HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Botch vs Ferraro arguement (team1040)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2012, 01:47 PM
  #26
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,681
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Burrows View Post
Hmmm I guess Bobby Clarke just intended to massage Kharlamov's ankle?

The real losers of this argument are all the people listening to Team 1040.
So the best example you have is an incident from 40 years ago?

__________________
May 17, 2014: The day nightlife changes in Vancouver...ask me how.
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 01:58 PM
  #27
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's the hurt vs injure argument. It helps players sleep at night to say they are out to hurt but not to injure.
There is a huge difference between intent to hurt and intent to injure. Anyone who thinks the difference is a contrived invention of players' minds intended to justify their bloodthirstiness is totally out to lunch.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:02 PM
  #28
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Is this all sports? From my experience in hockey and football a lot of people play to hurt people. Not necessarily aiming for parts of the body but chopping with a stick or hitting to hurt. Obviously some people do it but it's not the majority. Obviously.
There is a difference between hurting a player and injuring a player. I still haven't listened to it but I highly doubt that players start a game with the intent to injure another player, they end up trying to during the game, but it's not the original intent they started the game with.

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:25 PM
  #29
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
There is a huge difference between intent to hurt and intent to injure. Anyone who thinks the difference is a contrived invention of players' minds intended to justify their bloodthirstiness is totally out to lunch.
If you would take the time to explain the difference I would appreciate it.

I don't think that players are "bloodthirsty" generally, but a lot of them are put in positions where their livelihood depends on their ability to play on the edge. It's all well and good to say Raffi Torres or Matt Cooke need to clean up their act but they won't be in the league if they dial it back too much. Those players constantly use the hurt vs injure argument, even when they're injuring more guys than they're hurting. Maybe it's not true for every player but I think it's safe to say players like that are using the argument to sleep at night.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:33 PM
  #30
jammyrft
Registered User
 
jammyrft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up North eh
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 500
I don't understand why Ray took that stance on the issue, I'm pretty sure he's said in the past certain players absolutely try to injure other players. FURTHERMORE I remember him publicly stating he thinks Matt Cooke has done that, called him out on air and told the story how Cooke even called him out on those comments behind the scenes after a game one day.



He obviously just feels like the majority of us that Botch is a mini Pratt with no insider knowledge who likes to go against the grain just for the sake of it..he comes off as a D bag and people just tune him out. Ray probably just felt like arguing against him just for the fact that he thinks Botch is an idiot

jammyrft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:36 PM
  #31
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If you would take the time to explain the difference I would appreciate it.

I don't think that players are "bloodthirsty" generally, but a lot of them are put in positions where their livelihood depends on their ability to play on the edge. It's all well and good to say Raffi Torres or Matt Cooke need to clean up their act but they won't be in the league if they dial it back too much. Those players constantly use the hurt vs injure argument, even when they're injuring more guys than they're hurting. Maybe it's not true for every player but I think it's safe to say players like that are using the argument to sleep at night.
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.

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:38 PM
  #32
redgaiter
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
does anybody have a link to where we can listen to their argument?

redgaiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:49 PM
  #33
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If you would take the time to explain the difference I would appreciate it.

I don't think that players are "bloodthirsty" generally, but a lot of them are put in positions where their livelihood depends on their ability to play on the edge. It's all well and good to say Raffi Torres or Matt Cooke need to clean up their act but they won't be in the league if they dial it back too much. Those players constantly use the hurt vs injure argument, even when they're injuring more guys than they're hurting. Maybe it's not true for every player but I think it's safe to say players like that are using the argument to sleep at night.
Well the differences come in the subtleties of the language, which are interpreted differently by everyone. But in my opinion?

Attempting to hurt someone is predicated on the intent of causing temporary pain on an opposing player to mitigate their on-ice effectiveness. This is usually accomplished via psychological effects, making players afraid to go in front of the net, into the corners, etc. Attempting to injure someone is an attempt to do structural damage to an opponent's body to mitigate their effectiveness.

For example, if you're a defenceman protecting the front of your net and a big forward skates in to screen your goalie, what are you going to do? You're going to crosscheck the **** outta him to send the message that if he wants to stand there, he's going to pay the price. Are you trying to hurt the forward? Obviously, you are intending to cause him pain. But are you trying to injure him? No. Your intent isn't to break his back with those crosschecks or cause any lasting injury.

I'm on Ferraro's side in this argument. When I play sports I like to make my opponents feel a little pain. A couple unnecessary elbows, a little slash on the ankles. I'm never trying to injure the guy, but I'm always trying to break his concentration by forcing his attention to shift to a sensation in his body, instead of the play going on around him. I bet it's extremely rare for players to actually attempt to put their opponents on the IR, however I'm sure it happens on occasion.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:54 PM
  #34
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Botch is the worst personality the Canucks have added in a long time.

Forget the fact that he sounds like a pre-pubescent lesbian teenager with a lisp, but the fact that he can't separate rumours from truth, supported speculation to all out fantasy and rational with irrational is ridiculous.

He also needs to stop yelling at the camera when he's getting interviewed. he would be suited more for TMZ than a professional sports team.

Please, go away.

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:01 PM
  #35
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
There is a huge difference between intent to hurt and intent to injure. Anyone who thinks the difference is a contrived invention of players' minds intended to justify their bloodthirstiness is totally out to lunch.
Injury is a potential result of hurting someone. It's just a subset of a whole. Players hit to hurt. No doubt about that. They implicitly accept the potential of injuring someone when they hit to hurt.

What I find more laughable is the enforcer's mentality, that they also adopt a similar rationale that they never really want to see guys get injured when their job is to basically have a fistfight out on the ice.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:02 PM
  #36
Timmer44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Van City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,162
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
Botch is the worst personality the Canucks have added in a long time.

Forget the fact that he sounds like a pre-pubescent lesbian teenager with a lisp, but the fact that he can't separate rumours from truth, supported speculation to all out fantasy and rational with irrational is ridiculous.

He also needs to stop yelling at the camera when he's getting interviewed. he would be suited more for TMZ than a professional sports team.

Please, go away.
Agreed, but Ferraro still sounded like a toolshed there. The "I played and you didn't" argument is lame. He came off like an ass. If he had said "when I played not once did I see a player intentionally injure someone" he would have come off looking a whole lot better. Obviously it goes on. Raffi Torres, Bertuzzi, Clarke on Kharlamov, Marchand, Samuelsson etc. There is a VERY small line between hurting someone and injuring them, and it is crossed an awful lot. For Ray to say it "never" happens is false.

Timmer44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:08 PM
  #37
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
They implicitly accept the potential of injuring someone when they hit to hurt.
Key word right there. Just because you accept the potential of injuring someone doesn't mean you intend to injure someone. It's all about intent, in case you missed the argument.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:12 PM
  #38
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Key word right there. Just because you accept the potential of injuring someone doesn't mean you intend to injure someone. It's all about intent, in case you missed the argument.
And I'm saying if you hit to hurt, you are implicitly accepting the possibility of hurting someone. So it doesn't absolve players completely, and Scurr's point about it helping them sleep better at night is a valid one.

You can also intend to hurt someone and fail in the attempt - Phaneuf dropping the gloves with Burr comes to mind.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:24 PM
  #39
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
Botch is the worst personality the Canucks have added in a long time.

Forget the fact that he sounds like a pre-pubescent lesbian teenager with a lisp, but the fact that he can't separate rumours from truth, supported speculation to all out fantasy and rational with irrational is ridiculous.

He also needs to stop yelling at the camera when he's getting interviewed. he would be suited more for TMZ than a professional sports team.

Please, go away.
Botchford isn't employed by the Canucks. He writes for the Province and hosts on the team 1040. Neither are owned by the Canucks, and are just media partners with them.

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:45 PM
  #40
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:47 PM
  #41
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
And I'm saying if you hit to hurt, you are implicitly accepting the possibility of hurting someone. So it doesn't absolve players completely, and Scurr's point about it helping them sleep better at night is a valid one.
I cannot see how anything you just said relates to intent. Implicitly accepting the possibility of something is markedly different than intending for that possibility to occur.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:47 PM
  #42
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmer44 View Post
The "I played and you didn't" argument is lame.
Sometimes. When you're talking about the mindset of guys that played in the league, I would defer to a guy that played in the league.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:49 PM
  #43
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
I cannot see how anything you just said relates to intent. Implicitly accepting the possibility of something is markedly different than intending for that possibility to occur.
If every time you hit someone in the head with your shoulder they get knocked out, can you really say that you aren't trying to injure them the next time you do it?

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:00 PM
  #44
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If every time you hit someone in the head with your shoulder they get knocked out, can you really say that you aren't trying to injure them the next time you do it?
To be honest I don't think so. It would be more apt to say that you know you're going to injure them, but you aren't necessarily intending to do it. It could just be a matter of irresponsible behaviour, not intent.

If every time you cheat on your girlfriend she gets hurt, does that mean that by cheating on her again you're trying to hurt her? Maybe, I've seen people cheat with the specific intent of hurting their partner. However I think it's more common that cheaters don't intend to hurt their partners, even if they know they probably will.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:05 PM
  #45
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
If every time you cheat on your girlfriend she gets hurt, does that mean that by cheating on her again you're trying to hurt her? Maybe, I've seen people cheat with the specific intent of hurting their partner. However I think it's more common that cheaters don't intend to hurt their partners, even if they know they probably will.
That's just another example of someone trying to justify what they've done imo. Agree to disagree.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:14 PM
  #46
Royal Canuck
Go Jamie Benn!
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,193
vCash: 50
It's arguments like this that get all the attention during a lockout, when if we still had a season, this wouldn't even be mentioned because nobody would care. Please come back NHL so we can discuss more important matters.

__________________

Twitter | HFBoards Contact | Youtube | Instagram| Blog
Xbox Live Gamertag: "CxC Canuck"
"Everybody says be a good loser; I think if you're a good loser, you're a loser. " - John Tortorella
Royal Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:19 PM
  #47
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
That's just another example of someone trying to justify what they've done imo. Agree to disagree.
All I'm trying to illustrate is that you can knowingly cause outcomes without intending to cause those outcomes. But sure, agree to disagree.

For further reading, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

Although by following the doctrine of double effect one would almost assuredly be forced to outlaw all physicality from sports. It should however provide new avenues of thought to explore the concept.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:21 PM
  #48
Socratic Method Man
Registered User
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,520
vCash: 622
Taken directly from Google Search.


hurt past participle, past tense of hurt Verb: Cause physical pain or injury to: "Ow! You're hurting me!"; "does acupuncture hurt?".
Noun: Physical injury; harm.
Synonyms: verb. injure - harm - damage - wound - pain - ache - offend
noun. injury - wound - damage - harm - lesion - detriment

in·jure/ˈinjər/Verb: 1.Do physical harm or damage to (someone).
2.Suffer physical harm or damage to (a part of one's body): "he injured his back".
Synonyms: hurt - damage - harm - wound - impair

syn·o·nym/ˈsinəˌnim/Noun: 1.A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a...
2.A person or thing so closely associated with a particular quality or idea that the mention of their name calls it to mind.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:24 PM
  #49
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
Taken directly from Google Search.


hurt past participle, past tense of hurt Verb: Cause physical pain or injury to: "Ow! You're hurting me!"; "does acupuncture hurt?".
Noun: Physical injury; harm.
Synonyms: verb. injure - harm - damage - wound - pain - ache - offend
noun. injury - wound - damage - harm - lesion - detriment

in·jure/ˈinjər/Verb: 1.Do physical harm or damage to (someone).
2.Suffer physical harm or damage to (a part of one's body): "he injured his back".
Synonyms: hurt - damage - harm - wound - impair

syn·o·nym/ˈsinəˌnim/Noun: 1.A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a...
2.A person or thing so closely associated with a particular quality or idea that the mention of their name calls it to mind.
Then I suppose using your logic, acupuncturists intend to injure their patients?

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:37 PM
  #50
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,222
vCash: 50
still no podcast eh

Lucbourdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.