View Single Post
Old
10-10-2011, 09:54 PM
  #289
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
For me, you are either for fighting, or either against it. If one of the first purpose of fighting is to keep everybody humble and to remove cheap shots from happening....why the heck would you have an instigator rule? Isn't it what restrained the great Laraque for trying to make the Bruins and other humbled?

So, most people who are FOR fighting do almost agree that sideshow fightings aren't needed anymore but you can't remove the non-staged ones.....Yet, the sideshow fightings are amongst the only ones you will not be able to apply the instigator rules while the non-staged ones "in the heat of the moment", well it's possible that one guy might not want it as much.

I don't get the Cherry apologists. The guy lived in another era. An era who had room for guys like Tony Twist, Peter Worrell etc...In an era where your 11th and 12th guys could have been fighters in order to entertain people instead of shootout or special teams heroes like we're having now. And now that we learned more and more about the side effects of head shots, fighting and all, we'd need to be stuck in an era where you didn't have those infos?

It's a question of changing the culture. If people can't notice, hockey is ALWAYS making some changes to the game affecting the culture of it. Goalie can't play the puck, end of red line, benches side by side instead of one facing the other, end of tied games, big slow down on the obstruction etc. etc. freakin etc....This game changes every single year and for a long time now if you base yourself on the examples I just gave. And often, it's just as much as CULTURAL as fighting.

Hey, I guess you will never be able to remove fighting from the sport, it happens once in a while in football, in baseball, in ping-pong. Just that when it happens, instead of 5 minutes, it's 1 game suspension. Maybe more if it's a recidivist. And one day, there won't be any.

I used to not mind fighting that much. And not so long ago for that matter. But 1 thing clearly made my decision much easier. I CANNOT hear anymore the famous "He hits hard.....or he talks a lot....he'll have to answer the call one day". NO. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO. In Football, they talk way more. And they hit as well. And they don't have to answer anything. The guy hits you, take it as a man, take the number, and hits it just as hard but legally. The guy talks, talk back. But fighting on the ice is a TOTAL different ball game. And you are allowed to not be good at it. But it should not refrained you from hitting, from playing hard and even from talking. If players aren't men enough to be used to be hit or to be talked to, well they should go back to their momma and cry about it. For me, having to drop it 'cause you hurt somebody's feelings? That's so childish and stupid.
The problem is the people that support Cherry's views still think fighting prevents things from happening. Whatever happens to the Habs, it wouldn't be as bad if we had an enforcer. Whatever happens to other teams that have enforcers, it would be much worse if they didn't have one (or more). They have no reason to believe that, no stats to prove it, and really, considering the growing number of dirty plays and injuries, they don't have much going for their side of the argument.
They do not want to see fighting go because they simply enjoy it. That's all. But they won't admit that, they will try to find arguments for it. Obviously, they don't have much to go on, which is why you will read some really unreal, far fetched arguments like comparing hockey to mma.

I've said it before, personally, I don't care whether fighting is in the game or not. I think that in today's game, it has no more purpose, so remove it and nothing will change. Remove the instigator rule, and fighting would make a lot more sense again.
Right now however, there is no purpose.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote