• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Son of a Wing

17yr old hockey player charged for on-ice assault.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The main point in all of this to me, is that people are categorizing this as a "hockey" fight. This in no way what-so-ever was a fight. The kid gets cross checked (which he should of been ready for, because he had to know the goalies team mates would step in) and as he's defenseless, then gets pummeled repeatedly. If this would of happened ANYWHERE else (at school, the mall, or any other sport) The kid faces charges, that's a no-brainer. But seriously, because it occurred in a hockey game, that's OK ????

I've played & coached hockey for over 30 years, and I do see fighting as a part of hockey. But this definitely crosses the line. The more we turn our backs on incidents like this, the more of a problem we are creating. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and if this kid is truly unremorseful, bragging & tweeting about it all proud, that proves my point even more.

Lastly, to say the kid "had it coming to him" because he sprayed the goalie, is absolutely absurd. Kids will do stupid things, and spraying the goalie was definitely stupid, but in no way does THAT warrant getting the crap beaten out of you.

I agree that what happened wasn't a hockey fight. However, it appears the league did not choose any discipline outside of the normal penalties for fighting in this case. Therefore, it does seem that Hockey Canada and/or the local league did feel it was a hockey fight. IMO if you want to discourage these activities, the mentality that this isn't acceptable needs to be applied by the governing bodies for the sport through the rules.

My statements above are only to show that this incident was ruled, seemingly by the book, by the league to be a hockey fight. Because of the rules and league ruling, it will be interesting to see if the court feels what occurred was outside of the normal hockey environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to the legalities of this b/c there's just too many moving parts to even begin to think one has the "correct" answer.

As for spraying the goalie. I played defense. I got into it with many a guy for less than spraying my goaltender. If someone disrespects your goalie there are infinite ways to get their attention. Give the guy a hard shove, give him a pop, get in his face. Either get in the guy's mug and offer him a chance or get your good shot in and put him to the ice. And if you go with the latter option, it's done if the guy doesn't get back up. You don't rip his helmet off and drop 8-10 bombs on him. Not for spraying your goalie. I think it goes without saying that if you do spray somebody you should at least be conscious of the guys around you and protect yourself. He did one horrible job protecting himself that's for sure. But he didn't deserve the beating he got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crymson

I never said or implied it was equivalent! I was using that fight as an example of how people are being hypocrites on here. Both where reckless and crossed the line. But since Draper was injured it was accepted that after Mac sucker punched him, dazed him, fell on the ice and kept raining blows and some knees to the face. No One is calling for McCarty to serve jail time, knees to the face aren't part of the game. Please tell me other than a broken nose & concussion the damage that was done to young man? O btw he's 17 almost an adult.

Spraying a goalie is neither reckless nor line-crossing. Checking someone from behind into the dasher is both. There is absolutely no equivalence here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point in all of this to me, is that people are categorizing this as a "hockey" fight. This in no way what-so-ever was a fight. The kid gets cross checked (which he should of been ready for, because he had to know the goalies team mates would step in) and as he's defenseless, then gets pummeled repeatedly. If this would of happened ANYWHERE else (at school, the mall, or any other sport) The kid faces charges, that's a no-brainer. But seriously, because it occurred in a hockey game, that's OK ????

I've played & coached hockey for over 30 years, and I do see fighting as a part of hockey. But this definitely crosses the line. The more we turn our backs on incidents like this, the more of a problem we are creating. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and if this kid is truly unremorseful, bragging & tweeting about it all proud, that proves my point even more.

Lastly, to say the kid "had it coming to him" because he sprayed the goalie, is absolutely absurd. Kids will do stupid things, and spraying the goalie was definitely stupid, but in no way does THAT warrant getting the crap beaten out of you.

No one is turning their back on this, the kid was disciplined, in a manor deemed just by his league. As you may have read, I don't believe that pressing charges is the right approach here. Maybe a little stricter punishment is needed here, I could agree with that, but no to the courts.

And kids will do stupid things, like fight someone who just sprayed their goalie.

Spraying a goalie is neither reckless nor line-crossing. Checking someone from behind into the dasher is both. There is absolutely no equivalence here.

No one got cross checked into a dasher, let's keep the facts straight here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is turning their back on this, the kid was disciplined, in a manor deemed just by his league. As you may have read, I don't believe that pressing charges is the right approach here. Maybe a little stricter punishment is needed here, I could agree with that, but no to the courts.

And kids will do stupid things, like fight someone who just sprayed their goalie.

No one got cross checked into a dasher, let's keep the facts straight here.

This wasn't a fight, it was an assault, hence the charge. I don't know why people think that because it happened in a hockey game it should be immune to being reviewed by the legal system. I think the threshold for the courts being involved should be higher in professional leagues, but even at the NHL level you aren't immune to all of societies rules because you're playing a game. In minor hockey you should absolutely be subject to legal punishments for infractions such as this one.

And Crymson's response was to someone who compared spraying the goalie with what Claude Lemeiux did to Draper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wasn't a fight, it was an assault, hence the charge. I don't know why people think that because it happened in a hockey game it should be immune to being reviewed by the legal system. I think the threshold for the courts being involved should be higher in professional leagues, but even at the NHL level you aren't immune to all of societies rules because you're playing a game. In minor hockey you should absolutely be subject to legal punishments for infractions such as this one.

And Crymson's response was to someone who compared spraying the goalie with what Claude Lemeiux did to Draper.

Ahh, missed that.

But honestly, if this happens unprovoked I'd be more lenient to thinking the law should get involved, but it wasn't unprovoked. When you are playing in a game that's out of hand on the score board, people have already been tossed for fights or trying to fight, you don't go spray the goalie, that's asking for trouble, and trouble found him. Also, there's no way to tell if the cross check concussed him, so we can't automatically assume he was already concussed once the punches came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, missed that.

But honestly, if this happens unprovoked I'd be more lenient to thinking the law should get involved, but it wasn't unprovoked. When you are playing in a game that's out of hand on the score board, people have already been tossed for fights or trying to fight, you don't go spray the goalie, that's asking for trouble, and trouble found him. Also, there's no way to tell if the cross check concussed him, so we can't automatically assume he was already concussed once the punches came in.

No, but he made no effort to defend himself what-so-ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, missed that.

But honestly, if this happens unprovoked I'd be more lenient to thinking the law should get involved, but it wasn't unprovoked. When you are playing in a game that's out of hand on the score board, people have already been tossed for fights or trying to fight, you don't go spray the goalie, that's asking for trouble, and trouble found him. Also, there's no way to tell if the cross check concussed him, so we can't automatically assume he was already concussed once the punches came in.

If you think the punishment was warranted for spraying a goalie with snow, why then do you have a problem with the guy who doled out the revenge facing his own punishment?

If he just left it at the crosscheck he might have gotten away with nothing more than a 2 minute penalty, if he challenged him to a fight without blindsiding him first he'd face only a 2 game suspension. He chose to take his revenge well outside what was considered acceptable by the court in Ontario and as a result got charged.

If there is anything to be outraged about in all of this its that the other guy got a 2 game suspension for getting brutally beaten after taking a crosscheck to the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think the punishment was warranted for spraying a goalie with snow, why then do you have a problem with the guy who doled out the revenge facing his own punishment?

If he just left it at the crosscheck he might have gotten away with nothing more than a 2 minute penalty, if he challenged him to a fight without blindsiding him first he'd face only a 2 game suspension. He chose to take his revenge well outside what was considered acceptable by the court in Ontario and as a result got charged.

If there is anything to be outraged about in all of this its that the other guy got a 2 game suspension for getting brutally beaten after taking a crosscheck to the face.

I don't have a problem with the kid facing his own punishment. I just don't think it warrants criminal charges.

Obviously we are not going to come to an agreement on it, so there's no point going round and round with it. As a wise man named Ron once said, "agree to disagree."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the kid facing his own punishment. I just don't think it warrants criminal charges.

Obviously we are not going to come to an agreement on it, so there's no point going round and round with it. As a wise man named Ron once said, "agree to disagree."

I can agree to disagree but I would like to leave you with one question.

If that doesn't warrant a criminal charge, how far would a player have to go before you'd feel criminal charges would be warranted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The price for snowing a goalie is a 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

The price for a blind side cross check to someone's head followed by a flurry of punches to his already concussed head is a criminal assault charge.

As you said he played with fire, now he's getting burnt. He also knew exactly what he was doing and now he's paying the price.

No the price for snowing a goalie is getting pummeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the price for snowing a goalie is getting pummeled.

It can be, but I think you'll find the 2 minute penalty is more likely.

Just like the price for pummeling a player can be a criminal charge and possibly the end of your hockey career, but more likely just a suspension.

This time the extreme in both seemed to happen. I have no problem with the guy exacting revenge...as long as he's willing to face the consequences for his

.actions. In this case the consequences are a criminal assault charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference obviously being that one action here is highly provocative and controllable while the other is reactionary and emotional and thus less controllable. I suppose you will argue that this guy beating up a fellow hockeyplayer is provoking to some, yes apparently but not to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree to disagree but I would like to leave you with one question.

If that doesn't warrant a criminal charge, how far would a player have to go before you'd feel criminal charges would be warranted?

Honestly, I don't know what exactly would make me want to bring the law in, I just know that I don't think it's this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the context of the game had a lot to do with it as well. A game filled with fights previously and a blow out score and the team that's up disrespects the goalie and rubs their nose in the fact they're getting blown out. I can see easily why the kid went off the handle so I think the punishment originally given out was fair and criminal charges would be going way overboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the charge was absolutely warranted and I don't think the league gave him even close to a sufficient punishment. That the Woodstock player was suspended at all is a joke, but I wouldn't be upset if the Brantford player was given a permanent ban from minor hockey.

There is no room in the game for that kind of cowardly garbage.

Please. The kid gave the goalie the snowshower of the century and he got his butt handed to him by a guy who wanted to drop the gloves. I'd take that kid that pounded him every day of the week instead of a chicken**** who wants to snow your goalie when your team is ALREADY WINNING. If this kid got pounded outside of a sports event, sure, levy the charges, but if someone in football got squarely tackled, people would be out of their seats... and if you just ran up and tackled a guy on the street, you'd get arrested. its the same thing here. The only cheap shot was the smart*** who got pummeled when he snowed the goalie... if anything, his team should have been down a man after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this