70 replies to this topic

[Inultus]

I had previously compared the Bert/Moore incident to when McCarty sucker-punched Lemieux in revenge.

I was watching some fight vids and ran across this one of McCarty getting revenge for a hit on Yzerman. It reminds me a lot of what Bert did except that in this case the guy McCarty goes after didn't get hurt.

We hold McCarty up to be a Hockeytown hero (back in the day) but Bert was totally ostracized for what he did. I just think it's interesting how much people's opinions depend on the consequences of an action, not on the action itself.

[stevkrause]

I had previously compared the Bert/Moore incident to when McCarty sucker-punched Lemieux in revenge.

I was watching some fight vids and ran across this one of McCarty getting revenge for a hit on Yzerman. It reminds me a lot of what Bert did except that in this case the guy McCarty goes after didn't get hurt.

We hold McCarty up to be a Hockeytown hero (back in the day) but Bert was totally ostracized for what he did. I just think it's interesting how much people's opinions depend on the consequences of an action, not on the action itself.

not the same at all and it's pretty bad that you can't see how...

In this case, McCarty's was in the heat of the moment RIGHT after he cheap shotted Yzerman - Bert's was months later after Moore took out Naslund's knee and he tried to fight him, then when Moore skated away, he had time to premeditate his attack and sucker punched him from behind - ALSO, there was a drastic size difference in the Bert/Moore incident... so the driving force is much worse...

FURTHERMORE - The Lemieux-McCarty incident is VERY different too, because he told Lemieux right to his face in the face off he was going to fight him...

Hockey is a game of respect and honor - McCarty's actions, although slightly thuggish and violent, followed this code of honor - Bert's did not.

I think Bert served his time and doesn't deserve anymore BS because of it, but this is still not the same...

[Carman]

You suffer the consequences of your actions. I believe Bertuzzi didn't mean anything horrible to happen to Moore, but it did so he has to deal with everything that comes with paralyzing a fellow player. He did his time, and lost a lot of different things because of this situation, he'll forever been known for this, and that's enough punishment in my mind. What's in the past is in the past to me, Bertuzzi was a very nice and down to earth guy when I've met him and that's how I'll picture him in my mind, I'm not going to judge him for one mistake; Although I don't blame people that would.

Edited by Carman, 17 December 2009 - 01:45 PM.

[Frozen-Man]

I don't disagree that Bertuzzi is looked down upon largely because the injury was so bad, had the injury not been bad it would not have been that big of a deal.

However, I do think that there are a couple of big differences between Mac's attack and Bert's. First Mac's retaliation was pretty much instantaneous, thus negating the premeditated question that continues to revolve around the Bertuzzi incident (not only Bert's motive and actions but also whether his coach ordered the attack). Second, Bert rode Moore down onto the ice which is what cause such severe damage (I'm not sure that it was intentional but it looks like it in the video and it looks like Bert is slamming him down face first into the ice after Moore is out cold), Mac didn't do anything like that so it doesn't look near as bad on replays, which is partially why Bert took so much heat.

[Echolalia]

Yeah in both cases I'm seeing one person attack another from behind and drive their head into the ice.

[stevkrause]

Yeah in both cases I'm seeing one person attack another from behind and drive their head into the ice.

and water is either hot or cold and all monochrome scales operate only on black and white - nothing in between.

[Echolalia]

and water is either hot or cold and all monochrome scales operate only on black and white - nothing in between.

Oh yeah he was in the heat of the moment so its forgivable. My mistake.

[Chunkylover]

Yzerman's play was drrrrtier than McCarty's. Mac actually had his glove in Keczmer's face which, even if unintentionally, protected his head from the ice.

I love Mac: "You're f***in' dead!"

I wish the Wings could be up three nothing and start some crap like that. Stupid salary cap.

Edit: make that up 5 to 1. And poor Keczmer. Other than this video, who is he?

Edited by Chunkylover, 17 December 2009 - 02:03 PM.

[Casey]

Oh yeah he was in the heat of the moment so its forgivable. My mistake.

I'd say so, yes. In law, it's called a crime of passion. Heat of the moment, things happen, and even in a court of law, the person is recognized to at least in part not be fully in control.

[Third Man In]

Oh yeah he was in the heat of the moment so its forgivable. My mistake.

Precisely. We can't expect people to control their actions when they're pissed off. Like smashing your goalie instead of the net with your stick. Completely unavoidable.

Edited by Third Man In, 17 December 2009 - 02:18 PM.

[Crymson]

not the same at all and it's pretty bad that you can't see how...

In this case, McCarty's was in the heat of the moment RIGHT after he cheap shotted Yzerman - Bert's was months later after Moore took out Naslund's knee and he tried to fight him, then when Moore skated away, he had time to premeditate his attack and sucker punched him from behind - ALSO, there was a drastic size difference in the Bert/Moore incident... so the driving force is much worse...

FURTHERMORE - The Lemieux-McCarty incident is VERY different too, because he told Lemieux right to his face in the face off he was going to fight him...

Hockey is a game of respect and honor - McCarty's actions, although slightly thuggish and violent, followed this code of honor - Bert's did not.

I think Bert served his time and doesn't deserve anymore BS because of it, but this is still not the same...

Bertuzzi's hit was three weeks after a dirty hit by Moore gave Naslund a concussion and a slightly-injured elbow. As far as I know---I could be incorrect, but I don't think so---it was during the next meeting between the two teams.

While you may not like Bertuzzi, I wish you and others in general would do their homework before making such strong claims.

[GMRwings1983]

I had previously compared the Bert/Moore incident to when McCarty sucker-punched Lemieux in revenge.

I was watching some fight vids and ran across this one of McCarty getting revenge for a hit on Yzerman. It reminds me a lot of what Bert did except that in this case the guy McCarty goes after didn't get hurt.

We hold McCarty up to be a Hockeytown hero (back in the day) but Bert was totally ostracized for what he did. I just think it's interesting how much people's opinions depend on the consequences of an action, not on the action itself.

You could actually say that for everything in life.

In any case, I think nowadays McCarty would receive a very heavy suspension, where the league was more lenient back in those days.

Overall, there's been some really terrible incidents in NHL history which were just as bad as Bertuzzi's, but not as remembered.

[Echolalia]

I'd say so, yes. In law, it's called a crime of passion. Heat of the moment, things happen, and even in a court of law, the person is recognized to at least in part not be fully in control.

So on the event that McCarty does break that guy's neck- does he just deserve the 5 minutes for fighting?

not the same at all and it's pretty bad that you can't see how...

In this case, McCarty's was in the heat of the moment RIGHT after he cheap shotted Yzerman - Bert's was months later after Moore took out Naslund's knee and he tried to fight him, then when Moore skated away, he had time to premeditate his attack and sucker punched him from behind - ALSO, there was a drastic size difference in the Bert/Moore incident... so the driving force is much worse...

FURTHERMORE - The Lemieux-McCarty incident is VERY different too, because he told Lemieux right to his face in the face off he was going to fight him...

Hockey is a game of respect and honor - McCarty's actions, although slightly thuggish and violent, followed this code of honor - Bert's did not.

I think Bert served his time and doesn't deserve anymore BS because of it, but this is still not the same...

So McCarty is off the hook because it wasn't premeditated; that is, he was in the heat of the moment right after the incident happened. But then how do you justify the Lemieux attack? Wasn't there about a year time-span between Lemieux nailing Draper and McCarty getting redemption? And if he's forgiven for that attack because he told him it was coming, shouldn't Bertuzzi be forgiven because Moore also knew that Bert wanted to go after him?

Edited by Echolalia, 17 December 2009 - 02:24 PM.

[stevkrause]

Bertuzzi's hit was three weeks after a dirty hit by Moore gave Naslund a concussion and a slightly-injured elbow. As far as I know---I could be incorrect, but I don't think so---it was during the next meeting between the two teams.

While you may not like Bertuzzi, I wish you and others in general would do their homework before making such strong claims.

I just said I think Bertuzzi doesn't deserve what he gets for it and I do like Bert as a matter of fact...

As for the injury that resulted, that's the only thing I was confused about, but it doesn't change the stance on the motivation for the attack... how would this in any way affect anything I said? maybe you should re-read my post...

[Inultus]

I sincerely doubt that those of you saying McCarty (who used to be my favorite player, BTW) was in the heat of the moment would have given Bert the same excuse had he done it right after the hit on Naslund.

I'm not trying to justify Bert and disparage McCarty I just got kinda bored with the current conversations on this board and I saw a clip that reminded me of Bert/Moore.

[stevkrause]

So on the event that McCarty does break that guy's neck- does he just deserve the 5 minutes for fighting?



So McCarty is off the hook because it wasn't premeditated; that is, he was in the heat of the moment right after the incident happened. But then how do you justify the Lemieux attack? Wasn't there about a year time-span between Lemieux nailing Draper and McCarty getting redemption? And if he's forgiven for that attack because he told him it was coming, shouldn't Bertuzzi be forgiven because Moore also knew that Bert wanted to go after him?

once again, apples to oranges, you're combining 2 separate instances to support your claim...

The attack on Kaczmer was from behind, but was not premeditated and yes, it was wrong, but in the heat of the moment, it in fact DOES make a difference.

The fight with Lemieux was premeditated but was FACE TO FACE...

The second variable in both of those situations make a HUGE difference... and to overlook the significance of their combination in the scenario is weak.

[Inultus]

The fight with Lemieux was premeditated but was FACE TO FACE...

Erm, not really, Lemieux probably expected payback at some point, but McCarty himself said that he sucker-punched Lemieux. Bert actually told Moore that he wanted to fight numerous times in that game.

[Echolalia]

once again, apples to oranges, you're combining 2 separate instances to support your claim...

The attack on Kaczmer was from behind, but was not premeditated and yes, it was wrong, but in the heat of the moment, it in fact DOES make a difference.

The fight with Lemieux was premeditated but was FACE TO FACE...

The second variable in both of those situations make a HUGE difference... and to overlook the significance of their combination in the scenario is weak.

I don't see how punching a player who doesn't even have their arms up do defend themselves as they skate towards the bench is face to face. They didn't square off, McCarty just sucker-punched the guy.

Edited by Echolalia, 17 December 2009 - 02:35 PM.

[Inultus]

You could actually say that for everything in life.

Wish that were true with the government. For instance, a friend gets pulled over and gets a DUI and a year probation for being at .08, right at the limit. He was driving fine, he'd had two beers for goodness sake. Does the government base their opinion on the consequences of his actions? No.

My friend grows weed to smoke himself. He gets popped and gets basically his life taken away from him. Government based their opinion on his actions not the consequences of what he did.

NHL should be the same. Base punishments on actions, not the consequences of actions.

[stevkrause]

I don't see how punching a player who doesn't even have their arms up do defend themselves as they skate towards the bench is face to face. They didn't square off, McCarty just sucker-punched the guy.

once again... I didn't say what McCarty did was right, but to compare the instances is not fair, because of the variables between the two...