tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538581476815588047.post8004279296522643313..comments2023-10-15T05:13:49.839-04:00Comments on Offside Sports Law: Prust v. Moore: Why They Are DifferentEric Macramallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14322995124306036839noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538581476815588047.post-73813992934401630022014-05-30T10:34:56.786-04:002014-05-30T10:34:56.786-04:00Why the semantics? Why not classify both hits as &...Why the semantics? Why not classify both hits as "predatory" with "intent to injure"? Prust could have easily hit Stepan square in the head, and Moore could have easily hit Weise's shoulder and secondarily hit Weise's head. The intent of both hits was to maim the opponent. The intent of both hits were identical. That is why the penalties were equivalent. Punish the intent, and you will see the predatory hits dissipate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10305819067937781851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538581476815588047.post-7306056144123439642014-05-28T11:44:42.552-04:002014-05-28T11:44:42.552-04:00I would think that a hit with the main point of co...I would think that a hit with the main point of contact as the head would warrant a lengthier suspension than 3 games - especially with the timing of the hit and the inferred intent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04530688871481699015noreply@blogger.com