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

Rick Rypien Incident(UPD: Suspended 6 Games, Post # 508)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2010, 08:13 PM
  #376
bokchoy
Registered User
 
bokchoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
The fan made a comment to a pissed off emotional person. Would you poke an angry bear and expect it to walk away? The fan and everyone needs to realize that the fan made a comment (incocent, offensive, etc) that Rypien took offense to and overreacted. As long as people learn from this (the NHL, Rypien, and fans) then we should be able to move on and not have a pissing contest.
You have got to be kidding me. This is your defense of Rypien?! I guess this is the proven formula for forum arguments these days: 1. Disagree, 2. Insert awful logic, 3. Accuse other people of engaging in a pissing contest.

You are comparing the behavior and moral responsibility of a trained professional to those of a wild animal. Yes, if you provoke a wild bear, he will probably maul you and you probably deserved it. A wild bear doesn't know the difference between a harmless passerby and a dangerous threat A wild bear is not taught at an early age how to control his emotions to avoid getting himself into trouble. A wild bear is not responsible for the reputation and well-being of all other wild bears in the forest. A wild bear isn't given a rulebook to understand what he is and isn't allowed to do as a wild bear.

For about 10 seconds, Rypien acted like a wild bear and not as an NHL professional. He has an obligation to the league that he violated. That is why he deserves the punishment he gets from the NHL.

Fans on the other hand, don't have these obligations, as long as they obey the law.
They have a tendency to do three things: Heckle, taunt and drink beer so that they can do the first two things even better. They are entitled to be able to do these things. They paid money to do it.

In summary.
The wild bear was being a wild bear.
The fan was being a fan.
Rick Rypien was being a wild bear.

bokchoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:17 PM
  #377
ZyggZagg
Registered User
 
ZyggZagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,213
vCash: 500
Too bad most athletes are better at containing themselves. My friend and his friend had tickets to the blue jays and got the same seats every time, and heckled one player and one player only. Even when the player saw him out on the street, he just said "hey I know you", but didn't get all pissy over it. Then again, baseball is for little girls and it wasn't when he was all intense during the game, sooo

ZyggZagg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:30 PM
  #378
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZyggZagg View Post
People sue for spilling coffee on themselves there
Not trying to pick on you and I do agree with the general sentiment, but this is the most commonly misstated case I've ever seen.

It is almost universally known as the "lady who spent McDonald's coffee on herself and sued because they didn't tell her that coffee was hot LOL" case.

The original case was only issued to recoup the hospital expenses accrued by the 3rd degree burns that covered 16% of her body, despite the severity of the injury she was only looking for around $20,000. McDonalds pretty much laughed at her and offered her $800.

During the trial it was revealed that McDonalds' corporate policy called for their coffee to be served at somewhere around 180-190 degrees F, compared to the ~140 degrees F that you would typically see in coffee brewed at home. There had also been some 700 cases of people getting serious 3rd degree burns thanks to the increased temperature of the coffee they served, yet McDonalds refused to change the serving temperature of its coffee.

Much of the damages awarded in the case were punitive damages meant to punish McDonalds for years of knowingly ignoring hundreds of injuries that arose chiefly from its dangerous company policy.

I don't want to derail the thread any more, I can PM you a link if you want. ^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
This is an intentional tort - no need for proof of damages. The act itself is unlawful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
This is an intentional tort not negligence so damages are awarded if the act of battery is proved.
You are correct but my main point was that the fan will most likely be awarded very little, as is supported by your own following quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
No need to prove harm or injury - battery is an intentional tort. Damages flow from the unlawful act. Injuries may affect the quantum of damages.
Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that personís will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...t_battery.html
Thanks for helping clarify the terminology.

CloutierForVezina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:31 PM
  #379
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 57,166
vCash: 73
under the catagory of useless information

This made several of the spots reports over here in the United kingdom

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:37 PM
  #380
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Anyone hear MacT on TSN?

He's been verbally abused in that area because of that gap in that arena more than any other arena in the NHL.

Pierre just stated he's heard complaints about that gap around the league as well.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:39 PM
  #381
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Anyone hear MacT on TSN?

He's been verbally abused in that area because of that gap in that arena more than any other arena in the NHL.

Pierre just stated he's heard complaints about that gap around the league as well.
I don't know whether to be happy or upset that I'm agreeing with MacT and Pierre lol

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:44 PM
  #382
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,996
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Anyone hear MacT on TSN?

He's been verbally abused in that area because of that gap in that arena more than any other arena in the NHL.

Pierre just stated he's heard complaints about that gap around the league as well.
1st rule of being a lawyer: spot the person the with the most money.

Lets sue the Wild using the "they should have know a riled up player might lash out and should have provided better protection for the paying customer"

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 08:55 PM
  #383
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
This is an intentional tort - no need for proof of damages. The act itself is unlawful.
Without damages you aren't going to collect in civil court.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 09:13 PM
  #384
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,154
vCash: 500
I'm defending Rypien. That was awesome!

Jay Cee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 09:15 PM
  #385
Chairman Maouth
Global Moderator
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,669
vCash: 4856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
I'm defending Rypien. That was awesome!
Post of the year.

Chairman Maouth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 09:58 PM
  #386
Dead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: AoW Land
Country: Wake Island
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
I can not wait till Canucks come to my home teams arena. I will get tickets right behind the vistors penalty box and say "Way to be Professional" to this guy if he gets in there..

Wonder if a repeat incident would result in a full year ban

I should make a SIGN and put up against the glass, better than words

I have sat behind the vistor's penalty box before and said things the players that were in the box. They just ignore it, and I am sure they are used to it. I even wished one player off, not so nicely, when he was ejected from the game... It is just part of the game, though throwing things, and any non player vs player fights, fan vs fan is just dumb. Come on it is a freaking GAME....


Last edited by Dead: 10-20-2010 at 10:04 PM.
Dead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 10:01 PM
  #387
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
hey guys, thought I'd share this with you. (From Tonight)





I think it's fair.

Fel 96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 10:39 PM
  #388
The Hutch
Registered User
 
The Hutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 550
vCash: 500
There's a few points of concern that I have, but frankly I just want a suspension handed down and served so that everyone could move forward.

1. Of everyone who is finger pointing to the fan for being chirpy at Rypien, how many of you have ever been chirpy towards an official, the opposing team, or even your home team during the course of a game? The only difference between this fan and yourselves, is that this guy was within reaching distance of a guy who snapped. I doubt that the specifics of what was said by the fan even directly influenced Rypien's outburst. It was probably more comparable to looking the angry dog directly in the eyes. I'm not saying that getting in a player's face would be appropriate behaviour, but we can't be pretending that any sort of vocal negativity is unacceptable behaviour.

2. I'm not familiar at all with what distinguishes Minnesota's tunnels from those in other arenas, but overall I think creating total segregation between players and fans would be a mistake. This was a single incident. Compare that with game in and game out of fans getting to slap hands with players and, in some instances, being given one of their sticks. I would not want to see that taken out of the game over a single incident.

3. I'll expect maybe 10 games tops. I don't think that the league should let the media attention affect this decision. Bettman and company should focus more on why certain regions or networks only care when something like this happens, and what they can do to change that. Rick Rypien is not responsible for the league's reputation.

4. Speaking of media coverage, my relocated friend got to hear about it in New Zealand.

The Hutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 10:49 PM
  #389
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,383
vCash: 500
rypien will probably get 10 games at least pending hearing on friday. What do the canucks management do? suspend him too? for the time being or release him? i mean gillis always says he "preaches character guys" and yes that was stupid of rypien to react the way he did.

David71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 11:16 PM
  #390
Moobles
Registered User
 
Moobles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,552
vCash: 500
On the one hand the fan was probably being an annoying **** and shouldn't at all be surprised that verbally assaulting an angry, fourth line hockey player got him a reaction.

On the other hand, what the god damn hell was Rypien thinking.

I'm all for suspending him for as long as is needed. I don't think he needs to get dropped from the team, but he definitely should sit out for awhile and think about what he did. If I'm right in assuming that the fan was screaming obscenities at him and berating him I hope he gets nothing out of it as well. Had (or if) Rypien attacked the guy unprovoked well that's just pathetic, there's no need to out your anger on hockey fans. But if they guy was giving Rypien an earful good.

Hopefully he decides to buy seats a little higher up next time so he can do it without worrying about retaliation.

Moobles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 11:35 PM
  #391
cyrisweb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
rypien will probably get 10 games at least pending hearing on friday. What do the canucks management do? suspend him too? for the time being or release him? i mean gillis always says he "preaches character guys" and yes that was stupid of rypien to react the way he did.
Judging by what has already been said by teamates, and by Gillis you can be sure they will welcome Rypien back with open arms. Yes he made a mistake.. yes you can not under any circumstance allow that to happen without punishment.. But Rypien has never had any problems before, is not a repeat offender, works hard on AND OFF the ice(unlike O'Brien). He made a mistake however that doesn't mean he is a bad character..

The tsn panel was in agreement that a 5-8 game suspension was the most likely result, pointing out the previous player vs fan incident some 7 years ago resulted in a 4 game suspension

cyrisweb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 11:36 PM
  #392
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
Without damages you aren't going to collect in civil court.
It's not always about the money. People have appealed to the Supreme Court seeking much less than you'd put into the meter downtown. That's all money coming out of someone's pocket to get a decision, not going in.

LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 11:47 PM
  #393
cyrisweb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moobles View Post
On the other hand, what the god damn hell was Rypien thinking.

I'm all for suspending him for as long as is needed. I don't think he needs to get dropped from the team, but he definitely should sit out for awhile and think about what he did. If I'm right in assuming that the fan was screaming obscenities at him and berating him I hope he gets nothing out of it as well. Had (or if) Rypien attacked the guy unprovoked well that's just pathetic, there's no need to out your anger on hockey fans. But if they guy was giving Rypien an earful good.
malhotra indicated the fan was spouting out threats, and of course other crap..
and is anybody really suprised by that? I've been to hockey and football games, where fans spout out competely crazy crap knowing full well they can get away with it, stuff they would never ever say if they were face to face..

so you have an extreemely emotional game, in an even more emotional moment were a fan is talking crap pretty much eye to eye.. if you have any manhood in your body.. you know exactly whats going threw Rypiens blood at that moment, and I think we have all been in that exact same position.

cyrisweb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 12:03 AM
  #394
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
Without damages you aren't going to collect in civil court.
That is not correct if the action is an intentional tort such as battery or assault.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 12:06 AM
  #395
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,473
vCash: 500
If he does sue I'd argue that the Wild are liable as well based on the fact they knew about the issues around that area

west in the east is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 12:44 AM
  #396
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Update from Murph's twitter: "a member of the canucks told me rypien was eye gouged for up to 10 seconds by staubitz. That may be the mitigating factor gillis spoke of"

Doubt that'll be very persuasive with Campbell and Bettman.

Lard_Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:01 AM
  #397
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lard_Lad View Post
Update from Murph's twitter: "a member of the canucks told me rypien was eye gouged for up to 10 seconds by staubitz. That may be the mitigating factor gillis spoke of"

Doubt that'll be very persuasive with Campbell and Bettman.
Was that in the first fight, or at the boards there? Staubitz was throwing some pretty blatant elbows in that first go, too.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:15 AM
  #398
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by west in the east View Post
If he does sue I'd argue that the Wild are liable as well based on the fact they knew about the issues around that area
You could argue until your face went blue but you wouldn't win. There aren't any damages at this point (required for negligence), as far as I know there's nothing to show the Wild knew of any risk and even if they did know that there was potential for a player to be able to reach a fan you'd be hard pressed to connect that to a real risk. Despite a few rare and isolated player/fan altercations we're not dealing with caged animals in a butchershop or reoffending convicted rapists in preschool, we're dealing with two teams of players with no history of fan altercations. Even assuming all of the things that would be required to even be able to start an argument there's still no argument.

LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:18 AM
  #399
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lard_Lad View Post
Update from Murph's twitter: "a member of the canucks told me rypien was eye gouged for up to 10 seconds by staubitz. That may be the mitigating factor gillis spoke of"

Doubt that'll be very persuasive with Campbell and Bettman.
That's happening at the boards.

You can't see it in the Youtube as the camera isn't zooming in but Staubitz is definitely pushing something at Rypien as his head is snapped back - I thought it was a cross-check in the throat actually

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 01:22 AM
  #400
ZyggZagg
Registered User
 
ZyggZagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloutierForVezina View Post
Not trying to pick on you and I do agree with the general sentiment, but this is the most commonly misstated case I've ever seen.

It is almost universally known as the "lady who spent McDonald's coffee on herself and sued because they didn't tell her that coffee was hot LOL" case.

The original case was only issued to recoup the hospital expenses accrued by the 3rd degree burns that covered 16% of her body, despite the severity of the injury she was only looking for around $20,000. McDonalds pretty much laughed at her and offered her $800.

During the trial it was revealed that McDonalds' corporate policy called for their coffee to be served at somewhere around 180-190 degrees F, compared to the ~140 degrees F that you would typically see in coffee brewed at home. There had also been some 700 cases of people getting serious 3rd degree burns thanks to the increased temperature of the coffee they served, yet McDonalds refused to change the serving temperature of its coffee.

Much of the damages awarded in the case were punitive damages meant to punish McDonalds for years of knowingly ignoring hundreds of injuries that arose chiefly from its dangerous company policy.

I don't want to derail the thread any more, I can PM you a link if you want. ^^





You are correct but my main point was that the fan will most likely be awarded very little, as is supported by your own following quote:



Thanks for helping clarify the terminology.
Didn't she also go over speed bumps with the coffee between her legs? In any case, people should know coffee is hot. If it's a bit hotter than somewhere else, then don't buy it or be careful with it. It's not like they threw the coffee on her.

ZyggZagg is online now   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 08:10 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.