DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
shrmn8rpoptart said:alright, regardless of whether he tackled him, he also continued at it after they had already hit the ice. the intent was to injure, and he did just that, plain and simple.
and has been stated, the naslund incident was a result of a collison that occured as part of the play, and partly because naslund had his head down.
i also find this to be worse than the mcsorley-brashear incident, based on these grounds: that was something that was not planned before the game, or even right up until it happened, it was a spur of the moment deal. i am not defending marty, but is was not really premeditated. however, the canucks had already gone public in stating this as there goal, and as tony granato pointed out, someone on the canucks side of the ice called for this. a viscious premeditated attack is what this was.
"I hardly call this life-threatening." so if a fractured neck is not considered life threatening, i would like to know what you would consider as life threatening.
as far as the punnishment for bertuzzi, i agree with wilbon on pti, suspend him for two years at least. a statement needs to be made that this is NOT what hockey is about.
What I consider life-threatening is not relevant here. For the record, I don't think a slight fracture with no damage to the spinal cord life-threatening. That is similar to a broken arm. Were the spinal cord damaged, yes that would be a big problem.
And as for a 2-year suspension...that's not remotely close to necessary. Players all know that what Todd Bertuzzi did was wrong and should never be repeated.
Chances are they won't be playing for a year or two anyways. There will almost certainly not be a season next year...
Make no mistake; I'm not defending what Bertuzzi did. However I think any suspension over the remainder of the season is excessive and unnecessary.
Well, you do it to everyone in this forum whenever you post. What was it you said to me--don't give it if you can't take it? I believe the same applies.
I apologize if I caused offense, but let your knowledge, and not your resume speak for itself. We have alot of knowledgeable hockey fans here--Cujo, Griffiths, Zoney, Edgeman, Angel--and they never manage to offend anyone. There's a reason for that.
Yes, and I was wrong for making a generalization and I apologized. I, however, did not insult your intelligence or your lifestyle/hobbies. What you said to me is tantamount to saying to an artist who's passion is painting, something they have done all their lives fervently, and telling them they know nothing of art.
I can take generalizations and stereotypes. What I do NOT tolerate is personal attacks, and I never meant to hurt anyone, and I apologised for my error. You however (who claim that you are not taking this personally), decided to attack my character, which was uncalled for.
And as to letting my "knowledge, not my resume" speak for itself, I believe my "resume" gives me said knowledge and is therefore relevant. The fact that I've been playing and refereeing does not automatically mean I am out to offend, as you suggest. That is never my purpose.
But I will fight back if provoked, as I'm sure every single person you named would as well.