On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:55:11 -0700, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>I haven't seen the play but based on the descriptions it seems that
>perhaps hockey needs to borrow a concept from soccer, which is calling
>dangerous play a foul.  One need not read the mind of the player as to
>intent, the issue is recklessness.  Having said that I'm sure that the
>resulting severe injury was certainly not intended.

Part of what made the crowd so incensed at the game was the announcement of
one of the Eaves penalties as "intent to injure", which was hotly disagreed
with by most of the attendees.  (Well, by most of the BC fans, anyway.)  I
think what the referee intended by the penalty, and the way I've seen it
called in other hockey games, was exactly what Arthur was referring to
as "dangerous play".  Because hockey does not have this specific penalty
(as far as I know) they usually try to indicate a more-severe penalty by
assigning a 5-minute major or a double minor in place of a regular 2-minute
minor.  The fact that an injury occurs is not in itself a penalty, no
matter how severe the injury.  The question is whether the player engaged
in play that was illegal at the time.  In this specific case, at most Eaves
made a play that was risky, hence "dangerous play".  One could make the
case that Exter did the exact same thing by his decision to come out so far
and play the puck with a forward dive.  I would think that if the referee
had the option to offer a 2-minute penalty or even a 5-minute penalty
for "dangerous play" rather than the more inflammatory and
accusatory "intent to injure", it would defuse some anger in cases like
these.

Sometimes we see a referee let a play go that is questionable, only to call
a penalty after the fact when he sees that an injury results.  That always
seemed wrong to me; if the call deserved a penalty, why didn't he call it
originally?  I would think that having the option to call a penalty for
risky behavior would make a referee more likely to make the call,
regardless of injury.  Or maybe not -- if they aren't calling anything now,
having another type of penalty to call won't matter.  In any case, I would
much rather see a penalty called for "dangerous play" (i.e., play outside
the bounds of normally accepted practice on the ice) than any
interpretation of "intent to injure."  To me, intent to injure is about the
most serious charge that can be leveled at a player, and it should be
reserved for deliberate head-hunting and two-handed slashes, etc.

Maybe we just need referees that are near-perfect and never miss a call or
make the wrong call.  Just like all those referees in the stands ...  :-))

-- Rick McAdoo