Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Bertuzzi-Moore saga takes a bullshit turn-of-events

A statement of claim filed in Ontario court by Moore's lawyer and obtained by CBC alleges that then Canucks coach Marc Crawford pointed to Moore's name and number on a board in the Canucks dressing room during the second intermission of that game and said ". . . (Moore) must pay the price."

Well, this is what happens when you get fucking lawyers involved in hockey. They disect the hell out of everything. In this case, it's pathetic. It DOESN'T MATTER if Crawford said that or not. It doesn't mean Crawford meant for someone to break Moore's neck. "Pay the price" can mean a lot of different things, like: drop the gloves with him, open ice hit him, or slam him into the boards with a massive check, all legally of course.
Crawford cannot be held accountable for Moore's pain in the neck. Only Bertuzzi can. Coaches have every right to single out an opposing player and have their own guys rough that player up. Especially if the bastard cheap-shotted your star player. That's the game of hockey.
All this Crawford talk now is a waste of time. Bertuzzi acted out of his own personal problems with anger issues, and Crawford should not be held accountable for that.
And that is the jist of what Crawford will say. You watch. Don't read any further into these new found allegations. They are pathetic....and lawyer bullshit tactics.

T Tags:

Labels: , ,

6 Comments:

At December 7, 2007 at 12:04 PM , Blogger Jibblescribbits said...

Well I am obviously biased in this one, but I disagree. While I agree that saying he must "Pay the Price"is pretty vague and definitely isn't "Break his neck",

the fact remains that Moore had already theoretically "paid the price" by fighting Matt Cooke earlier in the game. At that point the issue should have been resolved, and that Crawford was still clamoring for more blood afterwards makes him somewhat culpable.

I also think that Hockey players value team more than anything else in life and Bertuzzi thought that going after Moore was the right thing to do, because leading up to the game (and apparently during the game) he was being told by his coach that it was.

In summary I think the attitude of vengeance and violence that Crawford (and yes Burke) created is a fair place to put some of the blame, but not the specific words involved.

 
At December 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM , Blogger Zanstorm said...

Yeah, I know we disagree on this one. Because Moore faired well in the fight with Cooke, that meant that justice was not served. Moore had not paid for his sin. So I am all for further retribution until he gets his ass kicked.
And we don't want to start blaming coaches or GM's for their words. That opens a huge can of worms to what is all said in the locker room. How many coaches around the league say the same thing Crawford said? It's part of the game.
This is all Bertuzzi's fault. His coaches should not be blamed.

Another thing: I know the Canucks had "washed their hands" of this whole thing last season and left Bert on his own after he was traded away from Vancouver. Does any of that play a role in the new developments?

 
At December 7, 2007 at 4:42 PM , Blogger Jibblescribbits said...

Well it isn't "send out fighters until he gets his ass kicked". Crawford should have sent out a better fighter, like whoever the resident goon was at the time. It's kind of like "You had your chance and blew it".

Like I said I don't think those words were all that damning, just a little. I think the culture of thuggery that Crawford perpetuates (and really Burke too, which is why I don't like him at all" is more a source.

And by your logic, when does Bertuzzi have his justice served, I mean he has faired pretty well, compared to Moore, since then. Really you get one chance for retribution. They had it, Moore held his own. It should have been over there.

 
At December 7, 2007 at 7:30 PM , Blogger Zanstorm said...

If someone kicked the shit out of you and stole your wallet and you came across him on the street a few weeks later, fought the bastard, and he beats you down again, would you feel that you had your one chance for retribution?
You would feel embarassed and defeated. Then you'd send your bigger friend after the guy to beat the shit out of him and take your wallet back.
Who wouldn't do that?
Like my analogy? :)

 
At December 7, 2007 at 8:35 PM , Blogger Jibblescribbits said...

Well, in your analogy, if he kicked my ass and took my wallet the first time, I think I'd assume he was big enough and strong enough to do it a second time and send my bigger tougher friend after him for retribution. It wouldn't take me 2 ass-kickings to realize that maybe i should call in reinforcements. ;)

 
At December 8, 2007 at 3:29 AM , Blogger Zanstorm said...

Ha! Alright. I'm done arguing with you! :)

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Waiting For Stanley was created in June 2006.