HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Hockey Fights
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hockey Fights Discuss and rate hockey fights and fighters of today and from the past. Videos welcome!

End of fighting in the NHL?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-22-2013, 05:46 PM
  #76
Brainiac
Registered User
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
you know who disagrees with you that fighting brings nothing to the game? Pretty much every single current player AND past players. You couldn't get more unanimous with questions " kicking puppies, good or bad?"
As I said, hockey is an extremely conservative environment. I'm sure some players would be fine with fighting being removed from the game, but are afraid to 'come out' publicly about it.

And, these same players who say fighting is fundamental simply stop fighting when it matters most, during the playoffs...

That alone tells a lot more about the so called importance of fighting than whatever the players will answer in a poll.

Brainiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 05:47 PM
  #77
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I'm sorry, who appointed you to be the arbitrer of what constitutes " the essence" of the game? As long as NHL hockey has been played, there have been fights. Some years more, some years less NO years with none.

Removing fighting fundamentally changes the nature of the game. That's not MY opinion, its the opinion of the overwhelming number of players past and present. So we should dump their opinion and adopt yours on what basis precisely? Because YOU might like it more? Again, thanks but no.
This very argument was made in basketball, where mugging and fighting was allowed for years. Teams had designated players at the end of the bench whose entire role was to go out there and rough up the opposing stars and "send a message" or "fire up the team". Players supported this, presuming that if this style of play were outlawed, they'd be targeted for cheap play without being able to do anything about it.

Then December 9, 1977 came along. The season had begun with #1 overall pick Kent Benson elbowing Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the chest while fighting for a rebound, and Abdul-Jabbar punched Benson from behind. Benson suffered a broken jaw, Abdul-Jabbar a broken hand. This put the NBA on notice; they didn't need the top overall pick and a major star missing time due to this. Neither player was suspended for their actions, though; this type of thing was common in a league where brawls (including ones that emptied the bench) were frequent.

On December 9, 1977, Houston and the Lakers (who now had Abdul-Jabbar back in the lineup) were playing. Houston's Kevin Kunnert and Los Angeles' Abdul-Jabbar fought for a rebound, then started wrestling. The Lakers' Kermit Washington stepped in for Abdul-Jabbar, and Kunnert threw a punch at Washington. Abdul-Jabbar grabbed Kunnert's arms, and Washington hit Kunnert in the side of the head, bringing Kunnert to one knee. Houston's Rudy Tomjanovich came running over, and Washington turned and punched him with a blow hard enough to displace his face from his skull and rupture his brain capsule. It could have been a fatal injury, and somehow was not. The incident was broadcast coast-to-coast for several days, damaging the NBA's reputation at a time when they were still struggling to find stability.

The NBA's chief legal counsel was David Stern, who recommended that drastic measures be taken immediately, saying in retrospect, "One thing was obvious, you couldn't allow men that big and that strong to go around throwing punches at each other." The NBA's average size wasn't dramatically larger at that time than previously. The average player in 1955 was 6'5" and 206 pounds; in 1977 it was 6'6 1/2" and 207 pounds. What had changed were diet and especially conditioning.

Without question, an NHL player today on average is stronger than when fighting was both more common and more "part of the game". This post contains a link to the Maple Leafs' fitness standards in 1962, which counts as a light warmup today before an actual workout. Look at Raitis Ivanans, who could barely play the game and yet is built as solidly as Bobby Hull. An NHL player in 1959 was 5'11" and 178 pounds; today it's 6'1" and 204 pounds. That's not 26 pounds of goo either.

The reality is that there are plenty of NHL players who possess the ability to incapacitate or kill an opponent with a punch, and it's only a matter of time before a worldwide audience gets to watch it being replayed ad nauseum. What will the fallout from that be?

Quote:
And to preemptively rebut the assertion that I'm some knuckle dragging mouth breather, my support for fighting ends the second the players don't want it because I'm not so presumptuous to think that the players are under any obligation to make the game more personally palatable. It appears you don't share this reservation.
Years back, I tried to counsel a friend who was in an abusive relationship. Trying to convince her that bruises weren't a sign of affection and that a black eye wasn't a love tap was an exercise in futility.

I do know that most NBA players welcomed the changes that the league made post-Punch, where they could go for a rebound without catching an elbow in the teeth or a knee to the groin every time up. They could go out there and play basketball. I'm sure in today's NHL, there's a lot of guys who get tired of delivering a big (and completely clean) hit and then have to fight. None would ever admit to it, just as no NBA player would admit to despising what the league looked like pre-Punch.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 06:03 PM
  #78
Brainiac
Registered User
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
And... thank you sir!

I had a vague idea about this whole thing in the NBA, but the details you provide are enlightening... which is a rarity on these boards!


Brainiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 06:41 PM
  #79
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,741
vCash: 500
Fighting will always be part of the game. For the people who complain about "staged" fights all I can say is that you are either a new fan of a couple of years, or your eyes have been closed forever. This form of fighting has been happening as long as anyone on this board has been born. It still serves a purpose.

And I wouldn't worry about the new rules to clamp down on fighting, where there is a will there is a way. You should never try and keep your thumb down on the emotion of the game. Or else you may have a league like the NFL where aggression isn't left on the field, and taken into the outside world. Just saying.

But other than that, fighting is part of hockey fabric. I don't like the neutral zone trap, but I accept it. Accept fighting and move on, or change the channel.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 08:31 PM
  #80
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
As I said, hockey is an extremely conservative environment. I'm sure some players would be fine with fighting being removed from the game, but are afraid to 'come out' publicly about it.

And, these same players who say fighting is fundamental simply stop fighting when it matters most, during the playoffs...

That alone tells a lot more about the so called importance of fighting than whatever the players will answer in a poll.
Ooooooooh the grand conspiracy of silence theory. I've never heard that one before. So based on the fact that you adopt a position that is, at best, an extreme minority position of current players, the most reasonable explanation is some fear based mechanism that prevents the players from speaking their true minds. You know what is more likely? That the players don't share your vision of the game and think that your assertion that fighting is dispensable is a load of crap.

I can see current players with delicate constitutions could, for the sake of going along to get along, will hold their tongues or bear false witness. If you believe this, then players well past their playing years should feel free to finally come out and speak their minds. You know who has? Kenny Dryden who was protected by the very system he decries for every freaking second he was on the ice. Who else ya got? That's what I thought.

You can pretend that your opposition to fighting is borne from some deep seated insight that escapes the players, and the players can take your objection under advisement and promptly ignore it.

Players don't fight in the playoffs for fear of putting their team at a disadvantage, nothing more. Dropping the gloves and sending a message in the regular season will cost you at most 2 points. In the playoffs those two points decides who goes forward and who goes home. Then again you have lots of first round series that ARE punchfests ( like Philly/Pitt two years ago, the most watched first round series).

Even a fourth line goon knows there are times to go and times not to go. A guy who fought for himself is not long for this league.

But if you want to look like a grade a hypocrite by denouncing fighting but remaining curiously silent on far more injurious aspects of the game, don't let me stop you. There are lots of hypocrites in society, you can be in good company with your fake concern for player safety-

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 08:39 PM
  #81
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
As I said, hockey is an extremely conservative environment. I'm sure some players would be fine with fighting being removed from the game, but are afraid to 'come out' publicly about it.

And, these same players who say fighting is fundamental simply stop fighting when it matters most, during the playoffs...

That alone tells a lot more about the so called importance of fighting than whatever the players will answer in a poll.
Ooooooooh the grand conspiracy of silence theory. I've never heard that one before. So based on the fact that you adopt a position that is, at best, an extreme minority position of current players, the most reasonable explanation is some fear based mechanism that prevents the players from speaking their true minds. You know what is more likely? That the players don't share your vision of the game and think that your assertion that fighting is dispensable is a load of crap.

I can see current players with delicate constitutions could, for the sake of going along to get along, will hold their tongues or bear false witness. If you believe this, then players well past their playing years should feel free to finally come out and speak their minds. You know who has? Kenny Dryden who was protected by the very system he decries for every freaking second he was on the ice. Who else ya got? That's what I thought.

You can pretend that your opposition to fighting is borne from some deep seated insight that escapes the players, and the players can take your objection under advisement and promptly ignore it.

Players don't fight in the playoffs for fear of putting their team at a disadvantage, nothing more. Dropping the gloves and sending a message in the regular season will cost you at most 2 points. In the playoffs those two points decides who goes forward and who goes home. Then again you have lots of first round series that ARE punchfests ( like Philly/Pitt two years ago, the most watched first round series).

Even a fourth line goon knows there are times to go and times not to go. A guy who fought for himself is not long for this league.

But if you want to look like a grade a hypocrite by denouncing fighting but remaining curiously silent on far more injurious aspects of the game, don't let me stop you. There are lots of hypocrites in society, you can be in good company with your fake concern for player safety-

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 08:43 PM
  #82
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Fighting will always be part of the game. For the people who complain about "staged" fights all I can say is that you are either a new fan of a couple of years, or your eyes have been closed forever. This form of fighting has been happening as long as anyone on this board has been born. It still serves a purpose.
What purpose does it serve? Is this hockey's version of a pitcher throwing over a batter's head, or a cover man in football clocking the returner who called for a fair catch, or a defender in basketball clotheslining the guy driving to the basket? All of them would "send a message" or "fire the team up" and have little to do with the actual game itself; why should hockey be the only sport that allows message-sending or firing up?

The fact that something has been around for a long time doesn't make it right or beneficial, and it certainly doesn't make it above questioning. I live near groups of people who have lived their lives according to an idea that tradition is sacred and no advancement is necessary; they're called the Amish. They produce good milk and cheese and make some terrific furniture, but that's about it.

Quote:
And I wouldn't worry about the new rules to clamp down on fighting, where there is a will there is a way. You should never try and keep your thumb down on the emotion of the game. Or else you may have a league like the NFL where aggression isn't left on the field, and taken into the outside world. Just saying.
...that's not what happens in the NFL, otherwise we'd see these types of off-field issues going as far back as the 1920s, when rules were devised and enforced to limit the ability of defenders to destroy their opponents. The NFL's off-field issues are derived from a variety of social ills combined with the spotlight shining brightly on NFL players combined with confirmation bias.

Quote:
But other than that, fighting is part of hockey fabric. I don't like the neutral zone trap, but I accept it. Accept fighting and move on, or change the channel.
That sounds a lot like the old "support the president or leave the country" rhetoric that most logical individuals reject immediately.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 09:09 PM
  #83
NHLFreak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
And what was the point of Rolston sending John "Dummy" Scott out there to go after Kessel????

NHLFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 09:16 PM
  #84
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLFreak View Post
And what was the point of Rolston sending John "Dummy" Scott out there to go after Kessel????
Trying to see who the bigger donkey was between Rolston and Scott, I would guess.

Personally, I'd like to ask Kessel a simple question. Would he rather have a guy like Clarkson having to come off the bench to fend off John Scott, or play in a league where he can play some hockey after the pucks drops instead of needing to skate like hell to get away from John Scott jumping him?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 09:22 PM
  #85
NHLFreak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Trying to see who the bigger donkey was between Rolston and Scott, I would guess.

Personally, I'd like to ask Kessel a simple question. Would he rather have a guy like Clarkson having to come off the bench to fend off John Scott, or play in a league where he can play some hockey after the pucks drops instead of needing to skate like hell to get away from John Scott jumping him?
Well said.

NHLFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 09:34 PM
  #86
cujoflutie
Registered User
 
cujoflutie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to cujoflutie Send a message via Yahoo to cujoflutie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Trying to see who the bigger donkey was between Rolston and Scott, I would guess.

Personally, I'd like to ask Kessel a simple question. Would he rather have a guy like Clarkson having to come off the bench to fend off John Scott, or play in a league where he can play some hockey after the pucks drops instead of needing to skate like hell to get away from John Scott jumping him?
And do you think if the NHL 'bans' fighting, you will never ever see a star player get jumped like that again by a 4th liner?

We see it happen the odd time in international hockey; The 1987 Canada Russia brawl and the russians again in the 2003 world juniors. Ban fighting and you'll get more trolls attempting to draw players into fights.

cujoflutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 09:50 PM
  #87
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 15,346
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Growing up in Boston, we always looked at hockey as a blood sport.

Many of my early memories are watching and cheering on the epic habs vs bruins line brawls of the late 1980s/early 1990s. I had tons of fight tapes growing up.

I love hockey, love the NHL, but part of it for me is the potential for a fight to happen. Love it, always will. Part of me as a fan will die when it gets banned. Sad its heading in that direction by the PC police.

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 09:55 PM
  #88
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
And do you think if the NHL 'bans' fighting, you will never ever see a star player get jumped like that again by a 4th liner?

We see it happen the odd time in international hockey; The 1987 Canada Russia brawl and the russians again in the 2003 world juniors. Ban fighting and you'll get more trolls attempting to draw players into fights.
First, I don't know that I support a complete ban. I had no issue with Iginla/Lecavalier, for example. I take great issue with the fact that third and fourth lines around the league are occupied by guys whose actual hockey talent wouldn't see them take a regular shift in the ECHL, let alone the NHL. The fact that Joel Rechlicz (he of 3 goals and 6 assists in 325 games across 8 leagues) ever skated in the NHL is an embarrassment. I think the steps the OHL has taken is a reasonable middle ground; it provides enough leeway for legitimate self-policing while removing the completely useless.

Second, you're definitely talking to the wrong person if you're looking for agreement over retaliation. I've coached a bit of football, where retaliation against someone provoking you is a sure way to end up on the bench. It wipes out big plays and can cause a huge momentum shift. Not retaliating was drilled into our guys as soon as two-a-days began.

Here's how we did it. Practices during the summer would get pretty intense, and everyone would be near the breaking point when it began. During a more intense session, one of us coaches might grab a kid who was going to rotate in and tell him to take a little bit extra after a certain player who was starting to lose his mind. That play would be run, and our guy would go after the mark. Nothing special, usually just a quick shove or a pointed comment or a hand on the facemask. If the mark retaliated, his side of the ball had to do 100 hit-its (also called up-downs, grass drills, whatever). It was a great way to really drive home the point that no matter what may happen before or what may be going on, you must be in control of your emotions at all times. And it isn't one person who pays the price for the lack of discipline, it's the entire team. Within the rules of the game and within a play, it was expected that every guy out there would punish the opponent; anything outside of the play or outside the rules was off limits.

Oh, I forgot the other part. While one side of the ball was doing their hit-its, the other side was standing there and taunting them. It simply jacked up the intensity, but the lesson not to retaliate wasn't forgotten.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2013, 10:03 PM
  #89
cujoflutie
Registered User
 
cujoflutie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to cujoflutie Send a message via Yahoo to cujoflutie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
First, I don't know that I support a complete ban. I had no issue with Iginla/Lecavalier, for example. I take great issue with the fact that third and fourth lines around the league are occupied by guys whose actual hockey talent wouldn't see them take a regular shift in the ECHL, let alone the NHL. The fact that Joel Rechlicz (he of 3 goals and 6 assists in 325 games across 8 leagues) ever skated in the NHL is an embarrassment. I think the steps the OHL has taken is a reasonable middle ground; it provides enough leeway for legitimate self-policing while removing the completely useless.

.
The OHL has the right idea, I just think it's on the low side; suspensions after 10 fights. Should be 15 (schedule is 68 games). I don't disagree, the game would be better without guys like Orr, McLaren, and Scott who do nothing but fight.


By the way, I wonder if the anti-fighting crowd noticed how many fans were running to the exits during the brawl tonight? They sure hate fighting in the NHL

cujoflutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 08:00 AM
  #90
Brainiac
Registered User
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Ooooooooh the grand conspiracy of silence theory. I've never heard that one before.
Read the post by Mayor Bee about fighting and cheap shots in the NBA. The NHL is at the exact same point, just about 35 years late.

Players won't say they want to remove fighting, but if you reduce it to a rare occurence (fine with it), most players will be happy. That's exactly what happened in the NBA. And a similar approach was applied in some rugby leagues as well.

The major problem in hockey will be to remove diving/embelishment and cheap shots. Use video review and harsh suspensions. It will take a maximum of one week and you'll have players showing respect for each other again.

NB: My post has nothing to do about hitting or the physical nature of the game. I'm just talking about fighting and cheap shots.

Brainiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 08:55 AM
  #91
cujoflutie
Registered User
 
cujoflutie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to cujoflutie Send a message via Yahoo to cujoflutie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
Read the post by Mayor Bee about fighting and cheap shots in the NBA. The NHL is at the exact same point, just about 35 years late.

Players won't say they want to remove fighting, but if you reduce it to a rare occurence (fine with it), most players will be happy. That's exactly what happened in the NBA. And a similar approach was applied in some rugby leagues as well.

The major problem in hockey will be to remove diving/embelishment and cheap shots. Use video review and harsh suspensions. It will take a maximum of one week and you'll have players showing respect for each other again.

NB: My post has nothing to do about hitting or the physical nature of the game. I'm just talking about fighting and cheap shots.

if you remove the diving, cheap play, and trolling, fighting will go down. Remove fighting first and the other garbage goes up.

cujoflutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 09:24 AM
  #92
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
Read the post by Mayor Bee about fighting and cheap shots in the NBA. The NHL is at the exact same point, just about 35 years late.

Players won't say they want to remove fighting, but if you reduce it to a rare occurence (fine with it), most players will be happy. That's exactly what happened in the NBA. And a similar approach was applied in some rugby leagues as well.

The major problem in hockey will be to remove diving/embelishment and cheap shots. Use video review and harsh suspensions. It will take a maximum of one week and you'll have players showing respect for each other again.

NB: My post has nothing to do about hitting or the physical nature of the game. I'm just talking about fighting and cheap shots.
You are lying. One incident the Kermit Washington one is not equivalent to hockey which from day 1 has had fights. And speaking only for myself, I don't give a rats ass what the NBA does and the game would be in much better shape without fans trying to emulate that league of felons dope heads and egomaniacs.

and the players have spoken. They certainly don't need you to explain what they would and would not like. They want fights, even guys who never fight. We can disagree all you like but you are not just disagreeing with me but all of the players. Faced with this realization, your position is that your argument carries the day? How very entitled.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 09:32 AM
  #93
WildcatMapleLeafs28
Registered User
 
WildcatMapleLeafs28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,709
vCash: 500
Hockey is going to be figure skating soon. The day the NHL bans fighting will be the last time I watch or spend a dime. Fighting has been a part of the game for over 100 years, it belongs. It would be like banning hitting it football.

WildcatMapleLeafs28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 09:34 AM
  #94
Brainiac
Registered User
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
and the players have spoken. They certainly don't need you to explain what they would and would not like. They want fights, even guys who never fight. We can disagree all you like but you are not just disagreeing with me but all of the players. Faced with this realization, your position is that your argument carries the day? How very entitled.
Well, there's a few times like this when you observe a certain trend in a system and the underlying forces will continue to drive the system in that direction, no matter what people say, do, or think.

I may be completely wrong on that one, for sure, but I think we'll see the end of fighting (as it is, with relatively useless goons) in the NHL sooner rather than later. It will either be as you said, by first removing cheap shots etc. A very reasonable approach, IMO. That, or a player will die on the ice and the NHL won't have the choice to do something. It already started will rule 48 and there's only one direction this can go.

Again, on that specific point: I'm not judging the fact that there's fighting in the NHL or even assessing what the players say about it. I'm just saying that it will eventually disappear. But I might be completely wrong as well. Who knows.

Brainiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 10:56 AM
  #95
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
You are lying. One incident the Kermit Washington one is not equivalent to hockey which from day 1 has had fights. And speaking only for myself, I don't give a rats ass what the NBA does and the game would be in much better shape without fans trying to emulate that league of felons dope heads and egomaniacs.
Like hell it's not. I already provided a brief history of the NBA's long history of fighting, including how common brawls used to be. I mentioned an incident two months before Washington/Tomjanovich in which two major players missed time with injuries resulting from a fight, with neither player being suspended.

The NBA didn't establish itself as anything resembling a major league until Jordan, Johnson, and Bird. NBA playoff games were still routinely tape-delayed and played overnight (if they were broadcast at all), and actual attendance across the league was absolutely brutal. The college game was regarded as being superior in terms of style of play and in terms of not having the garbage the NBA had.

Why? In a game played January 25, 1972 between Ohio State and Minnesota, there was a brawl that resulted in the game being called off early. OSU's Luke Witte appeared to throw an elbow at a Minnesota player as both teams were heading off at halftime. With less than a minute to go in a game that OSU led 50-44, Witte went up for a layup and was clotheslined by a Gopher. Minnesota's Corky Taylor offered a hand to help Witte up, then kicked Witte in the groin and punched him in the head. Minnesota's Ron Behagen then kicked Witte in the head repeatedly, knocking Witte unconscious and causing eye damage that remains to this day (41 years later). Another OSU player was sucker punched multiple times by Jim Brewer of Minnesota, while yet another OSU player was punched in the back of the head repeatedly by Minnesota's Dave Winfield (future MLB HOFer). When the brawl cleared, Minnesota's AD immediately forfeited the game; the conference later suspended Corky Taylor and Ron Behagen for the rest of the season.

The NCAA took steps during the ensuing offseason to eliminate some of what was believed to have led to this incident, and instituted a major crackdown on hard fouls and anything perceived to be unsportsmanlike. The end result was that the NCAA acted after a major incident, just as the NBA would later act after a major incident (Washington-Tomjanovich).

Has the NHL reacted in such a way? When Todd Bertuzzi knocked Steve Moore out of hockey in an instant, did the NHL really do anything? Had they done anything previously about "settling scores" and "sending messages"? If Vancouver was really so offended by Steve Moore hitting Markus Naslund, why didn't they do anything in the previous game? Why'd they save it for a blowout, two games against Colorado later?

Quote:
and the players have spoken. They certainly don't need you to explain what they would and would not like. They want fights, even guys who never fight. We can disagree all you like but you are not just disagreeing with me but all of the players. Faced with this realization, your position is that your argument carries the day? How very entitled.
I've spent enough time in locker rooms to know how this works. A survey is sent out to a select number of players, who respond to it. The media group who sent the survey out compiles the responses and reports them, with occasional anonymous comments such as "one Western Conference player said that he always looks forward to road trips in Raleigh due to the local cuisine". As part of these surveys, there's usually a question on fighting.

Let's say that a player says that fighting isn't part of the game and should be outlawed. Now, it's not every player who's part of the survey, it's a smaller number. And if someone says that fighting isn't a positive part of the game, the players who read the survey results (all of them) are going to start wondering who it is.
They'll try to find out who all had gotten the survey in the first place, which isn't too tough because guys talk about that type of thing in the locker room anyway. Then they'll start making calls to their friends on other teams to see who got the survey on that team, trying to figure out who mighthave stepped out of bounds here. Everyone will swear that it's not them who disparaged fighting (and, indirectly, their enforcer teammates).

They'll start wondering if it's a teammate, which in itself leads to all sorts of issues. There's an enforcer in this very locker room, damn it, and someone's basically throwing him out of the boat? Someone is questioning that teammate's usefulness to the team? Heresy! The guilty must suffer! And the media group that sent out the survey won't talk? That's okay; no one in our locker room will talk to them at all. They won't reveal the guilty party, so we just won't talk to them.

You want to know the players' opinions? Survey every single one of them with in-person interviews, with a series of questions that specifically pertain to nothing but fighting. And make it from someone outside the media, so there can't be any fallout directed toward anyone who had nothing to do with it.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 11:05 AM
  #96
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildcatMapleLeafs28 View Post
Hockey is going to be figure skating soon. The day the NHL bans fighting will be the last time I watch or spend a dime. Fighting has been a part of the game for over 100 years, it belongs. It would be like banning hitting it football.
Considering that tackling is sort of important to the actual game of football, those two aren't remotely comparable.

You also ignore the fact that the NFL has taken major steps over the years to clean up aspects of the game that served no purpose. The NFL created a rule called "roughing the passer" back in the 1930s, because too many defensive players were chasing after a passer way after a pass was actually thrown. Imagine how stupid that would look...some gargantuan chasing after a more skilled player who's away from the play, trying to do nothing except intimidate or injure him. What kind of league would look at that as being a good thing? That's why the NFL banned it 80 years ago.

The NFL has also outlawed:
- Clotheslining (1940s)
- Head tackling (1950s)
- Tackling with the facemask (1950s)
- Head slapping (1970s)
- Spearing (1980s)
- Using the head as a weapon (2010s)

As recently as the 1940s, the NFL used to mandate that a player had to be tackled and pinned before the play was blown dead. The HOF running back Steve Van Buren once had a long touchdown run that involved him being knocked off his feet five times, with the play continuing each time because he wasn't pinned.

The point is, the NFL has a long history of eliminating actions that bastardize the name of the game. Football is meant to be hard and physical, but attempting to actually incapacitate opposing players isn't something that they have ever allowed to remain in the game. Yes, injuries happen. Injuries that happen as a result of the game are one thing. Injuries that happen as a result of something that can only be classified as intentional, reckless, or negligent attempt to injure is quite another.

You know what the NHL has done? Outlawed players leaving the bench while a fight is going on, which immediately caused the end of bench-clearing brawls. Was there a huge outrage at that time, suggesting that without bench-emptying brawls that the NHL would suffer? Did anyone consult the players to ask what they thought of brawls?


Last edited by Mayor Bee: 09-23-2013 at 11:17 AM.
Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 03:14 PM
  #97
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,741
vCash: 500
How about Game 6, perhaps not a fighting major on the books but Marchand continually punched Sedin in the face while not ONE Canucks, including Sedin himself, stopped him. Guess who won Game 7 with ease? Boston. You can bet the fact that no Canuck came in the defense of their captain was a hot topic in the Boston dressing room. So you can't tell people fighting doesn't have its place. Ask Marchand, he ran around in Game 7 with ease, scoring two goals. The Sedins? Invisible. I wonder why.

Geez, you'd think people assume we've been watching ballet all of these years. Hockey has some fighting in it, let's not get our panties in a knot over it, it's just a game.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 03:27 PM
  #98
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
What purpose does it serve? Is this hockey's version of a pitcher throwing over a batter's head, or a cover man in football clocking the returner who called for a fair catch, or a defender in basketball clotheslining the guy driving to the basket? All of them would "send a message" or "fire the team up" and have little to do with the actual game itself; why should hockey be the only sport that allows message-sending or firing up?

The fact that something has been around for a long time doesn't make it right or beneficial, and it certainly doesn't make it above questioning. I live near groups of people who have lived their lives according to an idea that tradition is sacred and no advancement is necessary; they're called the Amish. They produce good milk and cheese and make some terrific furniture, but that's about it.
I can see by the amount of posts on this thread you are one of "those" types of fans that is trying to outlaw fighting. We love your type in our game, not really. But if you listen to the media you'd think you guys would be the majority. However, poll after poll after poll shows fans still love when the players drop the mitts, if needed.

The Amish is a poor example of things. However, there is electricity at NHL arenas. You are part of a loud minority, you just need to suck it up the way the game is played.

As for the other sports, there is a reason a fight is more honourable than the other things you mentioned. A punt returner in the NFL shouldn't be hit from a fair catch for reasons that he is vulnerable. Being hit like that is a cheap shot and is the equivalent of being hit from behind in hockey. A pitcher throwing a 95mph fastball at a batter's head is NOT the equivalent of fighting. The batter rarely has a chance. He doesn't consent to this. Two fighters in the NHL do. Look at last night in the game with Toronto and Buffalo. I treat NHL pre season like a used kleenex so I don't bother to watch it, but that was entertaining hockey. Two teams trying to set a tone, not backing down, MEN fighting MEN (go figure, what a concept) and everything is settled on the ice. It serves a purpose, much more so to the people playing. They would know it more than we would right?


Quote:
That sounds a lot like the old "support the president or leave the country" rhetoric that most logical individuals reject immediately
That isn't necessarily a bad mantra. It is part of the game. I still don't like the netting behind the nets above the glass. I think it puts a barrier between the fans and the players. I still watch hockey though and accept it. Not everyone is going to like 100% of the things associated with their favourite sport.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 04:41 PM
  #99
Brainiac
Registered User
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
How about Game 6, perhaps not a fighting major on the books but Marchand continually punched Sedin in the face while not ONE Canucks, including Sedin himself, stopped him. Guess who won Game 7 with ease?
Anectodal evidence at its best. This play had absolutely no outcome on the final result. Boston played a much better game 7 and that's it.

The real problem is that Marchand should have been suspended for a few games. The game is hockey, not I-punch-you-in-the-face-ha-ha-ha-funny.

Brainiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2013, 07:00 PM
  #100
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I can see by the amount of posts on this thread you are one of "those" types of fans that is trying to outlaw fighting. We love your type in our game, not really. But if you listen to the media you'd think you guys would be the majority. However, poll after poll after poll shows fans still love when the players drop the mitts, if needed.

The Amish is a poor example of things. However, there is electricity at NHL arenas. You are part of a loud minority, you just need to suck it up the way the game is played.
I just said above that I don't know that I support a complete ban, and that I find the OHL's efforts to be reasonable.

Quote:
As for the other sports, there is a reason a fight is more honourable than the other things you mentioned. A punt returner in the NFL shouldn't be hit from a fair catch for reasons that he is vulnerable. Being hit like that is a cheap shot and is the equivalent of being hit from behind in hockey. A pitcher throwing a 95mph fastball at a batter's head is NOT the equivalent of fighting. The batter rarely has a chance. He doesn't consent to this. Two fighters in the NHL do. Look at last night in the game with Toronto and Buffalo. I treat NHL pre season like a used kleenex so I don't bother to watch it, but that was entertaining hockey. Two teams trying to set a tone, not backing down, MEN fighting MEN (go figure, what a concept) and everything is settled on the ice. It serves a purpose, much more so to the people playing. They would know it more than we would right?
You know who else didn't consent to anything? Phil Kessel. He got chased by someone 9" and 75 pounds heavier in that "honorable" matchup. Is the NHL better for having Phil Kessel needing to defend himself against someone who's scored 1 more goal in his NHL career than I have?

I don't think that Donald Brashear consented to get clubbed upside the head by Marty McSorley. They fought earlier, McSorley wanted a rematch and Brashear didn't. Honor would dictate that you don't press the issue, rather than swinging a stick at someone.

Quote:
That isn't necessarily a bad mantra. It is part of the game. I still don't like the netting behind the nets above the glass. I think it puts a barrier between the fans and the players. I still watch hockey though and accept it. Not everyone is going to like 100% of the things associated with their favourite sport.
I don't like 100% of the things associated with my favorite sport. Why's it okay for you to complain about netting, while me encouraging actual debate on the role of fighting makes me "one of 'those' types"? What makes you the authority to speak on behalf of hockey while casting me as some type of outsider?

Mayor Bee 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 04:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.