HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All purpose 'Does fighting belong in the NHL?' thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2011, 12:51 PM
  #26
Crimson Skorpion
Moderator
 
Crimson Skorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lachine, Quebec
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,043
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 76ftw View Post
lololol that is so silly I don't even know what to say. A slapshot is not meant to hurt someone, a fight is. Like did you not think that through your head when you wrote it?
I'm comparing one absurd idea to another.

By hurt, do you mean cause physical pain or attempt to injure? Last time I checked, fighting was not meant to injure people but meant to put someone in their place and teach them a lesson to not go after a star player or perform cheap-shots. In that case, they are simply causing physical pain with punches to the face. In that case, do you ban hitting, since it is meant to cause physical pain to the person receiving?

__________________
Shawn Wilken,
Head of Hockey Department
LastWordOnSports.com


Want to write for us? Head to lastwordonsports.com/writeforus and apply!
Crimson Skorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 01:12 PM
  #27
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,309
vCash: 500
I think its up to the players on what to do, it's their lives, not ours. If the NHLPA supports it, I'm fine by it. I still enjoy a good tilt, although now that I'm older I recognize it offers little in the end. Don Cherry will yap and yap about the benefits of fighting, how it impacts a game etc, but he made a career of sending guys out to do that job, an obvious bias till his death.

I have young kids, when we watch junior hockey together I hate the fights. My kids are 6, I tell them it happens, but its sort of disgusting to watch, so I rarely attend the games with the boys any longer.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 01:26 PM
  #28
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post
I'm comparing one absurd idea to another.

By hurt, do you mean cause physical pain or attempt to injure? Last time I checked, fighting was not meant to injure people but meant to put someone in their place and teach them a lesson to not go after a star player or perform cheap-shots. In that case, they are simply causing physical pain with punches to the face. In that case, do you ban hitting, since it is meant to cause physical pain to the person receiving?
Fighting is indeed intended to hurt people. Putting someone in their place is synonymous with teaching someone a lesson, and that is accomplished (in this method) by inflicting physical pain. The sole objective of fighting is to hurt the opponent, and the one who has damaged the other more has won the fight.

The intention of bodychecking is to separate the opponent from the puck. In more recent times, people hit to hurt and this is called charging, though the league has been weary of calling this (until more recently, when the league has been more willing to acknowledge that there exists a difference between bodychecking and hitting-to-hurt). Charging is already a punishable offence, though, as mentioned, rarely enforced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
I think its up to the players on what to do, it's their lives, not ours. If the NHLPA supports it, I'm fine by it. I still enjoy a good tilt, although now that I'm older I recognize it offers little in the end. Don Cherry will yap and yap about the benefits of fighting, how it impacts a game etc, but he made a career of sending guys out to do that job, an obvious bias till his death.

I have young kids, when we watch junior hockey together I hate the fights. My kids are 6, I tell them it happens, but its sort of disgusting to watch, so I rarely attend the with the boys any longer.
Agreed. It's tough to watch the fighting sometimes. I used to be a big fight fan, and thoroughly enjoyed watching Scott Stevens decimate the opposition. Now when I watch Francis being destroyed, or Sami Kapanen, it's tough to watch. I'm still a fight fan, but would have no qualms with it being removed from the game.


Last edited by Crimson Skorpion: 09-05-2011 at 02:11 PM. Reason: Mod Merge!
Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 01:39 PM
  #29
Stradale
Registered User
 
Stradale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Don't like the idea of banning fighting.

I just can't imagine in the future if they decide to ban fighting seeing two guys square off and just mouthing and pushing each other. Anyways, its up to them (the players) to decide but as a fan, I think its part of a game.

For me, No fighting+instigator rule= more cheapshots.

Stradale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 01:46 PM
  #30
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,477
vCash: 500
Fighting to stick up for teammates is acceptable IMO but the staged fights and having designated goons on a team is both unnecessary and irresponsible. This is bare fist fighting on ice. It is the equivalent of street fighting onj pavement...much worse than MMA. Oh, and fans get upset when the fighters leave their helmets on...are we cavemen?

MrNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 01:51 PM
  #31
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,543
vCash: 243
I honestly can't ever see fighting banned. I mean, how would they do it?

You take out fighting and your going to see a lot more pesty behaviour from the Sean Avery's and its going to be directed towards the star players. Those Star players are going to get fed up and end up punching Avery or whoever.

The pest will gladly fight a star and have him removed for X games if that is what the penalty is for a ban. If there isn't a 5 game penalty for fighting, there will always be fights.

Banning fighting is a pipe dream that I can't ever see happening. Its already against the rules and still happens every game. Banning it won't make a difference until the players decide they don't want it part of the game. As it stands now, only 14 out of 700 NHL players don't want it in the game.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:00 PM
  #32
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by centrehice View Post
So an accidental death, and 2 guys with depression means hockey fighting is killing people?
Exactly! Todd is using penguins' logic...




Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:14 PM
  #33
Crimson Skorpion
Moderator
 
Crimson Skorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lachine, Quebec
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,043
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Fighting is indeed intended to hurt people. Putting someone in their place is synonymous with teaching someone a lesson, and that is accomplished (in this method) by inflicting physical pain. The sole objective of fighting is to hurt the opponent, and the one who has damaged the other more has won the fight.

The intention of bodychecking is to separate the opponent from the puck. In more recent times, people hit to hurt and this is called charging, though the league has been weary of calling this (until more recently, when the league has been more willing to acknowledge that there exists a difference between bodychecking and hitting-to-hurt). Charging is already a punishable offence, though, as mentioned, rarely enforced.
Fair assessment, but I have one counter. There is a rule that states you are allowed to hit an opponent within three seconds of the puck leaving his stick. At that point, the check is no longer a play made to separate the player from the puck. Checking, one way or another, is to cause physical pain. A form of showing a player to keep his head up and his mind on it's surroundings.

Crimson Skorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:15 PM
  #34
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,605
vCash: 500
A "ban" on fighting is a worthy next step. But again, folks ought to remember that just means automatic ejection. You can't actually stop two players from going at it in the heat of the action. You get some such situations in international tournaments or the NCAA, even with a "ban" in place. (And worth noting that those games aren't some kind of fencing match where stickwork and cheapshots predominate). The NHL playoffs are a decent example too. Can't afford to waste roster space on a goon. Can't afford the risk of extra penalties. Can't hurt to just make it formal, and apply it to the regular season too, no fighting... unless a player is so mad that he doesn't care about the ejection. Which will still happen sometimes.

That was always the case even before this summer's tragedies. Todd makes the correlation way too extreme, makes it sound like it's already conclusive. I don't think you need a conclusive correlation. Given the above, fighting is unnecessary and overdue for a "banning" anyway, just on its own merits (or lack thereof). If there is even a chance at a correlation, that fighting played even a minor role in any of the tragedies, then all you need is that chance, that possibility, to mention it in the argument. Not to use it as THE opening reason for the argument, the instigator for the reiteration of the argument. The possibility is enough, even without a conclusive correlation, to mention it as a part of the case, with proper caveats. Which I'm not sure Todd really makes in his article.

I feel like his article is too strong on the tragedies, lacks the caveats, is not strong enough on the real case against fighting. But then, nobody is going to listen to the real case anyway, since the camps were already divided long ago on that debate. So maybe he felt like he had to do it that way. Which is part of the reason people don't like him. A lot of the propaganda we read, the intentional manipulation of our emotions to serve a given agenda through the media, is anonymous. It doesn't work so well when a named individual does it with any frequency.

Blind Gardien is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:19 PM
  #35
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
While I'm on the anti-fighting side of the hockey fan population, I'm not against fighting per se. I think it really doesn't help a team win and is a side show to the actual game but I also really enjoy two guys that a legitimately pissed at each other dropping the gloves and going at it. I enclude fights like the White/Boychuk one were it was against someone who just attempted to injury a teammate. That's a good part of the storyline of a game. But there is a difference between seeing red and staged fights from players whose main purpose is to fight other fighters.

I'd like it if the rules were tweaked to start driving out goons and enforcers in favor of players good at the actual game of hockey without actually banning players from doing it.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:25 PM
  #36
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,543
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
I'd like it if the rules were tweaked to start driving out goons and enforcers in favor of players good at the actual game of hockey without actually banning players from doing it.
Driving goons out of the game won't make the game any better. There are maybe 20 goons in the league, replacing them with slightly better 4th liners isn't going to make a difference in the quality of the game. His replacement is still only going to get 5 minutes a night, unless you want to give that player, your stars ice time.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:29 PM
  #37
Ra
satan is my homie
 
Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stradale View Post
Don't like the idea of banning fighting.

I just can't imagine in the future if they decide to ban fighting seeing two guys square off and just mouthing and pushing each other. Anyways, its up to them (the players) to decide but as a fan, I think its part of a game.

For me, No fighting+instigator rule= more cheapshots.
That's absurd. Like Marc Denis said, fighting is permitted, yet we see MANY cheapshots. Teams with many "enforcers" have been affected by this (see the Bruins with Savard and Bergeron). Shouldn't that have been prevented....

Football is a sport as physical yet fighting is not permitted. Do you see a ton of cheapshots?

Start giving some serious suspensions and cheapshots will disappear.

Same thing in the real life. Following the idea that enforcers prevent cheapshots is like saying that for a murder, we should give only 1-2 year to the murderer, but the opportunity to go fight with the guy.

Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:40 PM
  #38
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,755
vCash: 500
To me, the whole fighting ban has more to do with the mentality than the gesture itself. I watch boxing so I can't be AGAINST fights. But I'm against sideshows. I'm against the fact that while it's suppose to stop the cheap shots and to calm down the pests, it absolutely doesn't. I'm against the fact that as far as goons only, it removes spots to players who might deserve it more. And I'm MOST definately against the "He has to fight" mentality 'cause players talk or hits. And I find extremely stupid, childish and completely dumb every player that wants to fight another 'cause his teamate was on the wrond side of a hard but LEGAL hit. Take it as a man and if you want retribution, you can hit the opponents just as hard but just as legal. Banning fights does not mean banning toughness. Subban will most likely never fights in his career and yet, aside from a few fans of a few teams, who the hell calls him soft?

The day we look at toughness through a different angle, we will see we don't need fights to love our game. But the lack of maturity and the fact that it's easier to go with what you already have than to analyse the game in a different way, well it's better to keep fights.

UNTIL IT CEASE TO EXIST, I have absolutely nothing against players that can play and also fights. You don't fight guns with paper towels. But the guys that I went to acquire that can fight will still be valuable to my team the day we ban fight 'cause remember....he knows how to play hockey.

Yes, there's tons of things more dangerous than the fights themselves. I'd take care of the hits to the head. Or the incredibly stupid "finish your check" madness. But if you can't take the law in your own hands in the street and hope a judge or a court will address the problem adequately, the day that this stupid league gains some maturity and commen sense, this whole ****ing mentality of "I'll KO'ed that guy 'cause he had a little hit on my player" or "You can't small talk and not fight" stupidity will end. And we'd be able to move on with hockey.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 02:45 PM
  #39
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stradale View Post
For me, No fighting+instigator rule= more cheapshots.
Okay so....instigator rule is there. So what we have now makes no sense. But then, I absolutely can't agree with your assessment. More cheapshots = stupid league and their 2-game suspension. Tons of fighting, and still a Matt Cooke and his friends exist. And even if Cooke got his ass kick in some occasions.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 03:33 PM
  #40
loudi94
Master of my Domain
 
loudi94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 50
Bottom line. Does a ban on fighting help or hurt the Habs chances of winning the Cup. Ultimately that's all I care about. It certainly would hurt Boston, so I may be for it.

loudi94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 03:34 PM
  #41
JLP
La Sainte-Flanelle
 
JLP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68 View Post
...

But banning fighting completely would be dumb. I'd rather see a guy take out his frustration on another player by pounding his face with his fists instead of resorting to dangerous stick work or dangerous hits.
IMHO bare-knuckle boxing on skates is plenty dangerous. Someone will die, then the league might act. (And many people will offer condolences to the dead player's family and act like they never thought such a tragedy possible...)

JLP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 03:35 PM
  #42
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Jack Todd is a ****ing idiot and this to me just confirms that more-so than ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
I honestly can't ever see fighting banned. I mean, how would they do it?

You take out fighting and your going to see a lot more pesty behaviour from the Sean Avery's and its going to be directed towards the star players. Those Star players are going to get fed up and end up punching Avery or whoever.

The pest will gladly fight a star and have him removed for X games if that is what the penalty is for a ban. If there isn't a 5 game penalty for fighting, there will always be fights.

Banning fighting is a pipe dream that I can't ever see happening. Its already against the rules and still happens every game. Banning it won't make a difference until the players decide they don't want it part of the game. As it stands now, only 14 out of 700 NHL players don't want it in the game.
Exactly! You want to remove fighting? The first step prior to that would need to be enforcing stricter rules on cheap shots, calling the game as you see it (no bs "let them play") and heftier suspensions. You take away fighting the cheap shots will still happen but I think they'd happen even more. It doesn't stop them from doing it now the cheap shot artists always will be but plenty of smaller players will be taken advantage of as a result. Imagine how pests like Avery would be used? They could make more money for sure because if you can get under somebodies skin enough to get them to try and instigate a fight... you could fish for suspensions etc.


Last edited by neofury*: 09-05-2011 at 03:41 PM.
neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 03:57 PM
  #43
Stradale
Registered User
 
Stradale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLP View Post
IMHO bare-knuckle boxing on skates is plenty dangerous. Someone will die, then the league might act. (And many people will offer condolences to the dead player's family and act like they never thought such a tragedy possible...)
You're being way over-dramatic here.. Fighting has existed for long time in hockey in a lot of leagues and I've yet heard someone died on the ice after a fight. In the last 10 years, there was 7309 fights in the nhl and fighting has been allowed since 1922. Add all the preseason games+all the fights in all the other league worldwide and I've still never heard a player dying on the ice after a fight. We are probably talking about 200 000-300 000+ fights (and I'm being very conservative here) in every leagues in history and no one has died yet.

There are a lots of aspect in the game that are way more dangerous/life threatening than 2 guys fighting with referee close by to stop/protect them.

Stradale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:02 PM
  #44
Frankenheimer
Registered User
 
Frankenheimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: MTL
Posts: 1,896
vCash: 500
I think it's possible to ban fighting and control cheap shots. Soccer, for example, allows physical contact, yet it heavily penalizes cheap shots and fouls. All it takes is the enforcement of rules and the culture would change pretty quick.

Soccer is also a good model because the professional game resembles the amateur game. The rules are identical. Sure, it's rougher, but there's no need to envision fighting as necessary. In hockey, there's a sudden shift from no fighting to fighting. A lot of people are just not into fighting in any form, nor do they want to be a part of such an environment, nor be intimidated. My nephew quit hockey for that reason. Not interested in fighting. Why is that when the Olympics or World Cup come around fighting ceases to be necessary?

The bottom line is that fighting is only necessary because the rules are not sufficiently enforced or penalized. And because it's not banned from the game. If it were banned, and if fouls were penalized accordingly, it wouldn't take long before the culture changed and players acted accordingly. It would be a very easy transition in my opinion. I would argue the only thing sustaining fighting right now is that some teams exploit it, and that causes other teams to arm themselves in defense. The habs are good example. But if you disarm the entire league, all those teams that never wanted any part of it will make the transition without difficulty.

Frankenheimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:08 PM
  #45
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stradale View Post
For me, No fighting+instigator rule= more cheapshots.
Agreed. There are many other steps that the NHL should take to better protect the players including (but not limited to):
  • ban any hard plastic and other hard materials in elbow pad and shoulder pads
  • go to the no-touch icing
  • keep targeting hits to the head
  • amend the instigator rule (the way we know it) in order to allow players to make other players more accountable for their actions
I'd be very curious to see actual statistics showing how many serious head injuries came from fights or from other contacts. I am convinced that a lot of people would be shocked. Few players suffer concussions or serious injuries from a fight between two willing and knowing combatants, but many from blind-side hits or hits from behind.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:14 PM
  #46
Madam Kadri
Fight, Troll, Score
 
Madam Kadri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 6,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLP View Post
IMHO bare-knuckle boxing on skates is plenty dangerous. Someone will die, then the league might act. (And many people will offer condolences to the dead player's family and act like they never thought such a tragedy possible...)
A hockey stick is far a superior weapon compared to a pair of fists. Hell, even the boards and the elbow(with hard padding) are better than bare fists.

Madam Kadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:17 PM
  #47
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,024
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Jack Todd is a ****ing idiot and this to me just confirms that more-so than ever.
This is exactly what I was going to post... beat me to it.

CrAzYNiNe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:22 PM
  #48
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Exactly! Todd is using penguins' logic...



Exactly what I was saying in my post !

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:23 PM
  #49
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post
Fair assessment, but I have one counter. There is a rule that states you are allowed to hit an opponent within three seconds of the puck leaving his stick. At that point, the check is no longer a play made to separate the player from the puck. Checking, one way or another, is to cause physical pain. A form of showing a player to keep his head up and his mind on it's surroundings.
Point.

I'd argue that the rule allowing hits after the player moved the puck exists because even if a player intends to hit to separate the opposing player from the puck, the game moves so quickly that there's no guarantee that he won't hit after the puck has been moved. In other words, the rule exists as an understanding that the game moves quickly and to allow for some leeway, but has been turned into allowing players to hit-to-hurt.

Either way, the point remains that there exists some justification for bodychecking beyond hurting the opposition, and in some leagues charging rules are respected (e.g., international competition, European leagues). On the other hand, fighting really is exclusively about hurting the opposition (even if for understandable reasons). I find it difficult to justify events like Boston's thrashing of Spacek/Pyatt, for example, and I'm not sure that fighting ought to be permitted for the sole reason that players have the choice to engage in it.

That said, I don't like the comparisons to other team sports. Hockey's different than football. There may be the same level of physicality, but football is far more structured and focused in its physicality. The flow of hockey and its physicality is more spontaneous, dangerous, and it's possible to be a whole lot dirtier in hockey than in football. And the physicality manifests itself much differently in hockey: from stickwork, to targeted charges, to scrums after the whistle, to kneeing, to relentless targeting over the course of 60-minutes. I see fighting as almost natural in hockey for these reasons.

...

Since I'm rambling already, here's another thought: some in this thread have posited that the Averys and other agitators would increase in a league without fighting. I wonder if that's true. Could there be more Averys and Otts than there are now in the league? Why would they increase when fighting has been removed? Does Marchand taunt the Sedins in last year's playoffs knowing that there's no chance of the Sedins losing their cool and fighting? I doubt it. In fact, I think banning fighting would eliminate some of these agitators: their purpose is, in part, to get the opposition to drop the gloves and fight. Either these agitators turtle, or engage knowing that they've removed a top opposing player for 5-minutes.

These agitators would still serve some purpose in drawing stickwork penalties, but a central purpose to their after-the-whistle scrums would be removed.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:23 PM
  #50
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
A hockey stick is far a superior weapon compared to a pair of fists. Hell, even the boards and the elbow(with hard padding) are better than bare fists.
Again with this kind of argument? My god...

So what? Should we play without boards? Nope.

Should we play without sticks? Can't.

Hockey can be played without goons though. Look at that.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.