03-12-2004, 06:04 PM
Well, was it justified? Too harsh? Not harsh enough?
Personally, I think it was tough, but fair. If anything, I'd like to see it extended through the next season, as well. Why?
1) Bertuzzi has a history of such violent acts. From his 10-game suspension for leaving the bench to start a brawl to reports he could be counted on to take a dumb penalty in the juniors, Bertuzzi is a brawler. Whether he denies it or not, this act was very much in his character, and the league needs to make sure he knows this behavior will not be tolerated.
2) The act was premeditated. Of course, Bertuzzi and the Canucks deny this. I say that's bull. There are different levels of planning. I don't believe Bertuzzi planned on jumping the kid from behind, nor do I believe he hoped or wanted to put him in the hospital. However, there's no denying Bertuzzi wanted to get Moore back for the hit on Naslund. He wanted to hurt the kid; he wanted to punish him for hitting the Canuck's captain.
3) Bertuzzi broke every rule in the book, both written and unwritten. From tough guys to Colin Campbell, everyone agrees what Bertuzzi did was unforgivable. To those who say violence is part of the game, this is a key point. Tough guys - guys who fight and hit and play physical - tough guys don't hit their oponents from behind. Tough guys don't pick on players smaller than they are. Tough guys give their targets a chance to defend themselves.
When it comes down to it, Bertuzzi is a repeat offender who picked on a little kid, from behind, giving him no chance to defend himself. He deserved what he got, and he'll be lucky to escape harsh sentencing from the police, to boot.
I'm also curious to hear people's reactions to the quarter million dollar fine to the Canucks organization, the reactions from around the league, and violence in hockey in general.
gekko
Personally, I think it was tough, but fair. If anything, I'd like to see it extended through the next season, as well. Why?
1) Bertuzzi has a history of such violent acts. From his 10-game suspension for leaving the bench to start a brawl to reports he could be counted on to take a dumb penalty in the juniors, Bertuzzi is a brawler. Whether he denies it or not, this act was very much in his character, and the league needs to make sure he knows this behavior will not be tolerated.
2) The act was premeditated. Of course, Bertuzzi and the Canucks deny this. I say that's bull. There are different levels of planning. I don't believe Bertuzzi planned on jumping the kid from behind, nor do I believe he hoped or wanted to put him in the hospital. However, there's no denying Bertuzzi wanted to get Moore back for the hit on Naslund. He wanted to hurt the kid; he wanted to punish him for hitting the Canuck's captain.
3) Bertuzzi broke every rule in the book, both written and unwritten. From tough guys to Colin Campbell, everyone agrees what Bertuzzi did was unforgivable. To those who say violence is part of the game, this is a key point. Tough guys - guys who fight and hit and play physical - tough guys don't hit their oponents from behind. Tough guys don't pick on players smaller than they are. Tough guys give their targets a chance to defend themselves.
When it comes down to it, Bertuzzi is a repeat offender who picked on a little kid, from behind, giving him no chance to defend himself. He deserved what he got, and he'll be lucky to escape harsh sentencing from the police, to boot.
I'm also curious to hear people's reactions to the quarter million dollar fine to the Canucks organization, the reactions from around the league, and violence in hockey in general.
gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"