There's a temptation, based on what's been reported in the past 24 hours, to let fly with a big "ah ha," and point a finger of blame in the Steve Moore vs. Todd Bertuzzi case and proclaim that a smoking gun has been found.
In this scenario, that gun would be found in the hand of former Vancouver Canucks coach Marc Crawford.
I urge you: Resist that temptation, at least until all the facts are in. There are very good reasons.
To catch you up, court documents obtained by some Toronto-based media contend that Bertuzzi's infamous hit from behind on then Colorado Avalanche Steve Moore came after then-Vancouver coach Crawford pointed at a dressing room board and said "he (and pointing to Moore's number) must pay the price."
Bertuzzi was in that room. Later he was on the Vancouver bench and in the third period videotape shows he was on the ice and was the one who tracked Moore down from behind, sucker-punched him in the side of the head and rode him down to the ice midway through the third period of a game on March 8, 2004.
As a result of that incident, Moore suffered three broken vertebrae in his neck and a serious concussion. He has not played an NHL game since and has, we are told, been urged by physicians never to play hockey again.
Moore has filed suit in Ontario asking for some $18 million for lost income, aggravated and punitive damages.
He has since amended that claim to the tune of $38 million.
The recent revelations come from a deposition in which Bertuzzi was asked, under oath, some 1,300 questions, several of which dealt with Crawford.
Bertuzzi swore that Dave Nonis, currently the Vancouver general manager but then the team's director of hockey operations, confirmed what Bertuzzi stated and that Nonis testified to that fact in his deposition.
This all came about because Moore, in a previous game, hit Vancouver captain Markus Naslund during a play in which Naslund was slightly injured (concussion) but no penalty was called and no supplemental discipline for Moore was issued.
After his hit on Moore, Bertuzzi was fined and suspended and the Canucks were fined in excess of $250,000. Bertuzzi also faced criminal charges in Vancouver, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year of probation and community service, a sentence that Moore objected to but was not allowed to protest in court.
That Bertuzzi named Crawford, under oath, is newsworthy. So are the reports that Nonis's sworn testimony appears to support Bertuzzi's. But saying that Moore "must pay the price" is a far cry from ordering Bertuzzi to go out and take revenge on the Colorado forward and that is the essence of this case.
Bertuzzi has filed a claim stating that if damages are awarded to Moore, the Canucks should pay them. Implicating Crawford as having directed him to do so would go a long way toward making that case.
At the same time, the Canucks have filed a counterclaim that Bertuzzi, now a forward for the Ducks of Anaheim, should be found responsible and be made to pay.
Bertuzzi appears to get a boost in his case if Nonis did in fact swear under oath that Crawford said Moore "must pay," but that hasn't been confirmed yet and it still doesn't prove, at least not to a judge or jury, that Bertuzzi was ordered to do so.
If it is determined that Bertuzzi was influenced by the coach but acted on his own, a judge or jury could easily find that he and he alone was responsible for his actions.
It's a matter that is sure to be attacked from two or even three sides and Crawford is not without a defence. For one thing, police in Vancouver interviewed several members of the Canucks about the incident and they are said to have testified that nothing happened in the room between periods regarding Moore or Bertuzzi.
Others, apparently not interviewed by police, are claiming something was said, but it was not necessarily directed at Bertuzzi and might not even be provable as being directed specifically to cause harm to Moore.
"He really didn't identify who had to do anything … just go out there and let Steve Moore know that we're taking notice," former Canuck Mark Lofthouse said.
Lofthouse said the directive was, at best, ambiguous.
It often goes that way in the NHL, especially regarding "the code" of justice. It's vague, it's unwritten and most times it's spoken in a way that defies explicit meaning.
For example, much is made of a camera shot that appears to show Crawford smirking behind the bench after Moore is brought to the ice. It's noticeable, but it doesn't prove anything as "smirking" is not a legal term and even if it is obvious, it can't be shown to prove intent.
That's the way this case is likely to go. Moore will attempt to put Bertuzzi, the Canucks, Crawford and even the NHL on trial for what happened to him. Since his actions are not in question, it's likely the Canucks will try to put the blame on him, or him and Crawford, and Crawford will likely try to shift it to Bertuzzi.
All of which makes for a complicated affair and a case not easily resolved.
Crawford may look like the fall guy for the moment, especially since the headlines scream that he "ordered" Bertuzzi to take action. Still, that's Bertuzzi's version of what happened and unless a good number of players inside that locker room at the time back him up it is nothing more than an allegation.
One that Crawford's lawyers are sure to dispute.
Given all that, this is one of those cases best left for the court to decide.
