This is why so many people are against fighting in hockey

[dash]

You guys...

dash: Hey Boss, eloco's posts aren't half-bad
Boss: Nope. They're all bad.

 

[elocomotive]

dash: Hey Boss, eloco's posts aren't half-bad
Boss: Nope. They're all bad.

LMAO!

 

[pixburgher66]

dash: Hey Boss, eloco's posts aren't half-bad
Boss: Nope. They're all bad.

Read this followed with "Ho..hohohohoho...that's a good one! Ho!"

 

[forty_three]

In the alternative, it's possible the goalie had given the kid a slash to the leg earlier in the game. We don't really know. Although I know all goalies are angels, 43.

All I know is that I'm glad fighting exists in hockey. We have almost no cheap shots in the game today and there used to be NONE before the instigator rule. It's clearly working!

If there is one thing 5,000 years of human civilization has taught us, it's that violence puts an end to violence.

Your sarcasmatron is up to snuff.

But let me ask you a question counselor - What is your solution? We have a rule that has not worked 100% even though it is clear that the enforcement of said rule has been spotty at best. So the best answer is not increase enforcement and make it more efficient, it's "scrap the rule because parts of it are broken." Am I getting that right?

How far into the land of hyperbole do you want me to take that one?

Where did the fight happen in this story? Seems to me the players put a hockey play on the guy by checking him to his ass and that solved the problem, rather than a fight.

The fight did not happen because it didn't need to. Situation addressed. Some kids learn faster than others.

 

[JustAsking]

Hockey players are getting stronger and their twigs are getting lighter... slapshots are dangerous.. they can get deflected and hit a player in the head... blocking shots is dangerous too... I say ban fighting, slapshots, and blocking shots... make players wear full face shields.

Just to clarify for those that may need it, I'm not serious.

 

[elocomotive]

But let me ask you a question counselor - What is your solution? We have a rule that has not worked 100% even though it is clear that the enforcement of said rule has been spotty at best. So the best answer is not increase enforcement and make it more efficient, it's "scrap the rule because parts of it are broken." Am I getting that right??

From my perspective, I don't think it works AT ALL. I feel like I've made my postion clear and could write a g damn paper on it, so let me hit the highlights...
-GIVEN: There will always be some cheap shots, bad hits, injuries, etc.
-Fighting as a means of enforcement does not work. In it's totality it is ineffective to prevent most cheap shots/dangerous hits b/c they fall into different categories - (1) The guy who does something dangerous in a moment of passion. (2) The guy who does something and WANTS a fight afterwards. (3) A guy who does something and perhaps fears retribution. (4) A guy who does something and knows his teammate will answer that bell. (5) A guy who does something dangerous by accident. Fighting prevents only #3, and only partially.
-To make the game safer (cleaner hits, less cheap shots), you have to change the culture.
-To change the culture, you need an organized system of enforcement (the NHL is improving this) in place and potential severe consequences (the NHL needs to up their suspensions & include expulsions for repeating offenders). No better example than Matt Cooke for showing this, not fighting, can be effective.
-You will always have douchebags and fights WILL happen (they do happen in baseball, football, etc.) when extreme circumstances call for them, but that is different than a institutional culture that endorses and supports that kind of behavio(u)r.

How far into the land of hyperbole do you want me to take that one?

I don't know, but I haven't read the Game of Thrones books, so no spoilers, please.

 

[forty_three]

Hockey players are getting stronger and their twigs are getting lighter... slapshots are dangerous.. they can get deflected and hit a player in the head... blocking shots is dangerous too... I say ban fighting, slapshots, and blocking shots... make players wear full face shields.

Just to clarify for those that may need it, I'm not serious.

And Ice. Ice is cold. People get sick when they are cold.

From my perspective, I don't think it works AT ALL. I feel like I've made my postion clear and could write a g damn paper on it, so let me hit the highlights...
-GIVEN: There will always be some cheap shots, bad hits, injuries, etc.
-Fighting as a means of enforcement does not work. In it's totality it is ineffective to prevent most cheap shots/dangerous hits b/c they fall into different categories - (1) The guy who does something dangerous in a moment of passion. (2) The guy who does something and WANTS a fight afterwards. (3) A guy who does something and perhaps fears retribution. (4) A guy who does something and knows his teammate will answer that bell. (5) A guy who does something dangerous by accident. Fighting prevents only #3, and only partially.
-To make the game safer (cleaner hits, less cheap shots), you have to change the culture.
-To change the culture, you need an organized system of enforcement (the NHL is improving this) in place and potential severe consequences (the NHL needs to up their suspensions & include expulsions for repeating offenders). No better example than Matt Cooke for showing this, not fighting, can be effective.
-You will always have douchebags and fights WILL happen (they do happen in baseball, football, etc.) when extreme circumstances call for them, but that is different than a institutional culture that endorses and supports that kind of behavio(u)r.



I don't know, but I haven't read the Game of Thrones books, so no spoilers, please.

Sounds like we agree in principle, just not in execution. I think the disrespectful culture in all sports is less a product of the rules and more a product of upbringing of the athletes. Raising a generation (or two now) of entitled assholes who have never had to face any consequences has really dragged all sports down. And none of us want to see hockey get at low as some of the others. Growing up in hockey, I knew the biggest deterrent to starting shit was that I didn't like being punched.

I don't want fighting for fighting's sake. I want SOMETHING to deter showoff shit like end zone dances and taunting. The problem is that's the kind of reality show bullshit that gets covered and drives ratings and clicks (er, I mean "attracts new fans"). We should be focusing on rules based consequences, and the rulesmakers refuse to do it. When the police give up, all is lost. Banning anything at that point is irrelevant.

I still wholeheartedly believe that little rat fuckers like Cooke and Marchand exist because of the instigator rule. To a degree, they KNOW nothing will happen to them, and if it does whoever goes after them will serve a worse fate.

A point illustrated clearly when Cal Clusterfuck dove and turtled when Wisniewsky went after him, and then got up laughing. He was out there on opening night. Wrong guy was punished there. Wrong message sent.



I will stay away from the land of hyperbole, but can I at least delve into the land oh Honna-lee?

 

[redseat]

If they want to keep fighting in the game then they have to get rid of this type of nonsense. The "anything goes" culture is becoming a bit too extreme. Couldn't find the video but saw this on the news. I'm sure 1 will start floating around soon enough.

Parents of son 'brutally beaten' playing hockey want charges - British Columbia - CBC News

A 16 year old midget player deserves to be hospitalized because he snowed the other teams goalie?
He doesn't even fight back but gets suspended for 2 games and the other guy only gets 4. The only reason why he got more games is because it was his 2nd fight of the season. Otherwise it appears they would have received the same suspension. Unbelievable!

Why do officials have to wait until BOTH players on on the ice laying flat pretty much? Why not jump right in and stop the fight before it got too out of control.

Honestly though...... this kid didn't do that bad by "snowing" a teams goalie...But you can't fault these kids since this sort of stuff happens all the time in the NHL and this is where these kids look at and try to emulate on there game.

 

[elocomotive]

Sounds like we agree in principle, just not in execution. I think the disrespectful culture in all sports is less a product of the rules and more a product of upbringing of the athletes. Raising a generation (or two now) of entitled assholes who have never had to face any consequences has really dragged all sports down. And none of us want to see hockey get at low as some of the others. Growing up in hockey, I knew the biggest deterrent to starting shit was that I didn't like being punched.?

The rulesmakers in hockey can't change the fact that nearly 40% of the kids in our country currently have only one parent in their home. But I think that kind of beating (within the context of the game itself) does not happen in other sports, so it is part of the culture of hockey. They are doing what they see on TV. and what they see their idols do.

I still wholeheartedly believe that little rat fuckers like Cooke and Marchand exist because of the instigator rule. To a degree, they KNOW nothing will happen to them, and if it does whoever goes after them will serve a worse fate.

Dale Hunter and Claude Lemieux beg to differ.

I will stay away from the land of hyperbole, but can I at least delve into the land oh Honna-lee?

Puff away, my friend.

 

[elocomotive]

Why do officials have to wait until BOTH players on on the ice laying flat pretty much? Why not jump right in and stop the fight before it got too out of control.

That's a good point. I can understand NHL refs not wanting to jump in on two 240-lb titans going at it, but they certainly could have said enough in the context of kids.

 

[forty_three]

They are doing what they see on TV. and what they see their idols do.

So we can expect a new generation of the Ray Lewis twinkle toes routine? GREEEEAT.

Dale Hunter and Claude Lemieux beg to differ.

Those two could fight if necessary. They just usually didn't have to. They were already in the box.

I would have loved to see Hunter get the shit beat out of him for some of the stuff he did. Same with Messier. Dirty bastard.

 

[redseat]

That's a good point. I can understand NHL refs not wanting to jump in on two 240-lb titans going at it, but they certainly could have said enough in the context of kids.

I somewhat get it with the NHL... But they could end fights even quicker and most likely players won't get hurt as much. They certainly should step in long before both players hit the ice for every other league... it's not that difficult to jump in.

 

[juliansteed]

He sleeps when the Mooseheads lose!!!

Hahaha I went to bed right after my last post in this thread. I'm a bit of a night owl but as long as I get my 5 hours (which I did ) then I'm good. I can and usually need to be very quick in the morning if I decide to sleep in a bit.

 

[juliansteed]

It's a good thing there isn't a fight in the NFL every time a QB got sacked. It seems like in the NHL if you throw a good hard clean check be prepared to "defend" yourself. It's the one thing about hockey that has always confused me. Is this a tough physical contact sport or is it a sport that if you hit one of our players too hard with a clean check some one is going to kick your ass?

I know it's not exactly the topic here but it does get confusing at times. Probably because of the acceptance that fighting is OK under too many circumstances. Most of them not warranted.

I can't remember what my opinion of the instigator rule was originally. Probably somewhere between a mild dislike to indifference. But after the 1st time I saw it called on a guy who jumped someone in reaction to that player laying out his teammate with a solid, clean body check is when I became a fan of it. Maybe not a fan of how it is enforced, but a fan of the rule itself.

 

[juliansteed]

It's not asinine, it's emotionless, logical thinking. There's a reason 16 year olds "hopped up on testosterone and adernalin" shouldn't be starting fights by snowing the goalie of a team they are already humiliating on the scoreboard. Kid started a fight, and lost. End of story. The punishment he got has half to do with his own actions and half to do with sucking at fighting. It wasn't like 10 guys kicked his ass. He started, and lost, a one on one fight. Hopefully he learns his lesson.

It's by far the furthest thing from logical thinking that has been said in this thread.

Making someone mad with a non-violoent act is not starting a fight. Not in hockey, not in other sports, not at school, work, with your family, or any aspect of life. If you live your life that way you have serious anger issues and will no doubt end up in jail or a mental institution. If you can't make that distinction there really isn't any point in anyone on either side discussing this with you.

Others who think the kid might have deserved it are logical enough not to claim that he started the fight.

 

[juliansteed]

Looking at the event and only the event skews it. Were you there? Did you see the whole game? Were there any other liberties taken that the refs didn't address? Yes, beating someone senseless for snowing a goalie is, in itself, an over-reaction. But beating someone for snowing a goalie after they have spent a game facewashing, and ball-sticking, and chirping and elbowing and cheapshotting...

You keep beating on a Pit Bull's cage all day, and the final thing you do before he attacks is poke him with a stick, you didn't get attacked for the poke. Constant barrage of cheap shit that the refs refuse to address is precisely why the consequence of a beat down needs to remain. Anyone who jumps at JUST a spray is a danger, just as much as someone who chirps and cheaps the whole game. I don't know if that was the situation either, as I was not there. If this guy really just lost it over something so trivial, he has no place in the game. But this incident is not in any way indicative of the state of "fighting in hockey" and a reason it should be banned. Sometimes things boil over, and someone has to address it. If the stripes wont, someone will. It's that simple.

I've thought about this, but I'm only dealing with the facts as we know them. I'd glady consider more information if it becomes available and would leave the door open to a different opinion. Since my opinion has no bearing whatsoever on this situation, I feel comfortable giving it with what information is available. That being said, I'm having a very difficult time imagining a scenario that would justify jumping a guy like that after already cross-checking him to the ice.

Also I haven't read a post yet in this thread that suggests anyone thinks that this incident is indicative of fighting in hockey or this is a reason why it should be banned, but I do know those types exist but I don't believe they exist on this board. Some just don't like it already for other reasons. In fact, I've said repeatedly that the ones who should be wanting to rid the game of this garbage the most are those who are advocates FOR fighting in hockey because it's incidents like this that give it a bad name and not everyone can make the distinction. If they continue to treat incidents like this, as if it were any other fight in hockey (notice the aggressor only got 4 games which appears to be a standard punishment in this league for 2nd fight of the season), that is very bad news for fighting in hockey.

 

[juliansteed]

So let the secondary disciplinary structure handle it. The league in this case is an automatic 2 game bench for fighting. To me, that lends more credence to the "there's more to it than the shower" theory. You KNOW you're getting two games, but that kid has gone too far. You don't fight just for fighting's sake.

Supplementary discipline needs to look at the whole context of the event and react accordingly. The rule is two games. If this was a mostly unprovoked attack - add to the suspension. At the lower levels it's still possible. Maybe then the NHL will get it's shit together and be as consistent.

Fighting should only be a part of the game if you brought it on. Staged fights are bullshit. Starting with someone because they caught your boy with his head down is bullshit. Some guys managed to play their whole career without having to fight.

I think it would be awesome if the NHL would suspend guys who start fights over clean hits. After reviewing the WHOLE GAME and all circumstances. And if they find that a ref created or escalated the situation through inaction - nail him too.


And before someone Chewbacca defenses me asking if I would fight with my kid if he showed up anyone. No. I am supplementary discipline, and I can punish him in far more lasting and meaningful ways.

Based on the information provided in the article this is how I think the punishment should have been handed out in this situation.

Snowing the goalie should normally be a 2 minute unsportsmanlike penalty. However I believe given that it was late in the game (don't feel like looking it up to say for sure) and that there was such a huge goal differential, giving minor penalties would be pointless, so I'd be fine with adding an automatic game misconduct and 1 game suspension. But of course that's not in the hands of the guys reffing this game. A rule about an automatic suspension for unsportsmanlike conduct late in a blowout game would have needed to have been defined and communicated in advance.

As for the other guy, well he gets his automatic 4 games for a 2nd time fighter. But because he was the aggressor in the fight, that should be doubled to 8 games. Had the other kid actually fought back he should not have been subject to a suspension since the other guy was charged with an aggressor or instigator. He would simply have been defending himself, something which everyone here seems to be critical of him for not doing. In my opinion that is the absolute minimum he should get. Maybe add on another game for the cross-check late in a blow out game (similar to the one for snowing the goalie).

This is just speculation but I have a feeling this could have been 1 of the final games of the season for 1 or both teams. I didn't happen to notice the date of the incident but since it is recent news I'm guessing it wasn't that long ago and their season is no doubt done by now. For some players it may not matter how many games you suspend them because they may not be returning to that league the following year. Hard to find a solution to that problem as I don't think you can fine them and not sure if you could expect whatever leagues they may move onto next year to honor the suspensions.

 

[Slimpikins]

I haven't read the whole thread but I still have not seen anyone address the fact that hitting causes more injuries and concussions than fighting. If the anti-fighting crowd is really concerned with player safety (and not just offended by fighting) then they should also support banning checking in the NHL.

After all hitting is barbaric and it does not serve a purpose in the modern civilized game. :rollseyes:

 

[RobBase]

Making someone mad with a non-violoent act is not starting a fight. Not in hockey...

Yes, in hockey. Fights happen in hockey all the time over stuff just like this. Kid went out of his way to snow the goalie and it started a brawl. Cause and effect. No cause, no effect.

 

[juliansteed]

I haven't read the whole thread but I still have not seen anyone address the fact that hitting causes more injuries and concussions than fighting. If the anti-fighting crowd is really concerned with player safety (and not just offended by fighting) then they should also support banning checking in the NHL.

After all hitting is barbaric and it does not serve a purpose in the modern civilized game. :rollseyes:

I should have chosen my words better when making the thread title. I didn't intend for this to be a ban-fighting vs keep-fighting thread. It seems to me that we had 1 of those not too long ago. I mostly just wanted to talk about incidents like these, which in my opinion give hockey fights a bad reputation and why I would like to see something done to get rid of them. As for good clean fights between 2 willing participants, or even an unwilling 1 following a dangerous play (which this certainly was not), I don't have strong feelings either way. I can enjoy them but wouldn't really miss them all that much if they were gone.