|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Q & A with SI's Michael Farber Judge McSorley verdict, not its punishment
After Judge William Kitchen reached a verdict in the Marty McSorley trial, CNNSI.com spoke to Sports Illustrated senior writer Michael Farber, who addressed the ruling and explained why the guilty finding is more important than the fact McSorley isn't going to jail. CNNSI.com: Were you surprised by the ruling? Farber: No, I wasn't surprised. Judge Kitchen seemed to be hockey-savvy and he seemed to have a clear understanding not only of the rules of law, but of the NHL code that governs fighting and fighters. I don't think Judge Kitchen would be throwing anybody in jail or finding anybody guilty for any untoward, violent act, but for a hockey-savvy person it was clear McSorley had crossed some kind of line. I think that's why I wasn't surprised. CNNSI.com: Does the verdict ring hollow if it doesn't have teeth? Clearly, the sight of McSorley in a prison jumpsuit would have brought home the point more strongly, but I think the guilty verdict underscores the fact that if the league doesn't police itself better -- and the league is trying to -- the court reserves the right to step in. The verdict is probably more important than the punishment. I think the implications of the verdict are more important than the implications of the punishment. Although if you're taking it at face value, you can see the mixed message there. CNNSI.com: What kind of blow is it to the NHL, which would rather police its own actions? Farber: It is a blow to the NHL. The league was of the opinion that all this was an in-house matter and that the league had dealt with the incident swiftly and severely, and ultimately, fairly. And I think the league did in this case. The league didn't want it to go beyond there. Gary Bettman is telling people that the league is stronger than it's ever been. And on some level, that might be true, but you can't buy this kind of bad publicity. I'm sure the league will point out the fact that the judge, by not throwing McSorley in jail, had mixed his messages. But given the league's position in this, yes, it's a blow. CNNSI.com: Did you think it should have been in the courts in the first place? I had certain problems with it. I think that in the hands of a less-abled jurist, the precedent would have been far worse. I was always a little leery of it -- you could have had someone trying to make a name for himself, or a prosecutor and a complicit judge. But we've had precedents set before. The precedent had already been established by the courts and we don't see prosecutors clamoring for every five-minute high-sticking major. I think the courts have been judicious and I think the judge in this case has continued that. So I don't really have a problem with it. I think it reinforced the notion that in an exceptional circumstance, and clearly this was, the courts reserve the right to step in. CNNSI.com: So in some ways, the NHL really lucked out in light of this verdict. I think we all lucked out. I think this judge really had a handle on it, and that's important. CNNSI.com: McSorley may not play again, but he may not have played in 2000-01 anyway. Isn't that important to note? Farber: Sure. He's at the tail end of his career. I'd be shocked if anybody would want him now. Boston kind of took a flier on him last year. He's no longer the baddest hombre out there. There are younger and stronger and tougher goons. And, in fact, the role of the enforcer has been de-emphasized. The instigator rule has something to do with that, but it goes beyond there. Teams are finding out you can live without them. I always liken fighting in the NHL to the chorus in Greek dramas. Essentially it's a pause in the action and a commentary on the action. Then the narrative picks up. It has become a set piece of the game -- part of the repertoire that is called on, on occasion, and you can see it coming from a mile away. I think we've been disabused of the notion that these are spontaneous. I think fighting is at, and I hate to use the term, acceptable levels for almost everybody. I'm not offended by fighting. I once was, but I've reconsidered. We seem to have found a reasonable level. CNNSI.com: And maybe what we should be concentrating on after the ruling is the overall dilemma of violence. Do you think this verdict will do anything to curb that? Farber: This verdict will resonate, and in some cases serve as a deterrent to absolute stupidity. Will it curb day-to-day violence in the league? No. But far more important than the verdict to the general comportment of the league is director of officiating Andy Van Hellemond. He was certainly the best referee I ever saw. He brings a fresh look at what has gone on in the league. The league has vowed to crack down on slashing and blows to the head, and Andy, who has virtually everybody's respect, can effect more change than this ruling can.
| ||||||||||||||||
