Players Parents Wants Charges filled for on Ice Hit

[steelnation248 101]

Here's an interesting read. The hit looked clean to me but the parents want to press assault and battery charges on the kid who hit their son.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/mass-hockey-parents-want-teen-charged-criminal-assault-112319130.html

[Chadd 916]

Clean hit? I would have called it a match.

[technophile 0]

It was definitely late. He didn't really jump, although his hands did get a little high on the followthrough. I have no idea how much is tolerated in prep school in terms of hitting, but that should at least be a penalized hit. I dunno about a match, but I'm not a ref.

I don't think the charges will go anywhere though. "If this [check] was off the rink, on a public way, that is gross, negligent assault and battery" is just irrelevant nonsense; we tolerate a lot of things in sports that aren't legitimate in other contexts. If someone comes up to me on the street and whacks me across the legs with a hockey stick you could make an argument that it's a crime; in a game it's two minutes maybe. I'd be surprised if it actually makes it before a judge.

[steelnation248 101]

I meant clean as in no charge, elbow to the head, etc... Like techno said, it looked like his hands came up but it looked like a follow through. The video isn't the best so I can't be certain.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

It's late. Not by much. 2 min. for charging if the official felt so. If the recipient was injured then the official could assess a 5 min. + a game. It isn't a match penalty. An official's reasoning for giving a match in this situation would be either 'Attempt to Injury an Opponent' (602 {a}) or 'Head Contact' (620 {c}) per USA Hockey Rule/Case Book. I don't see anything that would call for a match penalty. Nor do I see any reason for the parents to press charges. This is like when the police start investigating the Chara hit on Pacioretty. The parents have a right to be upset but taking legal actions for just the hit alone seems unreasonable.

[bigdmac 12]

Hit was late, that's about it. BroadStBullies pretty much summed everything up, I guess 5 + a game would probably do its justice becuase the kid seemed to be hurt. Taking legal action is ridiculous, the parents have to let their kid grow up a little bit, its hockey and it happens. Wouldn't hold up in court anyways.

[iceNsteel 0]

The hit was late enough to be called, due to the injury I suppose a major plus a game would suit the situation.

Hockey, football, rugby, and so on are contact sports and hard contact is a part of what you agree to if you play the game. The idea this should go to court is truly a poor reflection on where we've gone as a society. If I were the athletic director, or with the league, the kid and his parents would quickly banned from any sporting activity. Hate to be the kid that gives him a check during a lacrosse match mommy and daddy deem too hard. No athlete should have to play in an environment where an opposing player's parents bring criminal charges for an infraction of a game's rules.

[wrangler 157]

The hit was late enough to be called, due to the injury I suppose a major plus a game would suit the situation.

Hockey, football, rugby, and so on are contact sports and hard contact is a part of what you agree to if you play the game. The idea this should go to court is truly a poor reflection on where we've gone as a society. If I were the athletic director, or with the league, the kid and his parents would quickly banned from any sporting activity. Hate to be the kid that gives him a check during a lacrosse match mommy and daddy deem too hard. No athlete should have to play in an environment where an opposing player's parents bring criminal charges for an infraction of a game's rules.

A bit too sweeping a generalization. There's a line that can't be crossed, even in a hockey game. Extreme example -- player lying on the ice, another player skates up casually, stops, and deliberately cuts his throat with a skate. Undoubtedly criminal. That's just to illustrate that the line exists. That's why we have to deal with the question of where the line is, and what crosses it. And that's how we arrived here.

In this case, the lawyer in the video has got it covered. Any rule violation that occurred is subject to penalty, and that's it.

I expect the parents to fail in their attempt to secure criminal charges. I'm curious whether their next step will be to file a civil case for assault & battery. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the typical angry clients who demand their day in court, regardless of their attorney's advice that they will lose.

[iceNsteel 0]

A bit too sweeping a generalization. There's a line that can't be crossed, even in a hockey game. Extreme example -- player lying on the ice, another player skates up casually, stops, and deliberately cuts his throat with a skate. Undoubtedly criminal. That's just to illustrate that the line exists. That's why we have to deal with the question of where the line is, and what crosses it. And that's how we arrived here.

1.Could you possibly come up with a more asinine example?

2.I specifically noted violations of the rules of the game. At last I checked the rules of ice hockey, or any sport for that matter, do not cover murdering an opponent. Unless USA Hockey revived gladiatorial combat for the 2011-2012 season. Do we need to discuss other crimes not covered by the rules of ice hockey, say genocide or gang rape?

[Law Goalie 147]

1.Could you possibly come up with a more asinine example?

2.I specifically noted violations of the rules of the game. At last I checked the rules of ice hockey, or any sport for that matter, do not cover murdering an opponent. Unless USA Hockey revived gladiatorial combat for the 2011-2012 season. Do we need to discuss other crimes not covered by the rules of ice hockey, say genocide or gang rape?

He gave a perfectly sound (if extreme) example of how conduct within a sport can transcend the rules of the sport. He could just as easily have used McSorley on Brashear, or Ciccarelli on Richardson; Chara on Paccioretty was a little less cut-and-dried, the kind of questionable instance wrangler outlines.

I'd also perhaps suggest, as gently as possible, that genocide and gang rape would probably be considered suspension-worthy off-ice offenses under the player conduct regulations of any league.

Every person, athlete or not, living in a modern Western democracy operates in an environment in which criminal charges and civil suits can be brought at any time, given any even remotely apparent misconduct. You're not correctly conceiving of the way sports operate. A sport creates a semi-permeable bubble within the law, so to speak, inside of which things that might not be permissible in ordinary society become permissible: only when I step onto the ice, properly equipped, are you allowed to fire pucks at my head, or am I allowed to knock you down for standing in front of me and obstructing my view. However, everything we do on the ice is still happening within the law, and the law may intervene whenever the observable conduct within that bubble becomes impermissible.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

As iceNsteel has stated, you would have to deal with assault, murder being the extreme, for the parents to get involved legally. The rules don't cover the extreme examples brought up because committees go of the fact that we as humans have a moral compass. The hit was clean, technique-wise, and a tad late. That happens in hockey. It's a physical sport and, from what it seems, this is a rivalry game. Rivalries are ugly haha. That's why they are appealing.

[technophile 0]

I specifically noted violations of the rules of the game. At last I checked the rules of ice hockey, or any sport for that matter, do not cover murdering an opponent.

It would be Intent To Injure at the very least. And there have been cases where players have deliberately stepped on another player -- in that case it's merely the location (foot/leg/arm) that is different from this example.

You might also consider a slightly less "asinine" (in your words) example -- player is down and hurt, I skate over and two-hand tomahawk chop the player with my stick, multiple times.

Definitely against the rules (slashing, intent to injure), but also almost certainly worthy of criminal assault charges.

[Jason Harris 31]

"If this [check] was off the rink, on a public way, that is gross, negligent assault and battery" is just irrelevant nonsense;

The article was typically incomplete. On the video, there was a second, more important sentence, in which the attorney said participants in certain sports give consent to violence, so he referred to it as a consensual battery.

The video is not too clear, so I can't quite tell when the puck left the stick. It's possible the hit is about a half-second too late, but, other than that, I don't see anything in there that should even be a two-minute penalty. He seemed to hit shoulder to shoulder against a guy who was in the act of taking a shot ten feet from the goalie, although it appears he arrived just after the shot was taken.

[wrangler 157]

1.Could you possibly come up with a more asinine example?

2.I specifically noted violations of the rules of the game. At last I checked the rules of ice hockey, or any sport for that matter, do not cover murdering an opponent. Unless USA Hockey revived gladiatorial combat for the 2011-2012 season. Do we need to discuss other crimes not covered by the rules of ice hockey, say genocide or gang rape?

1. I stated that the example was extreme, just to show that the line exists, and that conduct on the ice is not totally exempt from the application of law. The use of extreme examples in argument to challenge or prove the validity of a generalization is a common and useful device. The example in this case was to show that there can exist at least one game situation where a crime can occur. The use of such an extreme example is to preclude, hopefully, all possible objections that the act is not a crime. Having established that a crime can occur, we move on to address what is and what is not a crime -- the "line" to which I referred. This is logical argument. Calling it "asinine" does not seem to be an effective response.

2. Yes, those examples would violate the rules -- roughing, at least.

EDIT:

The article was typically incomplete. On the video, there was a second, more important sentence, in which the attorney said participants in certain sports give consent to violence, so he referred to it as a consensual battery.

Yes. The issue here is the scope of that consent, and whether it included the act in question. As I remember from my limited reading, such consent normally extends to acts that are forseeable violations of the rules of a sport. Incidents such as McSorley/Brashear and Bertuzzi/Moore are examples of acts that may not be considered foreseeable, and so excluded from that consent. The subject case here would seem to be included in that consent.

[noodle3872 40]

The hit looks bad but is clean. As the lawyer said, the players consent to physical play when they step on the ice. The murky area which the parents want to have the legal system explore is whether this hit was an intent to injure and if the implied consent covers such acts while playing.

Here's an example; you get into a dispute with a fella in a public place (a pub maybe). The chatter escalates and you both taunt each other with "you wanna go" type of comments. This leads to a fist fight where you're giving some licks and taking some licks. Out of the blue your combatant pulls a knife and stabs you or he knocks you down and kicks in the head a few times while you're on the ground. The fist fight was consentual but did that consent include being stabbed or kicked in the head? Most people would say "no" and would say being stabbed or kicked in the head is not what you consented to when the fight began. But why shouldn't being stabbed or kicked in the head be allowed? You consented to a physical altercation and being stabbed and kicked are physical acts.

This may be a bad analogy but it illustrates what I think the parents are trying to claim; the kid making the hit intended to hurt (criminally assault) their son. What the court will explore is the on-ice events that lead up to the hit. If there was some trash talk between the kids in question that could form the criminal intent of the hit and end up in charges being filed.

The Marty McSorely stick to Brashear's head and Todd Bertuzzi punch to Steve Moore have been judged to be assaults (here in Canada). Chara wasn't charged because the hit was judged to be a hockey play that resulted in injury.

[iceNsteel 0]

He gave a perfectly sound (if extreme) example of how conduct within a sport can transcend the rules of the sport. He could just as easily have used McSorley on Brashear, or Ciccarelli on Richardson; Chara on Paccioretty was a little less cut-and-dried, the kind of questionable instance wrangler outlines.

It was asinine.

I'd also perhaps suggest, as gently as possible, that genocide and gang rape would probably be considered suspension-worthy off-ice offenses under the player conduct regulations of any league.

Possibly, but as both of those issues would require significant prison time, or potential capital punishment, there wouldn't be much point in a sports league addressing such conduct.

Every person, athlete or not, living in a modern Western democracy operates in an environment in which criminal charges and civil suits can be brought at any time, given any even remotely apparent misconduct. You're not correctly conceiving of the way sports operate. A sport creates a semi-permeable bubble within the law, so to speak, inside of which things that might not be permissible in ordinary society become permissible: only when I step onto the ice, properly equipped, are you allowed to fire pucks at my head, or am I allowed to knock you down for standing in front of me and obstructing my view. However, everything we do on the ice is still happening within the law, and the law may intervene whenever the observable conduct within that bubble becomes impermissible.

The "bubble" you speak of widens and contracts within the rules of the game. Western democracy recognizes the fundamental right of people to participate in activities of their own choosing without regard to risk. So it's pretty clear cut when conduct goes beyond the scope of the rules of a sport. Beating your opponent into submission is so far outside the scope of hockey's rules that obviously it's covered by criminal law. However, within the realm of boxing it's not outside the scope of those rules and therefore a boxer beaten into submission has no recourse to law enforcement. The rules of hockey cover a late hit, they don't cover using your skate as an edge weapon so you can murder someone. A good example, the Moore situation, can generate discussion. An asinine example: murder on the ice, is just asinine.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

'Attempt to Injury' is such a subjective call. Just like all ice hockey infractions. One official can say that the hit was just a late hit. Another can say that he was trying to inflict pain and intimidate his opponent (which USA Hockey is desperately trying to get rid of). I mean do the parents really think this will hold up in the court of law? How can one prove that the hitter was attempting to injury his opponent? Based on what the on-ice official did or did not assess as a penalty? Based on the video? This outcry by the parents just magnifies how much gray area there is in the calling of penalties.

[danno25nh 3]

The hit looks bad but is clean. As the lawyer said, the players consent to physical play when they step on the ice. The murky area which the parents want to have the legal system explore is whether this hit was an intent to injure and if the implied consent covers such acts while playing.

Here's an example; you get into a dispute with a fella in a public place (a pub maybe). The chatter escalates and you both taunt each other with "you wanna go" type of comments. This leads to a fist fight where you're giving some licks and taking some licks. Out of the blue your combatant pulls a knife and stabs you or he knocks you down and kicks in the head a few times while you're on the ground. The fist fight was consentual but did that consent include being stabbed or kicked in the head? Most people would say "no" and would say being stabbed or kicked in the head is not what you consented to when the fight began. But why shouldn't being stabbed or kicked in the head be allowed? You consented to a physical altercation and being stabbed and kicked are physical acts.

Actually under the law this example is covered. It's called being engaged in mutual combat. If the person without the knife then draws a sidearm and fires it is not self defense. This exact scenario was covered in a recent concealed carry class I attended. The person without the knife must attempt to disengage instead of escalating to a fire arm.

Hockey is a tough sport played by tougher men as a team mate of mine once stated after I accidentally injured (and felt bad about it) an opponent.

This was a hard and slightly late hit but the guy did not apparently target the head. Mom and dad need to pull little johnny out of hockey.

[wrangler 157]

Actually under the law this example is covered. It's called being engaged in mutual combat. If the person without the knife then draws a sidearm and fires it is not self defense. This exact scenario was covered in a recent concealed carry class I attended. The person without the knife must attempt to disengage instead of escalating to a fire arm.

Keep in mind this is the type of rule that varies from state to state. I was hoping folks would ignore that analogy, rather than being drawn into a side discussion of it. It really doesn't help here.

[goblue9280 33]

Actually under the law this example is covered. It's called being engaged in mutual combat. If the person without the knife then draws a sidearm and fires it is not self defense. This exact scenario was covered in a recent concealed carry class I attended. The person without the knife must attempt to disengage instead of escalating to a fire arm.

lol, watched the news lately? Some states allow you to escalate to a firearm when the other individual is only carrying a bag of skittles.

[Joshison 1]

I'd be pretty embarrassed if I was the kid whose parents sued.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Well the player avoids any charges. Surprise. People have to remember that hockey IS a contact sport.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-28/metro/31420203_1_hannon-criminal-charges-courthouse-lobby?goback=%2Egde_54764_member_111275754

[wrangler 157]

That's the first I've read about bones being crushed in that hit.

It doesn't sound like Hannon's interested in a civil case, but I didn't notice any comments on that from his parents.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

That's the media for you. They always try to stretch the facts to get viewership. Yea, I'm not sure what the parents want to do now. It is an inherent risk. Hockey is a physical sport and every parent should know and understand that. If you are worried about your kid(s)' safety, take him or her off the ice. No one is telling you to play the game and pay $1k's of dollars while doing so.

[Jason Harris 31]

"Mullen [the lawyer] also said the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association should have taken action. Because no penalty was called, no suspension, and no one ever apologized or contacted Hannon, it “left us to no other choice’’ but to turn to the courts, he said. Mullen also noted the size difference between the two boys: Way is a 6-foot-4-inch, 225-pound senior and Hannon is a 5 foot-9-inch, 145-pound junior."

1) Maybe a penalty should have been called, but that's debatable. It seemed to be within tenths of a second of the puck being released.

2) Yes, both Way and his family should have apologized about causing such a severe concussions. It's just common courtesy, but it doesn't excuse tying up our court system looking for an apology.

3) Centers tend to be taller than point guards. So what? I was even smaller than Hannon in high school and I recognized I skated at my own risk when playing against larger players.