HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Botch vs Ferraro arguement (team1040)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2012, 05:42 PM
  #51
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,133
vCash: 139
Podcast from today:

Hour 1
Hour 2
Hour 3 <----- This one.


I'm not sure which hour its in tho...

Edit... beginning of Hour 3...


Last edited by DL44: 10-10-2012 at 06:03 PM.
DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:52 PM
  #52
CINCOM
Registered User
 
CINCOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
I'm not a professional athelete but whenever I play sports in a league I always do everything I can to make sure my team wins. If that means taking out the best Striker on the other team by 'accidentally' hitting his ankle a couple times then by all means I'll do it.

Hell I was in a rec league dodgeball game and I intimidated the hell out of the other team by accidentally/on purpose smoking a girl on the other team clean on the face with a ball. She cried and I was tossed out of that game. But you can be sure that the other team were scared out of their minds whenever I had a ball when I got back in.

So if I would do it at my level you can bet Atheletes who make a living out of playing sports would do it at theirs.

CINCOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:56 PM
  #53
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
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.



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.
You can't put Stevens and Cooke/Torres in the same group. Stevens played when we didn't know anything about Head injuries and didn't think any of them. Completely different groups, Stevens was heroically applauded by the NHL fan base when he made those CLEAN hits, while Torres and Cooke have made head hits during an era where head injuries are being heavily covered.

Intent to Injure is when you go deliberatly out of the way to make a play that's soul purpose is to injure a player and take him out of the game.

I doubt Stevens ever consciously decided to make a play for the soul purpose of injuring a player. Each hit was a calculated move to make the player feel his pressence and start second guessing himself whenever Stevens was on the ice.

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:04 PM
  #54
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,133
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Podcast from today:

Hour 1
Hour 2
Hour 3 <----- This one.


I'm not sure which hour its in tho...

Edit... beginning of Hour 3...

Get's going at around 15/16 min mark....

Ray is way off.... seems to me he took his Super-Sensitivity pills...


Not a Botch fan at all... but this one was NOT on him... lol.


EDIT: and the speculation in this thread of what they were arguing about is just waaaay off. have to listen to it...

Much about nothing of substance...
Just funny to hear Ray lose it over essentially nothing.... mis-perceiving a harmless joke.


Last edited by DL44: 10-10-2012 at 06:09 PM.
DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:07 PM
  #55
Socratic Method Man
Weise's Lost Lunch
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Then I suppose using your logic, acupuncturists intend to injure their patients?
As much as they are trying to hurt their patients, yeah. I think the point is that the meaning is so close it can be used interchangably.

The difference here, of course, is that acupuncturists direct intent is not to hurt their patients but to help them. I would suggest that many hockey and football players' direct intent is to hurt their opponents, with their indirect intent simply to win the game at any costs.

A line is being drawn with language that probably doesn't exist in actuality. This practice is the basis of politics. But tell me, was Duncan Keith trying to hurt Daniel? Or injure him? Where does the difference split at?

Or perhaps he was just trying to win the game? Maybe just enact some revenge. I would guess all four of these, and the first two were a means to the last two.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:11 PM
  #56
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,133
vCash: 139
You just picture Botch sitting in the studio looking at Scotty with a a smirk and a 'WTF' look on his face..
And Scotty going... 'Alrightly then...'

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:13 PM
  #57
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
A line is being drawn with language that probably doesn't exist in actuality. This practice is the basis of politics. But tell me, was Duncan Keith trying to hurt Daniel? Or injure him? Where does the difference split at?

Or perhaps he was just trying to win the game? Maybe just enact some revenge. I would guess all four of these, and the first two were a means to the last two.
I have no idea, only he knows what his intentions were.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:15 PM
  #58
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
 
Hollywood Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: VANCOUVER
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
You can't put Stevens and Cooke/Torres in the same group. Stevens played when we didn't know anything about Head injuries and didn't think any of them. Completely different groups, Stevens was heroically applauded by the NHL fan base when he made those CLEAN hits, while Torres and Cooke have made head hits during an era where head injuries are being heavily covered.

Intent to Injure is when you go deliberatly out of the way to make a play that's soul purpose is to injure a player and take him out of the game.

I doubt Stevens ever consciously decided to make a play for the soul purpose of injuring a player. Each hit was a calculated move to make the player feel his pressence and start second guessing himself whenever Stevens was on the ice.
I think this is total BS. Stevens put his hits on Lindros and Kariya a decade ago. That's not exactly the stone age of medical science. Concussions were already considered a serious injury. Kariya had missed basically a full season from a concussion in 1997-98.

I watched all of Scott Stevens' career and I didn't see the word "clean" tossed around very often to describe him. He was a player with a reputation for injuring his opponents with hits that—while legal under the rules—were typically described using words like "mean", "ruthless", and "uncompromising". He was celebrated for his "intensity" and willingness to go "headhunting". There's a story that when attending games his wife was too afraid to sit in the lower bowl because she couldn't stand the expression on his face while he inflicted permanent brain damage on his opponents.

There's a clip somewhere of Scott Stevens pointing at an opponent and saying "you're next." Do you wonder what he might have meant by that?

I don't condone players injuring other players on purpose. I don't accept it in that cop-out "it's part of the game" way that some here do. The fewer people suffering permanent brain damage as a result of playing hockey, the better. This may lead to identifying and removing creeps, like Scott Stevens, who enjoy injuring people.

Hollywood Burrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:17 PM
  #59
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Co Ho View Post
I don't know how you could argue against intent to injure after the Bertuzzi incident. Clearly premeditated.
In the case of Bertuzzi I think he did just want to hurt him not injure him - ie challenge him to a fight and land a few bruises, but Moore kept running away and it Bertuzzi lost it. Premeditated intent to hurt not premeditated intent to injure.

Most of them go out there to hurt not injure but it's a a very blurred line. If you can knock a guy out of the game cleanly you get praised, that's just extreme hurt = injure.

[Insert any of Scott Stevens deliberate potential career enders] Stevens knew what he was doing

OTOH you do get clear intents to injure, premediated as well

Domi vs Neids



Keith was looking for Sedin with the intent of injuring him


Marchand admitted his low bridge on Salo was a premediated tactic (not on Salo just in general)

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:26 PM
  #60
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Burrows View Post
I think this is total BS. Stevens put his hits on Lindros and Kariya a decade ago. That's not exactly the stone age of medical science. Concussions were already considered a serious injury. Kariya had missed basically a full season from a concussion in 1997-98.

I watched all of Scott Stevens' career and I didn't see the word "clean" tossed around very often to describe him. He was a player with a reputation for injuring his opponents with hits thatówhile legal under the rulesówere typically described using words like "mean", "ruthless", and "uncompromising". He was celebrated for his "intensity" and willingness to go "headhunting". There's a story that when attending games his wife was too afraid to sit in the lower bowl because she couldn't stand the expression on his face while he inflicted permanent brain damage on his opponents.

There's a clip somewhere of Scott Stevens pointing at an opponent and saying "you're next." Do you wonder what he might have meant by that?

I don't condone players injuring other players on purpose. I don't accept it in that cop-out "it's part of the game" way that some here do. The fewer people suffering permanent brain damage as a result of playing hockey, the better. This may lead to identifying and removing creeps, like Scott Stevens, who enjoy injuring people.
A) Again look back at how those hits were viewed at the time they were delivered. They were viewed a clean hockey hits. Hard hockey hits, but clean hockey hits.

B) Concussions were not viewed in the same light at that time either. A Concussion was viewed as just another injury that occurs because of the nature of the game. They were viewed as being the same as a broken collar bone or a sprained ankle and other injuries that occur within the game.

C) What Stevens brought to the game was intensity and intimidation. Hockey is a collision sport, injuries are going to occur within the intended flow of the game. Those players delivering those hits are not making those hits for the SOUL PURPOSE of injuring the player. They are hockey plays.

D) A play that I deem as intending to injure has one purpose and one purpose only, inflict damage on the victim to a point where they are too injured to play. 95% of these plays are emotional spur the moment mistakes.


I just listened to the exchange again and Ray's issue was not Botch's opinion (although he disagreed with it) but the way he was trampling over Ray and not allowing Ray to express his. Botch's response to the following 2 callers after that show's how much of an ass he is. Which is why he can create some good entertaining radio.

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:31 PM
  #61
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
They are hockey plays.
Stevens sometimes used his defensive partner to "funnel" his victim towards him. A bit different than taking advantage of a kind of "spur of the moment thing". But that's just my take on Stevens.

Barney Gumble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:31 PM
  #62
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,599
vCash: 500
Just listened to it for the first time, Ferraro was a complete dick in that segment, He started the entire argument.

People are saying it's "good radio", It was terrible, just a guy whining about random **** and taking shots for no reason what so ever.

embarrassing for ferraro

Lucbourdon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:39 PM
  #63
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Stevens sometimes used his defensive partner to "funnel" his victim towards him. A bit different than taking advantage of a kind of "spur of the moment thing". But that's just my take on Stevens.
And your point being.... Stevens wasn't making a play for the soul purpose of injuring a player, he was making a hockey play. How is using your teamate to funnel a player into a hitting area illegal and not a hockey play?

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:40 PM
  #64
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
I have no idea, only he knows what his intentions were.
A good example of how the law (US law, anyways) views unintended consequences and culpability: if you are the lookout for a corner store robbery and, say the store owner is shot dead in the process, both you and the gunman are eligible to be charged with murder.

So to say you didn't intend for something to happen, doesn't necessarily remove culpability. In fact, this this particular case, US criminal law states that you should have reasonably expected for there to be all sorts of negative consequences associated with armed robbery and if things go wrong, you'd be punished according. So hitting to hurt and the injury that may result, is in many ways a parallel situation.

To be sure, when you engage in a contact sport you're implicitly consenting to certain degree of violence against your person and I'm not suggesting that pro athletes be jailed for serious injury. But the larger point stands: when you commit an act in which you can reasonably expect to injure someone, you can't claim the moral high ground that you were just hitting to hurt and never intended serious injury. It's just not being completely honest.

I think Ferraro's point was an emotional one, that some pencil necked reporter dare impugn the honor of his fellow players. If he were being completely honest about it, he knows that players in general have to assume some share of the responsibility, otherwise there wouldn't be rules such as boarding or spearing that place clear boundaries on what sorts of violence are and aren't reasonable.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:41 PM
  #65
Socratic Method Man
Weise's Lost Lunch
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
And your point being.... Stevens wasn't making a play for the soul purpose of injuring a player, he was making a hockey play. How is using your teamate to funnel a player into a hitting area illegal and not a hockey play?
How is it not attempting to injure him? I'm shocked at the Doublethink here.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:43 PM
  #66
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
And your point being.... Stevens wasn't making a play for the soul purpose of injuring a player, he was making a hockey play. How is using your teamate to funnel a player into a hitting area illegal and not a hockey play?
And Stevens could have gone 4 inches lower but chose to go for the head - he knew what he was doing. You say clean - I say not yet illegal.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:52 PM
  #67
Kesler2Kesler
Yup
 
Kesler2Kesler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Co Ho View Post
I don't know how you could argue against intent to injure after the Bertuzzi incident. Clearly premeditated.
Bertuzzi clearly just slipped.

Kesler2Kesler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:03 PM
  #68
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
A good example of how the law (US law, anyways) views unintended consequences and culpability: if you are the lookout for a corner store robbery and, say the store owner is shot dead in the process, both you and the gunman are eligible to be charged with murder.

So to say you didn't intend for something to happen, doesn't necessarily remove culpability. In fact, this this particular case, US criminal law states that you should have reasonably expected for there to be all sorts of negative consequences associated with armed robbery and if things go wrong, you'd be punished according. So hitting to hurt and the injury that may result, is in many ways a parallel situation.
Yeah, I agree with everything you say. That's why players can get suspended for their actions even though they didn't intend for the consequences, and even see increased punishment for injuries. However this is all irrelevant of their argument. The argument has nothing to do with punishment, simply whether or not players play with the intention of hurting each other like in bountygate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I think Ferraro's point was an emotional one, that some pencil necked reporter dare impugn the honor of his fellow players. If he were being completely honest about it, he knows that players in general have to assume some share of the responsibility, otherwise there wouldn't be rules such as boarding or spearing that place clear boundaries on what sorts of violence are and aren't reasonable.
Ray was definitely emotional, but the argument wasn't about responsibility and what violence is reasonable. At least I interpreted the argument to be solely about the intention and mental states of players when they play. I think he was right to defend the intentions of his fellow players, but did so in an unwise and disrespectful way.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:11 PM
  #69
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
And Stevens could have gone 4 inches lower but chose to go for the head - he knew what he was doing. You say clean - I say not yet illegal.
This is what I don't get. To do that Stevens would have had to hunker down. He hit guys, for the most part, straight up and down with his shoulder. If you happened to be short enough to take it to the noodle then too bad its hockey.

Even when the rules came out now the higher ups said specificly they didn't want to take out N/S head shots.

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:15 PM
  #70
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucbourdon View Post
Just listened to it for the first time, Ferraro was a complete dick in that segment, He started the entire argument.

People are saying it's "good radio", It was terrible, just a guy whining about random **** and taking shots for no reason what so ever.

embarrassing for ferraro
I feel it would have been embarrassing for Botch too if he had any sort of respectable reputation like Ferraro. Botch may not have started it, but he was a condescending A-Hole throughout that entire conversation.

Terrible radio indeed.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:18 PM
  #71
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I think Ferraro's point was an emotional one, that some pencil necked reporter dare impugn the honor of his fellow players. If he were being completely honest about it, he knows that players in general have to assume some share of the responsibility, otherwise there wouldn't be rules such as boarding or spearing that place clear boundaries on what sorts of violence are and aren't reasonable.



Yup. Ferraro lost his temper. It was clear to see (hear). I know it was going to go south as soon as Ferraro commented on tweets he received stating how Botchford treats him?... He was already thinking about it before the conversation got heated. Oh, and the classic "I played line" surfaced.



I'm not surprised though, Ferraro took this same tact with Chapman. It's too derived from emotion to be unbiased. Ferraro tends to have this bend on contentious topics involving players in the room.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:18 PM
  #72
FloydTheBarber
Registered User
 
FloydTheBarber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,603
vCash: 500
Ferraro comes off whiny, what set him off was Botch calling him naive.

Then he ends the segment to remind us that his son will never make the NHL.

FloydTheBarber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:33 PM
  #73
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Ray was definitely emotional, but the argument wasn't about responsibility and what violence is reasonable. At least I interpreted the argument to be solely about the intention and mental states of players when they play. I think he was right to defend the intentions of his fellow players, but did so in an unwise and disrespectful way.



I didn't have quite the same interpretation. It wasn't solely about intent. Botchford cites cases that exist outside the realm of reasonable conduct in sport. These events are well documented. And intent in _these_cases_ was well punished. But because Botchford chooses to infer the minute details of the communication that happens in the locker room for these instances, he's out of line? No. He's being a smart ass, but he isn't out of line because these cases exist.




Botchford is working backwards from evidence. He's inferring what was said based on the documentation at hand. Ferraro is working forwards from the locker room to the evidence. Even attempting to devalue the evidence by saying that the details of the actual communication in locker rooms is largely unknown. --> Only this detail doesn't matter - the players were punished for intent regardless of the "extra" details that pass through the players.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 08:58 PM
  #74
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,618
vCash: 500
When you have 2 pompous, loud mouthed, know-it-alls with a difference of opinion you are going to have an arguement. Anyone who thinks players dont lose it and try to injure other players is out to lunch, and if thats Ferarro's "professional" opinion then he's a bigger retard than I initially thought. I guess Chris Pronger was only trying to give Kesler a paper cut when he stomped on his leg. Or when Chris Simon stomped on Jarkko Ruutu's foot. There are psychopaths who play this game, its not like they do mental health exams before they allow you to play in the NHL.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 09:04 PM
  #75
Orca Smash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,697
vCash: 500
Wow decent amount of love for ray around here, I am no botch fan but ferraro has to be one of the most arrogant broadcasters right now, who clearly is very happy with himself in everything he says and does. Their was a few times he went at people on the team who actually made valid points about the canucks playing poor leading up to playoffs, and ferraro ripped into him as well, and came off like an arrogant ass who thinks he knows everything.

I remember someone who was on the morning show with scotty (could have been botch) brought up a point about av I think and about not possibly coming back next season, and ferraro became very aggressive and used the some people dont understand the game line.

He has came off as a bully when he phones into team 1040 for awhile now, typically to whoever was often on scotts morning show as co-host (again might have been botch), if their was any criticizing some players or coaches, ray got very aggressive, and they would back down. Then ray was nice to them again.

Its like he comes on the show as an ex player and looks at journalists who have not played the game as lesser people.

Glad botch stood up to him, I dont think anyone has.


Last edited by Orca Smash: 10-10-2012 at 09:21 PM.
Orca Smash 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 03:02 PM.

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.