Jonathan Roy faces assault charge

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

This was the fight where Roy the Younger looked over at the bench to see if Papa wanted him to visit the other end of the rink. The only problem was that when Father Roy gave him "the word" (with a head nod), there just happened to be a cameraperson right next to him, capturing it for all to see.

[Electrophile 3,554]

He fought a guy who didn't want to fight back - that's a clear instigator penalty. It is not cause for legal follow-up.

When does hockey get to stop hiding behind the "it's hockey" defense? Hockey is a physical sport. I get that. There will be fights, hard checks, pucks being shot up at people, I get that. All that is part of the game. I have never said otherwise. That being said, beating the hell out of someone who doesn't want to fight.....is that a part of hockey? What about when McSorely swung his hockey stick like a golf club and whacked Brashear in the head with it, on camera? Is that part of hockey? Both those incidents, if occurring on the street outside a bar or something, would get the offending party thrown in the hoosegow.

I'm curious as to where some of you think the line is drawn, if it in fact exists. Why should hockey players get to do whatever the hell they want to each other, sometimes to the other person's physical detriment, just because there's other allowable physical elements to the sport?

[T.Low 1,011]

He could be a new Derek Meech-type player! Meecher is a part-time forward, part-time defenseman. Cloutier could be part time bench-warmer, part-time winger/enforcer.

Do you think opponents would think something is up when they see two goalies on the ice?

"Hmm..." thinks Tootoo as he looks around the rink and notices both Osgood and Cloutier on the ice at the same time. "My Inuvik sense is tingling, somethings up."

[Guest micah]

When does hockey get to stop hiding behind the "it's hockey" defense? Hockey is a physical sport. I get that. There will be fights, hard checks, pucks being shot up at people, I get that. All that is part of the game. I have never said otherwise. That being said, beating the hell out of someone who doesn't want to fight.....is that a part of hockey? What about when McSorely swung his hockey stick like a golf club and whacked Brashear in the head with it, on camera? Is that part of hockey? Both those incidents, if occurring on the street outside a bar or something, would get the offending party thrown in the hoosegow.

I'm curious as to where some of you think the line is drawn, if it in fact exists. Why should hockey players get to do whatever the hell they want to each other, sometimes to the other person's physical detriment, just because there's other allowable physical elements to the sport?

Fighting by mutual consent is and ought to be punnishable by coincidental 5 minute majors and IS a part of hockey.

Fighting when not by mutual consent (like McCarty v. Lemieux or Johnny Roy v, noname coward-goalie) is kinda cheap and ought be penalised by an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty or instigator penalty. It IS part of the game, and has been since the earliest days of the game, but it is something that I don't like to see. Fights should always be by mutual consent, and they should always ocour when both opponents are prepared for eachother.

Blindsiding people with a stick ala McSorely is absolutely not part of the game. I think that it should be up to the player who recieved the cheapshot to decide whether charges should be filed or not, in addition to whatever penalties the league sees fit.

[Electrophile 3,554]

Fair enough. Although I never said fighting wasn't a part of hockey - I noticed you emphasized that portion of your statement.

[cjm502 165]

McCarty had a reason to fight. Do I have to go over this again? Basically, Lemieux knew McCarty was out there. Lemieux broke Drapers face with a cheap shot. Lemieux did not even have the balls to apologize. Lemieux knew McCarty wanted revenge, he was even running his mouth at him earlier that game. Lemieux saw McCarty skate at him. Lemieux was not new to fighting, he had done it many times before.

In the Roy case it is completely different. Not even comparable. Go ahead, defend that ******. Im pretty sure I have got my point across. If I have not why even bother debating with you?

[Seraph 240]

If you don't see how idiotic young Roy's behavior is in this video, then you may have a touch of whatever is ailing him. I get embarrassed for the guy when he gets drawn back two or three times, then skates all the way down the ice to fight a goalie who wants nothing to do with the situation. Old time hockey and fighting is all about protecting your star players, standing up for your teammates, and getting even for bad blood. It should never resemble an out-right assault. You don't fight for sport, you fight because it's part of the sport. And in the game, there are certain unwritten rules that you have to follow.

Having said that, I don't know if he needs to be taken to court. But what happened should definitely be dealt in a way so it doesn't happen again, or often.

Edited September 9, 2009 by The Nephilim

[cjm502 165]

If you don't see how idiotic young Roy's behavior is in this video, then you may have a touch of whatever is ailing him. I get embarrassed for the guy when he gets drawn back two or three times, then skates all the way down the ice to fight a goalie who wants nothing to do with the situation. Old time hockey and fighting is all about protecting your star players, standing up for your teammates, and getting even for bad blood. It should never resemble an out-right assault. You don't fight for sport, you fight because it's part of the sport. And in the game, there are certain unwritten rules that you have to follow.

Having said that, I don't know if he needs to be taken to court. But what happened should definitely be dealt in a way so it doesn't happen again, or often.

Thats fer true!

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I think the league should handle it, not the courts, but what a psycho move.

The fight was in Roy's end of the rink. It's not like he went down there to even out the numbers.

He skates the the entire length of the rink to beat down a goalie that couldn't have looked less interested in fighting if he rolled on his back and peed on himself.

[Mckinley25 677]

Fighting by mutual consent is and ought to be punnishable by coincidental 5 minute majors and IS a part of hockey.

Fighting when not by mutual consent (like McCarty v. Lemieux or Johnny Roy v, noname coward-goalie) is kinda cheap and ought be penalised by an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty or instigator penalty. It IS part of the game, and has been since the earliest days of the game, but it is something that I don't like to see. Fights should always be by mutual consent, and they should always ocour when both opponents are prepared for eachother.

Blindsiding people with a stick ala McSorely is absolutely not part of the game. I think that it should be up to the player who recieved the cheapshot to decide whether charges should be filed or not, in addition to whatever penalties the league sees fit.

I do not believe that not fighting is cowardly, and if it is, then cowardice should be encouraged.

My lease favorite part of the game is fighting, I wish it didn't exist. That being said, I kind of agree with you that legal action may not have been necessary unless there was injury involved. Maybe they should look at tougher on ice discipline, like a suspension that's long enough to negate the philosophy that a player will instigate when they know that there will be no retaliation.

I understand that in a physical sport fighting helps keep the cheap shots in check, so I guess I don't have all the answers for the world, but I do know that I think fighting is wrong.

[Guest micah]

Fair enough. Although I never said fighting wasn't a part of hockey - I noticed you emphasized that portion of your statement.

..only for clarification. I was not trying to imply anything about your thoughts on the mayyet, only to make mine as clear as possible.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

That was awesome, being a guy who played a little junior, if you dont see a guy like crazy Roy coming in a game like that, you deserve the beating. None the less, Roy is probably gonna be in big trouble after this.

[Guest micah]

McCarty had a reason to fight. Do I have to go over this again? Basically, Lemieux knew McCarty was out there. Lemieux broke Drapers face with a cheap shot. Lemieux did not even have the balls to apologize. Lemieux knew McCarty wanted revenge, he was even running his mouth at him earlier that game. Lemieux saw McCarty skate at him. Lemieux was not new to fighting, he had done it many times before.

In the Roy case it is completely different. Not even comparable. Go ahead, defend that ******. Im pretty sure I have got my point across. If I have not why even bother debating with you?

Do you know that Roy did not have a reason to fight the other goaltender? I confess that all I know of the game is that video, the boxscore, and a handful of news stories. I have zero reason to believe that the opposing goalie did or did not antaganise Roy, or even cheapshot one of his teamates. I don't know.

Furthermore, can you demonstrate that McCarty had to punch Lemieux when he was not ready? He could have dropped his gloves, squared up, and said "let's go". He didn't - he dropped Lemieux with a gloved punch. Claude's hands were at his sides when Mac was winding up. Should Claude have expected as much and been ready? Yes. Was it a cheapshot on Mac's part? Yes.

I'm not sure which ****** I'm defending - Roy's dad, Lemieux and McCarty have all proven themselves to be douches. I don't know enough about these to youngsters to have much of an oppinion, other than that what we saw in the video does not warrant the involvement of law enforcement.

[Konnan511 1,736]

Because your entire post was based on the opening premise - that in hockey you cannot force someone to fight. That's incorrect. Players can and do force others to fight. I wish all hockey fights were straight-up fights where both combatants square-off and drop their gear. Sometimes though, like with McCarty v. Lemieux round 1, one player jumps the other. Maybe the other should have seeen it coming, but stiil, an unfair fight - no matter what the reason was for the fight. Sometimes, like in Johnny Roy v, noname goalie, one player wants a fight and the other refuses. I would have preferred that Roy merely taunted his opponont for being the only player on the ice at that time unwilling to have a little old fashioned fun. Roy could have simply done the chicken dance or something to taunt the other goalie. He fought a guy who didn't want to fight back - that's a clear instigator penalty. It is not cause for legal follow-up.

I like that you're trying to use logic, but it fails. You cannot force someone to fight is a true statement, not false. You can, however, entice someone to defend themselves. D-mAc tried to force Claude to fight, but couldn't, all he did was force Claude to defend himself. Bertuzzi tried to force Moore to fight, but couldn't, instead he ended his career. Roy tried to force this goalie to fight, but instead forced him to defend himself.

Also you make a very hypocritical statement. First you see nothing wrong with Roy did then you come back to say,"Sometimes, like in Johnny Roy v, noname goalie, one player wants a fight and the other refuses. I would have preferred that Roy merely taunted his opponent for being the only player on the ice at that time unwilling to have a little old fashioned fun." You say at one time that the goalie had it coming and is in the wrong for not wanting to fight when you, yourself, deduced that there was a more plausible alternative.

"He fought a guy who didn't want to fight back - that's a clear instigator penalty. It is not cause for legal follow-up." Why? Just because you say A, it doesn't mean C, you need a B in there also. There have been numerous incidents where an on ice altercation has resulted in legla battles, therefore that is not a correct assessment.

Just one more thing to add is when you say, "I would have preferred that Roy merely taunted his opponent for being the only player on the ice at that time unwilling to have a little old fashioned fun." How do you know that the other goalie was raised not to fight? Or plays the game of hockey because he merely enjoys the finesse parts of the game and not the physical aspects? If your parents raised to to respect other people and to never fight whats-so-ever, and you lived by this code for your whole life, would you let one douchebag destroy your philosophies, or would you not be able to be the bigger man and give in?

I don't care what your stance is on this argument, but please be able to us points A and B to make C justifiable. I only did a couple of your points to show how invalid they are and don't have as much time to go through all your points to prove you wrong because I think you get my point here.

Go Wings!!!!!!!

Edited September 9, 2009 by Konnan511

[ben_usmc 253]

someone needs to just beat the living s*** out of this kid, and I mean to the point where Lilja is, what a piece of s***

[ben_usmc 253]

maybe the other goalie shouldnt be a *****. i mean its not like he blind sided him he knew it was comming. there should be NO charges. im watchin the game i love be turned into a ***** sport. what happend to the good ole days. ide give my life to be able to see the game like it was in the early 90's

sure if the goalie of the other team did something besides out play him you'd have a point. But unless the goalie was cheap shotting players he has no reason why he should drop the gloves

[Guest micah]

someone needs to just beat the living s*** out of this kid, and I mean to the point where Lilja is, what a piece of s***

I aree, the other goalie should have fought back!

[Guest micah]

Also you make a very hypocritical statement. First you see nothing wrong with Roy did then you come back to say,"Sometimes, like in Johnny Roy v, noname goalie, one player wants a fight and the other refuses. I would have preferred that Roy merely taunted his opponent for being the only player on the ice at that time unwilling to have a little old fashioned fun." You say at one time that the goalie had it coming and is in the wrong for not wanting to fight when you, yourself, deduced that there was a more plausible alternative.

I never, ever said I don't see anything wrong with John Roy's actions. I said I don't see what the big deal is, this sort of thing happens all the time, it always has. Fighting someone who isn't prepared to and willing to fight back, whether you're McCarty or John Roy, is wrong. I don't think it warrants police involvement though.

"He fought a guy who didn't want to fight back - that's a clear instigator penalty. It is not cause for legal follow-up." Why? Just because you say A, it doesn't mean C, you need a B in there also. There have been numerous incidents where an on ice altercation has resulted in legla battles, therefore that is not a correct assessment.

There have been numerous occasions when things that I don't agree with have happened. I was giving my oppinion, and I stand by it. There are sufficient penalties for fighting in hockey. No good comes from lawsuits or citations for simple on-ice fights.

Just one more thing to add is when you say, "I would have preferred that Roy merely taunted his opponent for being the only player on the ice at that time unwilling to have a little old fashioned fun." How do you know that the other goalie was raised not to fight? Or plays the game of hockey because he merely enjoys the finesse parts of the game and not the physical aspects? If your parents raised to to respect other people and to never fight whats-so-ever, and you lived by this code for your whole life, would you let one douchebag destroy your philosophies, or would you not be able to be the bigger man and give in?

If you're parents raised you to ignore an angry guy coming at you with the clear intent of fighting you, your parents are dumb. Had the other goalie dropped his gloves and simply done his best to tie JR up and not get pummled, he probably wouldn't have been pummeled. When you stand still and let yourself get smoked...well, that's gonna hurt. You oughta at least *try* to protect yourself, right? IF that were the case, Johny Roy did the other kid a big favor - it is a cruel world and if that kid thinks he'll get by without ever being willing to defend himself, he'll either live in a very small and very safe box, or he'll be eaten alive.

[Electrophile 3,554]

My parents taught me to fight only when all other alternatives have been exhausted or don't apply. Obviously if some guy grabs me on the street and starts assaulting me, I'm not going to try and reason with him. I'm going to fight for my life. However nothing like that happened here.

If the two of us were in a bar let's say, and you're sitting on your stool drinking a beer and having a good time and suddenly I come up to you, get in your face and say "hey *******, parking lot...NOW." are you going to get up and follow me to the parking lot? Hell no, you'll probably tell me to shut the eff up and go back to your beer. If I then come back after you and knock you off the stool after you clearly indicated to me previous that you don't want to get into a fight, wouldn't that make me look like a dick or at least the female equivalent to a dick? Probably. Would you be at fault for not taking up my invitation to fight? No, I'd be at fault because I went after someone who wanted nothing to do with me.

I think that's the issue here. The other goalie wanted no part of a fight with Roy and Roy took it upon himself to create a fight where there had been none, and to me that makes him a dick. If you're going to fight with someone, as you yourself even pointed out, both parties should be willing participants. Where was this other goalie a willing participant?

[55fan 5,133]

I think Roy should be punished, but not by the courts. I hate it when the courts (of either the US or Canada) get involved.

Suspension? Yes. Legal wrangling? No.

Hopefully he gets kicked out of hockey and ends up as a cabbie in Buffalo.

[Wing Across The Pond 196]

In a way I both can and can't see why people are likening this to McCarty vs Lemieux when Lemieux may well have been up for a scrap if given the chance. This noname goalie actually said "no" unlike Lemieux, plus had done nothing to deserve it (to my knowledge anyway, I mean from his actions/reactions he doesnt seem like the kind of guy it do much to anger people). If someone in a bar asked you for a scrap and you said yeah then fair game, nothing would REALLY come of it apart from a fight that would break up when it was over or the cops arived and both would get the same. If in this same hypothetical bar fight you distinctly said "No" to this other guys proposal then he gets jail time for assault. Why because they're on the ice does it have to be different... if they both go at it then they get their penalties/fines/whatever, since noname said no then action SHOULD be taken. My opinion.

[Wing Across The Pond 196]

My parents taught me to fight only when all other alternatives have been exhausted or don't apply. Obviously if some guy grabs me on the street and starts assaulting me, I'm not going to try and reason with him. I'm going to fight for my life. However nothing like that happened here.

If the two of us were in a bar let's say, and you're sitting on your stool drinking a beer and having a good time and suddenly I come up to you, get in your face and say "hey *******, parking lot...NOW." are you going to get up and follow me to the parking lot? Hell no, you'll probably tell me to shut the eff up and go back to your beer. If I then come back after you and knock you off the stool after you clearly indicated to me previous that you don't want to get into a fight, wouldn't that make me look like a dick or at least the female equivalent to a dick? Probably. Would you be at fault for not taking up my invitation to fight? No, I'd be at fault because I went after someone who wanted nothing to do with me.

I think that's the issue here. The other goalie wanted no part of a fight with Roy and Roy took it upon himself to create a fight where there had been none, and to me that makes him a dick. If you're going to fight with someone, as you yourself even pointed out, both parties should be willing participants. Where was this other goalie a willing participant?

Great minds think alike... just realised as I had finished writing that I wrote pretty much the same thing

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

I think Roy should be punished, but not by the courts. I hate it when the courts (of either the US or Canada) get involved.

Suspension? Yes. Legal wrangling? No.

Hopefully he gets kicked out of hockey and ends up as a cabbie in Buffalo.

this.

[Guest micah]

My parents taught me to fight only when all other alternatives have been exhausted or don't apply. Obviously if some guy grabs me on the street and starts assaulting me, I'm not going to try and reason with him. I'm going to fight for my life. However nothing like that happened here.

If the two of us were in a bar let's say, and you're sitting on your stool drinking a beer and having a good time and suddenly I come up to you, get in your face and say "hey *******, parking lot...NOW." are you going to get up and follow me to the parking lot? Hell no, you'll probably tell me to shut the eff up and go back to your beer. If I then come back after you and knock you off the stool after you clearly indicated to me previous that you don't want to get into a fight, wouldn't that make me look like a dick or at least the female equivalent to a dick? Probably. Would you be at fault for not taking up my invitation to fight? No, I'd be at fault because I went after someone who wanted nothing to do with me.

I think that's the issue here. The other goalie wanted no part of a fight with Roy and Roy took it upon himself to create a fight where there had been none, and to me that makes him a dick. If you're going to fight with someone, as you yourself even pointed out, both parties should be willing participants. Where was this other goalie a willing participant?

I totally agree that Roy was a dick, and this was a dick move. He deserves 2, 5, and a game, and probably a suspension. I agree with you that I wouldn't just automatically fight any random beligerant person who was looking for a scrap in a bar. That said, if some guy at a bar wanted to fight, you better believe I would b preparing myself to fight and be watching him like a hawk. There is no excuse for just standing still with your arms at your sides when someone for the last 30 seconds has made it clear that they want to fight you, and then they start charging at you. I can understand wanting to avoid a fight, but when you have someone charging at you with ill-intent, you oughta put your hands up and get ready, pacifist or not.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

This is the kind of b.s. that Roy pulled that gives hockey fights a bad name. Nothing more here than a testosterone driven child that couldn't control his emotions.