View Single Post
10-10-2012, 03:45 PM
Registered User
Scurr's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
Every hard open ice hit is designed as an intent to hurt play. Defensemen want the forwards to think twice about going through the middle and cough up the puck. Think Scott Stevens hits (remembering the climate on head injuries back then).

Intent to Injure is a deliberate dirty action that is designed to take a player out of the game. Best example is Clarke on Kharlamov.
Scott Stevens is a good example of what I'm talking about. He can claim to have been aiming to hurt but he knew the outcome of those hits was more severe than that, and he still went looking for them. Stevens is in the same group as Cooke and Torres imo, he uses the argument to justify those hits. We may not have known as much about head injuries then but Stevens still knew he was injuring guys.

Clarke on Kharlamov is an obvious example. I think if you asked Todd Bertuzzi, he would say that he was just trying to hurt Moore, he didn't want to injure him. I think a lot of players use that argument.

Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Well the differences come in the subtleties of the language, which are interpreted differently by everyone.
I agree, more or less, with your definition. There is a lot of grey area though. I think players use that argument to justify their play when clearly blatant disregard for other players safety amounts to the same thing.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote