Ice hockey player dies
Discussion
Ankh87 said:
Unless you play ice hockey or have a decent amount of experience ice skating then you can't say if it were intentional or not. Even then no one still can't be 100% sure he did it on purpose.
I have a decent amount of experience on the rink and sometimes what can happen is your skate can catch the ice in a certain way, which can cause your leg to kick up.
The only thing which I thought looked odd was that he appears to kick twice.I have a decent amount of experience on the rink and sometimes what can happen is your skate can catch the ice in a certain way, which can cause your leg to kick up.
Ankh87 said:
Unless you play ice hockey or have a decent amount of experience ice skating then you can't say if it were intentional or not. Even then no one still can't be 100% sure he did it on purpose.
I have a decent amount of experience on the rink and sometimes what can happen is your skate can catch the ice in a certain way, which can cause your leg to kick up.
That statement is utterly illogical. Sorry, it’s absolute bI have a decent amount of experience on the rink and sometimes what can happen is your skate can catch the ice in a certain way, which can cause your leg to kick up.
ks.So you are saying that only people who play ice hockey can give an accurate assessment?!
dave123456 said:
Ankh87 said:
Unless you play ice hockey or have a decent amount of experience ice skating then you can't say if it were intentional or not. Even then no one still can't be 100% sure he did it on purpose.
I have a decent amount of experience on the rink and sometimes what can happen is your skate can catch the ice in a certain way, which can cause your leg to kick up.
That statement is utterly illogical. Sorry, it’s absolute bI have a decent amount of experience on the rink and sometimes what can happen is your skate can catch the ice in a certain way, which can cause your leg to kick up.
ks.So you are saying that only people who play ice hockey can give an accurate assessment?!
dave123456 said:
skwdenyer said:
Risk assessment should sit with the teams, the league, the sport's governing bodies.
Devolving risk assessment to the players is what has happened here - governors have eschewed responsibility (even now, not mandating neck guards, even though other leagues do so), whilst the player has been arrested for manslaughter.
Protective equipment is not player responsibility. If players play with what they've been given, within the rules, then criminal culpability on them has no place IMHO.
Has the sport's governing body launched an investigation into the player's conduct? If so, let it play out. If his conduct was outside of the rules, then maybe criminal culpability should follow. But it should be in that order. Otherwise players more willing to risk criminal culpability (but playing within the rules) will always have an advantage.
I would contend his conduct was blatantly outside of the rules. And under your suggestion the amount of cost you would pump into the sport’s governing body would be astronomical.Devolving risk assessment to the players is what has happened here - governors have eschewed responsibility (even now, not mandating neck guards, even though other leagues do so), whilst the player has been arrested for manslaughter.
Protective equipment is not player responsibility. If players play with what they've been given, within the rules, then criminal culpability on them has no place IMHO.
Has the sport's governing body launched an investigation into the player's conduct? If so, let it play out. If his conduct was outside of the rules, then maybe criminal culpability should follow. But it should be in that order. Otherwise players more willing to risk criminal culpability (but playing within the rules) will always have an advantage.
As someone says this is going around in circles. There are two camps, the camp where lashings of machoism suggest that men should be men and take huge risks. The scrappy doo camp we could call it.. for no particular reason.
And the more empathetic camp, that can see someone’s death here, and the affect that will have on a large group of people.
To try and write this off as a bit of collateral damage resulting from people playing in the spirit of the game is pretty ignorant. There was no intention to kill, or seriously harm, anyone. However there was a clumsy attempt to hinder someone’s progress.
It isn't empathetic to give a drug user more drugs. It isn't empathetic to give a bereaved family retributory justice if that's not good for society. Sometimes empathy has to be accompanied by honesty. I can - and am - hugely empathetic towards the family and friends of the dead player. That's not incompatible with not supporting stringing up the other player.
Leaving risk assessment up to the players *creates* the risks; it doesn't remove them. Think back to F1 - JYS may have campaigned for greater safety, but he still turned up and raced every weekend - and drivers continued to die. If the sport doesn't resolve safety, people will still turn up & play - that's the machismo you speak of, and my point as to why it cannot and must not be left to the players.
Neck protection has been mandatory in Sweden since 1996 at all levels of the sport. We should follow their lead.
skwdenyer said:
With respect, you're creating an entirely false dichotomy. I don't lack empathy with the large number of people impacted.
It isn't empathetic to give a drug user more drugs. It isn't empathetic to give a bereaved family retributory justice if that's not good for society. Sometimes empathy has to be accompanied by honesty. I can - and am - hugely empathetic towards the family and friends of the dead player. That's not incompatible with not supporting stringing up the other player.
Leaving risk assessment up to the players *creates* the risks; it doesn't remove them. Think back to F1 - JYS may have campaigned for greater safety, but he still turned up and raced every weekend - and drivers continued to die. If the sport doesn't resolve safety, people will still turn up & play - that's the machismo you speak of, and my point as to why it cannot and must not be left to the players.
Neck protection has been mandatory in Sweden since 1996 at all levels of the sport. We should follow their lead.
I was absolutely not saying that it should be left to the players. It isn't empathetic to give a drug user more drugs. It isn't empathetic to give a bereaved family retributory justice if that's not good for society. Sometimes empathy has to be accompanied by honesty. I can - and am - hugely empathetic towards the family and friends of the dead player. That's not incompatible with not supporting stringing up the other player.
Leaving risk assessment up to the players *creates* the risks; it doesn't remove them. Think back to F1 - JYS may have campaigned for greater safety, but he still turned up and raced every weekend - and drivers continued to die. If the sport doesn't resolve safety, people will still turn up & play - that's the machismo you speak of, and my point as to why it cannot and must not be left to the players.
Neck protection has been mandatory in Sweden since 1996 at all levels of the sport. We should follow their lead.
In fairness I have no more right to state I’m right than you, or anyone else. Don’t know anyone involved, nor do I know much about ice hockey. I just think that either writing this off as a freak accident or suggesting the player involved should be spared the right punishment if found guilty is bloody disrespectful to the family of the chap involved.
If it was a family member of one of these naysayers their perspective would suddenly change. To get a leg, with a heavy boot on, that high, isn’t accidental physics, it was a defensive move that went horribly wrong.
dave123456 said:
That statement is utterly illogical. Sorry, it’s absolute bks.
So you are saying that only people who play ice hockey can give an accurate assessment?!
What I'm saying is that you can catch the edge of your skate and it can make your leg kick out. See the Link below for a clear exampleks.So you are saying that only people who play ice hockey can give an accurate assessment?!
https://x.com/meowfiala/status/1719099806893904068...
Ankh87 said:
dave123456 said:
That statement is utterly illogical. Sorry, it’s absolute bks.
So you are saying that only people who play ice hockey can give an accurate assessment?!
What I'm saying is that you can catch the edge of your skate and it can make your leg kick out. See the Link below for a clear exampleks.So you are saying that only people who play ice hockey can give an accurate assessment?!
https://x.com/meowfiala/status/1719099806893904068...
Neither, I accept, can we say it was intentional.
I did however say it looks intentional.
skwdenyer said:
You say that. Other experts disagree with you. There's no current consensus as to whether the player's actions were reckless, deliberate, or culpable.
And, I say again, how will criminal charges change future outcomes? I'm a great fan of systems such as Norway's, which are proven to work, rather than our knee-jerk retribution-based system. If people can't understand that locking people up is almost always the wrong answer, it is the people who need to change IMHO.
I don't think prison is all about the offender and how It serves them, it is (or should be) also about the victim or in this case the family, and the reassurance they might get whilst the offender is in prison not able to raise his bladed foot towards someones chest/neck/face whilst there.And, I say again, how will criminal charges change future outcomes? I'm a great fan of systems such as Norway's, which are proven to work, rather than our knee-jerk retribution-based system. If people can't understand that locking people up is almost always the wrong answer, it is the people who need to change IMHO.
I think it was an intentional and nasty foul, but with no intent to kill, but reckless about whether it would or not. I don't think he will go to jail, but I'm also not sure what should happen to him.
The Gauge said:
I think it was an intentional and nasty foul, but with no intent to kill, but reckless about whether it would or not. I don't think he will go to jail, but I'm also not sure what should happen to him.
Drink drivers don't mean to kill people. People that punch people in the street don't mean to kill the person. If you commit an aggressive act that kills someone you are still liable for your actions. If it is found the act was intentional then he will go to jail.
The Gauge said:
skwdenyer said:
You say that. Other experts disagree with you. There's no current consensus as to whether the player's actions were reckless, deliberate, or culpable.
And, I say again, how will criminal charges change future outcomes? I'm a great fan of systems such as Norway's, which are proven to work, rather than our knee-jerk retribution-based system. If people can't understand that locking people up is almost always the wrong answer, it is the people who need to change IMHO.
I don't think prison is all about the offender and how It serves them, it is (or should be) also about the victim or in this case the family, and the reassurance they might get whilst the offender is in prison not able to raise his bladed foot towards someones chest/neck/face whilst there.And, I say again, how will criminal charges change future outcomes? I'm a great fan of systems such as Norway's, which are proven to work, rather than our knee-jerk retribution-based system. If people can't understand that locking people up is almost always the wrong answer, it is the people who need to change IMHO.
I think it was an intentional and nasty foul, but with no intent to kill, but reckless about whether it would or not. I don't think he will go to jail, but I'm also not sure what should happen to him.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff