I just found the worst hockey parent ever

[JR]

Fifteen year old AAA layer gets hit from behind and is left with "a concussion, a brain injury and lacerations to his head" and the kid who hit him had eleven (!) checking-from-behind penalties between 2002 and 2009.

The referee who officiated the game said it was the worst check from behind he'd ever seen in his career.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/gthl/article/751547--gthl-team-face-lawsuit

And here's the statement from the parent of the kid responsible for the hit:

A physical style of game which inevitably attracts penalties have an important role in the game of hockey and are highly valued at all competitive levels, including the National Hockey League," says the statement of defence. "(Park) had no reasonable prospects of obtaining a hockey scholarship or having a career in hockey prior to the bodycheck in any event.

AAA hockey parents are in a league of their own when it comes to idiocy but this one takes the cake.

Tar and feathering would be too good for this parent.

 

[fishhack2009]

Fifteen year old AAA layer gets hit from behind and is left with "a concussion, a brain injury and lacerations to his head" and the kid who hit him had eleven (!) checking-from-behind penalties between 2002 and 2009.

The referee who officiated the game said it was the worst check from behind he'd ever seen in his career.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/gthl/article/751547--gthl-team-face-lawsuit

And here's the statement from the parent of the kid responsible for the hit:

A physical style of game which inevitably attracts penalties have an important role in the game of hockey and are highly valued at all competitive levels, including the National Hockey League," says the statement of defence. "(Park) had no reasonable prospects of obtaining a hockey scholarship or having a career in hockey prior to the bodycheck in any event.

AAA hockey parents are in a league of their own when it comes to idiocy but this one takes the cake.

Tar and feathering would be too good for this parent.

Yikes. And WTF do the victim's future hockey prospects matter, in any event?

Sounds like that rotten apple isn't falling too far from the tree.

 

[imjustagirl]

Well, if they're suing for loss of future earnings/loss of future scholarship money, showing he wasn't going to get that anyway works to that end.

And, JR, I've found the worst official in the world. From the same story, conveniently not quoted:

"(The checker) came across the ice to deliver the check to Park who clearly was facing the boards and had no idea what was coming at him," he says. "I likened it to the image of the planes going into the World Trade Centre. That's how Park went into the boards."

**** you, dude.

 

[JR]

Well, if they're suing for loss of future earnings/loss of future scholarship money, showing he wasn't going to get that anyway works to that end.

And, JR, I've found the worst official in the world. From the same story, conveniently not quoted:

"(The checker) came across the ice to deliver the check to Park who clearly was facing the boards and had no idea what was coming at him," he says. "I likened it to the image of the planes going into the World Trade Centre. That's how Park went into the boards."

**** you, dude.

You're confusing bad officials with bad metaphors. But I get your point which, of course, is not my point.

The fact that some asshole parent figures he can downplay the seriousness of the hit and the subsequent lawsuit because the kid may or may not have a future in hockey is so objectionable it's not even worth discussing.

 

[fishhack2009]

Well, if they're suing for loss of future earnings/loss of future scholarship money, showing he wasn't going to get that anyway works to that end.

And, JR, I've found the worst official in the world. From the same story, conveniently not quoted:

"(The checker) came across the ice to deliver the check to Park who clearly was facing the boards and had no idea what was coming at him," he says. "I likened it to the image of the planes going into the World Trade Centre. That's how Park went into the boards."

**** you, dude.

This goes to trial and that quote gets into evidence, I'm guessing the punitive damages are off the charts.

The parents ... not the official. And the official's a moron.

 

[imjustagirl]

Again, if someone's suing you for loss of future revenue, it becomes your job to show they wouldn't HAVE any future revenue. That's the point.

This isn't even the worst quote I read today.

 

[JR]

Well, if they're suing for loss of future earnings/loss of future scholarship money, showing he wasn't going to get that anyway works to that end.

And, JR, I've found the worst official in the world. From the same story, conveniently not quoted:

"(The checker) came across the ice to deliver the check to Park who clearly was facing the boards and had no idea what was coming at him," he says. "I likened it to the image of the planes going into the World Trade Centre. That's how Park went into the boards."

**** you, dude.

This goes to trial and that quote gets into evidence, I'm guessing the punitive damages are off the charts.

The parents ... not the official. And the official's a moron.

The 9/11 quote was stupid but has nothing to do with the issue and likely would have nothing to do with any lawsuit. The lawyers on either side wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

[JR]

Again, if someone's suing you for loss of future revenue, it becomes your job to show they wouldn't HAVE any future revenue. That's the point.

Except this happened in Canada where, you know, we have a different justice system.

So your point is irrelevant.

 

[fishhack2009]

Well, if they're suing for loss of future earnings/loss of future scholarship money, showing he wasn't going to get that anyway works to that end.

And, JR, I've found the worst official in the world. From the same story, conveniently not quoted:

"(The checker) came across the ice to deliver the check to Park who clearly was facing the boards and had no idea what was coming at him," he says. "I likened it to the image of the planes going into the World Trade Centre. That's how Park went into the boards."

**** you, dude.

This goes to trial and that quote gets into evidence, I'm guessing the punitive damages are off the charts.

The parents ... not the official. And the official's a moron.

The 9/11 quote was stupid but has nothing to do with the issue and likely would have nothing to do with any lawsuit. The lawyers on either side wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Sorry, JR... I was referring to the parents' quote.

Can you share with us how the Canadian system is different from here?

 

[imjustagirl]

Can you share with us how the Canadian system is different from here?

Very interested in this, to know how my point is irrelevant.

 

[V_Corningstone]

imjustagirl,

Under Canadian tort law, personal injury settlements are determined by a variety of factors, including medical bills, future damages, extent of harm, loss in wages and loss in future earnings.

Thus, it would be upon the civil-suit party to prove a loss in future earnings--rendering your comment quite relevant to the discussion.

 

[imjustagirl]

Thank you, Ms. Corningstone. I admittedly know little about Canadian law, but I couldn't see a way in which that wouldn't be part of the proceedings.

 

[JR]

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.

 

[imjustagirl]

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.

 

[Beef03]

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.

 

[Rosie]

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.

 

[Huggy]

I'm not going to wade into all this legal bull**** 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.

 

[JR]

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.

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.

 

[beanpole]

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

 

[JR]

I think it's bull**** 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.