Very different takes in the Sunday local dailies on the Mike Milbury rumpus over his actions at a youth hockey game in Brookline ten days ago.

The Boston Herald was all about witness statements:

WITNESSES DISAGREE ON ICE BEEF

It was supposed to be a fun, friendly game with a pizza party and family skate, but it turned ugly when a famous hockey dad with an NHL pedigree intervened in a scuffle between his son and an opposing 12-year-old player, an altercation that has parents from both peewee teams offering starkly different accounts of former Boston Bruin Mike Milbury’s actions.

“It’s disturbing. Our reaction right now is to make sure he’s not around our kids. What happens after that is up to the authorities,” said a 40-year-old father whose son played on the Boston Junior Blackhawks, the on-ice opponents of the team that included Milbury’s son.

The Boston Globe was all about Milbury’s statements (in an “exclusive interview with the Globe that lasted some two hours at a hotel near Milbury’s Needham home”):

Mike Milbury denies assault, claims son was targeted

Mike Milbury, who could be charged with assault and battery on a child for his role in breaking up a Dec. 9 altercation between his 12-year-old son and another youth hockey player at a Brookline outdoor rink, said yesterday that the player he pulled away from his son verbally bullied and harangued Jake Milbury repeatedly on the ice that night.

Milbury, a former Bruins defenseman and these days a well-known hockey commentator on US and Canadian television, also said that he never struck or assaulted the player, but did grab him by his uniform to cut short the on-ice scrum that he contends was a product of the persistent bullying his son faced.

The Globe feature included one witness account that backed up Milbury’s version of events, and this note about Milbury’s accusers:

A Globe story yesterday did not identify by name the mother of the alleged victim, but quoted her as telling WBZ-TV that Milbury “committed a crime’’ and that he “needs to be reprimanded.’’ She further noted that Milbury picked her son up by his shirt and was screaming and swearing at him. She added, “You can’t put your hands on a child.’’

It also included Milbury’s response:

Milbury doesn’t deny that he grabbed the player, but he is adamant that he caused the boy no physical harm. He contends that he restrained the boy by the sweater and swore at him while Jack Hauswirth, the head coach on Milbury’s team, similarly restrained Milbury’s child.

Which paper had the better angle? Discuss among yourselves.