You can't change the title?
Sometimes the most obvious you don't think about when you get distracted.
This work/academics always getting in my way of a successful post.
Work has been eating into my Mgoblog time this week in a serious way.
I grew up a fan of the Avalanche and I am biased.
But I still cannot believe Bertuzzi was allowed to continue in the NHL after this hit. Jump ahead to 6:56 to get a slowed down replay of the incident. (sorry I had trouble copying the video URL at that specific time)
It only made it easier to root against the wings when they picked up Bertuzzi.
There have been a lot of topics in past years about the Bertuzzi/Moore hit on MGoBlog re: the nature of the offense/response etc. and probably most reasonable observers (i.e., those not influenced with homer glasses on either side) will identify that you never jump a guy from behind in hockey regardless of the scenario and because of that there is a serious issue of liability at play at this point. I am referencing the norms of "old time hockey".
That said, I was hoping this wouldn't devolve into the "Moore was a coward"/"Bertuzzi was gutless jumping him from behind" debate. Your comments will only cause the Wings die-hards to go all en fuego upon you and (if they could) send you to Bolivian.
I guess if it happens, it happens but it's certainly a tired debate that's been done before.
I'm more interested in this creepy agreement and the MGoLawopshere.
It was a freak accident. Having screwed around, tackled, wrestled, and generally grab-assed with many friends and teammates on the ice growing up, I'm still shocked that his neck broke.
I'm not defending Bertuzzi because there should definitely be consequences for his actions (I think I'm pretty neutral about him even though he's a Wing; I find myself yelling at him to MOVE more than I'm cheering for great plays), I don't think this incident warranted taking him out of hockey.
I understand I'll probably get downvoted, but these are the conclusions I draw from the incident:
Maybe I'm making excuses for Bertuzzi and am an example of the bad part of hockey culture; I don't think so, though. Even looking at it from an Econ point of view, you take a health risk playing any professional sport and are compensated for not only the scarcity of your talent but also for the risk of injury and length of career. Included in that risk is another player breaking the rules of the game and it affecting you.
Bertuzzi got suspended and it sucks to be Moore. I still think the lawsuit should be thrown out.
i think bertuzzi should have been jailed for a few years. i also think mcsorley should have been jailed for a few years. you don't need fighting in hockey if you don't allow violent criminals to get away with no punishment through the criminal law system. it's not that complicated.
OK, live in a fantasy world where elite athletes and competitors won't get frustrated or upset in the heat of a professional hockey game.
Go ahead and pretend like using a stick as a weapon or cheap shots from the side/back won't occur if the NHL gets rid of fighting...
Maybe we should rename the Gordie Howe Hattrick and call it the "criminal assault plus a goal and an assist trick" 'cause we all know what kind of classless asshat douchebag Gordie Howe is...
You say it isn't complicated, well I say it isn't as simple as hockey fight = crime. Maybe watch hockey more than on occasion and you will notice a few more subtleties of the game.
Fighting isn't allowed in college hockey, high school hockey, or womens' hockey at any level. How often do you hear stories of those folks using their sticks as weapons, or of female hockey players cheap shotting players from behind?
Kids swinging their sticks is actually quite common and results in a major and game misconduct when called correctly. In college, you saw it happen to our own Steve Kampfer.
Kids and colleges aren't in a professional league (and it's hockey, even the NHL isn't on Sportcenter) so you don't read about it in the papers or see it on ESPN. Also, kids swinging sticks doesn't do the damage that professional athletes can do when swinging sticks.
I can continue if you want to continue throwing them in my wheelhouse...
EDIT: To expand on the youth-professional comparison, it is a relatively common belief that since youth hockey players have so much padding now they don't learn proper respect for their opponent and this is leading to a significant rise in concussions in the NHL. Obviously, I'm not for taking cages off youth hockey helmets, but these are valid points to consider besides "these people are monsters".
Kids swinging sticks in my daughter's youth league get thrown out of the game and have to sit the next game. It's an effective deterrent and it makes the kids stop swinging sticks.
We're arguing about nothing now because we're both arguing for appropriate punishment.
No, we are arguing about whether your elementary viewpoint is too simple for a complicated issue.
It would be like saying Rich Rod didn't win more because the Spread football doesn't work in the Big Ten. "Well it didn't work the few times I've watched the NFL and my son's 78er league runs pro-style" is not a supporting argument to this point.
The NHL and juniors permit thuggery. You're okay with that. I'm not.
There's nothing else to argue.
Then stick to youth girls' hockey.
It's better than ignorantly blasting people for situations you clearly don't understand.
And to hit on your expanded point, I'm working from my living room and staring at my daughter's equipment. The issue at her level isn't "too much padding," the amount of equipment is enough. Kids who get hurt at her level (U8-U10) do so because they can't skate well enough, or they don't have ice awareness.
If you're talking U14 or high school then I'm sorry. I think the padding they all wear is appropriate. I think respecting your opponent also means not charging them when they're not looking, and playing with your skates. I don't recall Nicky Lidstrom having to cheap shot players once in 21 years to get the job done. I tell my girl to emulate her or Natalie Darwitz or Krissy Wendell or Winny Brodt, not Todd Bertuzzi.
I am speechless.
Consider someone other than your little daughter for one second. Think about 14-year old kids that are going to end up in the NHL. They are learning their habits THEN. HABITS. Something that occurs over and over. I'm not talking about poor skaters and kids getting hurt. Kids don't get hurt by the things that hurt NHL players because they aren't as big/strong/fast.
If you get hit by an elbow in the head as a peewee and it hurts but doesn't have any real consequence, you learn that you can do it back to other players. That is not respectful hockey. When these 14-year olds end up as 6-2 220 Dion Phaneufs flying around the ice, they can severly injure other players.
That woosh sound was my point flying past your head. I wish i hadn't said anything now because "my daughter does this" claims do not apply.
You and whoever can keep downvoting me, but at least I'm arguing points outside of "Bertuzzi is a terrible person."
Bertuzzi is hardly a "terrible person"; from all reports people I know say he is a pretty engaging guy who is thoughtful. Unfortunately, what he did was to violate "the code" and jump a non-fighter who refused after already having fought a guy in the first period of the game.
See Clarkie, this is what I'm talking about - people that know hockey and poeple that don't know hockey. I can agree with your statements above and I've generally agreed with your opinions on hockey in the past.
But the two posters I'm arguing with refuse to acknowledge that this is more complicated than "Todd Bertuzzi had bloodlust and wanted to kill someone". I'm still in agreement that Bert needed to get a long suspension, which he did. I can't agree with those that make ignorant statements about the game of hockey and walk around thinking they're righteous because they watched the Big Chill and their 6-year old plays minimite.
I don't think Bertuzzi wanted to kill someone. I do think he wanted to fight Moore, and when Moore wouldn't accept, Bertuzzi let his anger and stupidity get the most of him. Bertuzzi made a massive mistake, probably exacerbated by the fact that the Canucks were losing badly, were (and still are) a dirty team, and had a childish coaching staff. But how is it exactly more complicated than that? Because hockey is a violent game, players don't have the right to seek redress when they have their career illegally (by the game's rules) ended on one play, by one player?
And please, spare us the "I know hockey better than you because..." There are ESPN boards where you can all show off your hockey phallus, but I assure you no one cares here.
"I think respecting your opponent also means not charging them when they're not looking, and playing with your skates."
By no means am I am supporting charging; however, when someone is skating with their head down you take it off. I suppose you hate when someone gets "Kronwalled?" Nothing about hitting a player when he does not see it coming is dirty. You are taught to take people off their skates who are not paying attention.
i said what bertuzzi and mcsorley did was criminal. if you can't tell the difference, i don't know what to say.
I know what you said, but acting like the Bertuzzi incident wouldn't have happened if fighting wasn't allowed is comical.
Calling Bertuzzi a 'criminal' before any prior criminal behavior is laughable. Are you Tom Cruise in Minority Report?
Go watch scrums around the net after a whistle on youtube. You'll see guys go over the back of someone around the net, just like Bertuzzi, hundreds of times throughout the course of the season. People don't talk about them because the player doesn't typically have a freak accident where he breaks his neck.
You're arguing the case as if this was Bertuzzi's intent. Freak play, that's it.
i think you should try to slow down and read what i'm actually saying this time.
what i said is that fighting doesn't need to be allowed to prevent things like the bertuzzi incident. you might notice that, even though fighting is allowed, the bertuzzi incident happened. so your first paragraph is pretty buckeye.
what part of bertuzzi being a violent criminal do you not understand? the part where grabbing the shirt of somebody who is trying to skate away, punching them in the head, and falling on them is violent? or the part where aggravated assault and battery is criminal? or the part where a violent criminal is someone who has committed a violent crime? none of this seems difficult. i mean, you don't have to intend to break someone's neck for it to be criminal to punch them in the head from behind when they're trying to get away from you. so your second paragraph is also buckeye.
if seeing people doing what bertuzzi did "hundreds of times throughout the course of a season" is one of the "subtleties of the game" i'd get to see if i watched more hockey, i'm glad i don't. seems pretty buckeye.
and it wasn't a "freak play" because it wasn't a play. it was an attack. what i'm arguing is that bertuzzi punching someone in the head from behind is a violent, criminal act that should've have had serious consequences through the criminal justice system. it doesn't matter if he meant to break the guy's neck or not. if you want to show me a bunch of guys doing the same thing, i'm happy to point out again and again that all of them are guilty of criminal acts and should be punished for them. buckeye yet again.
I'm glad you ruined buckeye for a lot of people just now. I'm done arguing because I've made all my points.
If you and the other guy want to keep seeing the world in black and white, good luck.
You seem to have difficulty with that incredibly simple concept and yet you regularly belitte the people disagreeing with you, with an arrogance that could only stem from knowing that you're playing on home ice. Bertuzzi's act was repulsive, and I find the defenses of him here to be repulsive.
What Vernon Gholston did to Lewan when he attempted to dislocate his elbow or shoulder was outside the normal course of violence of that game, was an intentional act, and should have drawn serious repercussions. What Bertuzzi did was even more vile, as the consequences could have been (and were) more severe, what with the whole hard sheet of ice thing in the equation.
Sorry, but as a "casual observer" of the game, your opinion has holes in it. Because like any casual observer of any situation, all you ever saw was the replayed-over-and-over sound bite. You're calling Bertuzzi's attack a "violent, criminal assault" without the slightest consideration that the entire game of hockey is a violent, criminal assault by legal standards. Try bodyslamming someone into the wall during your next encounter, or facewashing them with snow, or getting into a fistfight, or bothering them with a hockey stick, and see if the police don't get involved.
In other words, you're perfectly willing to accept the rest of hockey as outside the realm of normal judgment because it's a hockey game, but you want a 60-second highlight of it judged by legal standards. No. Judge it by hockey standards. And I think Sushi did a perfectly good job of summing up the hockey standards.
You hit the nail on the head. Having read the whole thread, seems we have a debate between those that have played and/or watch a lot of hockey versus those that watch hockey highlights.
Played my whole life from AAA (Caesars!) to Junior A (Compuware...minor, I know) and can say without a doubt that those that play the game understand certain elements that casual fans will never. The fighting comments are a perfect example. I recall the first fight on a team I played for at around age 14. I have seen line fights involving high school age players. It happens. Hockey is a unique game, good and bad. If you don't like it, don't watch.
PS- I wonder if some of the posters believe that Suh should be "thrown in jail for a few years" for some of the antics he pulls on the football field. Perspective.
I played at competitive levels for fourteen years and have refereed higher levels than that for seven; I am very confident in my abilities to assess a situation, especially from an official's point of view.
That said, just because what Bertuzzi did wasn't either unprecidented or intentional doesn't mean he was given an appropriate punishment. A match was called on the ice, which in every other level can result in a lifetime ban from that orginazation (I assume the NHL has the same maximum penalty, but my quick Google couldn't find the wording I wanted), so there would be precident for that ruling had it come down. I don't think he deserved a lifetime ban, but twenty games was not enough; he should have been out for 2005 as well. Even if an action isn't intended to cause the harm it did, Bertuzzi is responsible for the outcome (and that's an accepted principle of hockey), which was pretty horrific, both for Moore and the perception of the NHL.
So, yea, personally, I think Bertuzzi got off easy, and I honestly think it's awful that he attempted to settle the case for $350,000.
I can't believe I'm wading into this mess, but here goes:
I agree with almost everything you said, but a couple of points:
-the IIHF upheld Bertuzzi's NHL suspension, so he wasn't allowed to play overseas during the lockout. This is obviously less punishment than a missed NHL season, but of the lockout hadn't happened, I think the NHL might have given him a one year ban.
-my understanding is that Bertuzzi initially offered substantially more than $350K, but was turned down. If Moore's parents are going to sue for $1MM+ for emotional damage, then I have no problem with Bertuzzi low balling the settlement offer. It's all legal posturing at this point.
I was unaware of a prior settlement offer. If he did make an offer I'd call reasonable (no, I don't think Moore is being reasonable at $35m or whatever) then that changes my opinion on that aspect big time; his lawyers need to do what they need to do.
The IIHF thing is kind of whatever to me. Sure, it hurt Bertuzzi, but it didn't really help the NHL. One thing I definitely belive is that Bertuzzi hurt the perception of the NHL in a real way, so there's a factor even beyond being punished for the Moore hit.
As to determining what is "reasonable" I imagine the courts will have to look at limitation on earning capacity for Moore secondary to the injury following Bertuzzi's attack. As to the amount I imagine it falls somewhere between the earnings of Moore's less talented brother Domenic and Bertuzzi. Could he have reasonably earned $36 million since the time of his injury? In the prime of his career it is certainly not unreasonable. You might or might not like Steve Moore (and it shouldn't matter if you are a Wings/Avs/Canucks fan) but the guy could absolutely play and this is the tragedy of the situation (apart from the horrific injury).
I don't fault Moore's parent's much; if someone attacked your son/daughter in a malicious and unprovoked manner (Moore fought Matt Cooke in the 1st period met "the code") with their back turned you might want your legal remedy. If a person feels truly wronged they will take whatever avenues might be available to them.
Maybe I was unclear. What I meant by "reasonable" is that Moore can't seriously expect Bertuzzi to settle out of court at that figure, and I was saying it in response to what Bertuzzi's potential offer should have been (after I said $350k was ridiculous).
If Moore said "$36m or we go to court", Bertuzzi should have lowballed the settlement and gone ahead with the proceedings, and I wouldn't fault him or his lawyers for that.
yes, suh should also be prosecuted. a sports context is not an excuse for attacking people. perspective.
Sorry, but as a causal observer of me, your opinion has holes in it. I virtually never watch highlights (of anything). I watch college hockey and some local teams at various levels. I don't watch the NHL very often because NHL "hockey culture" is primarily made up of people defending ridiculously violent behavior with no actual hockey value. In other words, I'm perfectly willing to accept fighting, run-of-the-mill penalties, and other rough play as outside the realm of normal judgment because all parties to the game consent to play by rules that allows that stuff, but I want a three-week build-up to a premeditated criminal act that ended a man's career judged by legal standards. (Incidentally, I also want a bunch of fools on this thread to stop presupposing they can read between the lines of my comments, when their supposed insights involve a bunch of stuff I never said or suggested.)
this makes zero sense what so ever.
If this is a valid argument, independently of the history of the game, why don't we allow fighting in football, where a vicious hit can lead to paralysis? Or basketball to keep players from undercutting? Or soccer, which isn't nearly as violent but where it's pretty easy to destroy a player's leg if you have a mind to (and I've seen it deliberately done at least once)? Why is it only hockey players who need this outlet to avoid resorting to dangerous on-field retialiation?
North American professional hockey is the only sport I can think of in which the players are expected to resolve their differences themselves on the field of play through fisticuffs. The only thing I can think of that's similar is baseball, first before the Ray Chapman beaning and again in the 60s and 70s, when pitchers were expected to use the threat of a beaning to enforce informal rules. It took the death of a player to force change the first time (and the changes were massive--it isn't an accident that the dead-ball era died the same year as Chapman).
A culture has developed in the NHL in which fighting is the accepted way of sorting things out. It isn't the only way possible--a look at European professional hockey would seem to show that--but it isn't easy to shift from one mode to the other.
Oh well maybe Steve Moore shouldnt be trying to hurt people what goes around comes around. Bert never intended to break his neck but yea im sure he tried to hurt him. So do most people when they hit one another. Freak accidents happen. So when Richard Zednik gets his skate cut by his teamate i guess he should sue because his teamates should be in perfect control of his legs. No, fighting is part of hockey and its a rough sport its a risk you take when playing that you might actually die. Just another dirty Avs player who got hurt. The league was doing a piss poor job or policing itself those days. The Steve Moore injury may have never occrued if the league would have actually done something to him for the hit on Naslund. That hit today would warrent a suspension. Players were having to police things themselves back then. If you remember Bert was grabbing and talking to moore for a good length of time before he got punched perhaps maybe if hed stop being scared and fight and own up to his actions he wouldnt have gotten hurt. You don't see me crying because I have pins in my shoulder and dont have full range of motion due to some French Canadian. Did I sue no because its called a mans sport for a reason. Suck it up and play like one. . If you never played hockey at a high level you wont understand why it happened and why it isnt a big deal.
We both know the norms of "old time hockey".
You don't jump a guy from behind. Never. Circumstances don't matter. You don't do it. We coach kids from their first years not to hit from behind. When they get to body contact they can't hit from behind and when they reach an age and level where fighting is allowed you coach that you never hit a guy from behind. Bertuzzi hit Moore from behind.
Everything else surrounding the debate is noise and rationalization.
If you don't jump the guy from behind none of this happens and it's not like he wouldn't have enjoyed many years of potential to beat on Steve Moore.
Steve Moore knew of bertuzzi behind him he was talking and grabbing at him for a good 8 seconds before the event occurred. He should have turned around and confronted Bert. This is perfectly fine with me he have him every chance to turn around and he refused. There are so many dirty little things that occur during a game that have potential to be serious but they never generally end up that way. Also for people who think fighting doesn't happen in college or midgets or bantams it does. How do I know well I've been in several of them and gotten jumped from behind
Or, since the Avs were winning 8-2 and Moore had already fought Cooke in the first period, he could ignore him, like you're supposed to do.
this is perfectly fine with me he have him every chance to turn around and he refused.
Noted. Next time I yell at a person from behind for 8 seconds in a sports game, I have license to punch them in the back of the head.
Orrrrr since the Avs were winning by such a great margin, Steve Moore doesn't run the opponents leading scorer, captain and well-known finesse player.
Not justifying Bertuzzi, just saying it's more complicated than most of the detractors here make it out to be...
Bertuzzi didn't seek out Moore because he was mad at life.
Naslund was injured in a game five weeks before the 9-2 game.
I'm sorry, I admit I was wrong. Got them mixed up. Moore's hit on Naslund happened when the game was 0-0.
Moore hit the head of leading scorer in the league with his shoulder/elbow when he didn't have the puck on his stick. Moore was playing out of control.
Bertuzzi is still at fault, but it's not like Bertuzzi tried to fight Moore over nothing and the injury was freak in nature.
While we all know why Bertuzzi went after Moore, it doesn't excuse the actions of Bertuzzi. Moore turned down Bertuzzi, which should have been the end of it. Injuries being "freak in nature" don't get play in court; the intent does, and the intent was to harm. This wasn't a grab from behind by the goal after a drive to the net. This was an attempt to blindside a player.
This really isn't that far off from what Tropp and Conboy did to Kampfer. I suspect you wouldn't be defending Bertuzzi so strongly if he wasn't on the Red Wings.
If Tropp and Conboy got jumped from behind how'd you feel?
I'd feel bad for them. They are both immature assholes, but they don't deserve to have their careers ended because of it.
Your point doesn't even make sense. Moore's hit on Naslund was about 5% as bad as Bertuzzi's.
What Conboy did was reasonably similar. What Tropp did is the worst thing I've ever seen in hockey, period, exclamation point - worse than McSorley and Bertuzzi combined. Have to separate those two if you're going to make a realistic comparison. Hell, even Conboy appeared to realize Tropp had gone too far and exchanged words with Tropp before the mob got there.
You're correct. I should only say Conboy.
Let's see if your best player was cheapt shotted and targeted. If you were playing professional hockey where people have complete and total control of how they hit people. Where there is a code amongst players. But if you did do that at least that person is smart enough to turn around and defend himself or say something back. Instead he just skated along like he was deaf. If you actually played hockey beyond adult or house leagues such as high level jr's or college you would comepletely understand. Even a die hard fan doesnt understand what goes on out there. This is why current players dont hate Todd Bertuzzi (who's actually quite respected amongst his peers) most players in the league can't stand people who cry like this message board is doing EX: Sidney Crosby. Hockey is a mans game if you hurt someone good deliberatly someones going to go after you until your hurt. Or you defend yourself. When Darren McCarty jumped claude no one here objected. Somehow Lemiux knew it was happening in 1 second he was defending himself while being punched. Moore's own lack of understand of the situation is a contibuting factor to this.
Moore can choose to go or not to go in that instance. In the league there are players with many roles and a well understood norm is that you ask a guy if he wants to go and then the guy either accepts and fights or skates away. You then have the right to call him 'gutless' or a 'coward' both on the ice and in the media. You also have the right to engage their enforcer on your next shift.
This norm of "old time hockey" is what allows the Phil Kessel's, Henrik Zetteberg's and Pat Kane's of the world to do what they do without fear of imminent death on the ice (see: Flyers, Philadelphia "Broad Street Bullies" era)
If a guy (particularly a non-fighter) refuses to go you call him several unprintable names then skate off confident in the notion that on your next shift you absolutely will get to fight somebody. "Old time hockey".
Also, fighting doesn't happen here in bantam or midget (well, not unless you want a serious OHA suspension/reprimand and your coaches to enjoy a few meetings). Once you get to juniors it is open season (but with the unstated norms as above).
Bertuzzi knew about this, he's from Sudbury fergodsakes.
Sure Moore didnt wanna go but he never said a word to him he never even looked at him instead he did the dumb thing and turned away.
I’ve taken off my helmet gloves and squared up with kids who wanted to fight in midgets and never got a suspension. Most refs will change the write up so we don’t get suspended. I wasn’t even allowed to fight by my coach but I enjoyed it. I got my face beat down more than my fair share but hey its part of the game if you don’t like it go play basketball where you get in trouble for almost touching someone.
I would love to know where in the world you've dropped your helmet and gloves in midget hockey and not gotten a roughing major (fighting) plus the three games.
If, in fact, that did happen, those referees are very lucky there were no scouts at your games; they'd be out of USA Hockey very quickly.
I still despise Bertuzzi even to this day. He's one of the reasons I'm not as big of a Red Wings fan these days.
His suspension was the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, meanwhile Moore can never play again.
This secret agreement, I can only assume, is to indemnify each of the defendants from each other.
So when Moore got hurt, he sued Bertuzzi as the one who actually committed the act, but he also sued Crawford (the coach) and the owners of the cannucks (as Bertuzzi's employer). This is much like going after UPS when their driver backs over your bike, for example. The owner has responsibility for his workers, as does apparently a coach.
In these situations, the company (team/coach) almost always goes after the wrongdoer (Bertuzzi) to recover any money coughed up in the judgment. However, this agreement appears to have limited whether they can all go after each other. The effect is that certain parties are protected that shouldn't be, and defendants that should be fighting only for themselves (and against each other) are now fighting together.
This also means that each of the defendants' interests are now in line with each other, which can be good and bad. Good because it will likely result in a quicker settlement, but bad because Moore won't be able to have a judgment pinned on any single entity. The agreement may also include some sort of share-of-the-penalty clause, which dictates who pay what percentage of the final amount.
In any case, the judge is going to want to know exactly what they agreed so he can determine how it will affect Moore's rights.
This was what I was looking for; in terms of "how it will affect Moore's rights" what are you meaning?
See my post below. I can't imagine any way that this agreement could affect Moore's rights. Presumably, Moore has a claim against:
1. Bertuzzi, for clocking him [this is a "tort", not a dessert, but a fancy way of saying a wrong perpetrated against you by someone with whom you do not have a contractual relationship]
2. Owners of the Canucks, because owners are responsible for the torts of their employees when committed within the scope of their employment [i.e., if Bertuzzi hit Moore in the parking lot, he's not acting as a hockey player for the Canucks but just as a dude on the street, during the game he is perhaps acting as a hockey player for the Canucks]
3. Crawford, for . . . beats me. Crawford doesn't employ Bertuzzi so there's not the same kind of liability as in #2. Maybe there's a theory that Crawford ordered the hit [in which case he's liable for battery] or encouraged the hit [negligence?]
Any how, to the extent any one of these folks is liable, Moore can collect the full amount of the damages he is owed. If multiple are liable, then there is likely what we refer to as "joint and several liability", in which Moore can go after any one he wants for the full amount or part of the amount. [So if the judgment is 3 dollars, he can get 3+0+0, 2+1+0, or 1+1+1]. Now in the joint and several liabiltiy situation, the defendants can later sort out amongst themselves who should have paid. So, say Bertuzzi thinks Crawford is 100% at fault for ordering the hit, but Moore collected the judgment from Bertuzzi. Bertuzzi can go after Crawford and try to collect what he paid. I'm assuming this is what the agreement was about. But this is speculation -- the article is quite vague and omits a lot of detail (perhaps legitimately - sounds like the agreement is still secret).
That is reportedly why Moore sued Crawford, although Crawford claims the exact opposite.
It's not clear to me that this is an indemnification agreement. The article mentions that the parties to the agreement won't sue eachother, but doesn't say that one party agreed to cover a damages award against another. Really, there's too much left out of the article to definitively say what the agreement is.
But regardless, the agreement shouldn't affect Moore. Moore has various theories of liability against each of the three defendants. If he wins, he collects, regardless of what the defendants agreed upon among themselves.
I also don't understand this statement:
bad because Moore won't be able to have a judgment pinned on any single entity
Why is that so? If Bertuzzi is liable for the full amount of Moore's damages, he has to pay it. Maybe Crawford agreed to cover a portion of that money, but that's between Crawford and Bertuzzi, and has nothing to do with Moore.
The only relevance that I see here is that the defendants kept an agreement secret from the court and their opponent. In the U.S., that's a no-no, but that's because we require disclosure of possibly relevant information and not because the information necessarily affects the substance of the litigation.
The court in Canada, it seems, also requires disclosure of the same nature.
Todd Bertuzzi is a terrible human being for having done this. I agree with the other poster - I love the Red Wings but cannot cheer for Todd Bertuzzi. Anyone who jumps someone from behind like that is a 100% coward.
As for the legal agreement, it's a standard procedure in some injury lawsuits but it's normally disclosed to the court. That's the only issue.
Terrible human? Jeesh.
How about we start off by identifying that this was a 'heat of the moment' action rather than a premeditated action and then readjust our scale for terrible human beings.
I guess you've never had an untintended negative outcome when you reacted in the heat of the moment. 95% of hockey fans wouldn't even know Moore's name if he had gotten a concussion rather than breaking his neck.
It wasn't "heat of the moment." Bertuzzi was retaliating for an incident that happened in a game three weeks before the injury, and his entire team was instigating fights with Moore all game long. There's no way a "heat of passion" argument would ever fly in the courtroom based on an incident that happened 3 weeks prior. No way.
If you think that kind of activity is cool, good for you. It's deplorable and it's only accepted activity in the juniors and in the NHL. Not college hockey, not high school hockey, not international hockey. Only the juniors and the NHL.
Clearly Nick Cage wasn't the bad guy when he killed that mugger while protecting his fiance at the beginning of Con Air.
Bertuzzi is Cameron Poe in this situation
/trolling at this point because you fail/refuse to consider any situational detail.
It wasn't the heat of the moment. He followed him around the ice trying to provoke him during an 8-2 game. The fact that you are trying to defend his actions, which he himself were dirty and awful, is pretty fucking ridiculous.
No lawyer here, but this makes me wonder why the owners would agree to not file suit against Bertuzzi to make up for any damages they have to pay Moore.
The only reason I can come up with is if Crawford did actually give Bertuzzi instructions to go after Steve Moore. If he's acting on orders from his coach (management), wouldn't the owners then share liability?
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just curious.
The conventional wisdom reported in Canada is that Crawford ordered the team to get Moore and that Bertuzzi has been deposed in the matter by Tim Danson and indicated as much.
From what I have heard talked about most, Crawford was encouraging a payback. I dislike Crawford since he is part of the issue here but he seems to have gotten off with little punishment.
They have courts in Canada?
you can all go around and around on this issue just like we did in law school - consent v. criminal act. informed consent. nobody can consent to a crimnial act. etc etc etc. there are cases that go both ways and the arguments on each side are compelling. that is why we need lawyers. yay.
A nice move by Bertuzzi's lawyer. The Canucks really didn't want to pay under Crawford's insurance policy, Crawford didn't want to pay out of pocket for damages that exceeded his insurance coverage of ten million, and Bertuzzi wanted to have some protection from the canucks that he otherwise would not have had due to the fact that his actions were criminal. So in essence -
-Bertuzzi is at least partially covered by Canucks
-Crawford is out of the counter claim by Bertuzzi
-Canucks don't have to pay for Crawford
Everybody wins! Except of course for Moore. And the public. That three-way cage match would have been fun to watch.
Why doesn't Moore win? He can still get his full amount of damages. Or is your point just that Moore got hurt, and that stinks, so he can't win at this point (if so, I agree).
It's not great for Moore mainly because evidence that likely would've have come to light in the cross claims will now be very difficult to get. Also, Moore was subjected to neurological examinations that should not have happened.
that seems to be to Moore's advantage. Bertuzzi is now at least partially covered by the Canucks, a party with (I would guess) rather deeper pockets.
I'd be interested to know if the Canucks' insurer was party to this agreement. I would expect them to attempt to deny coverage for damages resulting from Bertuzzi's actions on the grounds that they were criminal; an agreement by the Canucks to cover wouldn't be binding on the insurer and I wouldn't expect the club to be willing to self-insure their liability here.
Disagree with you about Moore being at an advantage in this, especially if there is only partial coverage of Bertuzzi
If a court find tortious liability to Moore on the part of anyone, it can't be avoided through contractual agreements among the parties at fault. The Canucks might have agreed to pick up some liability they wouldn't otherwise have, but they can't shed it through a side agreement.
I know they can't shed it. What I'm saying is that if Bertuzzi gets hit hard and the Canucks only cover it partially, Moore obviously will be unable to collect. This small advantage he might get from the Canucks covering is outweighed imo by losing what would have come out in the cross claims
I have long wondered if this Bertuzzi Moore fiasco would draw less emotion/foment if Bertuzzi happened to play for Columbus and Moore was a player with Tampa at the time of the injury.
What this also tells you is that Crawford almost certainly told Bertuzzi to do what he did, and the Canucks know it.
IMHO, Bertuzzi is not a bad person, nor is he a criminal. I spent 17 years playing hockey, and the last four seasons of my career were in junior leagues throughout the US and Canada(I rode the bench, I'm not trying to brag here). I DO NOT condone what Bert did by any means. It was ruthless and definitely warranted punishment...however, when you let anger get the best of you on the ice, you will likely do something stupid that you would not do if you were level-headed. In one of my games, the opposing team's star-player (Mike Santee) grabbed my stick and wouldn't let go. I asked him to fight while he was holding my stick parallel with his chest, and he would not drop his gloves or let go of my stick, so I cross-checked him in the neck, knocking him out of the game, and got jumped by their goalie and started a line brawl. It was a dirty, dirty play. Maybe nowhere near Bert's dumb move, but when you're angry, you stop using rationale and that is when stuff like this happens.
Right but anger can't just be an excuse to do anything you want on the ice. Where do you draw the line?
I don't think it justifies the actions of the player in any situation. I do not think that letting your emotions get the better of you makes you a terrible person, however, as many of the readers seem to think in regards to Bertuzzi.