March 12, 2004
Todd Bertuzzi and the Phenomenology of Sporting Violence
Todd Bertuzzi, 10-year NHL veteran and the league's best power forward, has been suspended by the League for the remainder of the season. Bertuzzi is among Canuck leaders in goals, assists, and plus/minus, and along with Markus Naslund is the natural leader of a team that is currently fifth overall in the Western Conference and three points ahead of the hot Dallas Stars in the playoff race. Even the casual sport fan has probably seen tape of the vicious hit on rookie Colorado center Steve Moore from Monday night. In case you live in Germany (Scott) or shun sports like a leprous crackwhore (David), Bertuzzi's hit was in retaliation for a hard check by Moore on teammate Markus Naslund in February. Bertuzzi, 6'3", 245 lbs. skated up behind Moore, 6'2", 205 lbs, and swung a gloved fist at Moore's right ear. Moore collapsed immediately and Bertuzzi put his hands on Moore's shoulders and bodyslammed him into the ice face first. Moore suffered facial lacerations, two fractured vertebrae, and a concussion.
The NHL made the right move with the suspension by sanctioning a bankable star in a major market (Vancouver) right before the playoffs. Consider Sammy Sosa's eight-game suspension for corking a bat which was appealed (i.e. postponed until after the weekend's much-anticipated New York series) and then reduced to seven games. In fact, baseball has an unwritten rule that suspensions are invalid during the playoffs and are tolled until the following season. The NHL's decision is even more remarkable given the market equity that hockey has relative to baseball. The NHL, forever the stunted sibling in the Four Major Sports group, has seen declining attendence and TV ratings since The Great One retired in 1999. Now, at least for a week, hockey has been the lead story on ESPN and Fox Sports because of this cowardly attack on the ice. The clip and its ancillaries (Bertuzzi's press conference, tape of the Moore-Naslund hit, the Marty McSorley-Donald Brashear assault with a stick, and, jeeringly, tape of Bertuzzi's public statement following the McSorley hit) have been in a steady rotation since Monday--the most coverage any NHL event, including the All-Star Game (in which Bertuzzi played) has received all season.
Can this coverage be good for hockey?
I don't know. One could consider that no pub is bad pub and compare the coverage to a spectacular crash in NASCAR; certainly these things attract people that would not ordinarily watch the sport. On the other hand, people that don't watch and don't understand hockey may get the impression that this sort of violence is frequent in the game and may be further turned off by it. I'm not sure I can buy either side completely. For the first argument, people that are attracted by things like this can get their fill on SportsCenter. These people probably understand hockey about as much as I understand motorsports, which is to say not at all. They are unlikely to watch a two-and-a-half hour hockey game (even a very exciting, hard-hitting game) just for the possibility of seeing a career-threatening injury. For the second argument, people that are turned off by this sort of violence, as discouraged by the league as it is, probably don't draw as fine a line between what is appropriate and what isn't. That is, part of what makes hockey so exciting is the hits, the enforcers, the fights, the checks, and the intensity of the game. If you don't get that, then you don't get hockey. I doubt that there are people that get this passion, but are moved 180-degrees into revulsion by a hit like Bertuzzi's. For my part, I love the intensity of the game, but hate what Bertuzzi did. However, I don't hate why he did it--retaliation is and should be part of the game--I just hate how he did it.
Hockey does fights right. If baseball had fighting rules like the NHL, we wouldn't see these silly bench-clearing brawls that end in dogpiles and no real conclusion. Baseball has a stern rule against attacking anyone with a bat, so nobody does that anymore. If baseball put in a rule, like hockey, that anyone leaving the bench for a fight is suspended or penalized, then nobody would leave the bench. When a batter rushes a pitcher, everyone should go to their corners and the umpires, or at most the coaches, should break up the fight. I'm not saying that baseball should let the two players pummel each other like hockey (baseball players aren't tough enough for that), but some appropriate rules should be put in place to prevent these mêlées from breaking out.
Hockey does a lot of things right; you guys should watch more. If I hadn't already written so much, I would write a brief hockey primer or manifesto for you, but maybe I'll do that later. At least check out some playoff games: they begin in April. Some quick links: Dallas Stars, NHL, RDS (En français. C'est principalemant actualités des équipes canadiennes comme Vancouver.)
(By the way, the title is only a joke--fireworks to attract you intellectual dynamos.)
I knew this was your position already, but interesting write-up on the situation still. I like the proper use of accents in "mêlées", too. :) Did you read the article in Slate about this? Here's the link:
When Is Hockey Violence Illegal?
King Kaufman also has something on it where he argues that hockey violence is wrong and stupid. He also replies to letters in response to that column. Completely different take than you.
Oh, and a write-up of hockey in general would be interesting. I vote 'yea'.
No, I havent read the Slate article (I just now skimmed it). My initial response to whether violence in sport is illegal is voluntary assumption of risk, which can be a complete defense. (But Moore could show that he did not assume the risk that another skater would violate the rules. See Hackbart below.) The Slate article says that prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding whether to charge athletes, but that is true of any potential defendant. Much of the liability issue is covered in the individual contracts between the player and the league (I would like to hear a sport lawyer explain the details). On the other hand, one cannot contract away negligence liability. In theory, anyway, neither can a sports contract protect a player from liability for intentional torts. In a famous example, Charles Clark armbarred Dale Hackbart during a 1978 Broncos-Bengals NFL game. Because it was an intentional act and in violation of the NFL's rules, the Bengals and Clark were found liable.
As for the King Kaufman article, I stopped reading him after he wrote that article claiming that Armstrong should not have won Sportsman of the Year after his fourth Tour victory. Kaufman is about as qualified as Hunter S. Thompson in the field of sporting journalism.
Interesting. To answer your question, I don't think this coverage is good for hockey. This wasn't an accident. This was a fight. As brutal as games like football etc. are, at least people aren't trying to hurt each other (well, with the exception of quarterbacks).
I think the question at hand is--to what extent did Bertuzzi realize he was going to seriously injure Moore? I find it unlikely that he intentionally meant to put this guy in the hospital, which underlines the case that even if these guys think they are holding back they can still kill somebody out there.
What sort of fighting rules (written or unwritten) could ensure minimal safety? If they keep fighting in the game, there have to be some of these.
David, I don't think just because an author writes one article you disagree with you should stop reading him. He did a pretty good job of defending why he thought Armstrong should not receive the Sportsman of the Year award. You may disagree, but he at least has reasons. His discussion about hockey violence I found particularly persuasive, but I'm not a hockey fan, so what do I know?
Scott--I disagree. The Bertuzzi hit was not a fight, it was an illegal hit. Bertuzzi's emotions got the best of him and he did the wrong thing. If he had gone out there, intending to vindicate the Moore-Naslund hit, and started a fistfight, that would have been different. A face to face fight would have been appropriate, correct, and exciting.
Furthermore, Scott, you are way off if you think that people in other sports aren't trying to hurt each other. The "true fan" says that they never wish for their team's success due to an opponent's injury, but there is more than a little schadenfreude for fans and players alike when that happens. Consider the beanball in baseball, or the saftey spear in football. Consider the NFL where biting, pulling, punching, and ball squeezing goes on under the pileup. Football players, much more than hockey players, want to injure. Consider the flying elbows in basketball. In this case, Bertuzzi didn't really want to hurt Moore, he wanted to engage in a fight but did it the wrong way.
And Mike; I didn't really stop reading Kaufman because of his Armstrong article--the fact is I never read him before. (I still think he's an idiot though.)
As for hockey's fighting rules ("fisticuffs" in puck parlance), the NHL has rules against instigators and third man in (resulting in game misconducts or 5 minute majors), and refs stop fights when a man hits the ice, a sweater comes over the head, or when they see a man getting his ass kicked (looks tired) and he doesn't wave the refs off.
More importantly, enforcers are a big part of the game. Generally, the big fights are between tough guys, or between guys of a commensurate level of toughness. You never see a fight between a huge enforcer and a tiny skill player. The presence of these guys keeps the physicality at an even level. Checks are as much a part of hockey as tackles are a part of football. They are not always the big hits on the boards; sometimes they are nothing more than impeding an opponents progress through center ice or pinning a guy to the boards to allow another player to get the puck. Enforcers and fights make sure this stuff doesn't get out of hand.
I would say that Hunter can write about sports God Damn it. As for King Kaufman. One should never take some one who address himself as King unless he really is a King or he is Jerry "The King" Lawler.
Sorry,
I meant to say that one should never take some one who address himself as King seriously .
David,
Fair enough, it wasn't a hit. I'm kind of reluctant to weigh in on this since I know little about hockey and have no creds as a fan. Still, it seems to me that when you admit that Bertuzzi was trying to start a "fight" but actually landed an "illegal hit", you're tactitly admitting that this incident probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't ok to instigate "fights" in a wide, exciting and potentially life-threatening variety of ways. Or would your preference be that fights always be instigated with face to face punches?
Since I haven't seen the video, let me ask you--was the Bertuzzi hit an accident, or did Bertuzzi just suddenly get an adrenalin rush and the desire to brutalize Moore?
Of course, I'm not really in a position to complain about sporting violence or sporting stupidity in general, seeing as my favorite sport condones descending treacherous mountains at 60mph. Up until last year there wasn't even a helmut requirement.
Hmm... Upon further reflection I realize my argument above is weak, mostly because of my lack of knowledge about hockey. I suppose that if the players remain within the rules and limited themselves to "legal" hits only, then (assuming the rules are adequate) serious injury can probably be kept at a minimum. I don't really know one way or another.
The only thing I can comfortably say about this incident is that from my (ill-informed) perspective it is bad for both hockey and US sports culture in general. With enough alcohol and testosterone around me I can enjoy a hockey fight as much as the next guy, but the fact is I would feel uneasy about exposing this stuff to my kid (though I would have no qualms about taking them to a college or international hockey game). I know I sound like a whiny guilty liberal and I certainly don't mean to guilt trip anyone, but the fact is that the audience's expectations for hockey violence help produce a violent sports culture, plain and simple. I wouldn't want my kid mixed up in that.
Obviously one can make the exact same objections to football--the audience wants and demands to see the opposing quarterback thrashed. It's part of the game and part of the culture. Did being a young man who loved football make me more violent? Perhaps. I really don't know.
On the other hand, perhaps it's even possible to defend violence in sports.
But I can say that don't remember my father cheering on a fight between players or gloating over a player's injury-and that was probably good for my mental health.