Bertuzzi sues Crawford

[danielb 0]

Former Vancouver Canucks coach Marc Crawford has been dragged into a multi-million dollar lawsuit over NHL forward Todd Bertuzzi's infamous sucker punch on Steve Moore.

Moore originally file the suit against Bertuzzi and courts documents show the former NHL player has now consented to name Crawford in the suit as well.

Bertuzzi sought to have Crawford included in the suit based on the claim that his NHL contract compelled him take direction from his coach.

from Globe Sports

Any interesting twist on an old story, does this mean that Moore is expected to win his current suit if Bertuzzi is trying to pass the blame to his coach? I can't think of a reason for Bertuzzi to do this unless he thinks he could lose and end up liable?

Thoughts? It seems to me a poor excuse by Bertuzzi, personally coming from a law enforcement background there is no contract (in UK law anyway) that can compel someone to commit an illegal act like Bertuzzi's attack on Moore, however that doesn't mean I don't think that some of the blame should be placed on Crawford for recklessly goading his players to attack Moore.

[15yearsofhistory 0]

Moore deserves to win this case hands-down. Bertuzzi is just acting like a girl because he knows he'll lose so he's trying to find someone else to pass the blame to. Personally, how can another man's words convince you to commit such an act? It just doesn't make sense.

[TBLfan 25]

It's a very grey area, even moreso than an attack in sports, especially one like hockey.

[chippa13 1844]

I have to see how the Canucks board is reacting to this one.

It is a very interesting development but I don't think it will work. It would be one thing if this were a 15 year old kid but not a grown man.

[Chadd 916]

Moved to NHL

[danielb 0]

I have to see how the Canucks board is reacting to this one.

I'd imagine they are worried, as wasn't Crawford technically a representative for the board/owners? So if the blame game continues it could continue up the food chain to the board and/or owners potentially?

[chippa13 1844]

I was saying it more because they were killing Moore for his lawsuit and vehemently defending Bertuzzi. I wanted to see how much they changed their tune.

[ponty 0]

Not that we needed more evidences but this just shows, EVEN MORE, what pukes Crawford and Bert are. Glad the Canucks finally cleaned house of all the idiots they use to have.

Geeze Bert with a bulbus head of that size I would think your brain would be big enough to make your own decisions.

[gxc999 7]

I'm not sure about Canadian law, but this sounds like a pretty standard cross-claim in American law. It's very routine in civil suits actually. Yes, both defendants sound like a-holes, but we've yet to hear the whole story. Maybe Crawford just said something generic like knock him out of the game, which could've meant anything. We'll find out soon!

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Where does that put Bertuzzi now?

Crawford is now with the kings. The ducks play the kings on the 5th.

Are there any legal restrictions that would prevent bertuzzi from playing.

It's of no consequence obviously as they are already playoff bound, just interested in the legal aspects and the effect it might have on the ice

[TBLfan 25]

Take out the emotional feeling of knowing that Moore is paralized.

It happens at least a couple dozen times over the course of a season. Coaches send a player out to send a message. ...Plenty of guys do it dirty and some will attack from behind. The end result isnt as important as the crime.

Take how Crosby got injured, Paul Ranger knocked him off his feet. It was clean, if anything maybe a hold. He misses a lot of games. Should Ranger be suspended? No. Chris Simon puts a two hand slash across Hollweg's head, I dont believe Hollweg missed a game(someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Should Simon have gotten suspended, YES. It's the intent and severity of the crime, not the aftermath.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

It's the intent and severity of the crime, not the aftermath.

In a civil case, it is all about the aftermath. This is now about a plaintiff seeking remedy, not the system penalizing the offender.

As for penalties and suspensions, I think you have to consider the aftermath. If I try to lay an illegal check or cross-check on someone, but miss completely (intent but no aftermath), should I be penalized ? If my stick accidentally gets up on you and draws blood (no intent but aftermath), should I go unpenalized ?

[chippa13 1844]

Tell me we're not going to rehash the Bertuzzi-Moore incident again.

[Chadd 916]

Tell me we're not going to rehash the Bertuzzi-Moore incident again.

I'm not going to tolerate a 100th topic on that.

[danielb 0]

The end result isnt as important as the crime.

Yet the difference between allot of criminal charges in most legal systems is the end result for example if X attacks Y in a bar (assuming UK law as I'm more familiar with it):

• And no injuries are inflicted it would be breach of the peace although an assault charge could be used for any physical encounter e.g. pushing.
  
• If X inflicts minor injuries to Y it is assault.
  
• Major injuries to Y would also be assault plus grievous bodily harm.
  
• If X uses anything that could be consider a weapon add assault with a weapon.
  
• Accidental death of Y (e.g. Y falls in a fight) is manslaughter.
  
• Deliberate death of Y (e.g. X stabs Y) is murder.
  

[TBLfan 25]

Intent is a driving force, theres a reason why theres manslaughter, first degree murder and second degree murder. All of these are criminal offenses for murder.

NuggyBuggy, with civil cases it all depends on the judge/jury. It's one big grey area.

[jcp2 2]

Intent is a driving force, theres a reason why theres manslaughter, first degree murder and second degree murder. All of these are criminal offenses for murder.

I think you mean homicide.

[houk 0]

Bertuzzi should just man up and pay the consequences.

[TBLfan 25]

Intent is a driving force, theres a reason why theres manslaughter, first degree murder and second degree murder. All of these are criminal offenses for murder.

I think you mean homicide.

touche. Thanks.