.

I went with 1 on the theory that Moen or Pyatt or whoever will give it a go, but I agree with the logic above. If the Habs are smart they will play THEIR game, not Boston's: shut 'em down with ace goaltending and their patented 'bend-don't-break' defence, skate 'em into dust, pump a few in at the other end and restore the Prunes to their natural state: whining losers.

Crying about diving is just gamesmanship, but how do we know that Marchand isn't right on the other issues? - i.e., that the Habs are mouthy and prone to cheap shots? I remember reading a quote somewhere in the press regarding Plekanec, where an anonymous opposition player mentioned something to the effect that he was always full of welts and carved up after playing Pleks. That wasn't public trash-talking, and it surprised me, because I never thought of him as a stickwork guy. (Maybe I just don't pay enough attention to that when our guys are delivering it). The Flyers also commented on our mouthiness in the playoffs last year. In short, I doubt that our boys are exactly saints out there.

Wamsley and I had a few posts about this in the thread from the Florida game. Basically, there are 4-5 bona fide contenders this year - Vancouver, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, and *maybe* if we want to stretch it, San Jose. Pittsburgh is out because of their injuries, and Washington needs an army of therapists. That is an unusually thin pool. The question we should consider as Habs fans is not whether we can beat Philly (we can't) or Boston (we can), but whether we have as good a chance as anyone of going to the Finals should Boston and Philadelphia falter. And as I said in the other thread, we can certainly beat any of the other five playoff teams if we bring our 'A' game and have no further key injuries. Of course it'll be a dogfight, but I'm happy with our club in a 7-game series against anyone in the Conference except Philly and maybe Boston. It's harder to imagine how the Finals would play out - I can't even think that far ahead. But obviously we'd be a longshot to beat savvy Detroit, skilled Vancouver, or hulking San Jose (I think we stand the best chance against the Canucks). Heck, Nashville would be a horrible matchup for us because of the nature of their system and team. LA might be a good matchup, by contrast, because they're so young; our wily veterans could take it to them. In any case, the pessimists are right to say that we are not in the same class as those 4-5 top teams. They are wrong to assume that means we can't go the distance, first because upsets happen all the time in the playoffs, and second, because far fewer upsets will be necessary this season than in most years because of parity. Cautious optimism is the appropriate attitude.

We were completely owned in the 3rd period - rather worse than in the usual 'Habs-hold-on-to-a-lead' situation - which I'm sure the Lightning will point to as evidence that this was a flawed 'statement' on our part. However, when you consider that we were likely tired from the road trip, I wouldn't read too much into either the shot total or the doings in the third. This WAS a statement by les boys. You have to like the way this team is starting to get its game in order as the playoffs loom. Hell, even Gomer Pyle played well last night. Now - no further injuries please!!

Yeah, a rectal thermometer If it's true that when AK46 is hot, the Habs are hot, the most likely explanation is that he is a huge missing piece of our puzzle: a legitimate top-6 scoring forward with a physical edge. I prefer to think that a hot AK46 illustrates what it would mean to add a player like that to our roster. Sadly, he only plays like that for 15-20 games per year and I see no reason to believe that this will change. Enjoy his hot streak while it lasts. If it carries over into the playoffs, then I'll start to get excited.