Rec-league player cross-checked from behind. Cross-checker suspended 30-days, player assaulted banned from arena for life.

[Half 2]

Saw this posted on Reddit so thought I would share it. http://cbs13.com/video/?id=76840

[Cattman 0]

I wonder what the dude did before to get hit like that. It kind of looks like the guy in the gold jersey elbowed the guy in white as the whistle was blowing. I'm sure that neither one of them was totally innocent!

[Barts66 0]

Saw this posted on Reddit so thought I would share it. http://cbs13.com/video/?id=76840

How sad. The guy that got hit shouldn't be kicked out. He didn't do anything. The guy that gave the hit should be kicked out. As for criminal charges, thats stupid. Unless the guy tried to kill the guy by stepping on his neck with his skate, then its just part of the game and everybody loses their cool. The guy should still be punished by the leauge though by his actions. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

[flyers10 57]

What a dumbass the rink owner is. He said he banned the victim from the rink because the criminal assault charge brings bad publicity to his rink. Too late now buddy....their local news and now the internet made the rink owner look like a big a-hole. As for filing criminal charge; stuff like that isn't part of hockey. You do that on the street to somebody and your getting charged. Bertuzzi got criminally charged for his actions.

[IniNew 53]

With the nature of rec league games, there is very seldom some one who flies off the handle like that without being antagonized. I believe the rink owner should ban both players if there are charges filed, until the investigation is over. The way the rink owner worded the ban is very poor, but they both should be.

[iceNsteel 0]

I don't know the history here, but it sounds like a wise policy if you want to discourage people from calling the cops every time someone pushes someone else after the whistle. The last season I played beer league there was a team of lawyers in the novice division that brought a cell phone to the bench for the expressed purpose of calling the police. I can certainly see why, if I were a league manager, it could cause a lot of headaches when players get the cops involved in what happens on the ice. He certainly has a right to call the police and press charges, but the league manager is also within his rights to exclude him from the league. I would also like to know what happened prior to that hit. As others have said, I just don't see something like that happening unprovoked in beer league.

[raganblink 82]

Assault things with ur stick, like this incident, baseball bat swinging, and sucker punching is technically assault. The guy who got hit should have filed, and the guy who hit him should be punished legally.

I've been hit exactly the same way... guy got banned for life and I didn't want to deal with charges.... that kind of shit isn't a hockey play at all, and anyone who says you can't charge me for a crime is wrong. That shit legally is a crime.

[iceNsteel 0]

Assault things with ur stick, like this incident, baseball bat swinging, and sucker punching is technically assault. The guy who got hit should have filed, and the guy who hit him should be punished legally.

I've been hit exactly the same way... guy got banned for life and I didn't want to deal with charges.... that kind of shit isn't a hockey play at all, and anyone who says you can't charge me for a crime is wrong. That shit legally is a crime.

Whether or not it's a crime is up to the police, the DA, and ultimately a jury. Sure, he has an absolute legal right to call the police. But if the league doesn't want to deal with people that call the police they have a right to refuse to allow him to play in their league.

[flyers10 57]

I bet the rink owner would be calling the police if someone took a stick to his head and then finished by driving him into the ice head first. Or maybe he'd just ban the guy assuming he didn't have brain damage. I hope no one robs the place either cause geez "don't want to call the cops" for the bad press. The rink owner sounds like he doesn't care a rats ass about any of his customers safety and making sure the bad ones aren't allowed in.

[shooter27 116]

I don't know the history here, but it sounds like a wise policy if you want to discourage people from calling the cops every time someone pushes someone else after the whistle. The last season I played beer league there was a team of lawyers in the novice division that brought a cell phone to the bench for the expressed purpose of calling the police. I can certainly see why, if I were a league manager, it could cause a lot of headaches when players get the cops involved in what happens on the ice. He certainly has a right to call the police and press charges, but the league manager is also within his rights to exclude him from the league. I would also like to know what happened prior to that hit. As others have said, I just don't see something like that happening unprovoked in beer league.

This isn't a case of someone simply pushing someone after the whistle. This is an extreme and unwarranted act that is clearly assault. I'm sure if there is video of the incident, there is video of the lead up so that will tell the story if something happened prior. However, provocation - no matter how severe, does not justify that attack because the guy clearly had time after any provocation to think and make a decision regarding his actions. This was not a heat of the moment incident where he was provoked and reacted instantly.

Regardless, not banning the perpetrator for life is really my biggest issue here. How can this guy possibly justify suspending the attacker for 30 days, but the victim for life? I just don't get how someone with any type of brain can come to that as the conclusion.

[gxc999 7]

That doesn't belong in the game, period. There was clearly intent to injure and it was completely after the whistle. To make matters worse, the attacker clearly had time to consider his actions due to the distance between the two players. Ban him for life. Let him spend 30 days in the cooler too.

[Chadd 916]

Assuming the ref wrote it up as a match, it's a 30 day suspension at a minimum.

[Hawkeye 0]

Assuming the ref wrote it up as a match, it's a 30 day suspension at a minimum.

We had something similar happen in our league. Player was suspended for 30 days and then kicked out after a hearing.

Sounds like the rink owner, and other rink directors, may want to have a rule for cases like this. If police are called both players are suspended pending review. If charges are filed player is gone from the league.

[weedsnager 0]

that guys lucky he he didnt break his neck....wow

[mhkehoe 1]

Wow, this is the ice rink by my house. I was expecting to see this somewhere else, then I recognized the new anchors. Honestly this rink doesn't have to worry about bad press, they are the only ice rink within 100 miles that is decent. I think the attacker should get a life long suspension, but I am totally okay with the rink manager choosing to ban the player who presses charges. The rink has a pretty clear waiver regarding on ice incidents when I played there, and I recall there being rules in place regarding legal action.

[hyprlte 0]

I think that the guy who crosscheck the player should be banned for life in that league. If your going to go after the guy, drop the mitts and face him like a man. He's just gutless

[DarkStar50 679]

As stupid as fighting in beer league hockey is, you are right. If you're so mad,drop the gloves first.

[shotty 7]

Wow, this is the ice rink by my house. I was expecting to see this somewhere else, then I recognized the new anchors. Honestly this rink doesn't have to worry about bad press, they are the only ice rink within 100 miles that is decent. I think the attacker should get a life long suspension, but I am totally okay with the rink manager choosing to ban the player who presses charges. The rink has a pretty clear waiver regarding on ice incidents when I played there, and I recall there being rules in place regarding legal action.

no contract is above the law. the rink may have it's patrons release the rink from any responsibility in the event of an altercation between two parties (ie the rink is not responsible for your safety), but ultimately, the law has the final say and you have the right to challenge any waiver or contract that may not be fair or legal.

case in point: the girl who died after being struck by a puck at an NHL game. all tickets have a release on them that essentially says "enter at your own risk" but if the building does little or nothing to protect you, they are ultimately responsible.

[iceNsteel 0]

Sure, he exercised his right to call the police and attempt to press charges. The rink exercised their right to exclude him from their property, so what's the problem here?

[rachael7 1]

Sure, he exercised his right to call the police and attempt to press charges. The rink exercised their right to exclude him from their property, so what's the problem here?

The problem is that even though everyone was within their rights and whatnot, the outcome still feels wrong to us non-lawyers since the fellow who got decked (and hence appears to be the victim) ended up being the one banned for life. It will all get worked out in the end.

[shooter27 116]

Wow, this is the ice rink by my house. I was expecting to see this somewhere else, then I recognized the new anchors. Honestly this rink doesn't have to worry about bad press, they are the only ice rink within 100 miles that is decent. I think the attacker should get a life long suspension, but I am totally okay with the rink manager choosing to ban the player who presses charges. The rink has a pretty clear waiver regarding on ice incidents when I played there, and I recall there being rules in place regarding legal action.

I would guess - and admittedly this is only a guess - that the waiver regarding legal action is meant to cover civil actions against the rink and/or the league, not criminal actions against another player. In the current scenario the rink isn't being faced with any liability (they may be if they guy decides to sue them though). The only person who is subject to legal action right now is the attacker.

[Chadd 916]

If the guy that did that to you was only suspended for 30 days, would you go back there? I wouldn't. The ban on me would be irrelevant.

[tareatingrat 4]

If the guy that did that to you was only suspended for 30 days, would you go back there? I wouldn't. The ban on me would be irrelevant.

Agreed.

But if someone were to pull that shit on me from behind, they'd better be damn sure they knocked me out. Because if I could get up after that, I'd earn a ban for sure.

The guy who threw that crosscheck is a cowardly piece of shit. Karma is going to be a bitch.

[zebra_steve 11]

Wow, this is the ice rink by my house. I was expecting to see this somewhere else, then I recognized the new anchors. Honestly this rink doesn't have to worry about bad press, they are the only ice rink within 100 miles that is decent. I think the attacker should get a life long suspension, but I am totally okay with the rink manager choosing to ban the player who presses charges. The rink has a pretty clear waiver regarding on ice incidents when I played there, and I recall there being rules in place regarding legal action.

So you're saying that a waiver absolves the rink and the participants from being responsible for the ramifications and results of a violent assault? What if that guy attacked the referee instead of an opposing player? There is no way you could come close to coloring that as part of the game... that's an assault, plain and simple, and we tell our officials to call the police and press charges if something like that happens to them. Just because it's player on player doesn't change much. Now if this were a league that was registered with USA hockey, or a Canadian equivalent the story might be a bit different - or not..... It really depends on how it's organized and run.

IMHO, That attack was just about as chicken-shit as you can get. Yes, It's a slippery slope binging the police into a situation that occurred on the ice but, IMHO, the precedent was set for acceptance of legal action in these egregious incidents after the high profile Bertuzzi attack, or prior to that Marty McSorley's slash to the head of Brashear. Those types of actions fall under and should be penalized as "deliberate intent to injure" or "deliberate injury"...... or in the case of the action directed towards a referee, a physical assault of a sports official. I can see having an issue with calling the police if an incident were something considered to be a routine part of the game that happens frequently and is dealt with regularly by the discipline committees of organized and registered leagues. But, a whole lot of adult hockey is barely more than organized pick-up hockey in place to make money for the rink.... solely in house and answerable to no one but the rink manager\owner. Like it or not - and waiver or not - that was an aggressive assault worthy of a match penalty and it has no good purpose in our game... would you consider it differently if te player had done this while walking to the locker room, in the lobby, or in the parking lot?

I don't know what the time line was on the incident, the issuing of suspensions, and the filing of charges.... It's possible that the police went to the hospital after getting reports that a person was attacked during a hockey game?? This could have been a PR bonus for the rink if the news announcement was "Player was attacked at end of adult rec hockey game. Victim taken to hospital and is pressing charges. Rink & league has issued a lifetime suspension to the offending player for his actions."

This is also a really good example of why I don't play much anymore.....

[mhkehoe 1]

So you're saying that a waiver absolves the rink and the participants from being responsible for the ramifications and results of a violent assault? What if that guy attacked the referee instead of an opposing player? There is no way you could come close to coloring that as part of the game... that's an assault, plain and simple, and we tell our officials to call the police and press charges if something like that happens to them. Just because it's player on player doesn't change much. Now if this were a league that was registered with USA hockey, or a Canadian equivalent the story might be a bit different - or not..... It really depends on how it's organized and run.

IMHO, That attack was just about as chicken-shit as you can get. Yes, It's a slippery slope binging the police into a situation that occurred on the ice but, IMHO, the precedent was set for acceptance of legal action in these egregious incidents after the high profile Bertuzzi attack, or prior to that Marty McSorley's slash to the head of Brashear. Those types of actions fall under and should be penalized as "deliberate intent to injure" or "deliberate injury"...... or in the case of the action directed towards a referee, a physical assault of a sports official. I can see having an issue with calling the police if an incident were something considered to be a routine part of the game that happens frequently and is dealt with regularly by the discipline committees of organized and registered leagues. But, a whole lot of adult hockey is barely more than organized pick-up hockey in place to make money for the rink.... solely in house and answerable to no one but the rink manager\owner. Like it or not - and waiver or not - that was an aggressive assault worthy of a match penalty and it has no good purpose in our game... would you consider it differently if te player had done this while walking to the locker room, in the lobby, or in the parking lot?

I don't know what the time line was on the incident, the issuing of suspensions, and the filing of charges.... It's possible that the police went to the hospital after getting reports that a person was attacked during a hockey game?? This could have been a PR bonus for the rink if the news announcement was "Player was attacked at end of adult rec hockey game. Victim taken to hospital and is pressing charges. Rink & league has issued a lifetime suspension to the offending player for his actions."

This is also a really good example of why I don't play much anymore.....

I am in no way condoning what the player did, but I am saying the rink is fully within their rights not to allow the victim to play either. If I ever go back to play ice hockey at that rink, I am going to make sure to either avoid the league that attacking player is in, or make sure he has been banned. The assaulting player is clearly over aggressive and trying to emulate what they have seen on TV against players not expecting it in a non-check league. I will be highly disappointed if I find out that player isn't banned from the rink as well.