What message did the fight send out? Mothers watching: "That's it son, I want you to choose another sport"? Children watching: "Oh wow, so that's the way to go the next time me and my friends disagrees with other kids!?"? Guys aged 16-21 watching: "Wow, cool, let's go downtown and look for other gangs to beat up". Fans watching: "Let's beat up the fans of the other team!"?
OK, I'm moralizing a bit, and agree most people probably are able to view it in perspective. But I still certainly look at the fight as bad for hockey.
If he just wanted to keep them from getting disqualified so they could win the gold medal, I think he had his priorities wrong. .
The main objective is to win the game, not a line brawl. Nemeth had the integrity to get involved and the maturity to not lose sight of the big picture.
One doesn't need to lose his mind in order to defend a teammate. In fact I'd question the integrity of a teammate who'd value going ape**** over winning a game; particularly if a gold medal is in sight.
That's where we disagree.
1) Opinions of Nemeth's teammates were divided.
2) If opinion of the teammates is the only factor, where do we draw the line? Let's say Bobby Clarke's teammates wanted him to break Kharlamov's ankle in 1972 - did he just fulfill his obligation then?
1) Yes. Which is why it's interesting to discuss Nemeth - he wasn't obviously right or wrong.
2) Opinion of teammates is actually not not the important factor, in my opinion.
The key thing is that when another team is fighting your team, every player has the responsibility to join in and take a man, to make sure your teammates aren't outnumbered and just to stand alongside your teammates. I leave it to Nemeth's teammates to judge whether his actions were appropriate in this case,because they are the ones to whom he had a responsibility.
Clarke's action was completely different. His goal was to win the game by injuring the opponent, which has nothing to do with being a teammate. In that case I don't think the opinion of his teammates is very relevant.
What message did the fight send out? Mothers watching: "That's it son, I want you to choose another sport"? Children watching: "Oh wow, so that's the way to go the next time me and my friends disagrees with other kids!?"? Guys aged 16-21 watching: "Wow, cool, let's go downtown and look for other gangs to beat up". Fans watching: "Let's beat up the fans of the other team!"?
OK, I'm moralizing a bit, and agree most people probably are able to view it in perspective. But I still certainly look at the fight as bad for hockey.
I fully agree that the fight was not a good thing and should have been avoided if possible.
It's just difficult to see how the individuals involved could have avoided it. I think the game officials were at fault for allowing the game to get out of hand and for abandoning the ice once the brawl started. And nobody from either team should have left the bench. But once the chain of events started, the benches emptied, and the officials disappeared, there wasn't anything else to do but fight.
Clarke's action was completely different. His goal was to win the game by injuring the opponent, which has nothing to do with being a teammate. In that case I don't think the opinion of his teammates is very relevant.
Not sure I agree with you on this one Overpass. Clarkes 2 hander on Kharlamovs ankle was supposedly an ordered hit from the bench (denied by Clarke ever since but I dont believe him). He did it under orders "for the team" and explained it away forever after as an "idiotic emotional response & outburst".
Nice try, aint buyin it. He justified that dispicable act by telling himself he was simply following orders, did it for "the team", absolving himself of guilt. Publicly however he still sticks to "The Code" in pretending it was a moment of insanity, and when really pressed openly admits it was pre-meditated, done to take the player out in an effort to push Team Canada over the wire with a win.
I do however wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that the refs & officials shoulder the blame on this one. Absolutely useless. Had no business policing a. Pee Wee Tournament let alone a WJC.
You can't write off Nemeth's obligation to his teammates. Maybe he was more "mature" in his attitude toward fighting than they were. Maybe he was even more correct. But when a general brawl breaks out, you have to have your teammates' backs in that moment, whether you think they are right or wrong. If Nemeth, Turgeon, or anyone else wants to play on a team, you have to accept that it comes with obligations to your teammates.
^ what you're saying here is basically that if you're playing on a hockey team you are not aloud to have a brain of your own and think independently and make a decision from what you think is right if a critical brawl breaks out?, because if you're playing on a hockey team you're obligated to be a violent sheep who does whatever your teammates does even if it's loony?
nemeth did the right thing
what did everett sanipass ever do to make the situation better? nothing
Dont think overpass is suggesting that edler. Thing is, "back in the day" when fights erupted it was your responsibility to fully participate. Depending on inclination & circumstances, this could invole anything from full on fisticuffs to simply pairing off with another player, discussing a movie while blood rains, intervening with a team mate who has gone totally psycho etc. You didnt just sit on the bench if you were even remotely engaged in the game.
Now, I do realize the idea and concept is somewhat prehistoric, and looked at through the prism of those times, late 80's, the game had evolved enough to the point that these sorts of melee's were all but extinct. Clauses of the "Old Code" deleted. Still, it behooved the player to at minimum protect one of his smaller team mates or get out there and try to calm an opponent who might be getting swept up in the violence.
^ what you're saying here is basically that if you're playing on a hockey team you are not aloud to have a brain of your own and think independently and make a decision from what you think is right if a critical brawl breaks out?, because if you're playing on a hockey team you're obligated to be a violent sheep who does whatever your teammates does even if it's loony?
nemeth did the right thing
what did everett sanipass ever do to make the situation better? nothing
By choosing to play a team sport you are limiting your individual autonomy and choices. This is obvious. If someone doesn't want to have any obligations to anyone else or follow any written or unwritten rules, they can take up modern art and make all their own decisions all the time and be a completely autonomous non-sheep individual actor.
No, of course you don't have to do whatever your teammates do. But if it's a full brawl with one team against another team, you stand up with your teammates, because you have an obligation to them not to leave them outnumbered. Like Killion says, you can just grab someone, you don't have to start raining blows on them.
Now I'm just saying that this is the right way to react in the moment. But after the game, especially if my team was frequently involved in full team brawls, I would question whether I was on the right team, in the right league, or in the right sport.
Which is why it's interesting to discuss Nemeth - he wasn't obviously right or wrong.
If we're following the divided opinions of his teammates... I for my part think Nemeth was obviously right and nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
The key thing is that when another team is fighting your team, every player has the responsibility to join in and take a man, to make sure your teammates aren't outnumbered and just to stand alongside your teammates.
That's exactly what Nemeth did. Go ask Stephane Roy. Still, some of his teammates thought Nemeth should have thrown punches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
Clarke's action was completely different. His goal was to win the game by injuring the opponent, which has nothing to do with being a teammate. In that case I don't think the opinion of his teammates is very relevant.
Your opinion honors you. But if injuring the opponent with the stick is not relevant for being a good teammate, how is injuring the opponent with the fists relevant for being a good teammate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
But once the chain of events started, the benches emptied, and the officials disappeared, there wasn't anything else to do but fight.
Or to do what Nemeth did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion
Thing is, "back in the day" when fights erupted it was your responsibility to fully participate... You didnt just sit on the bench if you were even remotely engaged in the game.
Nemeth didn't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion
Still, it behooved the player to at minimum protect one of his smaller team mates or get out there and try to calm an opponent who might be getting swept up in the violence.
By choosing to play a team sport you are limiting your individual autonomy and choices. This is obvious.
Being on a team with people who are dumber than you doesn't mean you have to become dumb yourself. And it's a national team we're talking about, not a club team that you can leave for another club team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
No, of course you don't have to do whatever your teammates do. But if it's a full brawl with one team against another team, you stand up with your teammates, because you have an obligation to them not to leave them outnumbered. Like Killion says, you can just grab someone, you don't have to start raining blows on them.
At the risk of repeating myself: That's what Nemeth did anyway! He pulled a guy off Stephane Roy! And still you say somehow the opinion of a couple of teammates who obviously thought Nemeth should have started raining blows is relevant. I don't get it.
Your opinion honors you. But if injuring the opponent with the stick is not relevant for being a good teammate, how is injuring the opponent with the fists relevant for being a good teammate?
Actually, I don't think injuring someone with their fists is relevant here. I'm advocating that a player should join the brawl to make sure his teammates are not outnumbered. The positive aspect to this is that he is risking his own skin to stick up for his teammates - not that he is injuring the opponent.
Now once a player is matched up against an opponent, it's his right to fight and defend himself in a fair fight, which may include throwing punches that may end up injuring the opponent. But I don't think that injuring the opponent with one's fists is necessarily an obligation.
At the risk of repeating myself: That's what Nemeth did anyway! He pulled a guy off Stephane Roy! And still you say somehow the opinion of a couple of teammates who obviously thought Nemeth should have started raining blows is relevant. I don't get it.
I don't think we're that far apart on Nemeth. I'm not convinced myself that he was in the wrong.
Here's the situation where his actions may have been a problem. If Nemeth was skating around to different groups of players trying to act as a neutral party and break up the fight (basically trying to fill in for the officials who had abandoned their post) he may have allowed a teammate to get into a bad position. Good for him for coming to Roy's help. But maybe if he had done the simple thing, picked an opponent, and stayed with him, Roy never gets double teamed.
I'm not trying to crucify Nemeth here - I just think he may have made the wrong decision in a tough situation.
And I think the opinion of all of Nemeth's teammates is important. Not just the ones we heard from. There may be a couple of meatheads who like violence for the sake of violence on any team. But most hockey players intuitively understand the responsibilities they have to one another as teammates and know when someone fails to live up to them. They are in the best position to judge and have the most right to do so.
I've been on a few teams and sets in my life. I tell you what makes a bad one: not knowing if the next guy stands up for you when the call comes. If you don't know that or doubt it even then you will be hesitant to stand up for others as well. The whole concept of being a team is basically strength in numbers, strength as a unit. If you feel that when crap hits the fan it's every man for himself you will always be dominated by more unified, more assertive groups.
A guy who puts himself out there as not wanting to stand up for his teammates has put himself outside the acceptable framework of the team, he's poisonous. If more followed his lead, the whole thing starts to crumble.
A guy who puts himself out there as not wanting to stand up for his teammates has put himself outside the acceptable framework of the team, he's poisonous. If more followed his lead, the whole thing starts to crumble.
Ya, this is very true. The only cases I ever ran into during my playing days was usually with the odd highly skilled & talented forward who felt entitled to special treatment, beyond the very elemental & pedestrian issues of team unity. High maintenance, selfish. These players, though enormously talented were must often cut, winding up with bottom feeders in the same league or in another one altogether.
Turgeon was a heck of an NHL player. His statistics show HOF material. Perhaps, this incident is stopping him from actually making the HOF? As a poster mentioned earlier, all Turgeon had to do was jump off the bench and get somewhat involved. I have no idea why he didn't at least get off the bench. Not sure who the coach was back then, but he should have forced Turgeon onto the ice.
Bert Templeton. I don't know if he tried to coerce Turgeon to get on the ice. I can't remember the book talking about it and there isn't a lot of footage showing him on the bench. But Templeton did once choke Dennis Wideman when he was a 16 year old rookie in Sudbury so I get the feeling he would have laid into Turgeon if not on the bench, in the dressing room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus
What message did the fight send out? Mothers watching: "That's it son, I want you to choose another sport"? Children watching: "Oh wow, so that's the way to go the next time me and my friends disagrees with other kids!?"? Guys aged 16-21 watching: "Wow, cool, let's go downtown and look for other gangs to beat up". Fans watching: "Let's beat up the fans of the other team!"?
OK, I'm moralizing a bit, and agree most people probably are able to view it in perspective. But I still certainly look at the fight as bad for hockey.
It was actually really good for the World Junior Tournament. Canadians took a lot more notice after that. Indirectly, that brawl laid the groundwork for the tournament we know today.
And for the "mothers and sons" watching. Well, I'll say this, there are a lot harder things you will have to explain in life than why you can't start a fight at school but you can on the ice. In fact, don't tell other members of society, but a kid (bully) getting a kick in the teeth metaphorically is probably the best thing that can happen to him on the playground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
I've been on a few teams and sets in my life. I tell you what makes a bad one: not knowing if the next guy stands up for you when the call comes. If you don't know that or doubt it even then you will be hesitant to stand up for others as well. The whole concept of being a team is basically strength in numbers, strength as a unit. If you feel that when crap hits the fan it's every man for himself you will always be dominated by more unified, more assertive groups.
A guy who puts himself out there as not wanting to stand up for his teammates has put himself outside the acceptable framework of the team, he's poisonous. If more followed his lead, the whole thing starts to crumble.
Exactly. The media types who complained about this never once in their life stood up to someone, or FOR someone. This is why Cherry was right when he debated with Brian Williams and then Michael Farber. Watch those old videos and then ask me who you would want to have your back, Cherry or Farber...........or Williams? It was a rhetorical question.
