HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Should Fighting in Hockey be Banned???

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-14-2004, 01:07 PM
  #51
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa_Rules
Just like to know your opinions on this. After the the Bertuzzi hit this issue is out in the open again. Is fighting a legitimate part of hockey or senseless violence. I'm sure this question will spark some hot debate. Have at it!
What does the Bertuzzi Incedent have to do with fighting, The Bertuzzi thing was a cheap shot. I would argue that if there was no Insigator rule and more fighting the incedent would even have happened. My reasoning for this is that if on the original hit by Moore on Naslund if there is no Instigator rule someone on the Nucks would have gave more a beating and it would have ended there. The Bertuzzi thing is a perfect examp;e of why there should always be fighting in hockey.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 01:09 PM
  #52
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
please...football is about the big hit as much as anything. but its not about fighting. basketball can be as physical as any game, but its not about fighting.

again you sound like someone that finds the frozen four a bore because they don't fight.
It is in a way college hockey has more cheapshots because of the llack of fighting and the full face shields.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 01:09 PM
  #53
JOHNBOY
BUFFALO SABRES
 
JOHNBOY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denver NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,146
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JOHNBOY
HELL NO. Fighting has alway's been a part of our great game,and it alway's will be.

JOHNBOY is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 01:10 PM
  #54
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakeeye
I have one question: What in the hell does Bertuzzi's actions have to do with fighting?
Exactly, it has absolutely nothing to do with fighting.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 01:14 PM
  #55
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEli
Tell that to the 21,000 people standing and cheering for Domi and Langdon after their long fight in the first period of the Leafs/Habs game tonight. Fighting is exciting.

It does prevent more injuries than it causes. If fighting was outlawed, retribution would be handed out like it was handed out by Todd Bertuzzi this week. It's better for two guys to throw a few punches and get the animosity out of their system and their teammates' systems than see somebody get cheapshotted.
You are waisting you breath bro, some of these people who are anti fighting are never going to change. Since I have came over here this is about the billionth stupid ass thread with the tea toatlers trying to ban fighting and frankly its getting old.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 01:16 PM
  #56
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Go away.....if you don't like fighting don't try to ruin it for the 95% of real hockey fans that love it. NHL will never get rid of fighting.....it would lose soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many fans.
Amen bro, let the pasifists go watch tennis.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 01:18 PM
  #57
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazee
What a childish response.
Why is it childish, the guy is 100% correct some of you just wont admit it.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 04:26 PM
  #58
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
There is no "correct" opinion.
You cannot say someone is right, just because you think the same.

It's all about opinion. You can bring in arguments to convince the other side, or you can just answer in a stupid way because you don't have the same opinion.
Even if there was a "correct" opinion, you still can answer in a respectful manner.


I, personally, wouldn't ban fighting, because it's part of the game.
That doesn't mean a game needs fights, because it can be interesting enough without one.

Sanderson is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 08:00 PM
  #59
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,460
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazee
That was, and still is a childish response.



No, Your response was childish because you show no tolerance for any view that disagrees with your own. I stated the reasons I am moving from being neutral about fighting to being against it in post #20 in this thread. I stated how I would do it in post #27. And your response was that I should ‘Go Away’. That is childish. It is also childish to claim you speak for 95% of hockey fans. If hockey banned fighting, it might lose some fans. IMO, it would gain far more. And…since I’ve been a hockey fan for a very long time, I am not going anywhere.

Grow up. Formulate logical arguments for your positions and realize that your opinion is no more valid that anyone elses.
Like I said before....if you don't like fighting in the game, change the channel or go get a cup of tea. Don't ruin it for the rest of us. I'm not going to argue with you.....stick with college hockey.

Jason MacIsaac is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 08:08 PM
  #60
paxtang
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Harrisburg
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 500
If the players want it to stay, why should we ban it? No player wants cheap shots to stay, but they almost all want fighting in teh game and the instigator gone. If they want to police the game, so be it.

If the arguement is, well we need to change the game to help market it, if I see any proof that fighting causes the NHL to lose popularity, then I'll buy that arguement. European leagues have no fighting, they are also less popular than the NHL.

paxtang is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 08:11 PM
  #61
Knucklez
Registered User
 
Knucklez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Behind the bench!
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
I laugh at the propesition. Fighting is an integral part of hockey, it's part of what makes it so identifiably "Canadian". Take out the fighting and toughness in hockey, and you take out part of what makes it so entertaining, for me at least.

Knucklez is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 08:25 PM
  #62
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,154
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Like I said before....if you don't like fighting in the game, change the channel or go get a cup of tea. Don't ruin it for the rest of us. I'm not going to argue with you.....stick with college hockey.
You have already repeated this a few times. It wasn't a good argument the first time. Stop being so conceited as to think your way to view hockey is the only true enlightened way.

You are not in the position to order anyone to start/stop watching the game. So stop acting like you are.

Freudian is offline  
Old
03-14-2004, 09:09 PM
  #63
NJD Jester
Registered User
 
NJD Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 960
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to NJD Jester
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson
There is no "correct" opinion.
You cannot say someone is right, just because you think the same.
It's all about opinion.
Well, that's a cop out.

Here are some facts:

1. The notion that banning fighting would increase hockey's market share is a fallacy. The NHL's market share (ratings, gate) have actually declined since the instigator rule was instated. So while the NHL has taken measures to decrease fighting, interest in the sport hasn't increased--it's decreased.

2. Players, by and large, feel anti-fighting legislation (re: the instigator) has tied their hands in regards to letting them police their own.

3. A crowd of fans will stand and cheer when there's a fight. Doesn't make it right, but it's a fact.

4. Banning fighting would not have prevented Todd Bertuzzi from breaking Steve Moore's neck.

NJD Jester is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:48 AM
  #64
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
You have already repeated this a few times. It wasn't a good argument the first time. Stop being so conceited as to think your way to view hockey is the only true enlightened way.

You are not in the position to order anyone to start/stop watching the game. So stop acting like you are.
He isnt oredering anyone to do anything, anymore than you are. you are just singling him out because he doesnt agree with you.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:49 AM
  #65
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD Jester
Well, that's a cop out.

Here are some facts:

1. The notion that banning fighting would increase hockey's market share is a fallacy. The NHL's market share (ratings, gate) have actually declined since the instigator rule was instated. So while the NHL has taken measures to decrease fighting, interest in the sport hasn't increased--it's decreased.

2. Players, by and large, feel anti-fighting legislation (re: the instigator) has tied their hands in regards to letting them police their own.

3. A crowd of fans will stand and cheer when there's a fight. Doesn't make it right, but it's a fact.

4. Banning fighting would not have prevented Todd Bertuzzi from breaking Steve Moore's neck.
Best post in the thread.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:51 AM
  #66
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,154
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
He isnt oredering anyone to do anything, anymore than you are. you are just singling him out because he doesnt agree with you.
No, im singling him out because he isn't arguing for fighting. He is arguing that those that don't love fighting has no right to speak their minds and should quit watching hockey. It's debating on a sandbox level.

If he want to discuss why he think fighting is great and should be a big part of the NHL no one will have any problems with that.

Freudian is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:17 AM
  #67
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 2,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
I am of the opinion of Ken Dryden, I think fighting is stupid but at the same time ( and somewhat hypocritically ) I enjoy a good fight here and now. A ban on fighting is a rather far-fetched even with Bettman running show. As for the matter of players policing themselves, there really isn't any evidence to suggest that things would be better or worse with or without fighting / with or without the instigator rule. Never mind that the league wouldn't stand a Domi or Brashear going after Havlat, and it wouldn't be Havlat protecting himself; rather it'd be Ray or Neil to protect him.

Frankly, I don't really see any factual support for any of the arguments that could be made in this case, so unless the general managers or NHL feel fighting should be removed ( yeah right ) it's here to stay.

A side note, but for all this talk about players policing the game.. isn't that what the refs are there for? Of course they're bound by the rules - or should be - so it seems interesting that the growing sentiment frmo the players is that the refs are incapable of controlling the play... not that that's terribly surprising to hear.

Cap'n Flavour is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:18 AM
  #68
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,154
vCash: 50
Is it just me or is it more common today to thrown punches at a guy that is already down? Since I don't follow fights I miss most of the flighting clips that those that frequent fighting sites check out, so I don't know if it is just coincidence that those fights I do see seem to have more punches thrown at a down guy.

Not a trick question here, just curiosity.

Freudian is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:12 AM
  #69
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
Is it just me or is it more common today to thrown punches at a guy that is already down? Since I don't follow fights I miss most of the flighting clips that those that frequent fighting sites check out, so I don't know if it is just coincidence that those fights I do see seem to have more punches thrown at a down guy.

Not a trick question here, just curiosity.
Not being sarcastic, the problem may be that you are watching only clips. If you see entire fights they havent changed,in fact there were more punches thrown after players were down and when linesmen didnt do a good job of tying their man up in the past. Todays fighters seem more respectful to me about not teeing off on a guy they have at a disadvantage.

c-carp is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:45 AM
  #70
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,214
vCash: 500
I have a contrarian viewpoint, at least contrarian in these circles. Let me toss a few points out there. Hope you don't mind the cut and paste from Fanhome.

In many Canadian newspapers now, editorialists and sports columnists are evoking the idea of banning fighting in hockey. Some of the very best journalistic minds in Canada, both English and French, make very persuasive cases to put an end to fighting in hockey. In the Globe and Mail alone, Jeffrey Simpson http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../TPColumnists/ has decried the Cherryfication of hockey, as well as the pervasive sickness of the game http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...effrey+Simpson , and both Stephen Brunt and Eric Duhatschek have followed suit http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...=Stephen+Brunt ,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ric+Duhatschek .

Similar positions have been published in La Presse, both in the editorials and the columns of Michel Blanchard and Réjean Tremblay (unfortunately, Cyberpresse.ca doesn't make available online these articles).

At the risk of being taken as an Anti-Cherry (even though I like the guy and always found him entertaining)... I have a lifelong love of hockey, I've played as a kid, and in an intramural league during my graduate studies at McGill, and I for one would love to see it rid itself of fighting. You can still have a contact sport without the thugs, and with respect among players, as demonstrated by the NFL. You can contrast it facetiously with tennis, but fact is NFL is a contact sport in a well-run, well-marketed league, and it doesn't tolerate fighting.

If it did, there wouldn't need be this ambiguous attitude towards facial protection: it would mandate facial protection appropriate for the game, let's say a visor and a boxer-type mouthguard, and that would eliminate a large number of concussions and eye injuries. Currently, the league will not endorse facial protection (and tackle the code amongst North American players that a visor is for soft players, with the result that most North American players needlessly are at risk from facial trauma: eye injuries, jaw injuries, concussions: yes, concussions), because it reduces the likelihood of fighting, unless it mandates a model that velcros on and off, in which case it clearly endorses fighting, which would be politically indefensible for the NHL. Do away with fighting, and the impetus not to wear facial protection falls apart: the likes of Al MacInnis, perhaps Pat Lafontaine, are playing, and the likes of Bryan Berard and Eric Lindros are even more formidable players.

It might even go further, and install far more tolerant boards (the technology in rubber and composite materials is there), reducing the likelihood of shoulder injuries as well as concussions, once again. But that's another issue. Personally, I think it would be better off keeping as many top players in the game as possible. Football players play only about 1/5 the games that hockey players do, don't get run into stiff boards, and no one would argue that it isn't a contact sport.

Is it possible to do this without denaturing the game? It all depends on what we mean when we talk about the nature of the game. Seems to me, based on highly entertaining Olympic tournaments, as well as playoffs where fighting is minimal, that hockey can thrive as a contact sport, without the fighting. Football certainly has, and is doing very well as a professional sport.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:46 AM
  #71
Hordichuk_24
Registered User
 
Hordichuk_24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,391
vCash: 500
To put it simple.

No way.

Hordichuk_24 is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:48 AM
  #72
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,214
vCash: 500
Now, I'll take on the issue that taking away the instigator penalty, and allowing players police themselves, is the answer. Once again, forgive the cut and paste.
I've been saying that the league is not doing enough to stop violence. It needs a ceiling on violent acts, beyond which it must let criminal and civil law take over, and stop protecting players, for what essentially are criminal acts, by viewing all of these acts as internal, and handling them all as such based on a scheme of suspensions and fines.

What those who call for the end of the instigator rule are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the league is already doing too much to stem violence, in the form of a misguided instigator rule.

That position leads to some absurd scenarios. Let's say a guy like Zdeno Chara (what is he, 6'9"?) assaults a player for an arbitrary reason that makes sense to him. Who, based on that solution, is really going to make a guy like Chara pay? Seriously? So in this case, that solution would mete out a lesser penalty to Chara than other tough guys, simply because no one can kick his ass. This situation leads to the inescapable conclusion that only a higher authority can punish someone like Chara, and that the truly tough guys in the league can act with relative impunity, in comparison with the pseudo-toughs, as no one can really exact retribution from them effectively.

Now then, we've already established that the current way of handing out suspensions and fines does not pose a significant deterrent to acts like Bertuzzi's, or someone like Dale Hunter before him. So you have proposition A that says that the truly toughest guys cannot be effectively punished, proposition B that says that the current way of handling excessive violence is not effective either. The conclusion of this syllogism is that stronger action must be taken. QED

Another absurd scenario is if a player actually dies as a result of a savage attack, and make no mistake, one could. What is an appropriate response then? Based on my model, the law takes over and treats him as a criminal. Based on that of the instigator-repealers, someone else beats him up, and hopefully, once again, you're not dealing with a Chara or an elite tough guy as the aggressor. Obviously, this leads once again to higher authority meting out punishment, and clearly, no combination of fines or suspension is an appropriate response to manslaughter. Once again, inescapably, you have a scenario that requires the intervention of the law, so the remaining problem is one of determining the threshold for intervention. Do you want to leave this threshold as high as requiring a fatality, or do you, or rather civilized society, want to set it somewhat lower than that? As we say in French, to ask that question is to answer it. Once again, and based on a completely separate logic, QED.

The league needs to get tougher on violence, not more permissive.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:56 AM
  #73
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,214
vCash: 500
As for the notion that Bertuzzi's act has nothing to with fighting, it seems like a pretty good impression of fighting to me, although one player was on the receiving end and the other on the giving end.

If the league penalizes any kind of vigilante justice, then players don't have the reflex to exact retribution themselves, particularly if the penalty is stiff enough.

As for the notion that stickwork will go up if fighting is taken out, that can be met with sufficiently stiff crackdown on it. If the penalty for stickwork is even stiffer than fighting, and implemented with sufficient vigilance, that takes away the impetus for it. The NFL is serious about dirty hits, while the penalties for them quite often have a bearing on the score, so you don't see them often.

Okay, that was my two yens' worth. I couldn't bear to see all that Cherry orthodoxy without a response.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 03:55 AM
  #74
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanMontrealExpat
As for the notion that Bertuzzi's act has nothing to with fighting, it seems like a pretty good impression of fighting to me, although one player was on the receiving end and the other on the giving end.

If the league penalizes any kind of vigilante justice, then players don't have the reflex to exact retribution themselves, particularly if the penalty is stiff enough.

As for the notion that stickwork will go up if fighting is taken out, that can be met with sufficiently stiff crackdown on it. If the penalty for stickwork is even stiffer than fighting, and implemented with sufficient vigilance, that takes away the impetus for it. The NFL is serious about dirty hits, while the penalties for them quite often have a bearing on the score, so you don't see them often.

Okay, that was my two yens' worth. I couldn't bear to see all that Cherry orthodoxy without a response.
they've tried the crackdown on stickwork, but it hasn't done squat, if anything stickwork's gone up since the attempted crackdown, .... too much crackingdown leads to the slowing down of the game, and no one wants that, ... as has been shown by the attepmted implementation of the hurry up faceoffs etc. ... bottom line is the refs don't know what to call and what not to call from year to year and game to game even, calls flying in every which direction now and no one seems to be consistant enough to please the players let alone the fans as well, if the instigator goes then the world opens back up to the players, they know the penalties for fighting and if they so choose they'll take the penalty if it's sending a message you don't screw w/ our star players the cheapshots will be reduced, the stickwork will be lesser because they'll know if they do too much they're lookin to get a beatdown... it'll open the game up more and bring more excitement as a whole to the game, meaning it'll pick both the teams and the fans up ... it'll gotta be done, simple as that without the league will continue to drop off the map IMO

garry1221 is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 04:27 AM
  #75
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,214
vCash: 500
The NHL hasn't attempted a crackdown on anything on a sustained basis. If they call the rules based on the rulebook, not based on the score or how late it is in the game; if they add to that an automatic match penalty for that kind of stick infractions, as well as progressively worse suspensions for repeat offenders, and have the guts to enforce it, I would call that a crackdown.

If they invigilate the rules the way the NFL enforces its own, I would call that a crackdown. Until then, the NHL has made its bed, and must now lie in it.


Last edited by VirginiaMtlExpat: 03-15-2004 at 04:32 AM.
VirginiaMtlExpat 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 08:16 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.