|
|
Post by HockeyAngel17 on Jul 31, 2008 23:55:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Aug 1, 2008 7:52:41 GMT -4
I feel bad he is being charged but there has to be a first one and I hope he gets $2,000. and community service maybe 6 monthd helping out kids in say minor hockey...I still think his father should have gotten more and even got a $10,000. fine too..
|
|
|
|
Post by notin on Aug 1, 2008 11:00:54 GMT -4
No pitty for them 2 hot heads!
|
|
bikerboy
Blue-Chip Prospect
i am french so sorry for my English
Posts: 427
|
Post by bikerboy on Aug 1, 2008 11:19:50 GMT -4
ya i get it you not a Roy fan and it is desturbing what happen , but getting charge in Civil for what happen thats over the border line , it should stay in hockey ban the guy or make a exemple out of him in the league but the Civil cour has no buiness in hockey what happens on the ice should stay with the Q league like the NHL if it happens off ice then you know what it is the players problem .
so if your going to charge Roy they should charge Rioux for jumping Roy , ok roy defended him self but he had o choice i am not a Roy fan but i am a Hockey fan and i played the game for 15 years
|
|
|
|
Post by Dalkiel on Aug 1, 2008 11:31:46 GMT -4
ya i get it you not a Roy fan and it is desturbing what happen , but getting charge in Civil for what happen thats over the border line , it should stay in hockey ban the guy or make a exemple out of him in the league but the Civil cour has no buiness in hockey what happens on the ice should stay with the Q league like the NHL if it happens off ice then you know what it is the players problem . so if your going to charge Roy they should charge Rioux for jumping Roy , ok roy defended him self but he had o choice i am not a Roy fan but i am a Hockey fan and i played the game for 15 years I agree with you to a point. These matters typically should stay in hockey but there is a line that had to be drawn in the sand and I personally think JRoy crossed it. JRoy has a history of being a good and general idiot and an argument could be made that he asked for it, Nadeau on the other hand doesn't share the same personality or arrogance that JRoy and his 'ole man have. Nadeau did not do anything to ask for the punishment nor did he defend himself other than going into featle position. This could have easily turned into a serious injury to Nadeau but luckily it did not. I think this incident could on par with the Bertuzzi or Mcsorley incident so in that case "off with his head" IMO |
|
|
|
Post by Dalkiel on Aug 1, 2008 11:33:42 GMT -4
I guess to add to it, I think JRoy should get a 2 year suspension from the Q and community service to kids in minor hockey on what he did was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on Aug 1, 2008 13:36:49 GMT -4
ya i get it you not a Roy fan and it is desturbing what happen , but getting charge in Civil for what happen thats over the border line , it should stay in hockey ban the guy or make a exemple out of him in the league but the Civil cour has no buiness in hockey what happens on the ice should stay with the Q league like the NHL if it happens off ice then you know what it is the players problem . so if your going to charge Roy they should charge Rioux for jumping Roy , ok roy defended him self but he had o choice i am not a Roy fan but i am a Hockey fan and i played the game for 15 years I agree with you to a point. These matters typically should stay in hockey but there is a line that had to be drawn in the sand and I personally think JRoy crossed it. JRoy has a history of being a good and general idiot and an argument could be made that he asked for it, Nadeau on the other hand doesn't share the same personality or arrogance that JRoy and his 'ole man have. Nadeau did not do anything to ask for the punishment nor did he defend himself other than going into featle position. This could have easily turned into a serious injury to Nadeau but luckily it did not. I think this incident could on par with the Bertuzzi or Mcsorley incident so in that case "off with his head" IMO I agree -- there has to be a line....if a guy attacks someone on the ice that has nothing to do with the game, etc as J Roy did, then it's beyond hockey (ie civil issue). You're also right in saying about that he should be suspended for a couple years, but I doubt that'll happen as the Q had their chance to do this. I can't see where these charges could result in a hockey ban unless he's banned in the form of not participating in organized sport or something like that OR unless a lovely Quebec politician gets involved again. There has to be a message sent that that conduct is not acceptable. The Q in some people's opinion didn't do that. Perhaps this matter will open more people's eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by notin on Aug 1, 2008 14:55:28 GMT -4
ya i get it you not a Roy fan and it is desturbing what happen , but getting charge in Civil for what happen thats over the border line , it should stay in hockey ban the guy or make a exemple out of him in the league but the Civil cour has no buiness in hockey what happens on the ice should stay with the Q league like the NHL if it happens off ice then you know what it is the players problem . so if your going to charge Roy they should charge Rioux for jumping Roy , ok roy defended him self but he had o choice i am not a Roy fan but i am a Hockey fan and i played the game for 15 years So let me get this....if someone assaults u at work it should stay at work? |
|
|
|
Post by Dman on Aug 3, 2008 14:28:57 GMT -4
ya i get it you not a Roy fan and it is desturbing what happen , but getting charge in Civil for what happen thats over the border line , it should stay in hockey ban the guy or make a exemple out of him in the league but the Civil cour has no buiness in hockey what happens on the ice should stay with the Q league like the NHL if it happens off ice then you know what it is the players problem . so if your going to charge Roy they should charge Rioux for jumping Roy , ok roy defended him self but he had o choice i am not a Roy fan but i am a Hockey fan and i played the game for 15 years So let me get this....if someone assaults u at work it should stay at work? So let me get this....if someone hits you on the back of the legs with a stick while you are walking down the street, which would be assault with a weapon, why must they possibly be charged, when in hockey, all you get is a 2 minute penalty? Why shouldn't all slashing penalties, roughing penalties, etc. be followed up with possible charges? I'm not necessarily saying assault charges aren't warranted here, I am just trying to figure out your logic here. |
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Aug 3, 2008 16:03:52 GMT -4
Like I said earlier he needs to be the first example in this level and they should really look at the father too..In the last couple of years he has been involved in some still exchanges and maybe just too much for hockey players and fans of this level maybe he should be not allowed behind the bench at all.Bad role model for players..
|
|
