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!

AHL new fighting rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2016, 01:28 PM
  #1
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47,354
vCash: 500
AHL new fighting rules

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...ting-1.3669645

Game misconducts for staged fighting. Suspension for the 10th fighting major. A two gamer for the 14th.

txpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2016, 02:51 PM
  #2
Samzilla
Prust & Dorsett are
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,107
vCash: 50
Good. Small step in the right direction.

__________________
Calm veteran presence.
Samzilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2016, 03:55 PM
  #3
Sheppy
Registered User
 
Sheppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,947
vCash: 500
Hahahahahahaha, what a joke.

Sheppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2016, 05:48 PM
  #4
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Its not staged fights but fights on or immediately after the puck drop, so the guys who want to go do a little pirouette first then get down to business.

But its good to know that this solution based on frequency affects such a large number of guys who figh. Oh wait, I'm sorry that's not right at all. In the NHL it would affect 4 players.

Mabey if this gets adopted you won't have the linesmen jumping in early to break up fights before they start. Then again, mabey not.

Big fat meh

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2016, 07:58 PM
  #5
JaytheAMcClement
Allstar User
 
JaytheAMcClement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Ridley College
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Rich Clune likes the changes

__________________

Yeah, I won that fight
JaytheAMcClement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2016, 07:29 PM
  #6
adsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Its not staged fights but fights on or immediately after the puck drop, so the guys who want to go do a little pirouette first then get down to business.

But its good to know that this solution based on frequency affects such a large number of guys who figh. Oh wait, I'm sorry that's not right at all. In the NHL it would affect 4 players.

Mabey if this gets adopted you won't have the linesmen jumping in early to break up fights before they start. Then again, mabey not.

Big fat meh
In the AHL, it would be about a dozen guys, based on last season. It isn't 1975!
So I agree with you. This just makes it look like the AHL is doing something.

Next, the BOG will vote on peace in the Middle East.

adsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 05:44 AM
  #7
DoobeeDoobeeDoo
The Doobster
 
DoobeeDoobeeDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Fighting is no longer as important to hockey marketing as it used, we should gradually phase out this aspect of the game the more we're learning about the dangers of CTE.

DoobeeDoobeeDoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 10:27 AM
  #8
uTurris
We the True North
 
uTurris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,747
vCash: 500
Goons sit in the press box anyway.

uTurris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 05:12 PM
  #9
Your Boy Troy
Registered User
 
Your Boy Troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoobeeDoobeeDoo View Post
Fighting is no longer as important to hockey marketing as it used, we should gradually phase out this aspect of the game the more we're learning about the dangers of CTE.
Why don't we phase out the game of hockey itself if we are worried about the mental health of athletes? I am serious. If we are going to start a progressive movement, let us go all in. The game is a risk to one's health with or without fighting. Same is relevant with hitting.

The game itself is too fast. Other necessities such as the boards, pucks, sticks, skates, nets, shoulder/elbow pads have all contributed in catastrophic injuries (death in some cases).

Your Boy Troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 05:15 PM
  #10
Pip
[hello] :)
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 59,241
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoobeeDoobeeDoo View Post
Fighting is no longer as important to hockey marketing as it used, we should gradually phase out this aspect of the game the more we're learning about the dangers of CTE.
Which is ultimately a good thing for the sport. Fighting does not serve a purpose in modern hockey.

__________________
2015-2016 CanucksHF Yahoo Fantasy League Champion
Pip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 09:25 PM
  #11
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoobeeDoobeeDoo View Post
Fighting is no longer as important to hockey marketing as it used, we should gradually phase out this aspect of the game the more we're learning about the dangers of CTE.
More concussions from hits so spare me your feigned concern.

And since we are learning so much more about CTE perhaps you can let us all know about the huge strides we are making for a condition that we can STILL only diagnose post humously.

When the players no longer want to self police we can discuss phasing it out of the game. Until then if it rustles your jimmies, turn your head and look away.

Fights stay as long as the players want it. The likelihood the owners lock the players out over fighting is nil.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 09:31 PM
  #12
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
Which is ultimately a good thing for the sport. Fighting does not serve a purpose in modern hockey.
Aside from the opinion of the overwhelming number of people who are at risk, that it acts as a deterrant and keeps guys with knives on their feetn clubs in their hands and malice in their hearts, honest.

But seriously i'll let them all know they are and have been misled because you proclaimed it so. Who are they to question you who has to live with the consequences? Oh that'4 not right at all its thew players who will reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. I'm sure that conforming to your desires must trump their actual skin in the game.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2016, 03:00 PM
  #13
Harry Waters
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Boy Troy View Post
Why don't we phase out the game of hockey itself if we are worried about the mental health of athletes? I am serious. If we are going to start a progressive movement, let us go all in. The game is a risk to one's health with or without fighting. Same is relevant with hitting.

The game itself is too fast. Other necessities such as the boards, pucks, sticks, skates, nets, shoulder/elbow pads have all contributed in catastrophic injuries (death in some cases).
While I agree to a certain extent (there are risks involved), this logic is not applicable. People die in car crashes, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of cars. At the same time not many people would argue against seatbelts, because they make it a little safer.

It's not about achieving a no-risk-environment. It's about reducing certain risks, especially if their function/necessity can be questioned. I don't really have a strong stance in the matter as I'm not a fan of this no-risk-mentality many people today are sporting, but your argument is not a good one. If you take away some of the things you mentioned, you would change hockey in a far more serious way than by reducing fighting.

On the topic in general: Many leagues get by with a lot less fighting and they are doing just fine and are not full of violence because of a lack of accountability. From what I know there are no more vicious injuries in the European leagues caused by players because they feel that they are not held responsible. That's one of the main arguments pro fighting, but when I look at the worst cheap shots in hockey, I always get the feeling that many of them happen in leagues/times where fighting is/was far more common, not less. I'm not saying that they are happening because of fighting, I'm just saying that the game changes continually and obviously fighting didn't really prevent cheap shots significantly, if at all.

Harry Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2016, 03:02 PM
  #14
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47,354
vCash: 500
What does it deter?

txpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2016, 04:18 PM
  #15
Pip
[hello] :)
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 59,241
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Aside from the opinion of the overwhelming number of people who are at risk, that it acts as a deterrant and keeps guys with knives on their feetn clubs in their hands and malice in their hearts, honest.

But seriously i'll let them all know they are and have been misled because you proclaimed it so. Who are they to question you who has to live with the consequences? Oh that'4 not right at all its thew players who will reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. I'm sure that conforming to your desires must trump their actual skin in the game.
Hockey players often dont agree with changes that are for their own good, just like mandating helmets and visors. Players are also unlikely to call a teammates role as an enforcer useless. Fighting doesn't deter cheapshots or keep players honest. Sorry that you believe in fairytales.

Pip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2016, 06:48 PM
  #16
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
Hockey players often dont agree with changes that are for their own good, just like mandating helmets and visors. Players are also unlikely to call a teammates role as an enforcer useless. Fighting doesn't deter cheapshots or keep players honest. Sorry that you believe in fairytales.
What I believe, like what YOU believe is immaterial. The people who will suffer the consequences or reap the benefits OVERWHELMINGLY believe it does. Until you ( or I) have skin in the game what we believe is moot.

Believe it or not people generally don't look favorably on outsiders sitting ontheir fat ***** telling them ( the ones potentially at risk) how THEY should act to maximize the pleasure of some third party.

And if fights don't deter anything whats to stop guys from serially running goalies who are hot in the playoffs.

And as much as the anti fighting crowd don't like it, I'll ask it anyways: do you play? Because its a physical game where beefs ( real and imagined) are born and if guys want to settle beefs only a moron prefers it be done at the end of a stick or by running a guys numbers. If veefs have to be squashed, 10 out of 10 dentists want it done face to face with 100℅ consent from both parties.

The NHL has never existed sans self policing. Its at a near record low and the anti fighting chicken littles STILL act like its some pandemic.

Fighting stops when the players renounce it. Not a day sooner.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2016, 08:25 PM
  #17
Drrocket9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
^

Truth

Drrocket9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 07:55 AM
  #18
Fenian24
Registered User
 
Fenian24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
Hockey players often dont agree with changes that are for their own good, just like mandating helmets and visors. Players are also unlikely to call a teammates role as an enforcer useless. Fighting doesn't deter cheapshots or keep players honest. Sorry that you believe in fairytales.
Thank you for knowing more than people who play the game, nothing like a little righteous indignation and trying to be every bodies mommy.
Go watch soccer, seems more your speed. (Although if you hit the ball with your head you may get a concussion, maybe swimming, no you may drown, Track and field, no, wait, javelin through the chest, too violent, Badminton, no maybe an eye injury. Maybe just watch grass grow, wrap yourself in bubble wrap and never leave the house. While your at it stop trying to force your opinions on others because you don't like fighting)

Fenian24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 12:33 PM
  #19
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Waters View Post
While I agree to a certain extent (there are risks involved), this logic is not applicable. People die in car crashes, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of cars. At the same time not many people would argue against seatbelts, because they make it a little safer.

It's not about achieving a no-risk-environment. It's about reducing certain risks, especially if their function/necessity can be questioned. I don't really have a strong stance in the matter as I'm not a fan of this no-risk-mentality many people today are sporting, but your argument is not a good one. If you take away some of the things you mentioned, you would change hockey in a far more serious way than by reducing fighting.

On the topic in general: Many leagues get by with a lot less fighting and they are doing just fine and are not full of violence because of a lack of accountability. From what I know there are no more vicious injuries in the European leagues caused by players because they feel that they are not held responsible. That's one of the main arguments pro fighting, but when I look at the worst cheap shots in hockey, I always get the feeling that many of them happen in leagues/times where fighting is/was far more common, not less. I'm not saying that they are happening because of fighting, I'm just saying that the game changes continually and obviously fighting didn't really prevent cheap shots significantly, if at all.
the NHL is NOT those other leagues and the argument that you are promoting that fighting is somehow an avarice whose " function/necessity" can be questioned is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I've heard my entire life. Over 4 decades of the Micheal farber types saying that the game would be ooooh so much better and prettier without the fisticuffs. The net result of this to the PLAYERS opinion about its " function/necessity" ? more than 9/10 players don't want it gone.

This isnt a fan issue, because the players do not, have not and will not fight to appease the crowds. They fight for reasons, many of which are lost on the causal fan but whether the place is packed or not, if you run the goalie you best be getting ready to defend yourself.

As to whether it prevents cheap shots, in the nhl you can't run that experiment because the league has ALWAYS had fighting. And no one EVER said that fighting is an absolute deterrant. What the players have said, almost unanimously, is that having to settle accounts right then and there leads them to belieive that it keeps guys honest. whether that assertion is factually true is not nearly as important as the fact that it is deeply held.

I dont like basketball players making hard fouls to guys who are vulnerable in the air, I sure as hell don't like the optics of a pitcher throwing chin music to stand up for a teamate. But what I like means didly. A pitcher who won't defend his teamates gets a one way ticket to the bus leagues. it is part of the culture of the game and no matter how many people bray that it offends their gentle senibilities, if it ever changes it will be because the players want to change it.

this is a players issue, its not an owners issue ( they wont lock the players out over fighting) and it sure as hell isnt a fan issue, especially from fans pontificating that that are somehow in possesion of "what's best for the game" from their barcaloungers that somehow has escaped the collective understanding of almost every player who laces them up.

These antifighting arguments are always based on a false assumption, that because YOU ( not you personally) don't see the need for fights that there must not be a need for fights. The players VEHEMENTLY disagree. If it's their skin in the game, I'll defer to them over taking your ( again not you personally) word of what is best for the game.

there are lots of professions that I'm completely unqualified to advocate that they change the way they do business simply to increase my enjoyment. The anti fighting crowd, not so much.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 01:03 PM
  #20
Harry Waters
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
the NHL is NOT those other leagues and the argument that you are promoting that fighting is somehow an avarice whose " function/necessity" can be questioned is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I've heard my entire life. Over 4 decades of the Micheal farber types saying that the game would be ooooh so much better and prettier without the fisticuffs. The net result of this to the PLAYERS opinion about its " function/necessity" ? more than 9/10 players don't want it gone.

This isnt a fan issue, because the players do not, have not and will not fight to appease the crowds. They fight for reasons, many of which are lost on the causal fan but whether the place is packed or not, if you run the goalie you best be getting ready to defend yourself.

As to whether it prevents cheap shots, in the nhl you can't run that experiment because the league has ALWAYS had fighting. And no one EVER said that fighting is an absolute deterrant. What the players have said, almost unanimously, is that having to settle accounts right then and there leads them to belieive that it keeps guys honest. whether that assertion is factually true is not nearly as important as the fact that it is deeply held.

I dont like basketball players making hard fouls to guys who are vulnerable in the air, I sure as hell don't like the optics of a pitcher throwing chin music to stand up for a teamate. But what I like means didly. A pitcher who won't defend his teamates gets a one way ticket to the bus leagues. it is part of the culture of the game and no matter how many people bray that it offends their gentle senibilities, if it ever changes it will be because the players want to change it.

this is a players issue, its not an owners issue ( they wont lock the players out over fighting) and it sure as hell isnt a fan issue, especially from fans pontificating that that are somehow in possesion of "what's best for the game" from their barcaloungers that somehow has escaped the collective understanding of almost every player who laces them up.

These antifighting arguments are always based on a false assumption, that because YOU ( not you personally) don't see the need for fights that there must not be a need for fights. The players VEHEMENTLY disagree. If it's their skin in the game, I'll defer to them over taking your ( again not you personally) word of what is best for the game.
First of all I never argued in favour of abolishing fighting. Nor do I pretend to know what is best for the game any better than the players. We are talking about a rule change and I provided arguments why less fighting is not as big of a problem like some people are making it out to be.

I also never said that there is no need for fighting. I'm just stating that I understand the goal of reducing certain risks, and this is one way to do it. If it was as important as you say (if I understand you correctly), I wonder why many leagues have so much less fighting. It absolutely is part of the game, the question is, how big of a part it is. We are talking about the differences between the number of fights and the causes of fights.

I'm happy to discuss the topic, but I think you are mostly arguing against points I never made.

And yes, the NHL is not these other leagues, but I'm talking about the game of hockey, as the thread is about an AHL rule change and maybe about its consequences for the game. And for that, I'm comparing hockey across leagues/tournaments, because I think that is appropriate. Simultaneously I think stating that the NHL is somehow different in this regard and rejecting any analogies from other leagues as a starting point is not a good way to discuss this matter.

Harry Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 02:02 PM
  #21
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Waters View Post
First of all I never argued in favour of abolishing fighting. Nor do I pretend to know what is best for the game any better than the players. We are talking about a rule change and I provided arguments why less fighting is not as big of a problem like some people are making it out to be.

I also never said that there is no need for fighting. I'm just stating that I understand the goal of reducing certain risks, and this is one way to do it. If it was as important as you say (if I understand you correctly), I wonder why many leagues have so much less fighting. It absolutely is part of the game, the question is, how big of a part it is. We are talking about the differences between the number of fights and the causes of fights.

I'm happy to discuss the topic, but I think you are mostly arguing against points I never made.

And yes, the NHL is not these other leagues, but I'm talking about the game of hockey, as the thread is about an AHL rule change and maybe about its consequences for the game. And for that, I'm comparing hockey across leagues/tournaments, because I think that is appropriate. Simultaneously I think stating that the NHL is somehow different in this regard and rejecting any analogies from other leagues as a starting point is not a good way to discuss this matter.
by making judgement calls about certain aspects of safety you ARE advocating that fighting, which has been in the league since the jump, is somehow less integral than say hitting. This is, as I am sure you are aware, nothing but a complete opinion.

If ( and this is a big if) the issue is REALLY safety, then the answer is clear, make the NHL the no hit league. Hitting ( both legal and illegal) is by far and away the greatest threat to player safety. But most people recognize that no check hockey strikes at the very nature of the game. These same people opine, however, that fighting is somehow separable and dispensable from the game despite the fact that a NHL has NEVER existed without fights AND the players overwhelmingly want it.

These new rules are not to increase safety, they are simple machinations to try and convince the rubes that the leagues are actively doing something. this is such a meh set of rules ( like the extra two for taking off your helmet) that the players will willingly circumvent.

I am tired of this canard of " player safety" but ONLY when it aligns with one's ideal vision of the game. If you want to make the game safer, get rid of hits and accept that the game is changed. the same is true for fights, you want to get rid of fights ( either totally or by frequency) you ARE changing the game and changing it in a way the players DO NOT WANT. I ask for what purpose ? ( you don't have to answer it was rhetorical)

again read my post, " less fighting not being a problem as some people are making it out to be" To paraphrase Jerry seinfeld " Who are these people ?" because it AINT the players.

What it boils down to, and I couldn't be more clear, is that fighting is a players issue and the players overwhelmingly want it. My support for fighting dies the instant the players renounce it because its their choice.

if you are a fan of the NHL you are a fan of a league that has always had fights. if you want to follow leagues with a lot less fights ( may I suggest the NCAA) please be my guest. But I hope your stomach for loosey goosey stick work and number running is well developed. The NHL is in terms of influence and talent MILES ahead of these leagues and should not seek to jettison one of the few things that distinguished it from the other major sports for the sake of homogeneity.

the players want the ability to self police, they can decide on the frequency. it is, afterall, their skin in the game.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 03:03 PM
  #22
Harry Waters
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
by making judgement calls about certain aspects of safety you ARE advocating that fighting, which has been in the league since the jump, is somehow less integral than say hitting. This is, as I am sure you are aware, nothing but a complete opinion.

If ( and this is a big if) the issue is REALLY safety, then the answer is clear, make the NHL the no hit league. Hitting ( both legal and illegal) is by far and away the greatest threat to player safety. But most people recognize that no check hockey strikes at the very nature of the game. These same people opine, however, that fighting is somehow separable and dispensable from the game despite the fact that a NHL has NEVER existed without fights AND the players overwhelmingly want it.

These new rules are not to increase safety, they are simple machinations to try and convince the rubes that the leagues are actively doing something. this is such a meh set of rules ( like the extra two for taking off your helmet) that the players will willingly circumvent.

I am tired of this canard of " player safety" but ONLY when it aligns with one's ideal vision of the game. If you want to make the game safer, get rid of hits and accept that the game is changed. the same is true for fights, you want to get rid of fights ( either totally or by frequency) you ARE changing the game and changing it in a way the players DO NOT WANT. I ask for what purpose ? ( you don't have to answer it was rhetorical)

again read my post, " less fighting not being a problem as some people are making it out to be" To paraphrase Jerry seinfeld " Who are these people ?" because it AINT the players.

What it boils down to, and I couldn't be more clear, is that fighting is a players issue and the players overwhelmingly want it. My support for fighting dies the instant the players renounce it because its their choice.

if you are a fan of the NHL you are a fan of a league that has always had fights. if you want to follow leagues with a lot less fights ( may I suggest the NCAA) please be my guest. But I hope your stomach for loosey goosey stick work and number running is well developed. The NHL is in terms of influence and talent MILES ahead of these leagues and should not seek to jettison one of the few things that distinguished it from the other major sports for the sake of homogeneity.

the players want the ability to self police, they can decide on the frequency. it is, afterall, their skin in the game.
I'm making judgement calls on this certain aspect because we are discussing a fighting rule change in the section of hfboards dedicated to fighting in hockey. I have not discussed hitting or other aspects because I didn't think that this is the thread to do.

May I ask one last time where exactly I'm arguing that fighting is not part of the game? I explicitly said it was. As is hitting. But head shots are reduced/removed as well, why can't we discuss how to go about fighting?

But honestly, I don't want to defend opinions I never voiced, I feel like that is an uphill battle. Btw: Of course the above is my opinion, and I'm arguing for it. What else should be the purpose of a message board? (that is a rhetorical question as well)

Harry Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 03:24 PM
  #23
ADifferentTim
Knowledgeable & Pure
 
ADifferentTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: LACo/IE; SoCal
Posts: 4,287
vCash: 500
I'll gladly trade off fighting in hockey for high scoring. It's safe to say fighting in hockey is the sport's counterpart to plunking in baseball.

__________________
B for Blunt
ADifferentTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 03:48 PM
  #24
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADifferentTim View Post
I'll gladly trade off fighting in hockey for high scoring. It's safe to say fighting in hockey is the sport's counterpart to plunking in baseball.
or wrecking a guy in nascar, or rebounding with your elbows up. Sports are competitive, everyone of them has ways for players to indicate they do not appreciate the actions of their opponents when they are deemed to be taking liberties. In hockey it just happens to be both a lot more graphic and a lot more consentual. That's a trade off most should be willing to make.

and high scoring games = good games is another fallacy that should die a quick death. What makes games good are chances, two teams that don't play defense in front of goalies that can't stop a beach ball is unwatchable unless you are a massochist.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2016, 03:56 PM
  #25
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Waters View Post
I'm making judgement calls on this certain aspect because we are discussing a fighting rule change in the section of hfboards dedicated to fighting in hockey. I have not discussed hitting or other aspects because I didn't think that this is the thread to do.

May I ask one last time where exactly I'm arguing that fighting is not part of the game? I explicitly said it was. As is hitting. But head shots are reduced/removed as well, why can't we discuss how to go about fighting?

But honestly, I don't want to defend opinions I never voiced, I feel like that is an uphill battle. Btw: Of course the above is my opinion, and I'm arguing for it. What else should be the purpose of a message board? (that is a rhetorical question as well)
so the arguments you advance to artifically put restrictions one one aspect of the game ( fighting) don't transfer to the other parts that you like ? You don't see this as completely disingenuous ?

If people who wanted to kill or reduce or regulate fighting by fiat were more open about their motivations ( which boil down to " i would like it more") then that would be great. It's the lies they tell in order to not have to articulate this entitled truth that irks me.

Head shots are reduced because the players signed off on it. As one side of the CBA they are entitled to do as they see fit ( including limiting fights). But the players DO NOT WANT this. If the owners, feeling pressure from their fans ( you know the ones that strain their necks to get a better look when guys drop the mits and cheer like crazy after a good tilt) want to get rid of it they have but one choice, lock the players out over fighting. I may not have my finger on the pulse of NHL owners but to me the appetite for such a move is currently zilch.

as to your question as to why we can't just reduce fighting, again I ask for what purpose ? The players don't want it, the fans who pay money apparently are fine with it, GM's still look for players with sandpaper. The question is not why can't we just reduce fighting, the question is what is the impetus for doing so ( again asked rhetorically)?

sandysan is online now   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 10:42 AM.

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.