Tonight on RDI : a 2 hours debate on violence in hockey.
That should be interesting. The Réseau de l'Information (RDI) will hold a 2 hours debate at the show "24 heures en 60 minutes" tonight at 7 PM, Eastern time. The question launching the debate will be : "Has hockey become a dangerous sport?".
But it's their guest list that should make it an interesting (and intelligent) debate. There will be interviews with :
- Ken Dryden
- Ian Laperrière
Also invited at the debate :
- Dany Dubé
- Philippe Cantin (La Presse)
- Gilles Courteau (commissioner of the QMJHL)
- Richard Trottier (former referee and current head of the officiating in the QMJHL)
- Sylvain Lalonde (head of Hockey Québec)
- Danièle Sauvageau (in charge of a QMJHL committee on violence in hockey)
- Maryse Lassonde (neuropsychologist, works for the Habs)
- Also 2 mothers of hockey players with different views on the topic
Don Cherry has not been invited, but hopefully his followers will also watch this...
- Maryse Lassonde (neuropsychologist, works for the Habs)
looks like the most knowledgeable person to be having such a debate. The rest will be heated personal biased opinions trying to push their agenda (pro or anti fighting).
- Maryse Lassonde (neuropsychologist, works for the Habs)
looks like the most knowledgeable person to be having such a debate. The rest will be heated personal biased opinions trying to push their agenda (pro or anti fighting).
Might be interesting nonetheless.
And you think that she won't push her agenda? She is against violence in sports. Here is the proof...
There's a difference between being cut by a skate and be intentionally struck in the head. Not a dumb question at all.
The video wasn't meant to be my argument, just a fun (and admittedly only partially related) way of showing how blatantly obvious it is that hockey is dangerous. 200+ lbs athletes who are getting stronger and faster with each passing year rip around the ice and hit each other into walls, clearly not safe to say the least. More players are injured every night, so "Is hockey dangerous?" is a huge oversimplification of the problem and useless to discuss, "How can we reduce head injuries in hockey?" would be a much more productive starting point.
And you think that she won't push her agenda? She is against violence in sports. Here is the proof...
Her agenda is related to the study of the brain, specifically concussions. Doesnt take a genius to be aware that violence leads to many of those incidents, and that people (like she says) dont realize how terrible a concussion is for the human body, thus people not caring about fights and violence. There is no positive to violence. It's negative by nature.
Yea she has her agenda i guess, everyone does. At least shell be (hopefully) be using more scientific arguments. if they let her
And you think that she won't push her agenda? She is against violence in sports. Here is the proof...
I didn't even know about this video and I immediately thought of that when reading his post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk
Her agenda is related to the study of the brain, specifically concussions. Doesnt take a genius to be aware that violence leads to many of those incidents, and that people (like she says) dont realize how terrible a concussion is for the human body, thus people not caring about fights and violence. There is no positive to violence. It's negative by nature.
Yea she has her agenda i guess, everyone does. At least shell be (hopefully) be using more scientific arguments. if they let her
The problem isn't fighting the problem is cheap shots. You choose to fight most cases, you don't choose to be cheap shot. If you get concussed in a fight that's really a shame but at least it's something you chose to do.
Eliminate these from happening and fighting will be less common. They won't need enforcers if the NHL actually enforced their own rules and got rid of the instigator rule. I agree with people saying it's an over-simplified version of the issue at hand and frankly it's yet another way for the media and bandwagoner's to push their agenda against fighting.
The problem isn't fighting, the problem is cheap shots. If the NHL actually punished players accordingly cheap shots would be less frequent, fights would therefore be less frequent eliminating the need for a fighter, thus resulting in less staged fights if any, and then real fights would occur only when emotions boil over, between actual players not 6'4" 230lbs ogres who have no skill and are only on the ice for the purpose of fighting.
Again I must say it's another obvious example of media people and others in general using anything they can to push their agenda against fighting. No doubt the three unrelated deaths are routinely brought up in this discussion as well, which to be quite frank is pathetic.
Also saying there is no positive to violence is just silly. Tons of sports use violence as their bread and butter, Hockey, Rugby, Football, it's all about the crushing hits and all that. Stuff that is far more likely to give you a concussion than a less than 1 minute scrap where you have the refs tugging away at you and only get a few actual shots off each in most cases. Not saying you can't be concussed by it but the focus is misplaced. If it weren't for fighting who knows where the state of hockey popularity in the states would be like right now but I'd imagine it did help to grow the sport. We are the only sport outside of professional fighting that allows it and personally I don't see anything wrong with it. It's staged fighting I don't like, or forcing a guy to fight and then slapping him silly with an elbow pad while the officials to jack ****. If a person chooses to fight due to emotions boiling over and it's mutual I see no problem with it. It's better than pulling a Bertuzzi and keeping it bottled up and then just absolutely killing the guy with a cheap shot.
I remember an interview with Laperriere where he said his worse hockey memory was breaking a guy's neck. And that the next time he sees a guy with his head down, he'll do it again.
Forget the rules and the debates, start by dressing actual human beings for the games.
I didn't even know about this video and I immediately thought of that when reading his post.
The problem isn't fighting the problem is cheap shots. You choose to fight most cases, you don't choose to be cheap shot. If you get concussed in a fight that's really a shame but at least it's something you chose to do.
Eliminate these from happening and fighting will be less common. They won't need enforcers if the NHL actually enforced their own rules and got rid of the instigator rule. I agree with people saying it's an over-simplified version of the issue at hand and frankly it's yet another way for the media and bandwagoner's to push their agenda against fighting.
The problem isn't fighting, the problem is cheap shots. If the NHL actually punished players accordingly cheap shots would be less frequent, fights would therefore be less frequent eliminating the need for a fighter, thus resulting in less staged fights if any, and then real fights would occur only when emotions boil over, between actual players not 6'4" 230lbs ogres who have no skill and are only on the ice for the purpose of fighting.
Again I must say it's another obvious example of media people and others in general using anything they can to push their agenda against fighting. No doubt the three unrelated deaths are routinely brought up in this discussion as well, which to be quite frank is pathetic.
Also saying there is no positive to violence is just silly. Tons of sports use violence as their bread and butter, Hockey, Rugby, Football, it's all about the crushing hits and all that. Stuff that is far more likely to give you a concussion than a less than 1 minute scrap where you have the refs tugging away at you and only get a few actual shots off each in most cases. Not saying you can't be concussed by it but the focus is misplaced. If it weren't for fighting who knows where the state of hockey popularity in the states would be like right now but I'd imagine it did help to grow the sport. We are the only sport outside of professional fighting that allows it and personally I don't see anything wrong with it. It's staged fighting I don't like, or forcing a guy to fight and then slapping him silly with an elbow pad while the officials to jack ****. If a person chooses to fight due to emotions boiling over and it's mutual I see no problem with it. It's better than pulling a Bertuzzi and keeping it bottled up and then just absolutely killing the guy with a cheap shot.
No offense but that pretty much sums up your post.
Hockey is a violent sport since 1875 ! It's for this reason that it became so popular. Now we want to change everything...
Baseball has the same rules since forever but in hockey, there is always a debate to change the rules
If you don't like violence, don't play hockey or go watch soccer
Gladiator were really popular back, but it disapeared.
Football is a violent game, but they change the rule to protect the player.
Why can't hockey do the same. Quick question, next game against pittsburgh what do you rather see, a beautifull goal set up by Crosby and Malkin, or Matt Cooke elbowing PK? a great clean body check along the boards or Chara's "hit" on MaxPac?
and don't make me cry like cherry saying that teaching people not to Head hunt while hitting someone will remove all bodychecks from the game...come on...
