Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
I've watched it. Nothing has changed. The whole thing goes down in 3 seconds.
|
And yet, people over analyse a hit to the head which is based off of a split second decision, and sometimes isn't even on purpose.
Doesn't matter how long you spend being reckless with an intent to injure, Kessel arguably had more intent to injure than Scott did. Scott wanted a fight, he's an enforcer, it's terribly unlikely he would just beat the living hell out if Kessel without any interference by anyone else.
You can look at this two ways: Kessel used his stick to further prod Scott into an altercation, or Kessel sought to deter Scott from an altercation through injury. In no right mind does the thought "well maybe if I just gently tap him he'll leave me alone", especially when taking full swings.
In fact, using your logic, it's easy to argue that Scott only continued pursuing Kessel BECAUSE of the slash.
I find it unbelievable anyone is defending Kessel. You might as well defend Marty McSorely. While his infraction was 10 times worse, they both assaulted someone with a weapon.
If you can't defend yourself with your own two hands and you choose to use a weapon against another player then you have no place in hockey. Was Kessel's THAT bad? No, but there is zero justifiable reason to defend his use of his stick as a weapon.
This board constantly rips on Burrows for biting (rightfully so) despite his reasoning was that he felt suffocated and was only reacting because he thought he was in danger. Why? Because you don't BITE in hockey, even if you're a small punk like Burrows. You also don't use weapons against other players.