McGrattan ko'ed in the AHL

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cana...al_Law/Consent

"Consent can be negated or vitiated where the force causes bodily harm and was intended to be caused."

Good luck arguing you meant no harm when you punched someone in the nose and it broke, but I guess that's what lawyers are for. This whole angle is abstract regardless.

Sorry to feel compelled to get the last word on this but your quote says exactly what I said. Consent is not lost because of unintended injuries.

From the footnotes in your link:

during a fist fight, consent is not vitiated unless accused intended to inflict bodily harm

Broken nose? People unfortunately sometimes fall during a fight, hit their heads and die. Recently I was consulted on such a case where the Crown did not proceed with charges...because the fight was between consenting adults and there was no intent to cause injury / death.

I am not posing theoretical scenarios. Your impression that consensual fights lead to arrests and charges as some kind of automatic certainty is wrong. I suppose one could say that is because consensual fights are not illegal (which I have in fact been saying).

So I still am asking the question, if in spite of the risks two adults can legally resolve their differences by fighting (and to date society has not been compelled to change that), then what is the compelling need to ban hockey players from the exact same conduct?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MBates

Your impression that consensual fights lead to arrests and charges as some kind of automatic certainty is wrong.

So I still am asking the question, if in spite of the risks two adults can legally resolve their differences by fighting (and to date society has not been compelled to change that), then what is the compelling need to ban hockey players from the exact same conduct?

That's not my impression. My impression is that there is grey area, and it's complicated, which I explicitly stated. Surely nobody familiar with the law deals in black and white, nor would they be as matter-of-fact to suggest that "two guys want to fight? No possible negative outcome! Society thinks it's fine!" That's simply not true, and it's an untrue view of society.

I guess my question to you is: What other profession do you know of in North America where employees are allowed to fight on the job (where 'fighter' isn't the job title), or put themselves in unnecessary danger while acting outside the rules and regulations of said job?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's not my impression. My impression is that there is grey area, and it's complicated, which I explicitly stated. Surely nobody familiar with the law deals in black and white, nor would they be as matter-of-fact to suggest that "two guys want to fight? No possible negative outcome! Society thinks it's fine!" That's simply not true, and it's an untrue view of society.

I guess my question to you is: What other profession do you know of in North America where employees are allowed to fight on the job (where 'fighter' isn't the job title), or put themselves in unnecessary danger while acting outside the rules and regulations of said job?

You forgot one parameter - where the employees themselves were asked and voted 98 percent in favor of being allowed to fight on the job.

Think about that. How many NHL players who have never and will never fight had to vote in favor of fighting to get numbers that high?

So, no, I am not aware of another profession to compare with. But I think that is totally side-stepping the question.

In a society that does not make fist-fighting illegal, these employees have voted to allow it to be part of their job. They cannot vote to allow actual criminal assaults (conduct you cannot legally consent to) to be part of the game (as some players like Bertuzzi have found out the hard way). But consent fights are by definition not criminal assaults.

I am not saying law is black and white...I know better than most that is not true. And I just pointed out some people die in consensual fights so I have never and will never suggest there is no possible negative outcome.

My bottom line? I do not see any problem with a professional hockey league deciding not to punish otherwise legal fighting more than it already has in order to eliminate it completely from the game. And 98 percent of the people playing that game apparently agree.

Pro hockey also allows the players to consent to conduct that, without that consent, is criminal assault with a weapon (stick). What should be done about that? Gaudreau has been subjected to possibly 50 such criminal assaults to his hands this year. Surely we need to rescue him from the cycle of abuse! Especially since the refs appear incapable of seeing it!

Oh, except in spite of his physical stature, he is not a child and he is allowed to decide for himself that enduring such conduct is acceptable for him to become a multi-millionaire and live a dream.

Why should consenting to fighting be treated any different than consenting to slashing? Because concussions are worse than broken fingers and hands? Maybe. But I am not seeing the evidence being put forth here that says fighting is even as dangerous as just playing the game itself.

So, actually, by that analysis maybe we should end the entire sport of hockey and make everyone become fighters instead. Since we know what's best.

[Galakanokis]

Here's a good article. Not advocating any which way just sharing.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/footbal...ory&soc_trk=tw

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, that was one of the more callous things I've read here, unintentional or not. Guy opens up about a completely changed life, and huge struggles with depression from a concussion and gets a "probably not, you probably have other issues". Jesus.

I think yo may have overly simplified my post. I didn't exactly hope back on any information about my life either. . I was not cutting him down but shared my struggle and tried to empathize with him to an extent.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Wow combustible, you're calling out a guy that suffered the effects of a concussion for multiple years? Pretty hatsh

Don't think it was calling him out.

It was more or less asking questions and sharing my own experiences. If you don't want questions or criticisms then the interternet may be the right forum.

I thought we were having an open ended conversation? It does sound harsh to have certian questions asked but it seems it is only scary sounding because we are not use to hearing the tough questions anymore.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Here's a good article. Not advocating any which way just sharing.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/footbal...ory&soc_trk=tw

Thanks for sharing. I put together a longer winded and admittedly less organized than intended post on the last page that tried to outline similar points.

Obviously, in line with the origin of this thread, fighting introduces some direct risks that abstaining from fighting do not.

Also, there are so many factors that contribute to the health of the brains of athletes, and ongoing repercussions, that are absolutely not fully understood in terms of their absolute and definitive impact on long term brain health and subsequent quality of life.

Many enforcers have moved that direction as the best path to their goal of being an NHL regular. Many are guys that had the skill to be better than enough players to be on the cusp of the NHL, and arguably sold out. This I believe in many cases could have contribution to further psychological issues. The skills that they valued and got them close were not quite enough, being overshadowed by the next step of pugilism, which could result in a dramatic realignment of values that could be very difficult for some players to deal with.

Then, you bring in the conversation about long term impact of other risks which are part of the game outside of fighting, and tough to quantify, like the aggregate risks of multiple legal checks and, say, pucks or accidental sticks to the head, and you have a profession with a high, but poorly understood, risk profile

Banning unnecessary staged goon fights, I am all in favour

Generally vilifying fighting I suspect there is a decent case that the benefits may be more emotionally satisfying than statistically relevant

[PeteMoss]

The players vote means nothing to me. Besides the previously made points about players not knowing what is best for them in a lot of cases (helmets/visors/etc), you're essentially asking them if they want to cost their friends and current teammates a job. If you're Sean Monahan - its not necessarily about fighting since he doesn't do it anyways, its about your buddy Brian McGrattan being out of a job.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Lacrosse is even tougher to find the balance with compared to hockey - because it is far tougher to seperate the player from the bawl in lacrosse. But big hits aren't usually the way to effectively to do that. Normally there aren't massive hits unless someone has left themselves vulernarable.

...

The league has made steps to better protect their players and it has actually been a very material change. I think they are doing the right things - even though it means the sport isn't as rough n' tough as it used to be.

I love lacrosse primarily for the speed and skill - and also because I've been fortunate to meet a lot of the players - and most of them are just genuine good guys. Easy to root for. I don't want to see them get hurt.

I don't think the fact that the guys don't get paid much makes a real difference. The physicality that the NLL was known for is part of the competitive nature of the sport. They do it in the NLL, and they do it in Senior A over the summer, despite the lack of decent pay.

What is most interesting to me about boxla is that it is simultaneously faster and slower than hockey. The transitions between defence and offence are much faster, and the use of things like a shot clock and the eight second rule force players to move the game forward at all times.

But at the same time, you simply can't get to the same speeds in running shoes as you can on skates. And you can pivot and quick turn far easier than on skates. That makes it dramatically more difficult to hit an opponent hard.

One of the other big differences is that many forms of slashing and crosschecking are legal. Angry with a guy? Just whack him hard across the arm when he has the ball, and nobody will bat an eyelash. But at least you got some aggressive feelings out. Referees usually let some of the post-play pushing and cross checking go - though they are calling that tighter lately too - which also helps allow guys blow off steam.

On the whole, however, lacrosse is struggling with the same issues. And yes, the game has lost a little of its former glory. At least until the next time a Roughnecks player runs Buffalo's goalie when he goes wandering.