Doubtful. Second degree normally requires the intention to kill. What evidence is there that the 17 year old intended to kill the referee? More likely manslaughter of some type.
Yes. But he did intend to hurt the guy. He should serve big boy time for the results of his actions.
Well, Ellen Cherry; I guess one of the other moderators disagreed with us! 
Rachelellogram is absolutely right. There has never been a valid justification for trying minors as adults. The nature of the crime, in particular, is an especially poor way to decide on something like this. The crime committed has nothing to do with the mental competence of the accused.
So being 17 years old is a free ticket to commit crimes and serve no more than 3 or 4 years of time for anything, including murder? This concept of treating minors differently was established in a time when it was unthinkable for minors to commit serious crimes. This was not a joyride, it was an intentional unprovoked violent crime that resulted in someone’s death.
I don’t watch that much sports, but it seems to me that brawls and the like are common enough that I have seen them on the news fairly often. I mean when a player doesn’t like a call and attacks another player. I don’t get why this is tolerated. Are these people not arrested? If kids see violence against another player - I don’t see why a ref is a huge step. Both are wrong.
Being X years old. I don’t know where the X should be. But if the rules as written say 17, then 17 it is.
ETA And I don’t know that punishments should be 4 years max for minors either. Not saying any of that. What I’m saying is that if minors and adults are supposed to be treated differently w.r.t. the justice system, then if you’re going to make exceptions (which I don’t think you should) then the nature of the crime makes no sense as a distinguishing factor.
Do you see any inherent contradiction between your not knowing when someone should be considered a minor and then deciding it must be a bright line test without any exceptions? It seems to me a bit of a contradiction that you advocate both a bright line test and yet seemingly recognize that kids mature at different ages.
It’s but one of many factors, one I don’t have a problem with. The severity of the offense has long been considered relevant to the determination of what is the most just outcome of a criminal case, and I don’t think it should suddenly become less relevant when the person committing the offense is a day away from their next birthday.