| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 08:54:27
I chose the provocative subject heading “Fans Love Fighting” because many of the contributors to this forum appear to want fighting out of the game, while most people would describe that fans (overall) love hockey fights.
To be fair, there are many points of view about fighting (most which are well reasoned), with the spectrum of opinions ranging from “take fighting out of the game completely,” to “some fighting is okay and necessary, but not the staged fights,” to “fighting is part of the game.”
I’ve been to hundreds of games and sat in all sections of the arena, from nosebleeds to suites, and I’ve watched games in a variety of NHL arenas, and one thing remains constant: fans love hockey fights. Sure, maybe not all fans, but I’ve never seen anyone leave their seat during a hockey fight. (And nary a negative comment is made.)
In another thread, a comment was made that “if fighting was so important to the game, then why do guys paid to fight play less minutes than I take to p***.” Well – one thing for sure – despite your disdain, I doubt you’re “taking your p***” when a hockey fight takes place?!?
Personally, I could do without fighting in hockey, but I don’t have a monopoly on wisdom, and my opinion is after all, just one fan’s opinion.
If my distaste for hockey fights was significant (it isn’t), I would stop being a fan, and stop buying tickets.
Speaking of which, I don’t believe there are many instances of fans not going to games (or not buying tickets) because of fighting? On the other hand, I don’t think people would stop going to games if fighting in the game was abolished, but I don’t know. I’ve never researched this.
I think the best hockey is played in the playoffs, and as most know, fighting takes place dramatically less than the regular season. In fact, the further you go in the playoffs, the less fighting there is. It’s been mentioned many times before in this forum that there is no fighting in the Olympics, but the hockey is incredible.
So, the question remains: why is fighting still in the NHL game? Is it because the vast majority of players (current and former, the latter which occupy the ranks of coaches and GM’s in the league) believe fighting has a place in the game? Are they delusional, or culturally predisposed? Do they really believe it acts as a deterrent to cheap shots, etc. which take place anyway?
What about the owners? Most never played the game (but they’re definitely fans), and while they’re businessmen, I’m sure they care about the health of the players! (Even at the base level of how it affects their bottom-line when players are hurt.) Do the owners believe that taking fighting out of the game will affect bums in the seats?
I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts on this subject, because if you have a strong opinion (and belief) that fighting does not belong in the game, why is your opinion so apparently different than the decision-makers in the game, and in a game for which you show so much interest? I guess one answer is that you can have a minority opinion (and the right opinion), but change requires voice, reason and time!
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 08:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hey T-bar, I don't blame Slozo for not answering you. I have no idea what you were trying to say in your post. What the heck does Chalange-shoe or because as shown by mr and FE mean???
I also think you assumptions are very far off in the "not more than 10%" range. They drop more than that in the playoffs. Nearly 1/2 of the teams in the NHL fight less than once every 3 games on average. Detroit has just 13 fights this entire season!
There have been a total of 1260 fighting majors given out in the NHL to this point. 2 fighting majors per fight means 630 fights. If you look at just the top 20 fighters in the NHL, that is a total of 321 of the 1260 fighting majors. That's 20%. If you took the next step and changed the rule to enforce and automatic game misconduct after a fight, how much more is that going to drop.
Seriously, 630 NHL fights. Unbelievable.
haha yah that post made no sense 
Beans no one is talking about any rule changes, just simply no teams having "goons".
All that will happen is other guys will step up and take on that role (3rd line type players). The number of fights would drop very slightly.
Now if we were talking with an automatic game ejection plus one game suspension, then yes I could see a very dramatic drop in fights probably above 50% but that’s not going to happen!
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 07:56:37
Hey T-bar, I don't blame Slozo for not answering you. I have no idea what you were trying to say in your post. What the heck does Chalange-shoe or because as shown by mr and FE mean???
I also think you assumptions are very far off in the "not more than 10%" range. They drop more than that in the playoffs. Nearly 1/2 of the teams in the NHL fight less than once every 3 games on average. Detroit has just 13 fights this entire season!
There have been a total of 1260 fighting majors given out in the NHL to this point. 2 fighting majors per fight means 630 fights. If you look at just the top 20 fighters in the NHL, that is a total of 321 of the 1260 fighting majors. That's 20%. If you took the next step and changed the rule to enforce and automatic game misconduct after a fight, how much more is that going to drop.
Seriously, 630 NHL fights. Unbelievable. |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 06:49:17
Nothing Slozo? So now can I officially say your "Strawman" argument is over? Once you finally realize FIGHTING is FIGHTING and the other rules "aggressor" and "instigator" only kick in on rare occasions then you will understand the rules.
Anyways, you would say we would see fighting drop more than 25% if the Goons were out of the lineups. I would agree that it would go down slightly and that we would probably see a few more skilled players in the league, however I don’t see fighting going down more than 10% during the regular season.
Hockey is a high intensity game, and in a long 82 game season guys need to use emotion allot of the time, and you can really spark your team with a good fight. I would say we would probably see a new breed of so called tough guys such as Chris Neil each team would have one. I don’t put him in the heavy weight division so he would be a guy still around after the "goons" were gone. With each team having a Chris Neil type player who ads to a team mind you can you really say you would see more than a 25% drop in fighting? I doubt it!
|
| tbar |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 08:15:12
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.17 Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor - A player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team.
During the Play-offs, any player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the second time shall be suspended automatically for the next Play-off game of his team. For each subsequent aggressor violation during the Play-offs, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
Prior to the commencement of each Stanley Cup Final, a player or goalkeeper will have his current aggressor violations removed from his current playoff record. They will remain part of his historical record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I have bolded the key words and phrases to bring to your attention the differences in how the NHL rulebook states fighting in the regular season and playoffs differs. The playoffs is harsher, clearly - even more so if you take into account the higher stakes, and the number of games involved.
So that part is a clear difference in the NHL rulebook - hope you can see that clearly now TBar.
The part that is harder at times to prove is the reality of the implementation of these rules . . . especially since the reffing is so inconsistent, and the laying of suspensions even more so.
I haven't had time at home to look at your utube clips (can't view from work), but, I know that fights have happened many times in the playoffs where the NHL rulebook is not enforced properly. I agree that the enforcement has been terribly spotty.
But the rules are there, and it clearly works as a deterrent, the proof of which is the number of goons dressed in the playoffs. Very, very few, and usually it's only the goons who possess a bit of skill.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Chalange-shoe me the last 5 times an "Aggressor" penalty has been called......
I am going to guess roughly one a year and none in the playoffs, so your argument holds no brass on the playoff fighting front.
And to further my point even if two goons were dressed or any players for that matter, and decide to fight of a faceoff they will not be suspended because as shown by mr and FE the aggressor rule does not apply to many if any fights!
|
| n/a |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 05:10:27
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.17 Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor - A player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team.
During the Play-offs, any player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the second time shall be suspended automatically for the next Play-off game of his team. For each subsequent aggressor violation during the Play-offs, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
Prior to the commencement of each Stanley Cup Final, a player or goalkeeper will have his current aggressor violations removed from his current playoff record. They will remain part of his historical record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I have bolded the key words and phrases to bring to your attention the differences in how the NHL rulebook states fighting in the regular season and playoffs differs. The playoffs is harsher, clearly - even more so if you take into account the higher stakes, and the number of games involved.
So that part is a clear difference in the NHL rulebook - hope you can see that clearly now TBar.
The part that is harder at times to prove is the reality of the implementation of these rules . . . especially since the reffing is so inconsistent, and the laying of suspensions even more so.
I haven't had time at home to look at your utube clips (can't view from work), but, I know that fights have happened many times in the playoffs where the NHL rulebook is not enforced properly. I agree that the enforcement has been terribly spotty.
But the rules are there, and it clearly works as a deterrent, the proof of which is the number of goons dressed in the playoffs. Very, very few, and usually it's only the goons who possess a bit of skill.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 04:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
We most certainly have NOT come to an agreement that there is no extra diciplinary action in the playoffs for fighting.
Yes, we both agree on playoff hockey being better, and that goons are generally not dressed . . . and that there are far fewer fights in the playoffs.
If all teams did not dress goons in the regular season, I think the fall off on fighting would be even more dramatic than your 25%, which is pretty small, IMHO. Seeing as how literally a third less fighting takes place in the playoffs, but the regular season still being the regular season . . . and with the penalties staying the way they are now . . . I'd guess about a 50 to 60% drop in fights.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 13:53:16
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
tbar...i'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure the question that you asked, the one which Slozo told you to re-read the thread to have it answered was this:
[quote]Originally posted by tbar
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
Alex I accidently posted this question in a different topic "Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers."
and here was Slozos respnse.
"There most certainly is extra disciplinary action in the playoffs - see the rules we already posted in the "Fans Love Fighting" thread.
In fact, I would direct you to comment on that thread further, as it may mean that you read it, and all your questions will be answered, and you might finally see reason! "
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 13:26:51
tbar...i'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure the question that you asked, the one which Slozo told you to re-read the thread to have it answered was this:
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
Not too sure about the whole game supsension issue for instigators in the playoffs which you keep coming back to looking for Slozo to give in on, but i just think you're mixing up what he was answering? |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 12:42:44
2003-04 stanley cup finals Game 2 http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20032004/GS030412.HTM
Game 3 http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20032004/GS030413.HTM
Game 4 http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20032004/GS030414.HTM
Do you notice something here? Nobody missed a single game and Simon even got an "instegator" called against him.
Your point has been oficially proven wrong!!
Here is another link so you can see the rosters game to game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Stanley_Cup_Finals
Do you want me too really drill this in and find you more info on this or are you ready to finally admit you are dead wrong? |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 11:59:28
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Interesting quote from the NHL rulebook, from nhl.com's website:
quote:
46.17 Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor - A player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team.
During the Play-offs, any player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the second time shall be suspended automatically for the next Play-off game of his team. For each subsequent aggressor violation during the Play-offs, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
Prior to the commencement of each Stanley Cup Final, a player or goalkeeper will have his current aggressor violations removed from his current playoff record. They will remain part of his historical record.
So, there is an actual different standard written in the rulebook for players in fights who are deemed to be the "aggressor" in the playoffs, as opposed to the regular season. I had not known that prior to looking it up, so there ya go.
Maybe what I was observing from my historical experience was the actual application of this rule, and I missed the times when it was the first time a player fought (and was the aggressor) and therefore avoided the one game suspension. At any rate, there is a rule against fighting, and as clearly stated, on your second time as the aggressor, you do get a one game suspension . . . only in the play-offs. In the regular season, it takes three fights as the aggressor.
And . . . obviously that regular season rule is never applied, or at least, so rarely that no one knows about it or notices it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If this is what your referring to as far as read the thread again...well you only proved that I am right that there is no suspension in a fight in the playoffs. I cannot recall the "aggressor" penalty being called once in the playoffs so your "rule " is really just a waste of time.
So why instead of trying to act like you know everything don’t you just answer the question I asked?
|
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 11:50:26
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
Dear Tbar,
Wow, it's deja vu all over again.
I know it's probably pointless to mention it, but here goes: read this entire thread. Look up any words you don't understand.
There - your question is answered!
Regards,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Slozo 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Wow good points Slozo!!!!
I cant disagree with that!!! |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 10:22:30
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
Dear Tbar,
Wow, it's deja vu all over again.
I know it's probably pointless to mention it, but here goes: read this entire thread. Look up any words you don't understand.
There - your question is answered!
Regards,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Slozo
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| tbar |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 09:58:07
Slozo - back to our discussion earlier, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have come to an agreement that there is no extra disciplinary action for fighting in the playoffs?
I know we agree on the fact that playoff hockey is better, and that teams generally do not dress goons in the playoffs.
Question is if all teams would not dress the goons during the regular season do you think the number of fights would drop 25%? I would say no, other guys would see this as an opportunity to step up and show there a team guy and drop the mits, i think goons or not you have very similar fight numbers.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 19:02:01
Not sure about you guys but my world is not black and white. It is not all fighting or no fighting. But whatever.
Duke, here are a couple of questions for you:
1 - What cheers were louder, the cheers after the fight or the cheers after every one of the Leaf goals?? I watch the game, so don't try to pull some garbage answer.
2 - Tell me who Detroit's heavyweight is?? Who is the guy that protects all those players if fighting ensures players do not get taken advantange of?? Heck, name me a single player for Detroit who has played in that capacity since Probert retired??Who are all the players for Detroit that are gettin man-handled all the time???
|
| Pushrod |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 11:53:35
No objectivity? Not really sure what you mean by that in the context of your sentence, but just because someone has a middle of the stance view does not mean it is not an opinion. I like the physical aspect of the game, don't want it to be abolished, but that does not necessarily include the amount of fighting or the purpose that it has now. The odd fight isn't a big deal and does add to the entertainment, I don't think most people are denying that. "In your face, tough, hockey" does not necessarily have to always include "fighting" in the same sentence. Opinions do not have to be black or white, that's quite a concrete way of looking at things don't you think? |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 11:09:18
Its not about the last dig Pushrod, if someone is going to have an opinion, take a stand.
You either like one aspect of a game or another. Everyone is clear where i stand. Its either in your face, tough, fighting hockey....or its the more skilled game. Some people take the more in the middle, ( political ) stance with no objectivity. |
| Pushrod |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 11:47:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
20,000 fans don`t agree with your yawn Slozo.
Anyway thats enough talking on hockey styles, getting boring.
I like old fashioned rough and tumble, fighting hockey....guess some people pefer the Swedish Elite league style of play.
Wow. I agree with you that the topic had talked itself out, but you just can't go out without the last dig, hey Duke! I don't think anyone said they didn't like rough and tumble hockey on any of the threads on this topic. How eliminating the goons, and having the opinion that they do not eliminate headshots and serve minimal to no purpose in a game, is equivalent to Swedish Elite league hockey is a little nonsensical. After all the posts that have been made though, it is clear that I don't think that is ever going to get through.... |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 11:30:58
20,000 fans don`t agree with your yawn Slozo.
Anyway thats enough talking on hockey styles, getting boring.
I like old fashioned rough and tumble, fighting hockey....guess some people pefer the Swedish Elite league style of play. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 05:44:40
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Anyone watching the Leafs / Boston game ?
What !!!!! a tilt between Lucic and Rosehill, awesome. Long gruelling fight, 20,000 fans on their feet cheering, smiles brimming from ear to ear, deafening fan noise, the arena totally rock`in with adrenaline.....
of course some people don`t like it...it does nothing for the game...theres no place for it on the ice ...hogwash.
Its entertainment at its best, been hockey culture for a 100 years, i say......don`t like what 20,000 fans stand and cheer for....switch channels and watch figure skating or the golf channel 
No, entertainment at it's best was the HOCKEY played last night - an exciting game indeed between Boston and Toronto, capped off by a fantastic shootout goal by Kadri. The fantastic goaltending, the great rushes by both teams, the penalty kill in overtime by the Leafs in the last minute . .. THAT was exciting.
There was a sideshow fight? yawn.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 17:56:07
Anyone watching the Leafs / Boston game ?
What !!!!! a tilt between Lucic and Rosehill, awesome. Long gruelling fight, 20,000 fans on their feet cheering, smiles brimming from ear to ear, deafening fan noise, the arena totally rock`in with adrenaline.....
of course some people don`t like it...it does nothing for the game...theres no place for it on the ice ...hogwash.
Its entertainment at its best, been hockey culture for a 100 years, i say......don`t like what 20,000 fans stand and cheer for....switch channels and watch figure skating or the golf channel |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 17:09:06
Well, again, i don't know how a "goon" would have helped. You see, we clearly have different opinions on the whole "protection" thing. I still don't buy the idea that a guy wouldn't hit our players if we employed goon, or even if Rypien were in the lineup.
The closest hit that i can recall that could be considered (and was debated at the time) a cheap shot, would be Getzlaf on Hamhuis earlier this season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22EP61dkwVU
Funny, after watching that clip, it looks like Getzlaf nailed him with a blatant elbow but i don't think it actually made contact with Hammer. If you look at other vids, it doesn't appear as though.
Anyway, this was brought up recently and most agreed it'd be suspendable now, but at that time, the league hadn't started coming down on headshots.
Edler, they're not even totally sure how or when he got hurt but it's believed it was a hit he threw that actually hurt him!
Hamhuis' latest was a hit Bieksa threw that Hammer got caught up in. Just bad luck.
I could go on, but what i'm saying is i believe it's a matter of bad luck on the Canucks end. I don't for a second think that if they had a Brock Lesner-like guy who could skate, that these wouldn't have happened. But, that's just my opinion. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 16:50:11
Alex, i see you are definitely not a fan of goon protection. All these Vancouver D-Men constantly going down like flies....( i don`t really see the Canucks play, too late here on the rock ) whats happening to them ??
Just normal illnesses ? Opposing players taking liberties with them with no consquences ? Whats up ?
If your team is taking too many cheap shots don`t you think they need a goon ? i don`t know, just asking. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 10:54:15
Thanks for the clarification guys.
FER, the wording in the "Instigator" definition says to me that it could be called WAY more than it is. The refs seem to call it only if one guy more or less drops the gloves a few sec's before the other!!!
As for the "aggressor", it's somewhat similar as often there's punches thrown after a guy basically covers up. This too could be called more often in my mind. Also interesting to see that it's actually a rule and not just part of "THE CODE", to hit a guy when he's in a defenseless position (such as, once he's fallen to the ice). |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 10:21:55
46.2 Aggressor – The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who
continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his
opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling
combatant.
A player must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won
the fight but he continues throwing and landing punches in a further
attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no
longer in a position to defend himself.
46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his
actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria:
distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing
attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation
to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous
incident in the game or season.
To me it all sounds like blah, blah, blah, as you very seldom seem to find these definitions and subsequent penalties enforced as written.
Probably because, as the title of the thread states. 'Fans Love Fighting'. |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 09:03:17
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Slozo....what's the difference between aggressor and instigator? Those two rules you posted are pretty much identical? Are they not basically the same thing?
I believe the "aggressor" is a player who has already won the fight and keeps punching the other player, something to that extent anyways. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 08:24:37
Slozo....what's the difference between aggressor and instigator? Those two rules you posted are pretty much identical? Are they not basically the same thing? |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 06:20:45
And further, on the instigator penalty/suspension application in the regular season and playoffs:
quote:
46.21 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator - A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth instigator penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth instigator penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team.
During the Play-offs, any player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation for the second time shall be suspended automatically for the next Play-off game of his team. For each subsequent instigator violation during the Play-offs, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
Prior to the commencement of each Stanley Cup Final, a player or goalkeeper will have his current instigator violations removed from his current playoff record. They will remain part of his historical record.
Again, I am surprised by what I found here . . . in that, I either never see or don't remember seeing that regular season suspension applied properly when it is deserved.
I do find it a joke that the slate is wiped clean for the finals . . . what logic is used for this, I have no idea of, but it's pretty ridiculous.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 06:13:09
Interesting quote from the NHL rulebook, from nhl.com's website:
quote:
46.17 Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor - A player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team.
During the Play-offs, any player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the second time shall be suspended automatically for the next Play-off game of his team. For each subsequent aggressor violation during the Play-offs, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
Prior to the commencement of each Stanley Cup Final, a player or goalkeeper will have his current aggressor violations removed from his current playoff record. They will remain part of his historical record.
So, there is an actual different standard written in the rulebook for players in fights who are deemed to be the "aggressor" in the playoffs, as opposed to the regular season. I had not known that prior to looking it up, so there ya go.
Maybe what I was observing from my historical experience was the actual application of this rule, and I missed the times when it was the first time a player fought (and was the aggressor) and therefore avoided the one game suspension. At any rate, there is a rule against fighting, and as clearly stated, on your second time as the aggressor, you do get a one game suspension . . . only in the play-offs. In the regular season, it takes three fights as the aggressor.
And . . . obviously that regular season rule is never applied, or at least, so rarely that no one knows about it or notices it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 08:23:56
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Grabovski was a great example, from that game where he got nailed by Chara first on a hit that should have resulted in a suspension, and which crushed his head against the boards like a soft melon; then later in the game where he was hit quite hard again on a more legal play. Where was Orr? Did he even talk to Chara? Maybe it was a text message or email later, but frankly, I wouldn't think Orr has the mental capability to operate such complicated devices.
Nah, i'm pretty sure he'd just email / text from the bench. I mean, he sits there for long enough, he'd have the time.  |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 06:45:32
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Fat Elvis - you took the words out of my mouth almost when someone mentioned how Orr was "keeping people in line".
You know, I am a huge fan of trucculent players with skill . . . guys like Lucic or just physical players like Getzlaf, Ovechkin, Eric and Jordan Staal . . . these are players of varying skill that are pretty complete players offensively because of their tough, physical play.
But there is ZERO EVIDENCE - and I do mean zero!!! - to suggest a player who plays a few minutes a game dictates any liberties that may or may not be taken on a skilled player.
Grabovski was a great example, from that game where he got nailed by Chara first on a hit that should have resulted in a suspension, and which crushed his head against the boards like a soft melon; then later in the game where he was hit quite hard again on a more legal play. Where was Orr? Did he even talk to Chara? Maybe it was a text message or email later, but frankly, I wouldn't think Orr has the mental capability to operate such complicated devices.
And I am talking about a goon (Orr) that I think can actually skate and keep up despite his poor skill level . . . never mind the goons that can't - and there are plenty of those guys in the league.
But yeah - imagine if instead of Orr and his replacement Rosehill, that we had brought up either Kadri, or this Boyce kid earlier in the season who has played so well down the stretch. Would that have made the difference of a few points here or there? I think it might have, especially considering the line match-ups.
But sure, let's hear solid examples of how these thugs keep other players in line from taking liberties. Would love to hear some.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
And I would like to see you back up your claim about the "playoff fighting suspensions" because you cant.....?? |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 05:16:54
Fat Elvis - you took the words out of my mouth almost when someone mentioned how Orr was "keeping people in line".
You know, I am a huge fan of trucculent players with skill . . . guys like Lucic or just physical players like Getzlaf, Ovechkin, Eric and Jordan Staal . . . these are players of varying skill that are pretty complete players offensively because of their tough, physical play.
But there is ZERO EVIDENCE - and I do mean zero!!! - to suggest a player who plays a few minutes a game dictates any liberties that may or may not be taken on a skilled player.
Grabovski was a great example, from that game where he got nailed by Chara first on a hit that should have resulted in a suspension, and which crushed his head against the boards like a soft melon; then later in the game where he was hit quite hard again on a more legal play. Where was Orr? Did he even talk to Chara? Maybe it was a text message or email later, but frankly, I wouldn't think Orr has the mental capability to operate such complicated devices.
And I am talking about a goon (Orr) that I think can actually skate and keep up despite his poor skill level . . . never mind the goons that can't - and there are plenty of those guys in the league.
But yeah - imagine if instead of Orr and his replacement Rosehill, that we had brought up either Kadri, or this Boyce kid earlier in the season who has played so well down the stretch. Would that have made the difference of a few points here or there? I think it might have, especially considering the line match-ups.
But sure, let's hear solid examples of how these thugs keep other players in line from taking liberties. Would love to hear some.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 21:36:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
OK Alex, fair enough...let me explain what i have been saying....
the last time Orr has kicked someones a** because of a cheap shot on a TO`s better players ??...it hasn`t happened because NO-ONE is taking cheap shots at them since Burke has brought in some toughness to the team.
Remember when J.Blake got that punch in the face with a bare knuckle...that nasty black and blue eye, had it for weeks, with his pu**y linemates looking on ??....i sure do
When Kaberle was treated like swiss meat, night in night out ?
Toronto had a gutless team for years...nobody picked up for each other, those days are gone. If any of you think your team will win a stanley cup with cowards...your in for a rude awakening.
Geez, I didn't even know you could mistreat swiss meat...
Uhhh...in the Pacioretty/Chara thread there was a video posted up of Chara cheap shotting Grabovski.....twice.....in the same game.....yep, that Orr is sure a deterrent.
Like another poster pointed out, if Burke's truculence is candy, you've aquired a sweet tooth. It's a shame too, with the Leafs making such a nice run at the end of the season here, makes you wonder if they had kept a couple of offensive players in the lineup, and won a couple of those close games, just how things could be different.
As has been pointed out, numerous times, these designated hitters barely get any ice time as it is, and I would think even less in a close game.
You mentioned earlier that they don't take time away from the skill players, but I have to wonder if their lack of skill, takes away from overall offence when needed in those close games. |
| Guest4278 |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 19:14:45
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
[the last time Orr has kicked someones a** because of a cheap shot on a TO`s better players ??...it hasn`t happened because NO-ONE is taking cheap shots at them since Burke has brought in some toughness to the team.
I think Brian Burke was hoping to sell the pugnatious, meat headedness, toughness horse manure drop by drop. But you just bough the whole truck load. Something stinks in Toronto and at least one fan has bought it.
Might wanna give your argument a wash, because it stinks. If Burke tells you to jump, do you ask how high? |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 17:34:01
OK Alex, fair enough...let me explain what i have been saying....
the last time Orr has kicked someones a** because of a cheap shot on a TO`s better players ??...it hasn`t happened because NO-ONE is taking cheap shots at them since Burke has brought in some toughness to the team.
Remember when J.Blake got that punch in the face with a bare knuckle...that nasty black and blue eye, had it for weeks, with his pu**y linemates looking on ??....i sure do
When Kaberle was treated like swiss meat, night in night out ?
Toronto had a gutless team for years...nobody picked up for each other, those days are gone. If any of you think your team will win a stanley cup with cowards...your in for a rude awakening.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 17:11:49
That might have been the story in the 80's, but those days are gone. Back in the day, unless your name was Gretzky or Lemieux, you had to fight. Period. There was no backing down and no one would fight for you. There were goons like Semenko and Probert and Brown, and they would beat the crap out of anyone who took liberties with their star players.
But those days are gone. Far, far gone. As Alex and others have stated, today the goons fight the goons and that is it. If Cooke goes out and clocks Gaborik and it's not Cooke fighting Boogaard, it's Rupp of Engelland. Cooke doesn't learn because he doesn't have to back up every stupid play he does.
Proof?? Take a look at hockeyfights.com For example, Rupp and Engallend have 25 fights combined for the Penguins. Add in another 12 from Godard and Adams and you have 37 of their 69 fights. How many from Cooke?? 3. Just two more than Sidney Crosby.
How about your Leafs?? 47 fights and Orr, Brown, Komisarek, and Rosehill make up 33 of those fights.
No one fights their own fights so no on is afraid of it.
Finally, looking at Derek Engelland who has 13 fighting majors, here is the list of the guys he fought:
Colton Orr, Chris Neil, Kevin Klein, Jody Shelley, George Parros, Paul Bissonnette, Tim Jackman, David Clarkson, Colton Orr, Taylor Pyatt, Brandon Prust, Kevin Westgarth, and Chris Neil.
Looks like a lot of goons fighting goons to me. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 16:13:44
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Hey Alex maybe i am crazy, i get pissed drunk every Friday night...maybe this is my Friday night thought for the week.
All i know is wether its hockey, at a party, in a bar or any other situation in life....if a moron knows he is going to get a s**t kickin...that moron may not be so quick to do something stupid.
If that moron knows his actions have no consquences...then he surely will be inclined to be much more of a moron.
Okay, lemme explain what i mean. When was the last time you saw Colton Orr beat the crap out of a guy who hit one of his teammates? Unless it was a "fellow goon", it doesn't happen! Goons fight goons99% of the time. The other 1% would be when a guy like Chara may drop'em with a goon.
So, when Kessel gets flattened by a guy like Nik Kronwall, you're basically saying the Kronwall should run for his life because C. Orr is gonna come pummel him? I just don't see that happening and i certainly don't see Kronwall easing up on a hit because Orr's ass is parked on the TO bench. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 16:06:24
p.s....i`ve yet to see a player get suspended in the playoffs for a typical hockey fight...can`t remember one anyway. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 16:04:21
Hey Alex maybe i am crazy, i get pissed drunk every Friday night...maybe this is my Friday night thought for the week.
All i know is wether its hockey, at a party, in a bar or any other situation in life....if a moron knows he is going to get a s**t kickin...that moron may not be so quick to do something stupid.
If that moron knows his actions have no consquences...then he surely will be inclined to be much more of a moron. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 08:45:32
quote:
Originally posted by Mario 66
Alex to clarify, Tbar put that link up as he could not find the rule anywhere in the rule book and was requesting Slozo locate it or prove his claim about playoff suspensions for fighting.
In youth we learn; in age we understand
Ah, thanks, now i get it. I was looking all over for the rule on that link thinking Slozo provided it! |
| Mario 66 |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 08:27:24
Alex to clarify, Tbar put that link up as he could not find the rule anywhere in the rule book and was requesting Slozo locate it or prove his claim about playoff suspensions for fighting.
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
|
|
