Nathan, you write:
 
 
> Which ones are punishable by law?
>
> 1. An on-ice bench clearing brawl where several players are seriously hurt
> when their nuckles are bruised from hitting other players' helmets.
> 2. A hit from behind (illegal play) which causes the player delivering the
> hit a permanent loss of motor ability.
> 3. A charging player, with the strategy of stopping a goal from being
> scored, throws an opponent off his feet and then the charging player's
> head rebounds off the goal post and into the boards resulting in a severe
> grade three concussion.
> 4.  A player's stick jams into the boards (at the Zamboni entrance) and it
> plunges into his gut, resulting in severe abdominal tears.
> 5.  Two players sandwich an opponent against the boards, rough him up,
> knock his helmet off, and send him crashing onto the ice head first and
> then go after the referee who did not call a penalty because they were
> told by their coach that they'd be sent to the minors if their PIMs were
> not increased; and given that PIMs are the reason these guys can maintain
> the current standard of living of their families, the referee was
> obviously taking away the ability of their kids to attend private school
> and their wifes to vacation in the Bahamas.
>
> Now of course if your only interest is punishing violent outcomes, then
> the first four are all guilty.
>
Au contraire, mon ami.  #1 is a player harming himself (stupidly, I might
add) and you can hardly hold the other player at fault for letting his
helmet get in the way of the knuckles.
 
#2 could be - but proving intent to injure will be well nigh impossible so a
prosecution is not a reasonable outcome.
 
#3 - See #1.  He hurt himself (according to your post).
 
#4 - an accident.  Prosecute what?  The rink manager for maintaining a
dangerous situation?
 
#5 - Just how outlandish do you want to make your examples?  Both those
players will be out of hockey after that anyway, but the refs could probably
get them prosecuted.  The other player, doubtful (see #2).
 
> However if you are afraid of violent outcomes, then
> take up figure skating.
>
I don't really think the discussion is advanced by the use of hyperbole nor
do I think it is fair to characterize Vicki's posts as suggesting she wants
to eliminate violent outcomes.  What I think she is trying to say (and I
should just let her say it herself) is that while violent outcomes are
inevitable in a contact sport, there are ways to minimize them, and some
behavior is so far out of the bounds of hockey as a sport that they should
be held to normal legal standards (i.e., that the "sport" aspect does not
protect you from all actions).  Anyway, that's my take on all this.
 
 
Tom Rowe                                          [log in to unmask]
====================================
Home of Division 3 National Champion Pointers
89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners Up 92 & 98
====================================
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.