The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Only in Conservative la-la land does this become an issue about left-wing nuts and the CBC. Can we get a grip, please?

I e-mailed my letter to Air Canada's media relations people: media@aircanada.ca. Unfortunately their website does not seem to contain a general e-address, so hopefully this is an appropriate venue. Johnny, your idea of pressuring Tim Horton's is excellent. I just sent them an e-mail reinforcing your message. If they don't respond, we should consider organizing a boycott.

Ha ha, no; the Bruins aren't going to bother assaulting a bunch of Bulldogs, surely. That's not the team they hate. The point is that we will have withdrawn from the whole mess on the grounds that it is ridiculous. If the NHL isn't going to be a real league, why should we give them a real hockey game?

Here's what I just e-mailed to Air Canada. I encourage everyone to do likewise. According to media reports, your company is threatening to withdraw its sponsorship of the NHL unless the league takes immediate action regarding irresponsible hits to the head of the kind we witnessed in Montreal on March 8. I strongly commend Air Canada's courageous and principled stand in defence of the integrity of our national game and the fundamental safety of NHL players. This is an absolutely outstanding example of corporate leadership. My family and I wish to thank you for this and urge you to stand by this position.

Impressive that Patches sounds so lucid and seems to be thinking entirely clearly about the event. I don't know anything about the mechanics of concussions, but at face value that sounds promising.

You know what would be a good idea for that game? Sit all your key players. Dress a Bulldogs lineup. The message: this league doesn't protect its players, we're going to protect them by throwing this game. Have fun beating up AHLers. See ya.

Knee job, anyone?

You're absolutely right, including questioning your support for the NHL. More than once over the last two days, I've found myself asking, for the first time in my life, why I watch a sport knowing that, thanks to the sheer negligence of the NHL and the idiot commentators who have bought into the 'intentionality' argument, it is almost 100% guaranteed that I will, sooner or later, see a young man permanently crippled or else die a needless and preventable death on the ice. Why would I want to watch (let alone support) that?

100%. Why *wouldn't* they keep doing it? They obviously don't care about the risks of killing or crippling their fellow players. Every habs guy who goes down improves their chances of actually managing to beat us. That the Habs' players are reportedly very, very angry about the non-suspension is also worrisome. There is a terribly high possibility of a Steve Moore-type incident happening with us as the bad guys. Not to Chara, but to some other Bruin who does something questionable during the game - any Bruin, in short, who could serve as a vehicle for expressing that rage. And while I strongly feel that intention should be irrelevant to disciplinary action, anyone who thinks that Chara's intentions were lily-white could do well to read this: http://nhl-red-light.si.com/2011/03/09/charas-hit-calls-his-character-into-question/

This league was quite happy to see its single greatest marquee player (Crosby) be gravely damaged on an-only-slightly-less-irresponsible play, without suspension. So honestly, I think the issue is more an 'innocent until proven guilty' philosophy. Remember, what you need to be found guilty of is not reckless behaviour or irresponsibly causing grave bodily harm, but rather the deliberate intent to inflict that harm. Pacioretty no more knows what was in Chara's head than we do so I'm not sure why his testimony would make a difference. I keep saying it: it's the philosophy of what constitutes guilt that is completely screwed up. All the other insanity flows from that.

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.