Todd Bertuzzi should be in the ring of honor.

[Baggins]

11 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Please tell me you didn't just compare a whack in the head with a hockey stick with a gloved punch?

 

Come on now.

 

Moore dished a blindside head hit to Nazzy when he was in a vulnerable position.  That's not a "good hockey play" to some of us.

 

 

It wasn't a blindside hit Deb. Naslund put himself in that vulnerable position because he knew he was losing the race with Moore to the puck. Meaning he knew exactly where Moore was. There wasn't a head contact rule at that time either. Even if there was I don't see how there would have been a suspension. One of the mitigating factors in the current rules for head contact is a player significantly changing position just prior to contact. Which Naslund did in streching out low in a last ditch effort to get the puck first, just prior to contact.

 

Players collide going for a loose puck from different directions all the time. Naslund put himself in a bad position for a collision.

[-DLC-]

I don't care how anyone tries to make Moore's dirty hit ok...it wasn't.

 

The name of the game is going for the puck.  Moore had NO interest in the puck...he lined up Nazzy.  Yes, Nazzy did put himself in a vulnerable position but this game isn't called "head hunting"....it's hockey.  The aim is supposed to be "get the puck and score".   Not knock a guy out because you can.

 

Zero interest in the puck here.  He was a punk trying to make a name for himself - not by showing his skills as a hockey player...not here anyhow.  By running a superstar.  

 

No one will change my mind.  Hell, even the guy in the video I grabbed this from says "he had no interest in the puck".  That's not hockey.

 

We've had this discussion before (Getzlaf/Hamhuis) - you're more easily fooled by headshots that are prettied up to look like they were unintentional.  I don't buy them.

 

"Oh look, Steve, the puck!!!  Get it...you're clearly in a better position to"

 

 

 

Steve, dude...why are you focusing on Nazzy??!  THE PUCK'S RIGHT THERE, LIFT THE STICK, GRAB IT AND GO.


Come on, Nazzy's reaching but you're right there...show everyone the budding superstar like the lawsuit says you are.  GET THE PUCK AND SCORE!

 

TO YOUR RIGHT...PUCK'S THERE...HELLLLOOOOOO?   

 

Oh no, a collision that couldn't be avoided.  Damn.  Nazzy's out, what a shame.



Good hockey play though Steve.  Letting that puck just go like that.





I won't post the pic of Nazzy on another planet...it's painful.  
 

[CBH1926]

I have seen lot of bush league moves in the NHL.

McSorley attack on Brashear, Domi punch on Samuelsson, Thornton on Orpik etc.

 

Regardless of what people think if Moore hit on Naslund was open ice hit or dirty play.

The fact remains that Todd sucker punched a guy from behind, which was a gutless move.

 

He probably did not intend to end his career, but his action precisely caused that.

If Bertuzzi did that on the the street, he would be cooling off in prison for several years.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by CBH1926

[-DLC-]

9 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

He probably did not intend to end his career, but his action precisely caused that.

If Bertuzzi did that on the the street, he would be cooling off in prison for several years.

 

 

 

 

Two things.

Precisely isn't proven....he hit the ice and people piled on.  His action led to it, yep.  But I'm not convinced of when the injury happened...no one really can be.

 

And he didn't do it on the street...which is the point.  This is in a hockey rink where violence ("out for blood") was being promoted.  And lots took place that night.  Worrell, Sauer...glad they had those skilled players out there.  You can't do any of what was going on out on the street.  Duh?

 

"It is what it is".  

 

I will go down swinging on this issue.   

So how do you feel about the pictures up there?

[DrJockitch]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

Please tell me you didn't just compare a whack in the head with a hockey stick with a gloved punch?

 

Come on now.

 

Moore dished a blindside head hit to Nazzy when he was in a vulnerable position.  That's not a "good hockey play" to some of us.   Even IF Nazzy put himself in that position...doesn't mean you "give'er".  Neither one saw what hit them...but at least Moore had some warning when his jersey was tugged on from behind.  Who did he think it was, Santa?

 

You make it too cut and dry and it's not.  "Generally accepted practices" and both parties consenting?  Sure, great except no.  OFTEN a play is deemed dirty and you don't need to get a consent form before you address it.  That's BS.  Two guys will often "square off" but it's not always the way.  Or the only accepted way.

 

If you run a guy no one's waiting for you to agree to anything...you may get "assaulted".  Let's not forget that when you punch anyone it's an assault.  So don't put Bert in his own category...he tugged a jersey, Moore did not consent, but it wasn't acceptable not to.  Stay off the ice in a blow out game if you don't want to poke the bear.  Because there are also unwritten rules in that regard (running up the score, taunting, playing dirty, etc.).  

 

Do you recall the line up that the Avs put out there that night?  I do.  Were they asking for consent from anyone?  I doubt it.

 

There is no one size fits all "rule book" in a game that includes physicality and involves fighting, hitting, etc.   It varies and they still haven't figured it out in a clearly defined way.  How many years later?

 

The degree of risk when you fall to the ice, hard, is evenly applied to all.  Some will fare better than others and pure luck decides.   Bert punched a guy with his glove on from behind as he tugged his jersey.  Guy didn't want to fight at that point.  Too bad, so sad...you made this bed so either lay low for awhile or...face the music.  And the punch.  Do I wish it didn't happen as it did?  Yep...mostly for Bert.  A guy who was still dealing with the aftermath of seeing his good friend dazed and confused by a hit that was unnecessary.  A guy trying to stand out so he lined up a star player and, well, he did stand out.

 

I don't like it, but it's not what some have made it out to be.  Certainly not a smash in the head with a stick.  I imagine if I tried to do each one, one would have a significant impact the other maybe not so much.

 

I've learned not to use the NHL standards as standards.  To this day, they offer explanations for dangerous plays.  They even try to rule on intent.  Well that can be cleverly disguised -  "I didn't mean to".  They can interpret things incorrectly (or with bias).  History, etc. shouldn't matter - meant to or not -  you did - that's how you address things effectively.  If you dabble and allow some things but not all things and it depends on what things and who?..it's a gong show.  

They are a money making organization and they promoted that game, heavily, as "out for blood".  Be careful what you wish for?  Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too.  Then condemning someone for participating.  Oh right, don't be emotional as you enter this battle.  Right, check.

 

I will NEVER accept this as anything other than a failed series of incidents that had two sides participating until one got hurt (after another had been).  Play with fire stuff.

 

 

A questionable hit on one side does not give carte-blanche for the other side to do whatever they want.  What Moore did or didn't do does not justify what was done to him.

Yes I can reasonably compare a gloved punch to the back of the head followed by being driven to the ice face first (by a man that weighed 240lb before adding 50 lbs of soaking wet gear) to being hit in the back of the head with a stick because they were both done to players not paying attention and who had declined fighting.  Yes sometimes players get drawn into a fight that they don't want to be in but not usually from behind during the flow of play.  That is the commonality between these two events and what made it necessary and appropriate for such large suspensions.

On top of that the Bertuzzi thing was clearly pre-meditated.  The coach and team said they were going to get back at him.  That is unprofessional and took this from what may have been argued to be what you say to something completely different.  It is the difference between manslaughter and murder 1 to put it another way.

And there is this:

41 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

He fought Cooke earlier in the game.

Was he supposed to fight every guy that asked that night?

He had already answered the bell, and this is a guy that was not a fighter.

Edited October 12, 2019 by debluvscanucks
Personal attack removed

[CBH1926]

7 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Two things.

Precisely isn't proven....he hit the ice and people piled on.  His action led to it, yep.  But I'm not convinced of when the injury happened...no one really can be.

 

And he didn't do it on the street...which is the point.  This is in a hockey rink where violence ("out for blood") was being promoted.  And lots took place that night.  Worrell, Sauer...glad they had those skilled players out there.  You can't do any of what was going on out on the street.  Duh?

 

"It is what it is".  

 

I will go down swinging on this issue.   

So how do you feel about the pictures up there?

When I saw the hit back in 04 I felt Moore was targeting Naslund.

But also Bertuzzi punched a guy from behind, anyone who punches from behind is a coward.

Moore already fought Cooke, was he supposed to fight entire Vancouver team?

 

[-DLC-]

10 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

On top of that the Bertuzzi thing was clearly pre-meditated.  The coach and team said they were going to get back at him. 

Yet his team sacrificed him anyhow?  And had guys out there ready to go, in the form of 9'2" giant pylons who rarely played.

 

Of course they said they were going to get him...they "took his number".  Happens in hockey.

[JM_]

5 hours ago, luckylager said:

RoH - sure, he was a noteworthy player of that era and a fan fave.

 

Retire his number - not a chance.

I think this is a good way to look at it. Bert played with the kind of character the city wanted and he really was dominant. 

 

I don't care at all about the Moore "incident". It was a byproduct of how the game was played then. Moore threw a cheap shot, and broke the code and wouldn't take his lumps. No one was looking to break his neck but imo he's just as responsible as anyone else. Hockey isn't the real world, there is, well maybe was, a code then and Moore broke it. 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[BrockBoester]

11 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Yet his team sacrificed him anyhow?  And had guys out there ready to go, in the form of 9'2" giant pylons who rarely played.

 

Of course they said they were going to get him...they "took his number".  Happens in hockey.

Giant pylons lol

 

In this thread, Deb is right and a bunch of Bertuzzi-hating Leafs-fans-in-disguise are wrong.

 

Nothin else to see here folks, lock er up :D

[JM_]

34 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

I have seen lot of bush league moves in the NHL.

McSorley attack on Brashear, Domi punch on Samuelsson, Thornton on Orpik etc.

 

Regardless of what people think if Moore hit on Naslund was open ice hit or dirty play.

The fact remains that Todd sucker punched a guy from behind, which was a gutless move.

 

He probably did not intend to end his career, but his action precisely caused that.

If Bertuzzi did that on the the street, he would be cooling off in prison for several years.

 

but its not the street, it was during an NHL game at a time when the code mattered a lot more.

 

Moore knew he was risking retaliation and he turtled. He was as responsible as anyone in what happened. If you weren't a fan of the game at the time this happened and really many years leading up to it,  I don't know if a person can understand. 

[the grinder]

4 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Yeah, I don't want to derail this thread with the Moore conversation...so I will pass on any more dialogue on it

 

But  here is my thoughts...….

 

Kurtenbach had less impact on the Canucks

Harold Snepts, although I loved him as a player for his on ice persona, was not in any way, to have a stat value, so why is he on?

 

I do not think Bert should have his number retired, but that is for a select few, otherwise, it would tarnish the whole concept

 

Personally, the ROH, should be for those that impacted our team, and were solid enough to be allstars

 

Snepts was never that...…..Bert was an allstar and was at the top of the league, during that time

 

Gradin was never that, Kurtenbach was never that, Snepts was never that, etc...……...Stan Smyl was never that

 

Bert was the top of the League, as was Naslund, as was Bure...………….

 

Hank and Danny were HHOF and ROH, jerseys retired etc...…..Bure is almost that level

 

So, when considering the era that Bert played in...………..he was "League" good, not just "Team" good

umm Harold was a 2 time all star in 77 and 82  , gradin was on the 82 team  and scored 86 points twice , stan smyl was a point a game player in the 82 , including the playoffs  so these player are all that and more , they are more than just  team good ,

[J.I.A.H.N]

4 hours ago, stawns said:

What exactly did Bertuzzi accomplish to get the ROH, let alone his # retired?  No chance they ROH Bert before Mo, imo.

Never meant to suggest a jersey being retired......he doesn't deserve that

 

But his did more than the guys I mentioned that are there now

[Alflives]

Of course Big Todd should be in our ring of honour.  It’s kind of silly to think otherwise. 

[*Buzzsaw*]

No, Todd Bertuzzi will never be in the Ring of Honour.

 

Why.... mostly politics.

 

And the other person who should NEVER, EVER be in the Ring of Honour is Mark Crawford... who encouraged him to make his mistake.

 

Mark Crawford should have taken Todd aside and explained to him carefully and clearly that no dirty play was acceptable, and only clean hits on Moore, or a legitimately accepted fight would be allowed.

 

Instead he encouraged a guy who wore his heart on his sleeve to wreak revenge in a way which was out of line.

 

Crawford should have been standing in court too.

[Alflives]

4 hours ago, stawns said:

What exactly did Bertuzzi accomplish to get the ROH, let alone his # retired?  No chance they ROH Bert before Mo, imo.

Curley and Larry get honoured before Mo.  

[Slegr]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

Neither one saw what hit them...but at least Moore had some warning when his jersey was tugged on from behind.  Who did he think it was, Santa?

That's a great quote, and true. 

I don't mind admitting that I was getting very annoyed that the Canucks, up until that point, weren't exacting enough revenge on Moore. My blood was boiling. When Bertuzzi did what he did, I was thinking, "Finally!"  And when everyone fell on Moore, and he didn't get up, I wasn't disgusted with Bertuzzi. He will always be the villain to the periphery hockey fans who don't truly understand the situation, but in my books, he did what fans were calling for. The combination of Moore's refusal to engage and the pile up of players on top of him created a very unfortunate scenario for all parties.

[EdgarM]

As far as I am concerned, this matter all started with Moore. He decided that he was NOT going to play hockey and tried to take out our top player with a flying elbow. Once you make that decision, fighting the smaller agitator is not going to cut it as an even up.

Bert was closer to him in size and probably had similar fighting skills. 

I am sure if the weasel turned and confronted Bert, it would have ended as it should have and Bert would have fought him fair and square.

Hockey can be a brutal sport, as we all know, and injuries are part of the game. Moore takes an inherent risk when participating and even more so when he provokes retaliation from questionable plays like his elbow to Naslund.

I am sure Bert had no idea that punching a guy with a gloved fist would have had such a profound effect. I am sure Bert thought the guy would get a bleeding nose and that was it, and 99 times out of 100, that is exactly what happens. 

I find it hard to fathom that "Canuck" fans on here are minimizing Moore's hit while condemning Bert for his. The intention of both seems obvious and yet Bert is seen as the bad guy. 

I guess in todays day and age, body slamming Petey and then, the team just ignoring it,is the way to go, I guess. 

[-DLC-]

Avs just showed up to play hockey.   Bertuzzi's a monster and Peter Worrell, with about 900 minutes in penalties, was under control.  

Fate decided who'd be hurt enough to file a lawsuit and who wouldn't.  The game was completely out of control, start to finish.  That wasn't Bert's fault...he just got caught up in it and it took a bad turn.

 

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

It wasn't a blindside hit Deb. Naslund put himself in that vulnerable position because he knew he was losing the race with Moore to the puck. Meaning he knew exactly where Moore was. There wasn't a head contact rule at that time either. Even if there was I don't see how there would have been a suspension. One of the mitigating factors in the current rules for head contact is a player significantly changing position just prior to contact. Which Naslund did in streching out low in a last ditch effort to get the puck first, just prior to contact.

 

Players collide going for a loose puck from different directions all the time. Naslund put himself in a bad position for a collision.

you really need to go back and look at the video. Moore lets the puck go by and puts his shoulder into Nazzy. Blaming Nazulnd for that hit is &^@#ing ridiculous. Maybe the worst revisionist comment I've seen on CDC. 

[bree2]

3 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

Every professional hockey player accepts a degree of risk when they step out on the ice, it is a dangerous game.  The difference between assault and a good hockey play is defined by the rules of the game and generally accepted practices that would include both parties giving consent to a fight.

That event was clearly outside the norm for NHL hockey and the degree of risk that a player accepts getting on the ice.

That you don't blame Bert at all for his actions puts you way out on the extreme of opinions about what happened well beyond what Bert himself has said.  

That was assault pure and simple just like when McSorley clubbed Brashear from behind.  There is no situational ethics to that kind of assault.

I loved him as a player, one of my all time favourites, but that doesn't change the fact that he was responsible for his actions and the ensuing actions when he stepped over that line. 

of course Bert deserves some blame along with Moore and his teammates. I am just saying you can't blame it all on Bert