The other side of the pond are laughing at us. Literally for our complete lack of understanding of the game and skating. I mean it's pretty unanimous too, other than those usual hate twitter accounts that drive up engagement without every being interested in hockey.
I mean they have grown up watching this where someone intentionally drove someone's head into the metal glass support. 5 minute penalty and game misconduct.
Or Evans hit after scoring, this is game where people do try to hurt without question.
I don't think people in this Country that have never shown any interest in the sport until now have any real idea how fast and hard this game is played. I watched the Canadiens game this morning and Guhle took a skate to the face which luckily just cut his lip.
These guys can try to punch the **** out of each other, what happens if one of them dies in the NHL, it's a illegal action do you think they would get jail time?
If he gets convicted of this they might as well make hockey in the UK non contact. Quite how they convict someone when even Adam Johnsons team mates have explained how it happened and was an accident is anyone's guess at this point.
Agree with all of this.
*If* it is found to have been intentional (which seems incredibly unlikely, not least because the allegation is involuntary manslaughter) then he should get the book thrown at him, but every person who actually understands and has a long standing relationship with the sport has said that the video certainly does not show intent.
And the point about what it means for other sports is equally relevant and important. If there had been a similar reaction to Phil Hughes's tragic death, that would probably have been the end of bouncers in cricket which would have changed the sport beyond recognition. Similarly, people die or suffer life changing injuries in rugby scrums, in American Football, obviously in boxing and wrestling. If that can lead to charges for the "perpetrator", all of those sports would change dramatically.
It's sport. Most sports have an element of danger, and you accept that when you step onto the field of play regardless of what level you're playing at. If somebody is shown to have done something dangerous which sits so far outside the realms of the sport which you're playing that you'd never expect it to happen when stepping on the field of play, then that person should face the consequences, and what Petgrave did comes close to that line. In my opinion, though, there will rightly be a huge burden to get over that line, however.
The interaction with the law in general is a really interesting one. The law doesn't provide for carve-outs for consent (see the famous and slightly disgusting case of R v Brown), but clearly it accepts that what happens on a sports field sits slightly outside of the usual, otherwise there would be assault charges all over the place.
