Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

Policing the Hockey Rink

By Edmund Walsh
Posted Friday, Sept. 29, 2000, at 8:30 PM ET
Brashear and McSorley

Marty McSorley, the former Boston Bruins hockey player who took a stick to opponent Donald Brashear's noggin, faces up to a year and a half in prison if Vancouver, British Columbia, authorities prove that he committed assault with a weapon. But the harsher judgment could be against the NHL and its ability to regulate hockey.

The NHL already suspended McSorley for 23 games, the longest ban ever handed down by the league and potentially a career-ender. This internal system of regulation allows hockey players to take the ice knowing that brutal attacks like McSorley's won't be commonplace. And it's respect for that system that's led most people associated with the NHL to question the legal case against McSorley. Both Donald Brashear and his coach, Marc Crawford, testified that McSorley's act was unacceptably violent. But Brashear, Crawford, and the Vancouver Canucks organization have all said that McSorley should be disciplined by the NHL, not by the courts.

What the league and its players and coaches understand is that professional sports are conducted according to a set of ground rules different from those that govern everyday life. The very essence of hockey—launching a small, rubber projectile at another person—would be illegal outside the arena. Likewise the regular groping, shoving, checking, and poking required to gain an advantage on the ice. And it's not a condition unique to hockey, or even to professional sports. As Canucks General Manager Brian Burke told CNN's Greta Van Susteren, "It's the same reason they have different rules of conduct in the military than they do for civilians. It's a different way of making a living."

Of course, some civil boundaries must be respected. Had Brashear died on the ice as a result of a premeditated attack, McSorley would be facing even more severe legal ramifications than he faces now. And rightly so. The critical question to ask in these situations is: Was the transgression against a player or against a man? Did McSorley swipe at Brashear because of the circumstances of the game or simply because he intended to injure another person? Clearly, McSorley was picking a fight with Brashear because of their history on the ice (Brashear had trounced McSorley in an earlier fight), not because he had a personal desire to harm him.

But would McSorley's baiting have had a place in baseball? Definitely not, as there'd be no reason for a player to ever touch an opponent with his bat. In football, where the players aren't outfitted with potential weapons, roughhousing is commonplace, and gruesome injuries often occur. But if a linebacker attempted to snap a quarterback's neck, he'd have a tough time justifying his act as a part of the game.

Donald Brashear himself came up with what might be the best solution to McSorley's case—a lifetime ban from the NHL. It's probably fitting, given the severity of the incident. But while Marty McSorley has shown himself unable to abide by hockey's rules, he hasn't shown himself unable to abide by society's. McSorley is not a threat to the people of Vancouver or of any other jurisdiction. Rather than obscuring the line of separation between church and sport, the authorities would serve hockey well by understanding the distinction.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Edmund Walsh is an editorial assistant at the Weekly Standard.
Photograph of Donald Brashear and Marty McSorley by Lyle Stafford/Reuters.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:


Simply because an assault occurred during the play of a professional game does not excuse it. If one competitor purposely shot another during a target competition, would you say that the officials for the sport ought to handle the case? Purposely beating another player with your stick is essentially the same thing, using a potentially deadly tool of the sport to injure a competitor. Hockey fights are an accepted part of the game, just as sacking the quarterback is an accepted part of football. Head strikes with a hockey stick are not, and verge on attempted murder. A monetary fine is hardly an appropriate punishment, and while I agree that a lifetime ban is appropriate, there should be harsher criminal penalties for an act which so baldly crossed the bounds of acceptability, if only to drive home the point to the fans that there are acts which will not be accepted by society, even in the course of the ritual violence of a sport

--I'm being Frank

(To reply, click here.)


The problem here is more than McSorley, and even more than the tradition of rough play/violence in North American hockey. The problem is that of a lack of respect; an increase in the level of bad behavior that people are willing to accept without reaction. I've talked to people who were involved with hockey before helmets were mandatory--they implied it was actually safer, because people had more respect for the damage they could do. Now, with helmets, pads, mouthguards etc, it's a variation on the Seat Belt syndrome--players hit harder because they feel safer under all of that equipment, just as a lot of people drive faster with their seatbelts on because they think the seatbelt will protect them.

--Capsfan6

(To reply, click here.)

(10/2)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.