I can't let this go because it really pisses me off. I believe this is the appropriate analysis for the league to employ. 1. Should the intent requirement tie to the action or the result? It is clear that he intended to take that ridiculous step forward. Nobody knocked him off balance, it was a voluntary physical move. Let's say you shoot a gun at someone. You intended to pull the trigger, but you only intended to shoot them in the arm. But you wind up shooting them in the heart. Result? You are not just guilty of battery (what you only intended to do). You are guilty of homicide. If you intend your action, you are responsible for the things that foreseeably result from it. (if it's a freak accident, it's not foreseeable and you aren't responsible). The only qustion is whether Bowen is guilty of murder 1, murder 2 or negligent homicide/manslaughter. There is no question in my mind whether he should be punished. 2. I think Bowen was "reckless" - he acted with a conscious disregard or indifference to the safety of others and his conduct created an unreasonable risk to the safety of others. In my mind, he is just barely shy of intentionally causing that severe ankle sprain by tackling Carter and wrenching that ankle with his own hands. That would be "intentional". But in both cases, he should be punished. This should not be permitted to occur again. If the league does not police it, then Toronto should get some goon off the street on a 10 day contract and have him just brutalize Bowen the next time the teams meet. What is the worst thing the league can do? Fine Toronto? Suspend the goon? Big deal. Carter's injury will cost more victories and money than any fine the league can hand down. I'd like to hear thoughts on this. Damn this still pisses me off.
No edit. I forgot to add - what is the difference with this and some of the "hard fouls" that are committed and whistled for intentional fouls. People go up hard on defense and if someone comes down funny, then there's a intentional foul and maybe a suspension. There's no proof that the defender intended to make that guy come down funny, but we infer intent from the result and circumstances. The defender put the other guy at an unreasonable risk, and hence the intentional foul call.
