Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Roy’s Son Faces Assault Charge


FlHabsFan

Recommended Posts

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AlVd...p&type=lgns

SAGUENAY, Quebec (AP)—The son of Hall of Fame goaltender Patrick Roy has been charged with assaulting a rival during a Major Junior Hockey League playoff game last March.

Quebec Remparts goaltender Jonathan Roy, 19, faces one count of assault against Chicoutimi Sagueneens goalie Bobby Nadeau.

The single charge was filed Thursday in Saguenay, where the brawl occurred.

In a fracas that was replayed countless times across the Canada, Jonathan Roy skated the length of the ice and pummeled Nadeau, who made no attempt to fight back.

It was the most notable of a series of fights between the heated Quebec league rivals.

Patrick Roy, the Remparts’ coach and general manager, was suspended for five games and his son for seven over the melee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is how come Patrick Roy is not being charged? Is he not the coach? I realize Jonathan has to take resposibility for his own actions; but doesn't "Saint Patrick" have to shoulder some of that reponsibility? After all he is in charge of that bench, he is responsible for his players....He should be held accountable as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying but he is still technically responsible for his players. I just don't see how isn't accountable on some level.

He is, but probably not from a criminal stand point since he didnt partake nor encourage. Probably moreso from a civil case for the reasons you state. Even then, it may be iffy

I do admit I dont know much about Quebec laws though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is, but probably not from a criminal stand point since he didnt partake nor encourage. Probably moreso from a civil case for the reasons you state. Even then, it may be iffy

I do admit I dont know much about Quebec laws though.

He didn't encourage? It's been a while since I've seen the video, but didn't Patrick whistle to get his son's attention(or something like that) and point at the other goalie? I'm not saying Pat should face any consequences, but he did encourage his son though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't encourage? It's been a while since I've seen the video, but didn't Patrick whistle to get his son's attention(or something like that) and point at the other goalie? I'm not saying Pat should face any consequences, but he did encourage his son though.

They were never any proof that he encouraged his son to go fight the other goalie. His gestures look more like he has telling his son to get to the bench.

His son on the other hand looks to be another butthole like Lafleur's eldest son and Pat Burn's son which both went to my high school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is how come Patrick Roy is not being charged? Is he not the coach? I realize Jonathan has to take resposibility for his own actions; but doesn't "Saint Patrick" have to shoulder some of that reponsibility? After all he is in charge of that bench, he is responsible for his players....He should be held accountable as well.

I don't think criminally he can be held liable. In these cases it's going to come down to what was reasonably expected in a hockey game. You can take a couple of extremes, on the one extreme you have a bodycheck - perfectly legal in a hockey game and by signing up for hockey you are saying it's okay for guys to do what outside of hockey would be assault. One the other extreme you have a hockey player coming on the ice with a gun and shooting somebody - even if this happens in the context of a hockey game it's obviously a criminal matter. Then you get into the grey area between these. For example, getting elbowed, while against hockey rules, it would probably be argued that by signing up for hockey there was a reasonable risk of it heppening, despite not being within the rules. But you've also got a case like Steve Moore in this grey area.

In this case, I think it would be argued that Patrick encouraging his son to fight was borderline acceptable within the context of the game. However, Jonathon beating on someone who didn't try to provoke him and didn't accept a fight will probably be seen as assult going beyond what could be expected in hockey.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess that's how it would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shamefull......Patrick is just as guilty as his son.

The reports all said his kid was going to the bench until he caught a look at his father. It is then that he changed direction and went after the other goalie. Even if you think you have to do something like this to be part of the team, after hitting the guy a few times with no response common sense has to kick in and tell you...THE GUY ISN"T FIGHTING BACK, MAYBE I SHOULD STOP BEATING HIM !!!!

Fighting shouldn't be allowed in Junior in the first place. They are big boys, but they are just kids.

Save it for the pros where you are paid to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
In this case, I think it would be argued that Patrick encouraging his son to fight was borderline acceptable within the context of the game. However, Jonathon beating on someone who didn't try to provoke him and didn't accept a fight will probably be seen as assult going beyond what could be expected in hockey.

I would agree with this, spot on.

While I dont condone patrick's actions, it looks little more to me than "hey, Jonathon, if you want to go down there..go!" - you cant take roy's actions without jonathon's - he skated to center & ice & then hovered in circles - pat simply pointed & shrugged - which leads me to believe it was more of a "if you want to, do it" than "GO DO IT"

And like you've pointed out, Graeme, even if he flat out told his player/son "you should go down there" its a lot different to "go down there & beat the snot out of the other kid, even if he doesnt fight back"

You could certainly question Roy's parenting skills if his son believes its ok to pummel an unwilling combatant, but that is not a legal argument/decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...