League

by Bradley Clark

Created on: January 30, 2011

Violence between players has always been and should remain a league rather than a legal matter, not just in hockey but in all contact sports, as long as the violence takes place on the field of play.  Of course, I am not saying that a player should be able to stuff a gun in their pads and shoot another player mid-game without legal action, but hitting, punching and otherwise playing roughly, fighting and brawling are a part of hockey and of many other sports, and it is precisely the possibility of seeing this type of violence that brings many fans (and therefore money) to the various franchises.  Taking the incidental violence that occurs in hockey by accident, by a temporary lapse in judgment during a lightning quick game or as a result of the warrior like passion that is instilled in players from a young age out of league control in favor of the justice system would be detrimental to player relations and to the sport in general.

First things first, if players commit acts of violence “between the whistles” in hockey (or football, or rugby etc.) there should be pretty much no argument that it should be anything but a league matter.  Of course certain things are unacceptable, for example, if a player were to throw another player’s head towards the ice, then dropkick that players face with the blade of a skate, that would certainly be a criminal affair, simply because it is so far out of the purview of violence within the sport and because of the action’s especially lethal possibilities; the catch is that this has never happened, and probably never will.  Even in hockey, where fighting is more or less legal and even encouraged by some coaches (just look at Pittsburgh), there is still a mutual respect between players, even between players that hate each other.  There are cheap shots and then there is attempted murder, and the latter is something that simply does not happen and, in the event that it does, should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

There are other, less extreme actions that some may think are deserving of legal action.  For example, if a player bashes another player on the head with his stick, should that player be taken to court because of his violent act?  Or, as has happened many times in the past, should he be given a five minute major penalty or a game misconduct, and maybe a fine or suspension, and have that be the end of it?  I would argue the latter every time.  First of all, in order for legal action to even happen, the player who was hit in the head would have to press charges, an action that would be ill advised if he wants to remain a part of the brotherhood of professional hockey players.  Because hockey is such a violent sport, taking something like this to court would get a player instantly blackballed by his peers, who now must fear legal action every time they make a hit on the ice.  Additionally, that any brain damage, loss of coordination, etc. was caused by one single blow would be nearly impossible to prove in court.  I can hear the defense attorney now, “…yes, your client was found to have brain damage after my client hit him, but is it not true that he has suffered head trauma forty-five times since entering the NHL five years ago, and possibly many more undocumented times before that as an amateur?  Is it not also true that he has played with only one to two days rest after head trauma, when it has been scientifically proven that inadequate rest after concussions and head trauma can be directly linked to brain damage and ALS later in life?”  The defense rests.

My point is that unless acts of violence are committed that are extreme and completely out of the scope of what the sport would call “boys being boys,” leave the punishments to the league.  Only in extreme cases should legal action even be considered when it comes to violence in sports, especially hockey.

Learn more about this author, Bradley Clark.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.