[ot] bertuzzi jumps moore-> hospital *update on moore*

[cbuckser]

At the beginning of tonight's Wild-Canucks game, TSN.ca reported that Steve Moore suffered no damage to his nerves or spinal cord.  Recovering from surgery to the cervical spine is no picnic (the average person has four inches of muscle in the back of the neck), but the absence of neurological damage means he should be able to make a complete recovery.

[Pete Godenschwager]

Bertuzzi is out for the rest of the regular season and playoffs:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1756628

[melissa \'01]

http://www.nhl.com/onthefly/news/2004/03/206088.html

[melissa \'01]

Ooops. Sorry Pete. That teaches me to read before posting but th 1hr delay on the post time screwed me up!  :-)

[ben03]

IMHO, Gary Bettman Colin, Campbell and the NHL have sent a message that this behavior will not be tolerated. The TBD open-ended suspension handed down to Todd Bertuzzi and the $250,000 fine to the Canucks organization is fair and is in no way too severe. Allowing the situation to calm down and re-assessing what transpired before the next season of play is a decision that should be applauded. In a case where cooler heads did not prevail the first time around they have done just that the second time.

...just my $.02 :-)

[ugarte]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 Realistically, I think the way you put it is the case.  You can't seriously think Bertuzzi intended to break Moore's neck or anything like that, and I'm sure he feels awful about the actual unintended (and, thinking like a law student, likely unforeseeable) consequences of his actions.  [/Q]Limiting what is forseeable to what is probable is unfair and too kind to Bertuzzi.  

Start with the fact that he sucker-punched Moore from behind and then tackled him, giving him no opportunity to brace his own fall. If you think that the easily forseeable consequence is a broken nose, it is pretty clear that a brain or neck injury when Moore's head hit the ice are also quite forseeable.

I agree that Bertuzzi's apology sounded sincere, and that he wasn't thinking enough about the consequences of his actions, but thoughtless brutality has to be stopped also.  I'm all for fights between people who want to fight, but this was disgusting.  Kudos to the league for coming down hard.

[paulspen]

I think they would have given him a longer suspension, but are looking at the possibility of next season starting very late...if at all.

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]From the ESPN story:

"These comments are for Steve. I had no intention of hurting you," Bertuzzi said Wednesday night, reading a statement before the Canucks played the Wild.[/Q]

Duh, you had no intention of hurting him when you grabbed him from behind, hit him in the face, and pushed him to the ice?

When will we all realize that the best way of putting this behind us is to accept responsibility and say you're sorry. Anything less than that just continues the discussion.

We should have learned from the Tylenol tampering case (I know it's too many years ago for most people, but maybe should be required yearly reading for anyone in the public eye) that if you accept responsiblity right away you can recover your good name.

I would have hoped that the team would have counselled him to just say what he did from the beginning was wrong and he accepts total responsibility for the consequences.

[dss28]

As I posted above, I agree with you Jim... but as someone told me on uscho:

[Q]Were he to say, "I am sorry for what I did," he is admitting blame for the incident. I have to believe that his attorneys have told him to avoid any admission of guilt and gave him specific phrasing. I work in PR, and I've got to believe that much of that statement was scripted by an attorney and a PR professional, or at least was created into message points, all of which was designed to avoid acknowledging any culpability.[/Q]

And later, when I asked "But... we already KNOW he's the culprit.  Would saying 'I'm sorry for what I did' make him guilty for something we already know he did?" (or something to that effect):

[Q]Yes, absolutely, and I agree that it seems like a strange thing, a strange difference.

However, sometimes you don't want to admit these things, because if you do so, it then means that if you try to plea down to a lesser charge, you are contradicting what you've already admitted. It means that you are putting yourself in a position to be named in a civil suit, as opposed to just a criminal trial. It defines your defense, by admitting blame you've already made it difficult to shape the story as a temporary moment of insanity, changes how you are able to deal with the premeditated thing, etc. And so on. For a lawyer, that gives you NO opportunity to ever change your story. Lawyers hate stuff like that, it locks 'em in. That said, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not the best person to deal with the in depth legalese of all of that.

As a PR guy, for me it woudl mean that the media has thousands of opportunities to quote you and show you on TV saying "I did this, it's my fault, I take the blame," the sort of thing that your reputation might never recover from. But how many times will they really show a generic, "what happened was a sad accident, I am glad to hear that he will recover fully." There's really no there, there. That's a HUGE difference for the team and for Bertuzzi.[/Q]

Interesting points, and I suppose it makes me feel a little better about it... but something still doesn't sit well with me about the entire situation. :-/

[CowbellGuy]

Something about the "until Moore returns" suspension doesn't sit well with me. That's like saying, well, it's OK to take cheap shots and be a goon as long as you don't hurt the guy enough to cause him to miss games. If it's something like a year or until Moore returns, whichever is longer, that would be fine with me. I suppose the NHL did the wisest thing by leaving it open-ended.

What? I only kicked him in the 'nads from behind while pulling his mullet! He can't have children now, but it's not like he's missing any games...

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 If it's something like a year or until Moore returns, whichever is longer, that would be fine with me. I suppose the NHL did the wisest thing by leaving it open-ended. [/Q]What I thought exactly, when I looked at your poll. Oops, that answer wasn't there:-D .

[KenP]

McSorley believes Bertuzzi did not intend harm

[KenP]

McSorley believes Bertuzzi did not intend harm:
  http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1757813

I'm not trying to excuse Bertuzzi's actions, but I'm starting to waffle on how long he should be suspended for.  Regardless of Moore's condition I think he should be allowed to play next season.  The act was vicious, but he's otherwise a classy player and also a "first-time offender".  I think calling giving his career the death penalty is excessive.

[ben03]

[Q]KenP Wrote:
I'm not trying to excuse Bertuzzi's actions, but I'm starting to waffle on how long he should be suspended for.  Regardless of Moore's condition I think he should be allowed to play next season.  The act was vicious, but he's otherwise a classy player and also a "first-time offender".  I think calling giving his career the death penalty is excessive.
 [/Q]


First-time offender ... first time for what, breaking another players neck!?! Todd Bertuzzi is by no means a Brian Leech of the NHL. He has hit an official and had his fair share of fighting majors. "Seriously  ... i didn't know the gun was loaded, i mean i pointed it at him but didn't think it was going too ..."
BULL SH*t! Whether he did not think what he was doing was wrong is not the issue, what he did was wrong and he should sit, for a longlong time.

[Tom Pasniewski 98]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/03/13/rink_may_require_armed_police/

Do they really need to be armed?  Are they going to have to shoot somebody?