smon Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Look, I'm not taking anything away from Cam Neely. Probably the greatest power forward we've seen in recent history. But that's the thing -- Steve Moore wasn't a power forward or an enforcer. Comparing him and Steve Moore? Obviously Cam was more of a fighter than he is because they're different types of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I've had it on my computer since it happened, 3 times atleast. I'm watching it right now. You're blind if you say otherwise. Was your life's dream ripped out of your hands when you got sucker punched in some bar? Nope. Did your neck break when he smashed it into the ground? No. That point is mind-numbingly stupid. Thinking at the most here, he had a 8-10 year career going at 1-15 mil a year. While his current 22 mil lawsuit is completely stupid, he is entitled somewhere in the range of 10 mil. And Moore. Is Not. A Fighter. The fact he fought Cooke amazes me. I'll repeat that. Moore. Is Not. A Fighter The Detroit/Colorado incident is completely different, it's pointless to bring that up. ok he is not a fighter exactly what was he good at? I've looked at his stats and I see a guy who was marginal at best. I am not sure he would have stayed in the nhl all that long. He really looks like a mostly ahl career player. If there has to be settlement I think 1-2 million is plenty and mom and dad can go whistle. I think their involvement is ludicrous. Nobody better beat me up cause my mom will sue you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 (edited) Look, I'm not taking anything away from Cam Neely. Probably the greatest power forward we've seen in recent history. But that's the thing -- Steve Moore wasn't a power forward or an enforcer. Comparing him and Steve Moore? Obviously Cam was more of a fighter than he is because they're different types of players. The point isn't that Neeley was a power forward, the point is Samuelson ended his career with an intentional knee to knee, that he was know to use to cause injuries before and after that incident. It was blatent intent to injure, not to start a fight, and although it ended cam's career he didn't take it to court. Back to the Claude vs Kris Draper incident. He ran Draper into the boards in a premeditated fashion, then laughed about it. Seventy-six stitches later, Draper stopped bleeding. And no Draper wasn't a fighter. Intent to injure in both cases was more than evident, no lawsuits. Intent should be the main thing looked at here, not the outcome. The guy who suckered me had intent to injure. Outcome is a moot point, it is the intent that matters. smon, I don't want to continue on this, but the point is that intent to injure in the NHL has never, until the recent couple of years, been settled in court. This game has always had its dirty side, it is part of the game, like it or not. If we turn it into a gentlemen's league it will be a sad ending to a great sport. Now let's take a hypothetical question. Let's say somebody, I don't know a non fighter like Moore, (can't think of one of hand, all players I know will drop the gloves when push comes to shove) wastop lay Koivu out by going out of his way to elbow him to the head. Should Gainey not tap Murray on th e shoulder and say go? If not, why are teams still allowed to carry goons? Maybe they should be banned? If you can't skate,stickhandle and shout, why are you there? Moore's shot in the game before he "incident" was dirty and intentional. If he didn't want to fight, the AVs should have left him home, sent him to the minors, anything but bring him to the rink where he knew he would have to fight. So I guess it is Crawfords fault for playing him? We all knew it was coming, the media even had it built up, it was going to be settled, payback time. Hockey is full of rendettas, it is a part of the game. As a Canadian, I have a real hard time with the American way of thinking in regards to lawsuit. If somebody's kid breaks their arm on your kids swingset you get sued. Absolute bull. No wonder insurance rates are so high. Stop tieing the courts up with this sort of crap. It happened on the ice, why hasn't anyone from the Avs stood up to Bertuzzi and settled this? Because they are afraid of the legal outcome. This is so stupid. Edited February 19, 2006 by johnnyhasbeen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 although im not crazy about the theory in general, when it comes to hockey i think we need to talk about assumption of risk. People get injured playing or practicing for professional hockey all the time (note our scratch list this season) and they dont sue. Why? Because stepping onto a pro game is an assumption of risk that you might be injured playing hockey. There is no negligence, it is expected. It is even reasonable to expect that you might get injured in a fight while you are on your skates. This does not mean all injuries are covered by this risk assumption. Obviously if Player A takes out a gun and shoots player B, player A is not protect by risk assumption. If PlayerA jumps PlayerB after the game, no protection. If PlayerA starts repeatedly spearing PlayerB after the whistle, no protection. Now, there is obviously a line where a potential tort-feasor's protection begins and ends, now we have to draw the line. Everybody, every judge, every jury is going to want to set that line a little differently. I would personally phrase the rule of line-drawing as 'injured in the playing of hockey'. Intentional knee on knee hit? Well its pretty gross, but knee-on-knee hits happen in hockey and a player expects that at any given time it might happen. Does the intentionality change the quality of the act - is it no longer hockey? Reasonable minds can disagree. Now let us say a player chases another player around the ice, punches him in the back of the head and tackles him to the ground? Is that hockey? Should a player ever expect to be injured/attacked in such a manner? I just don't see a way you can say yes. Therefore no protection for the attacker. As much as people might be against the current litigious american nature, trust that you do not want to go back to the 'good-old' days when the tort system was designed to screw the common man and the working man. Back when it was virtually impossible for an employee to win a tort against his employer? Back when a trolley company could lay live wires within reach of children with impunity? No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 although im not crazy about the theory in general, when it comes to hockey i think we need to talk about assumption of risk. People get injured playing or practicing for professional hockey all the time (note our scratch list this season) and they dont sue. Why? Because stepping onto a pro game is an assumption of risk that you might be injured playing hockey. There is no negligence, it is expected. It is even reasonable to expect that you might get injured in a fight while you are on your skates. This does not mean all injuries are covered by this risk assumption. Obviously if Player A takes out a gun and shoots player B, player A is not protect by risk assumption. If PlayerA jumps PlayerB after the game, no protection. If PlayerA starts repeatedly spearing PlayerB after the whistle, no protection. Now, there is obviously a line where a potential tort-feasor's protection begins and ends, now we have to draw the line. Everybody, every judge, every jury is going to want to set that line a little differently. I would personally phrase the rule of line-drawing as 'injured in the playing of hockey'. Intentional knee on knee hit? Well its pretty gross, but knee-on-knee hits happen in hockey and a player expects that at any given time it might happen. Does the intentionality change the quality of the act - is it no longer hockey? Reasonable minds can disagree. Now let us say a player chases another player around the ice, punches him in the back of the head and tackles him to the ground? Is that hockey? Should a player ever expect to be injured/attacked in such a manner? I just don't see a way you can say yes. Therefore no protection for the attacker. As much as people might be against the current litigious american nature, trust that you do not want to go back to the 'good-old' days when the tort system was designed to screw the common man and the working man. Back when it was virtually impossible for an employee to win a tort against his employer? Back when a trolley company could lay live wires within reach of children with impunity? No thanks. Touche !!! Great reply Thank you Should have left the last pat out though as that opens more room for arguement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 so..... after Cam Bar fights and Lawers out of the way! you all agree 10 Mil should be ok!? and if he starts playing next year? or doesnt play ever again could that amount change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) you're tapping in to the whole problem with restoration... lets say you get drunk and hit a guy walking down the street, let us imagine the man is a: Donald Trump b: A hobo under modern torts law you would pay like millions of dollars for hitting trump and maybe like 50,000 for hitting the hobo. Is the person who hits the hobo any less dangerous to society? Has that person committed an act we want to punish less? Next part of restoration: you want to take money away from moore if he comes back and plays? You want to de-incentivize his attempt at recovery? Better that he not get back on the ice then.... Edited February 20, 2006 by simonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Give it a rest, Moore is a cry baby. End of story. Fact he threw a dirty hit to start this. Fact he turtled from a fight. Fact he was at best a career 2nd liner. Also how the heck can they say his neck was broken before he hit the ice? Pile of BS. Give him the price of a coffe and send him on his way. You have no real idea what you are talking about do you? Wasn't a dirty hit, and he definitley didn't turtle.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 You have no real idea what you are talking about do you? Wasn't a dirty hit, and he definitley didn't turtle.... Huh?? He swerve 3 feet , raised his elbow and decked someone with it. Clean hit? What the hell are you a moron!! Moores hit in the previous game was as dirty as they get. So Shut your stupid mouth. It was a dirty hit and that is why the canucks were gunning for him. What do you call skating away from a fight? I call it turtling. Get a brain moron. I stand by my words. I am not saying Bertuzzi should have suckered him. I have never said that. So you want to challenge me? Yes, I know what i am talking about, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 OK! We do not call people morons here. We do not hurl insults at people. We do not go to war here. This forum is for reasoned discussion. Sure, we might be ridiculous, funny, or toungue-in-cheek, but we do not just hurl attacks at each other. Completely innapropriate. In a perfect world, the mod team would do nothing. We are all adults (or very mature teenagers) and should be able to police ourselves. Would you say these things to your friends in a face-to-face discussions? I hope not. Please, try to be diplomatic. This is not a perfect world. Thread Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts