It makes hockey the only sport that you don't shut off when there is a blowout! Its not as good as it used to be (With the instigator in the last 5mins BS) but that just means you got to get your message sending done earlier.
Which gets me back to the 5min rule.. Why would they put that in? Don't they want to entertain their paying fans? I don't think I have ever heard anyone I was at a game with complain that there were too many fights in the last 5mins.
Which gets me back to the 5min rule.. Why would they put that in? Don't they want to entertain their paying fans? I don't think I have ever heard anyone I was at a game with complain that there were too many fights in the last 5mins.
The idea I think was so that no team would "goon" it up at the end of a game. I say, just get rid of the instigator all together.
Necessary. A great way to wake your team up if they're playing sluggish, also for making someone answer for questionable hits. One example would be the Wisniewski-Doan fight a few weeks ago. After Doan got hit, he and Wiz went toe to toe later in the game. Of course it doesn't always work that way, but after the game Doan considered the whole thing done after the fight. Just shows how important fights can be in our sport. I will echo the desire to see the instigator rule done with, as well.
You can also call it fantastic for the fact that a grand majority of fans at the game will go crazy when a fight happens.
I'm not at all against fighting in hockey, in fact I love it...but I don't think it's necessary.
While I love two guys getting into a tussle to charge their respective teams, I'm getting a little sick and tired of the fights that break out after a clean hit is delivered.
its stupid and having a forum about it is stupid too.
albeit fighting is engaging to watch, much like train wrecks or plane crashes are.
Well here is the simple fact Fighting is part of the game . If you don't like it don't watch it . There is plenty of college hockey you can watch. And having a forum for it is for fans of it. If you don;t want in it leave
An opinion would be based on a variety of facts. That is, assuming it's logical.
Bananas taste better than oranges.
^^ That's my opinion, is it based on facts? No. An opinion is often just that - an opinion. If he thinks "fights are stupid" maybe it's just because he doesn't enjoy watching them. He doesn't need to explain the facts about head injuries or something.
^^ That's my opinion, is it based on facts? No. An opinion is often just that - an opinion. If he thinks "fights are stupid" maybe it's just because he doesn't enjoy watching them. He doesn't need to explain the facts about head injuries or something.
There's still a reason for that opinion, and whether it's factual evidence or not it should be reinforced. Even if this was the case, my initial point was misinterpreted a little. I meant he wouldn't return to reinforce his opinion, whether through data or just why he thinks fights are stupid.
