Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

An ex-NHL enforcer's perspective on the Steve Moore incident


Recommended Posts

Interesting take. However, it's Scott Parker's.

It's like asking Ben Eager about the meaning of the universe, when everyone knows that's Byrz's territory.

An opinion i'd be more interested in is David Bolland's, Brad Marchand's or even Matt Cooke's. Considering that they're all rats like Steve Moore was.

Makes me wonder what kind of revenge will eventually be taken out on Duncan Keith and the Hawks next season. That is far from resolved. Will we go after Keith again? Let it go? Or take out Toews/Kane/Hossa with his head down? Should be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always felt that Moore tried to sell the punch. When you feel yourself about to fall face first with a 240lb man on your back, your first reaction is to brace yourself with your arms.

Was the punch really hard enough to instantly knock a guy out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting take. However, it's Scott Parker's.

It's like asking Ben Eager about the meaning of the universe, when everyone knows that's Byrz's territory.

An opinion i'd be more interested in is David Bolland's, Brad Marchand's or even Matt Cooke's. Considering that they're all rats like Steve Moore was.

Makes me wonder what kind of revenge will eventually be taken out on Duncan Keith and the Hawks next season. That is far from resolved. Will we go after Keith again? Let it go? Or take out Toews/Kane/Hossa with his head down? Should be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to hear perspective from someone on the inside.

And, here we go again....

Bertuzzi was the poster boy of a lazy organization that picked him as the product in the "we're going to fix this" campaign. I, too, have defended Bert as it was not an attack...it was a punch (gone wrong). One. An attack, for me, would be an all out flurry. And the events leading up to that incident were not properly addressed in a move to be pro-active and prevent something from going terribly wrong. Instead, the big bosses sat in the stands to watch???...that was effective, wasn't it? Ate popcorn and went, "oh, that's not good". Felt worried enough to show up, but really didn't have much impact as babysitters from the seats, did they?

A league that promoted and made money from teams "wanting blood" in selling a heated and intense rivalry (I recall that being some of the selling phrases during the ongoing battle between the two teams) saw things go terribly wrong. Surprise! In a move to hype these games, this very league showed pre-game videos of guys smashing other guys face first into the glass in order to sell tickets....didn't really set the standard for no violence. Or wait - it's violence but don't hurt the guy too badly?? Because that isn't decided by fate and luck of the draw, right?

To this day, it's a pick and choose thing determined by people making a call after the fact and in relation to extent of injury. But that leaves the door ajar for future career ending injuries of the same magnitude as players dance on the fine line. Sure, things are enforced a bit more with regard to head shots, etc., but it's still an "after the fact" decision because the league wants its cake and to eat it too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one for taking the physical element out of hockey....but there are risks associated with that and if someone is hurt, it's part of the deal in accepting hits, fights, etc. I don't believe it calls for outside intervention or involvement as, it's a roll of the dice thing. And I also don't think you can pick and choose after the fact and that it should have some face criminal charges while others have been deemed within the confounds of the game. The line is blurred and, therefore, unfairly enforced at times.

I certainly don't have all the answers but, nearly 10 years after "the incident", there are still so many questions.

It's hard for me to fathom that two guys can drop the gloves, pound each other in a flurry of teeth clenched, "I'm going to rip your face off" blows and that's part of the game because it's fighting. Penalties are assessed, but it's still ok if no one sustained serious injury. Yet a guy who, in an emotion filled moment, dealt a reckless punch is still paying for it? How is that consistent or fair? The actions must be determined before, not after and depending on the Doctor's notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This had me cracking up:

"

I might try to rip off your neck, but you can't really rip off a human's neck. It's not feasible, possible. I tried it. It does not work. I've tried to put my fist through a guy's head, and it does not work."

What a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no mitigating the bertuzzi incident. It was ugly and uncalled for. Anyone using this Scott parker interview to defend bert is either too young to have a real sense of right and wrong or has a sense of Justice developed via video games.

Nothing Moore did was bad enough for the bertuzzi mugging. Nothing in the game allows for that...no code, no unwritten rules. Moore did not contribute to the injury. Nothing that happened to naslund was "offside". We should be embarrassed that the nucks tried initially to defend the incident.

I love old time rough hockey. Played it at high levels and know quite a few guys who made it. This was bush and nothing more than a feline move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many threads and so many thoughts on this.

Bert was the greatest power forward we have ever and probably will ever have. Oh what could have been...

An unfortunate hit that went sideways ended a most awesome future :( for Bert & the Canucks (and I guess a bit of one to Moore's fringe one as well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...