I just found the worst hockey parent ever

I stand corrected by Mr. Canuck lawyer but the lawsuit had nothing to do with my main point.

Doesn't change the fact that the parent, whose son has a history of egregious behaviour, condones this hit from behind because the victim had no future in hockey is reprehensible

And the idea that what's acceptable in the NHL is also acceptable in minor hockey is nonsense.

 

I disagree with your second point. I didn't take it as his defending the action BECAUSE the guy had no future in hockey. It was a "statement of defence" (sic), entered into court, if I read correctly. That's his defence (sic) to the charge that his son's hit had cost the kid a livelihood.

I think if he said that in an interview outside of court, it's different. It seems harsh, because you're reading it as a comment in nature, instead of a defense move.

 

It said in the story that his indefinite suspension was overturned, do you know what it was replaced with or if it was just ended and the kid was back out on the ice the next day. If it was completely vacated the GTHA really does need to answer for that.

 

This absolutely frosts me.

My son is currently benched right now because of post-concussion syndrome. He'll be re-evaluated Tuesday morning, but we just do not know how long before he's able to take part in sports again. (I'll give the kid credit, he still goes to practice every day, even though he can't do anything.)

For the parent(s) of that kid to condone a hit like that is irresponsible at the least. I say ban both the kid who can't play cleanly and his family - permanently. There should be no place for crap like that.

 

I'm not going to wade into all this legal bullshit being fired aorund here other than to say it's tough to say definitively that a 15-year-old will or won't have a future in hockey, of course it's easier to say they won't since that is the reality for all but a select few. No AAA parent wants to hear this, of course.

As well the official in question here, Carl Friday, is an old high school friend of mine. Terrific guy, longtime dedicated minor hockey official, terrible quote. I just shook my head the first time I read it.

 

The GTHL has a terrible history of discipline. They'll give you a game for something as serious as checking from behind whether it's your first time or, in this kids's case, for a serial offender.

The Mississauga Hockey League has taken a much tougher approach and incidents like this have dropped significantly.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/juniorhockey/article/751550--mhl-s-tough-love-a-recipe-for-success

Minimum suspensions, set by the Ontario Hockey Federation, are generally doubled in Mississauga on the second occurrence.

By the fourth or fifth, many of the most serious problems lead to indefinite suspensions and even permanent removal of players and coaches.

A player with four fighting penalties last year, for example, landed in a hearing that resulted in his removal from the MHL. And a coach was removed from the league this year for repeated "inappropriate" conduct.

My kid got into ONE fight during his ten years of minor hockey (goalies dont get in a lot of fights) and he got one game, same as the psycho on the team who got into about five fights a season.

 

I think it's bullshit that the kid who did the checking is having his name withheld, as well as the name of the name of the asshole father.

 

Possibly the same reason that you can't publish the name of anyone under the age of sixteen (I think that's the age) convicted of a crime (including murder) because of The Young Offenders Act. There may be another reason, don't know.

 

Ms. Girl is correct. The statement quoted by the original poster is in a legal document presented to the courts. Unless counsel representing the young hockey player is his father, it is a stretch for the newspaper to attribute said quote to the player's father.

Lawyers do what they must to appropriately defend their clients, even if it means a callous approach to a civil-suit defense.

In any case, there appears - at least according to the newspaper article - to be sufficient evidence for the court to weigh in Parks's favor and a part of the damages awarded likely will be attributed to Parks's potential earnings as a hockey player.

 

18 is the cut off I thought?

 

it is 18