| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| spade632 |
Posted - 03/04/2011 : 13:51:54
Slozo's comments in the Gillies thread bring two questions to mind.
1) Is there a "code" in hockey / the NHL?
2) What are the components of said "code" if it exits? What does it say for:
a) protecting teammates?
b) Fighting?
c) Cheap shots?
d) locker room / teammate relations?
e) loyalty to your team (i.e. asking for trades and such)?
f) anything else you can think of?
|
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 06:42:02
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
Excuse the lateness of my response... I was busy.
Slozo, I am tired of this. I bring up legitimate arguements on the merits of fighting, and you dismiss them as "Strawman arguements" and try act like i'm the idiot, when really, all of the arguments you've provided can be boiled down to this: You don't like fighting because it takes away your personal viewing experience. I won't waste my time bringing up statistics and clarifying some of my arguements for you because you would ignore and misinterpret them.
I'll leave you with this, most people like fighting, and it isn't going anywhere for the forseeable futre. I reccomend you take up a new sport in the meantime.(How about knitting?)
HAHA I love it because its true!!
Excuse the lateness of my response - I found your comment ignorant, devoid of anything resembling a cogent argument, and pointless.
I dismissed your comments as "strawmen", and explained why they were strawmen, in detail. If you still don't like being proven wrong in your argumentation, sure - continue namecalling. It is the final refuge of the beaten.
Ah, I smell playoff hockey right around the corner . . . bye bye, goons! Hello, REAL hockey! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 20:01:48
See, it's not true. Not true at all. Although Slozo is far on the side of no fighting, I see his point as more of the useless staged fights. If fighting happened at the same level as playoff hockey (statistically 0.2-0.4 fights per game) rather than the current regular season rate (1.0-1.5 fights per game) than folks like Slozo would have less to complain about. This would also mean the pro-fighting guys would still get their fix of fighting, and all of us in the middle would get more hockey to watch.
This issue is not a one side or the other kind if issue. Furthermore, comments like "your should take up knitting" make people seem unintelligent and spiteful. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 12:02:54
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
Excuse the lateness of my response... I was busy.
Slozo, I am tired of this. I bring up legitimate arguements on the merits of fighting, and you dismiss them as "Strawman arguements" and try act like i'm the idiot, when really, all of the arguments you've provided can be boiled down to this: You don't like fighting because it takes away your personal viewing experience. I won't waste my time bringing up statistics and clarifying some of my arguements for you because you would ignore and misinterpret them.
I'll leave you with this, most people like fighting, and it isn't going anywhere for the forseeable futre. I reccomend you take up a new sport in the meantime.(How about knitting?)
HAHA I love it because its true!! |
| Guest2285 |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 11:30:40
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
Excuse the lateness of my response... I was busy.
Slozo, I am tired of this. I bring up legitimate arguements on the merits of fighting, and you dismiss them as "Strawman arguements" and try act like i'm the idiot, when really, all of the arguments you've provided can be boiled down to this: You don't like fighting because it takes away your personal viewing experience. I won't waste my time bringing up statistics and clarifying some of my arguements for you because you would ignore and misinterpret them.
I'll leave you with this, most people like fighting, and it isn't going anywhere for the forseeable futre. I reccomend you take up a new sport in the meantime.(How about knitting?)
p****... |
| Guest6135 |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 12:09:52
Excuse the lateness of my response... I was busy.
Slozo, I am tired of this. I bring up legitimate arguements on the merits of fighting, and you dismiss them as "Strawman arguements" and try act like i'm the idiot, when really, all of the arguments you've provided can be boiled down to this: You don't like fighting because it takes away your personal viewing experience. I won't waste my time bringing up statistics and clarifying some of my arguements for you because you would ignore and misinterpret them.
I'll leave you with this, most people like fighting, and it isn't going anywhere for the forseeable futre. I reccomend you take up a new sport in the meantime.(How about knitting?) |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 07:32:14
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
You bring up some good points, I agree that when something is "fostered,nurtured and accepted", players will side for it. However, that doesn't change the fact that the players are siding for it, along with the majority of the fans.
Actually, that is 100% the point. Which you apparently missed.
quote:
It's ludicrous to compare it to the institution of helmets, seeing as helmets are a piece of equipment, while fighting is an aspect of the sport. Now you might argue that removing fighting would lead to fewer injuries to the head, just as the institution of helmets did. I agree. However, I will say that removal of fighting would lead to an augmentation cheap shots, which can cause injuries, usually far more serious than those caused by fighting.
Where to begin?
1) I compared the bringing in of helmets to a potential crackdown on fighting in terms of player reluctance of accepting it, in terms of the pervasiveness of hockey culture, and what "opinion" fans had. Take a look at fan support of helmets ten years before they made the rule change, and now - it's a world of difference.
2) I don't advocate for penalising fighting more heavily to cut down on head injuries actually - never said that. I think it should be more heavily penalised and NOT PROMOTED because it is not hockey, it takes away from the actual game, and it is an illegal play which is clearly promoted instead of penalised properly. All other big league sports - many of them very physical like football - heavily penalise hockey, why would we continue to be bush league about it?
3) In the playoffs, where there are far fewer fights and they are of greater consequence (you miss a game), there is not a significant greater number of cheap shots. In fact, I would say there are less.
quote:
"But you know what DOES keep away fans? Real hockey fans?"
This makes absolutely no sense!!!! Fighting has always been a part of the game so how could it keep people who are already fans away???
Wow . . . you really didn't get what I was saying, eh? Maybe because you forgot to add in my rhetorical response:
"Skilled players missing the game. Two crap teams filled with goons and no skill."
quote:
The only "fans" it keeps away are americans(and a small number of them at that), and if the NHL took it out just for them then I could no longer consider hockey to be a canadian game.
I would argue that the more hockey is becoming a sport with goonery, the less I as a real fan enjoy it. Many hockey fans will not watch a game with two teams that are low skilled and filled with goons . . . but they will watch two teams that are highly skilled.
With far less fighting, you would be bringing in far more skill, bottom line. And that has nothing to do with economics, or the game being Canadian or american . . . it has to do with hockey being played at a higher level, with less fighting interruptions.
quote:
You also said:
"Really, what teams in the league are filled with goons and no skill?"
No I didn't. YOU just said that.
quote:
Your arguements would lead people to believe that "goons" are the only ones doing any fighting.
Speak for yourself, not others. Hopefully others have a higher level of reading comprehension, and can evaluate that what I am saying is that fighting should be more heavily penalised means more skilled players who do fight wouldn't be fighting any more. Players who fight who aren't skilled would disappear, replaced by skilled players.
quote:
. . . (though even a guy like you has to admit it is awesome when you see two talented players going at), however most of these third or fourth liners/ defensemen would still have NHL roster spots if fighting was taken out of the game.
No, I don't particularly give a crap about hockey fights - they're sorta stupid, if you ask me. Yes, many third liners and some fourth liners would stay, but fight a lot less, if at all. And we'd get more skilled players.
How does that hurt hockey?
quote:
Like you, I prefer playoff hockey to that of the regular season, but fighting ,while less frequent in the playoffs, exists in both. And adds excitement to both.
Fighting takes away from hockey, and it's a sideshow. I think it adds zero to playoff hockey, in fact, it takes away from it.
quote:
And finally, to adress your "quote" in your most recent post: It does not say it all.
Then I guess you missed the irony of my self-quote.
quote:
Also, in regards to my playing history. I only witheld my personal information because I feel you would filter all future comments on this subject from me through it. I have nothing to be ashamed of, if you would like, I will dramatically reveal my true identity for you at the end of our discussion.
Be as dramatic as you like, dude. Some people love that stuff, others (like me) could care less.
I'll take a good clean hockey game over drama any day!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 06:41:56
I am currently playing Senior A Hockey in a Manitoba League. This year a new rule was enforced that any player who got in a fight in the last 10 minutes of the game was automatically suspended for the next game. They brought this rule in to protect the players.
To give you an idea of the league there are 8 teams al within 1.5 hours from one another. Allot of ex div.1, WHL, and JR.A players. This is a fairly talented league. There has always been a few tough guys on each team and has always been a "code". Players all know we all have to go to work in the morning so if you’re going to do something stupid be prepared for a big strong guy to come knock on your door.
Now here is an example of why this does not work. We had a game earlier in the season, we're up 5 with a couple minutes to go and an opposing player takes a run at our top player (league MVP) and hurts him for what ended up to be 2 games. We could not go challenge this guy and fight him or we would get suspended and the team fined so we decided fine we will get him next game. That player did not dress the next time we played them because they knew what was coming. want to guess what happened? 2 line brawls as a result of a big dirty hit on their top player.
My point being fighting is needed in this sport. If we could have dealt with that fella right then it would have been over, instead the fans got a brawl (which they loved).
I'll agree with the staged fights can leave the game because they're usually boring, non-spirited fights anyway. But there is and always will be a need for fighting...it’s in the culture of the game.
|
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 03/14/2011 : 19:52:32
Well said Guest6135!
I'm not expecting responses from the regular posters. But if they do, oh sure, they can isolate a comment or two and take it out of context, and extrapolate things out of proportion.
You brought up many good points, but your best point was to challenge the comment that fighting keeps "real hockey fans" from going to games. I've never seen this take place. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me any significant number of fans who no longer go to games (or more importantly buy season tickets) because of the violence in hockey. And as far as dealing with the unknown hypothetical fans who don't watch hockey (or buy tickets) because of the violence in the game, they're not going to ever be hockey fans anyway! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/14/2011 : 19:31:15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
Also, in regards to my playing history. I only witheld my personal information because I feel you would filter all future comments on this subject from me through it. I have nothing to be ashamed of, if you would like, I will dramatically reveal my true identity for you at the end of our discussion.
Tell us!!! Please, please??? You're actually Shane O'Brien aren't you! I know it!  |
| Guest6135 |
Posted - 03/14/2011 : 16:12:31
You bring up some good points, I agree that when something is "fostered,nurtured and accepted", players will side for it. However, that doesn't change the fact that the players are siding for it, along with the majority of the fans.It's ludicrous to compare it to the institution of helmets, seeing as helmets are a piece of equipment, while fighting is an aspect of the sport. Now you might argue that removing fighting would lead to fewer injuries to the head, just as the institution of helmets did. I agree. However, I will say that removal of fighting would lead to an augmentation cheap shots, which can cause injuries, usually far more serious than those caused by fighting.
Now, I realise your arguments have not been about the injuries cause by fighting( which, in my opinion would have been a better stance than the one you are currently taking), so I'll get down to business:
"But you know what DOES keep away fans? Real hockey fans?"
This makes absolutely no sense!!!! Fighting has always been a part of the game so how could it keep people who are already fans away??? The only "fans" it keeps away are americans(and a small number of them at that), and if the NHL took it out just for them then I could no longer consider hockey to be a canadian game. After a while you have to stop considering things from a purely economic standard and think about what makes hockey hockey. Hockey is a game, NOT A BUSINESS! (I'll admit, the business end is what makes the game possible, but I think the NHL is doing just fine economically right now with fighting tolerated, we don't need to line NHL owners pockets any more than they already are).
You also said:
"Really, what teams in the league are filled with goons and no skill?"
Your arguements would lead people to believe that "goons" are the only ones doing any fighting. If that were true I would be on your side... But it isn't. The fact is, there are very few skilless goons in the league today. I'll concede, there are a few,(Boogard,Godard,Orr,Parros,Ivanans,Konopka,etc.) but if you'll cruise over to hockeyfights.com, you'll see that the majority of fights are between players who are not in the league solely based on fighting skill. I'll admit, most of fights do not feature stars(though even a guy like you has to admit it is awesome when you see two talented players going at), however most of these third or fourth liners/ defensemen would still have NHL roster spots if fighting was taken out of the game.
Like you, I prefer playoff hockey to that of the regular season, but fighting ,while less frequent in the playoffs, exists in both. And adds excitement to both.
And finally, to adress your "quote" in your most recent post: It does not say it all. Of course I would go see hockey games if the league took out fighting(though I wouldn't be happy about it), I consider a fight to be like an added bonus to hockey game, like a great goal or a big hit.
Also, in regards to my playing history. I only witheld my personal information because I feel you would filter all future comments on this subject from me through it. I have nothing to be ashamed of, if you would like, I will dramatically reveal my true identity for you at the end of our discussion. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/09/2011 : 05:58:33
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
Easy boys, I think you took me a little too seriously there. The bill Clement quote was thrown in to lighten things up a little, I realize that argument has virtually no weight in a legitimate discussion. Also, Slozo, if you took personal offence at any of my comments, I apologize, my intent was not to wound personally nor question the hockey knowledge of fans, but to argue that the players want to keep fighting in the game( your argument that players are too polite to speak out is pure bulls***, look at the results of the NHLPAs ANONYMOUS player survey at all-star break). Also the point about complete faith in refs was directed at beans, not you. I'm too lazy to pull up a quote , but you scroll down I believe he said something like there were no problems that the refs couldn't handle.
Ok, good - so you got some of my points, excellent. Of course that is a good time to say "hey, ease up, you're being too serious" after you thought you could dismiss my opinion so easily. Sorry bud, but I am not buying it.
The fact that you quote something from a video game, then try to dismiss my opinion because I did not play at a high level, then refuse to answer my question about YOUR hockey playing history speaks volumes.
I never said that the players are "too polite to speak up" . . . you again bring up ludicrous comments I never said, then attack that false argument (that's called a strawman argument, btw, something that happens a lot around here).
So, let's stop attacking the strawman, shall we?
We both know that in any sport, if something has been an institution that has been fostered, nurtured and accepted (ie - having fights in hockey that are marginally penalised and promoted), the players will be on side for it. Of course they will!
Players had a similar reaction when the call for mandatory helmets came along.
I'll end with this quote:
"If you love fighting in hockey so much that you wouldn't want to see a hockey game without it . . . you are not a real hockey fan."
That says it all right there.
Oh - it was said by a knowledgeable hockey website moderator, a guy called slozo 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest6135 |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 16:57:05
Easy boys, I think you took me a little too seriously there. The bill Clement quote was thrown in to lighten things up a little, I realize that argument has virtually no weight in a legitimate discussion. Also, Slozo, if you took personal offence at any of my comments, I apologize, my intent was not to wound personally nor question the hockey knowledge of fans, but to argue that the players want to keep fighting in the game( your argument that players are too polite to speak out is pure bulls***, look at the results of the NHLPAs ANONYMOUS player survey at all-star break). Also the point about complete faith in refs was directed at beans, not you. I'm too lazy to pull up a quote , but you scroll down I believe he said something like there were no problems that the refs couldn't handle.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 05:50:18
Guest 6135:
I just knew you would resort to name-calling and nonsensical arguments. You know why I knew that? Because every single time, without fail, that an argument rests on total fallacies, you can't afford to give it any scrutiny whatsoever.
"How can you guys say fighting no longer has a place in the game?"
Because it is against the written rules of hockey - THAT'S why! Because the most exciting, skilled hockey is one without goons, and one without hardly any fighting at all (the playoffs, Olympic competition, other Int'l tournaments).
Because it IS. NOT. HOCKEY.
Fighting is an illegal event, which always takes place at a time when play has stopped. Think about that - they stop playing hockey as soon as a fight starts. Technically, it is NOT a part of hockey at all . . . it actually stops hockey.
"In a dead game, a fight injects life into the fans and the bench. You can't play a physical, up-tempo game like hockey without fighting, unless you want to see it turn into a huge gongshow. While a respect the total faith you seem to have in the NHL's referees, the fact remains that they can't solve all the problems on the ice."
In a dead game, a hot girl in a tight t-shirt dressed in team colours put on the big screen gets an even bigger rise out of the crowd. In a dead game, a skilled player suddenly making an end to end rush for a highlight reel goal also gets the crowd going.
Which one invloves actual hockey?
Your comment on my faith in referees is laughable, as anyone here can tell you I am absolutely no fan of the way the refs call a game, and no fan of their bosses. But crap rolls downhill, so change has to start at the top.
"While you two seem to be the two biggest fans on the site, it seems apparent that you've never played hockey at an elite level , because if you had, you would recognize fighting's importance in hockey."
Really? That's all you got? I (and Beans, my archnemesis who I hardly ever agree on anything with) never played hockey at an elite level?
So, does that eliminate your opinion as well? And if not, prove it please by giving your real name to the admin - we should be able to look you up online and figure out if you were a pro player at one point.
And no, not many pro players want fighting properly policed (more heavily weighted suspensions, like those in mamby-pansy sports like football and rugby), but that is simply a facet of being brought up in that culture where it is reinforced, promoted, and where you make friends with those enforcers and goons.
And your last caveat . . .
"Like I always said, more people come to the rinks to see the fights than stay away because of them... Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case"
Bill Clement, NHL 10
That quote is a testament to this guy Clement's brainpower. Of course, he has never done a study on how many supposed fans of hockey ONLY come to the rink to see fights, and how many hockey fans do not come to hockey fans ONLY because of the fighting. I would hazard a guess that both numbers are quite small, tiny in fact. Why? Because if fighting was penalised more severely to actually become a deterrent (and players given suspensions accordingly), a hockey fan would still come out to see the games. I'd also wager that many more people would be interested to see actual hockey, and it would cease to become the butt of every joke as a bush-league sport.
But you know what DOES keep away fans? Real hockey fans?
Skilled players missing the game. Two crap teams filled with goons and no skill.
Bring playoff hockey to the regular season, when fighting hardly ever happens, and it is given stiffer penalties (oh, here's a good assignment for you: look up in the rule book where it says a playoff fight gets you a one game suspension! And think about why they have that rule . . . imaginary as it is.)
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 18:20:35
Yes guest, Bill Clement is a genius on a video game. However, ask yourself this:
Of those fans that come to the games to watch the fight, how many of those fan no longer come to the games if fighting is gone??
Yep, nothing like injecting some life into a boring game for a fight. Guess you can't inject life into a game by taking out all the goons and meatballs that are there just to fight and replace them with talent, right???
Also, there is nothing like injecting a game with a little life when a fight results in an injury. Nothing like 1 in 4 of all the concussions in the NHL are caused by fighting. |
| Guest6135 |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 15:04:41
Softzo, I meant fighting in hockey, not fighting in general. I realise everyone in scandinavia is a master of combat due to their raiding experience and the strength given to them by Odin, god of war.
How can you guys say fighting no longer has a place in the game? In a dead game, a fight injects life into the fans and the bench. You can't play a physical, up-tempo game like hockey without fighting, unless you want to see it turn into a huge gongshow. While a respect the total faith you seem to have in the NHL's referees, the fact remains that they can't solve all the problems on the ice.
While you two seem to be the two biggest fans on the site, it seems apparent that you've never played hockey at an elite level , because if you had, you would recognize fighting's importance in hockey.
"Like I always said, more people come to the rinks to see the fights than stay away because of them... Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case"
Bill Clement, NHL 10
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 14:00:08
How come every other organized team sport in the world does not require fighting for the same things??
It's a weak excuse and it's impossible to prove. If fighting was taken out of the game tomorrow there would be zero impact on any financial indicator in the sport. |
| Guest4394 |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 13:55:55
Fighting is essential for boosting morale and bringing in the crowd.
High Morale wins games!
Crowds bring funds!
Funds create teams! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 08:40:23
I'm completely with Slozo on this one. It's doesn't make sense as I am a huge fan of combat sports and I still love a great hockey fight when it serves a purpose. However, the reason fighting was been tolerated in the NHL for the past 80ish years is that players policed themselves. They dealt with issues the refs couldn't.
But those days are gone. Fighting does not serve a purpose in hockey anymore and is has simply become a side show. And add on that does nothing to serve the game in any way shape or form. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 05:41:39
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6135
they're called unwritten rules for a reason, btw, Slozo, your comments made me sick... If you don't like fighting, go to europe ya puss
You have failed to make a point.
Meet me behind the schoolyard at 3:45pm Monday, and we'll settle it!
FYI - Having lived in Europe, I would venture that most euros in the hockey playing countries are much better fighters off the ice than Canucks. They just leave their fighting off the ice. If you disbelieve me, go to Scandinavia, eastern Europe or Russia, and try it out, lol.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest6135 |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 13:49:19
they're called unwritten rules for a reason, btw, Slozo, your comments made me sick... If you don't like fighting, go to europe ya puss |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 12:30:46
1) Quite simply, no.
2) The components of the imagined code exist for players, the management and the league to make excuses about the officiating, their own accountability, and to continue the promotion of fighting, goonery and brutal "entertainment", to the detriment of skilled entertainment.
a) Protecting teammates:
Who needs protecting if the officials call the game properly, using rules and suspensions in a fair manner?
b) Fighting:
It's illegal, and clearly needs to have greater punishment, as it has become a common sideshow occurrence.
c) Cheap Shots:
To varying degrees, this will always happen, but again, it is the responsibility of the officials and management to curb this and enforce the rules.
d) Locker room relations:
As in every sports team, you spend a lot of time with these guys, and you get a comraderie, and often strong friendships. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any imaginary hockey code . . . you stick up for your friends, your teammates, you assist them when possible or when needed.
e) Loyalty to your team:
There is very little of this now, as athletes are just paid way too much money. There is loyalty to teammates, but not to team.
f) Excuse for goons to practice thuggery:
This ends up being two goons fighting, good friends afterward, and no actual deterrent to a "chep shot", run at a star player, or any other dirty play. Lots of talking, a fight between goons, the game continues . . . often without a star player now.
This game is in SERIOUS need of proper enforcement . . . and we will never get it with Bettman and Campbell at the steering wheel.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 05:35:54
i think the perfect xample of the code is in the olympics when Volchenkov pushed Eric Staal into the boards head first in a iffy play. Volchenkov is not given a penalty on the play, next shift Volchenkov clears the puck around the boards and Geztlaf delivers a late thunderous hit on Volchenkov, i feel that is the closest thing we have to a Code these days
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/04/2011 : 20:27:14
I suspect there is a code amongst a very few fighters - the real heavyweights, or serious middleweights. They know it themselves, and they follow it - only fight within your class, only fight with a willing combatant, don't go after a "non-fighter" until they've made it clear that they want to fight, don't hit a guy when he's down.
Other than that, I agree with Beans, there is very little of any NHL-wide code. In the age of facebook, twitter, buckets of money, and constant media attention, its hard to enforce any sort of code anyway. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/04/2011 : 20:13:29
The "Code" has no clear cut defintion. As far as the "Code" when there actually was a code, it was simple. You treat all players with respect. It doesn't mean soft or weak, it means respectful. You get an elbow, you give an elbow. Not to injury, to play the game and send a message. When a player crossed that imaginary line, then you have to drop your glove.
Simple.
And no, there is no code today. There is no respect in the game today. Very little anyway. |
|
|
