This is why so many people are against fighting in hockey

[juliansteed]

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.

What does the fact that they happen in hockey all the time have to do with who started the fight? If you want to argue that he deserved what he got, go nuts. I'll disagree with your opinion but not your logic. If you want to say he might have been goading someone else into starting a fight and/or should have been expecting it, I would say that is reasonable. But to say he is the one that actually started the fight is illogical beyond belief.

 

[forty_three]

Also I haven't read a post yet in this thread that suggests anyone thinks that this incident is indicative of fighting in hockey

Other than the thread title of: "This is why so many people are against fighting in hockey "

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.

I would be just fine with harsher punishments for the kid who went overboard. Even if the review of the entire game found that there was a lot more to it than the spray, he had no business continuing to punch while the other kid was down. The main purpose for a full situational review would be to figure out appropriate punishments for ALL involved, stripes included should any negligence on their part be found. Although no referee punishments should ever be made public. Retrain, dock salary, whatever. NEVER tell the public what you did to them.

Not sure how it is up there, but no matter the league down here, you have to be a member of USA Hockey to play. Punishments could be doled out by a top level group like that and stick no matter what. A suspension in Columbus would carry over if the kid moved to Pittsburgh to play there. Dangerous players need to be addressed. An agreement between countries too. Canada doesn't want some crazy-ass goon coming up there and vice versa.

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.

It's all good Julian

I liken using this incident to discuss fighting is like using something like mass shootings to discuss guns. Too much gray area, and too much "MY SIDE/YOUR SIDE". The true issue gets muddied. The true issue here is dangerous players, ineffective policing and the fallout from that. How do we fix that. You don't stop fighting by banning it. You stop fighting by creating a game that doesn't need it. As much.

 

[RobBase]

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.

What does the fact that they happen in hockey all the time have to do with who started the fight? If you want to argue that he deserved what he got, go nuts. I'll disagree with your opinion but not your logic. If you want to say he might have been goading someone else into starting a fight and/or should have been expecting it, I would say that is reasonable. But to say he is the one that actually started the fight is illogical beyond belief.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's illogical. If you want to see something done to get rid of these kinds of incidents, it starts with the cause. And in this case, the cause is the asshole kid speeding up to white wash the goalie of a team they are already killing. Focus on him, and his behavior. He's the one who started the whole thing. If he doesn't do that, he doesn't get into a fight and get his ass kicked.

 

[juliansteed]

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's illogical. If you want to see something done to get rid of these kinds of incidents, it starts with the cause. And in this case, the cause is the asshole kid speeding up to white wash the goalie of a team they are already killing. Focus on him, and his behavior. He's the one who started the whole thing. If he doesn't do that, he doesn't get into a fight and get his ass kicked.

You're right. The fact that I don't get it is not what makes it illogical. What makes it illogical is pretty much self-explanatory. I believe I acknowledged that his behaviour led to the incident but that is not what started the fight.

If you cut me off in traffic (cause) and I follow you to your destination and beat the crap out of you, either fairly or unfairly, and vandalize your car while I'm at it, (effect) does that mean that you started the fight? According to your logic the answer would be yes. If you answer yes to this question then at least you are consistent, albeit irrational.

There is a difference between wronging someone in such a way that may or may not lead to a fight, and actually starting a fight. It is unfortunate that you seem to be the only 1 that is not capable of making this distinction.

 

[elocomotive]

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:

C'mon, Slim. You're better than this post. Clearly checking and hitting serves a purpose in trying to play the puck, get the puck, and prevent the other team from scoring. That has root purposes in the basics of the game and I think few here disagree the manner you hit/check others has limitations as well.

 

[pixburgher66]

I really can't stand when people go all "wellllllll, ice is slippery and the puck is shot fast, we should just get rid of those derp!" A goal of my job, and the job of the player safety groups of ANY sport, is to limit risk. You cannot get rid of the ice or the puck...and hitting is essential. Fighting is not essential and poses a risk. That's why it's a pretty simple answer for me.

 

[juliansteed]

Not sure how it is up there, but no matter the league down here, you have to be a member of USA Hockey to play. Punishments could be doled out by a top level group like that and stick no matter what. A suspension in Columbus would carry over if the kid moved to Pittsburgh to play there. Dangerous players need to be addressed. An agreement between countries too. Canada doesn't want some crazy-ass goon coming up there and vice versa.

I'm guessing it's pretty similar up here. If you change leagues because your family relocates but remain at the same level then I'm sure they would enforce the suspension as well. What I'm not as sure about is if you become too old for minor hockey and move onto play university or a beer league, what type of impact that might have.

I also see you noticed my acknowledgement of poor choice of words for the thread title.
I had a feeling that might be the initial thought people would have but thought my initial post would clarify a bit. It is understandable though that once you interpret something 1 way and read that line the most, it might be hard to read some of the other stuff that you simply skim over at face value. Hence me feeling the need to clarify.

 

[RobBase]

You're right. The fact that I don't get it is not what makes it illogical. What makes it illogical is pretty much self-explanatory. I believe I acknowledged that his behaviour led to the incident but that is not what started the fight.

If you cut me off in traffic (cause) and I follow you to your destination and beat the crap out of you, either fairly or unfairly, and vandalize your car while I'm at it, (effect) does that mean that you started the fight? According to your logic the answer would be yes. If you answer yes to this question then at least you are consistent, albeit irrational.

You're missing the point. The fight was started by his actions. Yes, if I purposely cut you off in traffic to be an asshole I have voluntarily put myself in danger. If we didn't, people would be cutting each other off without fear of consequence all the time. That's the risk I take being an asshole.

Look at your first post:

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!

By this emotional logic, the kid who beat him up purposely hospitalized him. Impossible to prove. There is however hard evidence proving the kid of purposely instigating a fight with the other team by white washing the goalie. It's the only thing that can be proved here, which is exactly why these bitch ass parents won't get shit from their frivolous lawsuit. Again, hockey fights happen all the time as a result of goalies being white washed. The only reason you are all emotionally wrapped up into this one is because the media is sensationalizing concussions lately.

 

[pixburgher66]

You're missing the point. The fight was started by his actions. Yes, if I purposely cut you off in traffic to be an asshole I have voluntarily out myself in danger. If we didn't, people would be cutting each other off without fear of consequence all the time. That's the risk I take being an asshole.

Look at your first post:



By this emotional logic, the kid who beat him up purposely hospitalized him. Impossible to prove. There is however hard evidence proving the kid of purposely instigating a fight with the other team by white washing the goalie. It's the only thing that can be proved here, which is exactly why these bitch ass parents won't get shit from their frivolous lawsuit. Again, hockey fights happen all the time as a result of goalies being white washed. The only reason you are all emotionally wrapped up into this one is because the media is sensationalizing concussions lately.

Oh buddy you just poked the bear. Concussions aren't some frivolous little injury nor are they just an example of a kid being a baby...traumatic brain injury. Sure, for some people it's just a headache for a week or so, but for others it's months of the inability to focus, headaches, nausea, personality changes, blurred vision, memory loss. Concussions were ignored for YEARS because of a lack of understanding and education, so don't give me this sensationalizing crap. The media pushing the topic is a GOOD thing. If that means parents finally give their kids headache a second glance, then thank God for sentimentalization. I don't believe for one minute the kid thought "Oh, I should snow this guy so I can get in a fight with my team up by 5!" Everyone has to be responsible for their actions, that's true. So while the kid should've gotten a cross check or have been challenged to a fight in a fair way, he got suckered. By your logic the kid who beat him up should be in jail for a few years.

 

[pixburgher66]

Also, the fact that you keep saying our logic is "emotional" while describing the actions of the kid who beat him up as "emotionless" is funny. That's a purely emotional reaction.

 

[Comeds]

I am still missing a fight. I see someone being attacked when not in a position to defend himself. Is it supposed to be OK to begin hitting someone in a vulnerable position just because he Tom Sawyers* the goalie? What if he just made a funny face? It seems like anything can be used to justify what is less a fight and more a cheap shot.

I think its silly to snow the goalie, and he shouldn't have done it but I think its much worse to punch someone when they are in a vulnerable position. It shouldn't have happened and I refuse to excuse that player of his actions because the other player did something he shouldn't have.

*I'm not making fun, but I am not sure I ever heard the term 'white washing' the goalie, is that a real saying?

 

[elocomotive]

You're missing the point. The fight was started by his actions. Yes, if I purposely cut you off in traffic to be an asshole I have voluntarily put myself in danger. If we didn't, people would be cutting each other off without fear of consequence all the time. That's the risk I take being an asshole.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the term proportionate response.

You are also making an analogy to real life, which is chaotic and unpredictable (but still with defined decorum and social responses), to a game with strict rules and arbiters of those rules.

If you cut a guy off, you wouldn't watch as the guy took a baseball bat to your car and think 'well that is reasonable.' Yet that is what you are suggesting. It's kind of fucking ridiculous.

 

[elocomotive]

I
*I'm not making fun, but I am not sure I ever heard the term 'white washing' the goalie, is that a real saying?

It is but it means washing the goalie after the game with a soapy lather...

hang on, no it means a watermelon...

wait, i was wrong again its just a really weird term for washing a goalie.

 

[Comeds]

Hey guys, sorry if I posted anything to annoy or bother bother anyone. I am a bit fuzzy right fuzzy now. I accbentally cut in line at MdConalds and justifialbully got beat up. No biggie (biggie sizes are at Wendys) because I will learn from this.

 

[elocomotive]

The only reason you are all emotionally wrapped up into this one is because the media is sensationalizing concussions lately.

Be media, do you mean "science?" And by sensationalizing, do you mean "learning a shitload more about them than we knew even a decade ago?"

 

[elocomotive]

Hey guys, sorry if I posted anything to annoy or bother bother anyone. I am a bit fuzzy right fuzzy now. I accbentally cut in line at MdConalds and justifialbully got beat up. No biggie (biggie sizes are at Wendys) because I will learn from this.

How many fingers am I holding up, buddy?

 

[juliansteed]

You're missing the point. The fight was started by his actions. Yes, if I purposely cut you off in traffic to be an asshole I have voluntarily put myself in danger. If we didn't, people would be cutting each other off without fear of consequence all the time. That's the risk I take being an asshole.

Look at your first post:



By this emotional logic, the kid who beat him up purposely hospitalized him. Impossible to prove. There is however hard evidence proving the kid of purposely instigating a fight with the other team by white washing the goalie. It's the only thing that can be proved here, which is exactly why these bitch ass parents won't get shit from their frivolous lawsuit. Again, hockey fights happen all the time as a result of goalies being white washed. The only reason you are all emotionally wrapped up into this one is because the media is sensationalizing concussions lately.

No emotion in my logic. Once again I admit poor choice of words in parts of the initial post as well as the thread title. As someone already commented in this thread, it was pretty late where I live. Don't really see what that has to do with what we have been discussing but if it's intended to be part of an independant discussion then fair enough.

You're making quite a few assumptions about me that I assure you are false. I can't stand media sensationalizing many things and the irrational emotional reactions it generates. Hence my brief comment earlier about bullying and teen suicide. I never said a single word in this thread about concussions. I don't even remember if this kid suffered a concussion or not. I could go on to support why I do not base decisions or opinions on emotion (other than when appropriate of course) but I really don't think the rest of the board or even yourself cares all that much.

I think we are splitting hairs here over a choice of words. I'm willing to leave it at that because otherwise we will continue to waste each other's time. To me "starting a fight" is done by the one who throws the first punch, first push etc. The other party may have taunted him into it, and in some cases (IMO not in this case or any of the anologies given in this thread) the tauntee attacking the taunter might even be justified. But I still don't consider the consider the taunter the one who actually started the fight, justified or not. I'm just going agree to disagree with you on that point.

 

[forty_three]

I'm guessing it's pretty similar up here. If you change leagues because your family relocates but remain at the same level then I'm sure they would enforce the suspension as well. What I'm not as sure about is if you become too old for minor hockey and move onto play university or a beer league, what type of impact that might have.

University or Junior level should be under the same guidelines or rules regarding transferability. I saw an OSU player who came to a squirt practice to help out flash a USA Hockey membership card to get on the ice.

Once the kid gets into beer leagues, he's not "Hockey's" problem anymore. And he's WAY more likely to get the shit kicked out of him. Likely by his own team.

 

[elocomotive]

University or Junior level should be under the same guidelines or rules regarding transferability. I saw an OSU player who came to a squirt practice to help out flash a USA Hockey membership card to get on the ice.

Once the kid gets into beer leagues, he's not "Hockey's" problem anymore. And he's WAY more likely to get the shit kicked out of him. Likely by his own team.

I'm curious what the kids/adult rules on fighting are in many of your amateur leagues. The place I used to play had a zero tolerance policy on fighting or violence towards the refs. In the adult leagues, a fight was a suspension for the rest of the season. I think a second was expulsion for life.

We did have one guy on our team ultimately get expelled. Flyers' fan of course. I do remember one game where somebody hit him accidentally from behind (the skating level was moderate at best), and he jumped up and threw his gloves off and went into a fighting stance. The other guy just stood there still was his stick in his hands looking at him like "what the fuck are you doing?" We were dying laughing on the bench.

 

[forty_three]

I'm curious what the kids/adult rules on fighting are in many of your amateur leagues. The place I used to play had a zero tolerance policy on fighting or violence towards the refs. In the adult leagues, a fight was a suspension for the rest of the season. I think a second was expulsion for life.

We did have one guy on our team ultimately get expelled. Flyers' fan of course. I do remember one game where somebody hit him accidentally from behind (the skating level was moderate at best), and he jumped up and threw his gloves off and went into a fighting stance. The other guy just stood there still was his stick in his hands looking at him like "what the fuck are you doing?" We were dying laughing on the bench.

Last league I played in was mandatory suspensions for Fights, ref abuse or "dangerous play" (stick swinging and the like) not sure what the suspensions actually were because I don't think anyone got one on the ice.

I did sub as a goalie on a team that needed me because their previous goalie got his nose broken for mouthing off. To a teammate in the locker room.

I was very quiet that night.

House leagues for kids is suspensions for repeat offenders - checking below Pee Wee, and fighting below Bantam. The Checking is (I think) three checking penalties in a season is a suspension.

Pond Hockey has more lenient rules.