HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Habs trade Philippe Lefebvre and a 7th to Florida for George Parros

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-30-2013, 05:50 AM
  #926
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Well, here's what we know, fighting doesn't change much, and the current disciplinary methods don't either. So you may be skeptical as to whether or not having long term suspension would help, but I don't see why not. There's always gonna be morons like Hernandez that are gonna throw it all away for stupid reasons because they're dumb individuals, and so be it, let them be gone.
I seriously could not care less if the NHL did not have Torres among their active players. So if Torres can't understand that sticking out his elbow to hit the head of an opponent is just not acceptable, then he shouldn't be playing.
Having a careless attitude will get you nowhere. Sometimes drastic measures are needed to make a point. Nothing is full proof, but I guarantee you if the league decides to turn things around, be super strict, remove their double standards, and harshen their suspensions, the number of dirty hits would drop. In any event, why not try seeing how the rest isn't working anyways.
I think this is mostly opinion, one that I don't share.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 06:00 AM
  #927
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Things change, things evolve, just like not having a helmet was there forever and then it changed....or the visor....or the red line...or not having the instigating rule....or being way much harsher on the hooking, grabbing and hooking, etc., etc. etc. So yes, FOREVER also means that most of the team NOW in the league weren't there FOREVER. So it is a possibility that fanbases changes, that the idea of what this game should be also changes. Bench clearing brawls weren't that rare back in the days....now, how rare is it? So my point still remains. If NOW, people would be more willing to see harsher sentences for fights, league WOULDN'T care about the history of fighting and would apply harsher sentences. As simple as that.

As far as the use of those types of players, well surely. That's what it is about now and people go with that. Same goes with every changes that is made. Pretty sure that if hooking was still something to be done, coaches, players and GM's would still use that method to slow down the opponent. League is suppose to be harsher with that, coaches, GM's and players have to adapt. Period. And while they still use them or those tactics in the regular season, when it counts the most, the playoffs, you will rarely see goons.....you might not even see the good players that can fight using that trait in their game either. As forever the fights exist....it is still not being used in the most important season of the year, the playoffs, what MOST people will consider THE REAL season....
I have to commend you.....you are a lot more patient than I am.

You are absolutely right on every point that you have made. It might be time to take a page from Richard Dawkin's book and admit to yourself that this debate is below you and leave the people who steadfastly adhere to theories that are absent any rational and logical basis to wallow in their own ignorance.

No point in teaching calculus to the kindergarten class.......better to wait for them to gain more experience and knowledge and revisit it at a later date.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 06:09 AM
  #928
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Things change, things evolve, just like not having a helmet was there forever and then it changed....or the visor....or the red line...or not having the instigating rule....or being way much harsher on the hooking, grabbing and hooking, etc., etc. etc. So yes, FOREVER also means that most of the team NOW in the league weren't there FOREVER. So it is a possibility that fanbases changes, that the idea of what this game should be also changes. Bench clearing brawls weren't that rare back in the days....now, how rare is it? So my point still remains. If NOW, people would be more willing to see harsher sentences for fights, league WOULDN'T care about the history of fighting and would apply harsher sentences. As simple as that.

As far as the use of those types of players, well surely. That's what it is about now and people go with that. Same goes with every changes that is made. Pretty sure that if hooking was still something to be done, coaches, players and GM's would still use that method to slow down the opponent. League is suppose to be harsher with that, coaches, GM's and players have to adapt. Period. And while they still use them or those tactics in the regular season, when it counts the most, the playoffs, you will rarely see goons.....you might not even see the good players that can fight using that trait in their game either. As forever the fights exist....it is still not being used in the most important season of the year, the playoffs, what MOST people will consider THE REAL season....
These comparisons aren't even on the same level. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Are your arguments this weak that you are comparing equipment with on ice tactics? There not even close to the same, there will be down times where fighting is not employed as often and there will be elevated times, it being reduced has already happened. You say your arguments aren't about eliminating it, but reducing, it has already happened. I disagree that it makes the game any better. I don't think it does at all. I have np at all with teams sending messages to weaker opponents. This is what hockey is all about.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 06:11 AM
  #929
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
I have to commend you.....you are a lot more patient than I am.

You are absolutely right on every point that you have made. It might be time to take a page from Richard Dawkin's book and admit to yourself that this debate is below you and leave the people who steadfastly adhere to theories that are absent any rational and logical basis to wallow in their own ignorance.

No point in teaching calculus to the kindergarten class.......better to wait for them to gain more experience and knowledge and revisit it at a later date.
I've probably forgotten more about hockey than you have ever known lol. Oh enlightened one.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 07:52 AM
  #930
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I've probably forgotten more about hockey than you have ever known lol. Oh enlightened one.
From what I have read from you........that can't possibly be true because in order for you to forget something....it would imply that at some point you actually knew something.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 08:34 AM
  #931
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
About Detroit, the key is that they stick up one for another a lot even if they fight rarely(although they fight more since they've added a few guys). They stand up for another more than the Habs. Secondly, Detroit doesn't play in our division. In our division, everytime Emelin hits a guy, he's jumped. This rarely happens to Kronwall. We'll see how the Wings react next year when they'll have the Bruins, Sens and Leafs in their face all the time.
Yeah, but then it has NOTHING to do with team bonding. More to do with not having your superstars be injured too much, so you think by bringing a tough guy will prevent you from happening. Didn't stop Marc Savard from being Ko'ed. Didn't stop Bergeron to get all his concussions. Didn't stop Miller to be rocked by Lucic despite having Scott in the lineup and so on.....

Again, in today's NHL....I have NO PROBLEM bringing guys that can play hockey and be tough at the same time. I keep praising the Bruins organizaiton for being aware of that contrary to our old administration who, despite seeing what the great teams were made of, were unable to recognize that their own team needed (see Gainey). I understand ALL that. Thing is....you remove fighting from the game and then teams won't be able to bond together? Right now, you play with the rules. I'm no Saint thinking that we should go against the physicality of the game right now, absolutely not as I keep saying tons of tons of time repetitively. But fighting and bonding do not go together. Yes, we saw the embrace that MacKinnon gave to Fournier when the latter took care of the guy that cheapshotted MacKinnon....But then remove fighting, Fournier goes towards the guy and send him flying with a bodycheck, and MacKinnon would have been just as happy. Yes, bonding might come with sticking together or taking care in a way of a guy who just hurt your player.....but it could come in so many different ways than fighting.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 08:36 AM
  #932
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
I have to commend you.....you are a lot more patient than I am.

You are absolutely right on every point that you have made. It might be time to take a page from Richard Dawkin's book and admit to yourself that this debate is below you and leave the people who steadfastly adhere to theories that are absent any rational and logical basis to wallow in their own ignorance.

No point in teaching calculus to the kindergarten class.......better to wait for them to gain more experience and knowledge and revisit it at a later date.
I'm close to being done.....I guess that at one point, you have to agree to not have the last word....I'll surely end this today....but first, I do have to respond to something else...

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 08:46 AM
  #933
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I think this is mostly opinion, one that I don't share.
Hmmm are dirty hits still happening? Didn't Savard get hit dirty despite being on a goons team? Didn't Bergeron? Are hits still happening despite having an enforcer? Yes, all those things happened/still happen. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
So fighting doesn't change much. Maybe you can believe that fighters are preventing teams from being even dirtier or hitting more, that's an opinion, but it is irrelevant seeing how all the things still happen often.
So knowing fighting doesn't prevent a whole lot, might as well try a new direction.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 08:48 AM
  #934
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
These comparisons aren't even on the same level. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Are your arguments this weak that you are comparing equipment with on ice tactics? There not even close to the same, there will be down times where fighting is not employed as often and there will be elevated times, it being reduced has already happened. You say your arguments aren't about eliminating it, but reducing, it has already happened. I disagree that it makes the game any better. I don't think it does at all. I have np at all with teams sending messages to weaker opponents. This is what hockey is all about.
I am playing at the same level as you are playing. You brought the infamous "It has been there forever great excuse", I'm sorry but in that phrase, you are not separating equipment to play on ice or whatever. And with that excuse comes the fact that you don't want the game to be "denatured" based on the fact that it was there forever yet, every other example I gave, at one point, was used by the same people like you who didn't want the game to be denatured.

And what I'm bringing in response to you aren't my arguments as I wasn't the one who brought the "but it's been there forever" WEAK argument I mean, if you are looking for a weak argument, don't look no further. Been there forever as to be WAY UP there. My arguments were already mentioned before, the fact that it's not useful in a game. It doesn't bring anything, even the supposed momentum change is BS. There is more truth to a 4th line shift filled with bodychecks and heavy pressure that is a momentum changer than a fight. Add my arguments about seeing fights after legal checks, and demanding non-fighters to get in fight because they happen to play tough, all are my arguments for not minding to see the abolishment of fighting. On-ice tactics? Fighting? So as "Okay guys, let's practice the PP, the PK and the fighting today"??? Most of the fighting occurs between 2 goons who feel they have to prove they are still worth of a job. Other fights will happen with a tough guy jumping on somebody who just hit legally somebody else. Yet, I'd love to be in a meeting when the fighting tactic will be discussed....

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:00 AM
  #935
overlords
Global Moderator
Jack Arse
 
overlords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,130
vCash: 500

__________________



"overlords is one of my favorite people on this entire site." - Hfboards
overlords is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:02 AM
  #936
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Hmmm are dirty hits still happening? Didn't Savard get hit dirty despite being on a goons team? Didn't Bergeron? Are hits still happening despite having an enforcer? Yes, all those things happened/still happen. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
So fighting doesn't change much. Maybe you can believe that fighters are preventing teams from being even dirtier or hitting more, that's an opinion, but it is irrelevant seeing how all the things still happen often.
So knowing fighting doesn't prevent a whole lot, might as well try a new direction.
if the occurance of an event is sufficient to refute the value of something designed to prevent it, I suggest we immediately defund the fire department because fires still happen.

no one EVER said that fighters are absolute deterrants, and to be frank only a moron would think this. But having to answer for trangressions IS a deterrant. If you want to continue the charade that you have a better understanding of the game than all of the players who are both paid to play and the ones to face the consequences of these decisions go ahead. I have no reservations of people continuing to display , and revel, in their own ignorance and self importance.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:32 AM
  #937
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Things change, things evolve, just like not having a helmet was there forever and then it changed....or the visor....or the red line...or not having the instigating rule....or being way much harsher on the hooking, grabbing and hooking, etc., etc. etc. So yes, FOREVER also means that most of the team NOW in the league weren't there FOREVER. So it is a possibility that fanbases changes, that the idea of what this game should be also changes. Bench clearing brawls weren't that rare back in the days....now, how rare is it? So my point still remains. If NOW, people would be more willing to see harsher sentences for fights, league WOULDN'T care about the history of fighting and would apply harsher sentences. As simple as that.

As far as the use of those types of players, well surely. That's what it is about now and people go with that. Same goes with every changes that is made. Pretty sure that if hooking was still something to be done, coaches, players and GM's would still use that method to slow down the opponent. League is suppose to be harsher with that, coaches, GM's and players have to adapt. Period. And while they still use them or those tactics in the regular season, when it counts the most, the playoffs, you will rarely see goons.....you might not even see the good players that can fight using that trait in their game either. As forever the fights exist....it is still not being used in the most important season of the year, the playoffs, what MOST people will consider THE REAL season....
I also remember games being worth 3-points forever... The NHL is a working machine, and like any machine parts are fixed and changed for the greater good of production. If the NHL sees that, for whatever reason, fighting is becoming bad for the game, they will do what needs to be done. Like the examples you used, who would of thought in the 60s the red line would be gone, or that leaving the bench would be an automatic suspension.

habsfanatics, things change, get used to it.

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:33 AM
  #938
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
if the occurance of an event is sufficient to refute the value of something designed to prevent it, I suggest we immediately defund the fire department because fires still happen.

no one EVER said that fighters are absolute deterrants, and to be frank only a moron would think this. But having to answer for trangressions IS a deterrant. If you want to continue the charade that you have a better understanding of the game than all of the players who are both paid to play and the ones to face the consequences of these decisions go ahead. I have no reservations of people continuing to display , and revel, in their own ignorance and self importance.
Spare this BS. We're on a message board and the topic of conversation is fighting. If you don't think there is much to discuss, then please, feel free to leave. You said that you will follow the players no matter what their decision is, so good for you.
I'm not pretending to know better than the actual players, I'm saying the poll you're talking about is completely meaningless. All it says is that players don't want fighting banned, that's it that's all. It's not about how important it is, or how relevant you think it actually is to the score of a game, a season, or a PO series, nope, it's just a simple question about whether or not some of the guys they play with should lose their jobs (in a nutshell). So spare me this whole BS about me believing I know better than players and all that freaking crap. If you don't want to discuss this matter, then don't.

As for your analogy, I mean seriously..? I won't get into the actual analogy in details, one is actually called upon to kill a fire and stays there until it's done, while the other does very little he doesn't stop anything from happening, nor does he kill any momentum..just a bad analogy. But I understand the idea, that if you can't prevent cheap hits that doesn't mean you shouldn't have fighters (and I never said otherwise btw). However, that's my point. We know fighters don't prevent much. We know our current suspension methods don't either. So, what can be done to limit those cheap hits? Because I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the lower the cheap hits, the better. So, what's left to try? One thing we haven't tried is harsher suspensions.

But I agree with Whitesnake, it's not just about the cheap hits, it's that I don't see the purpose in fighting anymore. It really does nothing. It doesn't help team win or lose, it doesn't change the outcome of a game, a season or a playoff series. It doesn't prevent players from crashing your net, hitting you legally or illegally, in a clean or dirty way. I don't believe in that momentum BS, I think it can have a positive effect but it's grossly overrated and most of the time benign.
I mean, in the not so distant past, it still had its place. But in today's league, I just don't see it anymore.
You don't have to ban fighting in this official way, little by little we are seeing a lot less guys like Parros, who can't really play. If the league got serious with their suspensions, I think those guys would soon disappear.


Last edited by Kriss E: 07-30-2013 at 10:39 AM.
Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:38 AM
  #939
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Spare this BS. We're on a message board and the topic of conversation is fighting. If you don't think there is much to discuss, then please, feel free to leave. You said that you will follow the players no matter what their decision is, so good for you.
I'm not pretending to know better than the actual players, I'm saying the poll you're talking about is completely meaningless. All it says is that players don't want fighting banned, that's it that's all. It's not about how important it is, or how relevant you think it actually is to the score of a game, a season, or a PO series, nope, it's just a simple question about whether or not some of the guys they play with should lose their jobs (in a nutshell). So spare me this whole BS about me believing I know better than players and all that freaking crap. If you don't want to discuss this matter, then don't.

As for your analogy, I mean seriously..? I won't get into the actual analogy in details, one is actually called upon to kill a fire and stays there until it's done, while the other does very little he doesn't stop anything from happening, nor does he kill any momentum..just a bad analogy. But I understand the idea, that if you can't prevent cheap hits that doesn't mean you shouldn't have fighters (and I never said otherwise btw). However, that's my point. We know fighters don't prevent much. We know our current suspension methods don't either. So, what can be done to limit those cheap hits? Because I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the lower the cheap hits, the better. So, what's left to try? One thing we haven't tried is harsher suspensions.

But I agree with Whitesnake, I don't see the purpose in fighting. It really does nothing. It doesn't help team win or lose, it doesn't change the outcome of a game, a season or a playoff series. It doesn't prevent players from crashing your net, hitting you legally or illegally, in a clean or dirty way. I don't believe in that momentum BS, I think it can have a positive effect but it's grossly overrated and most of the time benign.
I mean, in the not so distant past, it still had its place. But in today's league, I just don't see it anymore.
You don't have to ban fighting in this official way, little by little we are seeing a lot less guys like Parros, who can't really play. If the league got serious with their suspensions, I think those guys would soon disappear.
One thing I wouldn't look passed is that polling those players, how many are biased? How many of the guys are buddy buddy with a teammate like Parros, Thorton, Orr, etc. that know they lose their job in the NHL if fighting is banned. I feel that fighting in the NHL will eventually disappear, but when is another discussion.

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:41 AM
  #940
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
One thing I wouldn't look passed is that polling those players, how many are biased? How many of the guys are buddy buddy with a teammate like Parros, Thorton, Orr, etc. that know they lose their job in the NHL if fighting is banned. I feel that fighting in the NHL will eventually disappear, but when is another discussion.
Yes I've mentioned this before but apparently to some that was me claiming to know better than the world.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:50 AM
  #941
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes I've mentioned this before but apparently to some that was me claiming to know better than the world.
I sometimes forget how thinking logically on this forums make you think you know more than was said. Of course if you polled some player, he is going to say "oh but my opinion is biased because I don't want our enforcer to lose his job".

You're a know it all Kriss E

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 10:58 AM
  #942
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
One thing I wouldn't look passed is that polling those players, how many are biased? How many of the guys are buddy buddy with a teammate like Parros, Thorton, Orr, etc. that know they lose their job in the NHL if fighting is banned. I feel that fighting in the NHL will eventually disappear, but when is another discussion.
the polling is anonymous, and more importantly players who retired and no longer have any " buddyd buddies" to protect never seem to change their positions. Why is that ?

Fighting exists, and will continue to exist in the NHL for one reason and one reason only, they players want it. If the day comes that fighting no longer becomes necessary, it will be because the players have made this decision, not because so called armchair experts keep braying about how becuase THEY dont understand the influence of fighting, there must not BE any benefit to it. Arguing from a position of ignorance is a fools errand.

People have been moaning about the barbarity of fighting as long as I have been alive with very little effect. So keep feigning the voice of authority and that you understand the gave so viscerally, that's worked so well so far.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:03 AM
  #943
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
the polling is anonymous, and more importantly players who retired and no longer have any " buddyd buddies" to protect never seem to change their positions. Why is that ?

Fighting exists, and will continue to exist in the NHL for one reason and one reason only, they players want it. If the day comes that fighting no longer becomes necessary, it will be because the players have made this decision, not because so called armchair experts keep braying about how becuase THEY dont understand the influence of fighting, there must not BE any benefit to it. Arguing from a position of ignorance is a fools errand.

People have been moaning about the barbarity of fighting as long as I have been alive with very little effect. So keep feigning the voice of authority and that you understand the gave so viscerally, that's worked so well so far.
What are you talking about? You think the players are going to have the final decision on fighting? You think I believe that I am an armchair expert? I don't get your stance.

For me it's really quite simple. The talk of banning fighting is becoming more and more apparent. As much as I believe the need for fighting in hockey is important to the sport, it's irrelevant. Just like the players opinions on the subject are irrelevant when the NHL decides that fighting will no longer be apart of the sport.

I think you give the players too much credit based on their opinion. The players wanted a salary cap? The players want visors to be mandatory? Yes it is being grandfathered in, but the point remains the same, the NHL dictates what it wants, not the NHLPA.

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:04 AM
  #944
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,725
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
i was unaware eller had the ability to grow a mustache

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:21 AM
  #945
Markowicz
Simple Jacques
 
Markowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Parros' main purpose with the Canadiens, i thought, was to lessen the fighting load on guys like Prust and Moen, so they could focus on being more effective 3/4 liners. Whether or not he protects our players from getting concussed is kind of an afterthought, because those types of incidents are usually out of the blue. We have Parros for a year, and as far as i know, fighting is still allowed for at least that time.

So... What are you all wasting your breath about?

Markowicz is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:27 AM
  #946
overlords
Global Moderator
Jack Arse
 
overlords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markowicz View Post
Parros' main purpose with the Canadiens, i thought, was to lessen the fighting load on guys like Prust and Moen, so they could focus on being more effective 3/4 liners. Whether or not he protects our players from getting concussed is kind of an afterthought, because those types of incidents are usually out of the blue. We have Parros for a year, and as far as i know, fighting is still allowed for at least that time.

So... What are you all wasting your breath about?
It's the offseason. Conversations tend to..wander.

overlords is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:29 AM
  #947
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
I also remember games being worth 3-points forever... The NHL is a working machine, and like any machine parts are fixed and changed for the greater good of production. If the NHL sees that, for whatever reason, fighting is becoming bad for the game, they will do what needs to be done. Like the examples you used, who would of thought in the 60s the red line would be gone, or that leaving the bench would be an automatic suspension.

habsfanatics, things change, get used to it.
While change can sometimes be good, it's far from always being the case.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:29 AM
  #948
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
What are you talking about? You think the players are going to have the final decision on fighting? You think I believe that I am an armchair expert? I don't get your stance.

For me it's really quite simple. The talk of banning fighting is becoming more and more apparent. As much as I believe the need for fighting in hockey is important to the sport, it's irrelevant. Just like the players opinions on the subject are irrelevant when the NHL decides that fighting will no longer be apart of the sport.

I think you give the players too much credit based on their opinion. The players wanted a salary cap? The players want visors to be mandatory? Yes it is being grandfathered in, but the point remains the same, the NHL dictates what it wants, not the NHLPA.
if the NHL could unilaterally impose what they want on the players, we would not have back to back ( and likely to back) lockouts.

The league is granfathering in visors because the PA supports it. They overwhelmingly oppose restriction on fighting. the league and the PA are partners. if you want a recent example, the league wanted to promote re-alignment but could not because they could not initially get the PA to sign off on it.
When the PA agreed, we got realignment.

People who oppose fighting are under the mistaken assumption that if they just keep repeating the same thing over and over it somehow magically becomes true ( " there is no benefit to fighting" , " the league is trying to ban fighting", " fighting causes a disproportionate amount of concussions" " the league can unilaterally shove rule changes down the PA's throat". " the league promotes fighting to appeal to vampire fans". I'm sorry that's not the way things work.


Last edited by sandysan: 07-30-2013 at 11:34 AM. Reason: addition
sandysan is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:32 AM
  #949
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
While change can sometimes be good, it's far from always being the case.
Oh don't get me wrong, change always being good is not at all what I was trying to portray. But saying something was like that "forever" and that it will never change is just being naive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
if the NHL could unilaterally impose what they want on the players, we would not have back to back ( and likely to back) lockouts.

The league is granfathering in visors because the PA supports it. They overwhelmingly oppose restriction on fighting. the league and the PA are partners.
Yes but lawyers sure can argue a point. Again I am all for fighting, I think it has a place in hockey. But again, I think it will disappear in our lifetime. (I'm 27)

CrAzYNiNe is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 11:49 AM
  #950
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAzYNiNe View Post
Oh don't get me wrong, change always being good is not at all what I was trying to portray. But saying something was like that "forever" and that it will never change is just being naive.



Yes but lawyers sure can argue a point. Again I am all for fighting, I think it has a place in hockey. But again, I think it will disappear in our lifetime. (I'm 27)
based on what ? What has happened in the last 27 years to suddenly make fighting dispensable ? or more injurious ? or more of a threat to player safety ? In many respects fighting is already much lower than in eras gone by yet this has somehow ( counterintuitively) caused the chicken little's to bray even harder that the sky is falling.

People act like these arguments against fighting are somehow novel, the exact same arguments have been made for at least the last 60 years, and these arguments have not swayed the PA at all. in fact i doubt they could have been any less effective had they tried. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is one definition of insanity, if that's the path you want to chose, be my guest.

sandysan is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:42 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.