this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)
Hockey
652 readers
66 users here now
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
List of Team-Specific Communities:
Metropolitan Division
- Carolina Hurricanes
- Washington Capitals
- Columbus Blue Jackets
- New Jersey Devils
- New York Islanders
- New York Rangers
- Pittsburgh Penguins
- Philadelphia Flyers
Atlantic Division
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Montreal Canadiens
- Boston Bruins
- Ottawa Senators
- Tampa Bay Lightning
- Buffalo Sabres
- Detroit Red Wings
- Florida Panthers
Central Division
- Chicago Blackhawks
- Winnipeg Jets
- Nashville Predators
- Arizona Coyotes
- Dallas Stars
- St Louis Blues
- Minnesota Wild
- Colorado Avalanche
Pacific Division
- Los Angeles Kings
- Edmonton Oilers
- Calgary Flames
- Anaheim Ducks
- Vancouver Canucks
- San Jose Sharks
- Vegas Golden Knights
- Seattle Kraken
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's always been a bit odd to me how actions that would be criminal anywhere else are permitted as long as you're on a specifically sized sheet of ice with certain lines painted on it.
I can't speak to this particular incident, but I officiated for a number of years the things some players did were just vicious. Deliberate cross checks or slashes to the head, checks from behind, all purely with the intent to injure...step off the ice, you're probably facing time, but on the ice, it's part of the game.
Part of it is just that there's consent in playing the game. A check would be assault & battery if you weren't playing hockey, but playingthe game meansyou'reok with getting hit. It's pretty hard to draw a line between criminal action and physical play in most circumstances, so if no one gets seriously hurt there generally aren't consequences.
Good point, but I don't think egregious actions should fall under that umbrella. Yes you consent to a certain level of risk with play that's under the general rules of the game, but a deliberate cross-check to the mouth with intent to injure, for example (happened in a local game last spring), is in no way part of the regular course of a hockey game. If we were to draw lines, I'd say a match penalty could constitute a potentially criminal act.
I think it'd be interesting to see such a case go to court today.