Cormier Facing Charges

Intent. That’s the bottom line.
.
A player signs a contract, and in doing so agrees to the inherent risks of the game, within the confines of the rules of the sport, which may include injury. Fair enough.
.
However.
.
Intent to injure is not, and has never been, an accepted part of the game. And therein lies the difference.
.
The laws of the land do not simply disappear because a sport such as hockey has its own set of rules. To argue they somehow do is uneducated, ignorant and absurd.
.
In the case of Cormier, the video evidence is pretty damning. He leaves the bench, beelines directly to a player who is in the process of moving the puck, and throws an elbow square to his head.
.
In what world is that an accepted hockey play, or a “part of the culture”?
.
It isn’t. It’s a blatant attempt to injure, and if leagues are serious about eradicating such activities from the game, a simple “don’t do this” speech isn’t going to do the job. So many of these players think “it can’t happen to me” – the invincibility complex – that perhaps a form of consequence beyond missing a few games has to be enacted.
.
What Cormier did was attack another player, with the intent of causing injury. That has no place in the game – and the laws of the land would tell you it has no place in society either.
.
As far as I am concerned, he should be charged. Just as Jonathan Roy should have been also, and was. Roy, for the record, received an unconditional discharge … as Cormier likely will too. But the message was sent that if you willfully attack another player who has not consented to engage, you can be charged just as if you had willfully attacked a person walking down the street. It’s no different in the eyes of the law — nor should it be.
.
Same goes for Bertuzzi, for that matter. And McSorley. And whatever other examples you can think of where there was clearly an attempt to injure at play. And yes, I will go so far to suggest that had Cooke been charged for his hit on Savard, I’d have said good on the prosecutors for bringing forth the motion (whether or not a charge would have followed is debatable – intent would have to be proven and admittedly the Cooke hit fell into that “grey area” … but the point stands that a message far more effective than a penalty and a non-suspension would be sent). This crap needs to be eradicated, and if existing deterrents do not do the job, the next step is a necessity.
.
Play the game the right way and there is no issue. Play it with the intent to injure, and pay the price just as you would outside the rink. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
.
The law is the law, folks. Nothing is above it – least of all a game. And no matter how much we love to place it on some sort of holy pedestal, at the end of the day it’s still just a game, and the rules of the real world still do apply. There are a set of standards, of reasonable expectations, which accompany the agreement to play the game. And it includes the risk of injury. But nowhere is the willful intent to injure a part of that.
.
And it is that very intent is the line at which justice via the league (penalties and suspensions) and justice via the courts has been drawn by the QMJHL. Here’s hoping the other leagues will man up and follow suit.