Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Fighting in the NHL

 NOTICE!! This forum allows Anonymous Posting.
 Registered members please login above or input your User Name/Password before submitting!
Screensize:
Authority:  UserName:  Password:  (Member Only !)
  * Anonymous Posting please leave it blank. your temporary AnonyID is
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature. (Member Only !)
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
just1n Posted - 10/02/2013 : 15:35:27
As the NHL season kicks off, fighting is a huge topic after the Parros - Orr fight in the first Leafs vs. Habs tilt of the year. Even as I got ready for work this morning, it's all they were talking about on the CBC morning show I listen to. Now I'm reading an article saying some GM's are saying it's time to ban fighting, which is a fairly big step forward in the conversation I think.

So I'm curious, what do you guys think?

The article:
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=433262
40   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
leigh Posted - 10/25/2013 : 13:02:47
quote:
Originally posted by just1n

I haven't weighed in on this for a while, but just read that linesmen are going to step in and break up a fight if helmets are taken off first? Fighting is gradually being weeded out, like it or not.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=434817



Saw this very thing happen last night in the highlights. Fight was broken up, don't recall who though.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/23/2013 : 12:04:09
I for one find it dumb how fighter are now hitting helmets instead of heads. Might as well do away with fighting all together, if hitting a helmet is suppose to dole out punishment. Just asking for an increase in hand injuries. Good thing the majority of fights are players who play limited roles with teams.

Heck in a few years you might see the majority of hockey players with a full set of original teeth. Who'd have thought that one!
Alex116 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 10:49:25
quote:
Originally posted by just1n

I haven't weighed in on this for a while, but just read that linesmen are going to step in and break up a fight if helmets are taken off first? Fighting is gradually being weeded out, like it or not.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=434817



It really is only a matter of time. Look at hybrid icing. How many said "that will never happen at the NHL level!!!"? How about visors? Same thing. Go back further and it's helmuts! Fact is, as the game changes and the players continue to get bigger and faster and shoot that frozen rubber puck harder, rules will change too!
just1n Posted - 10/23/2013 : 10:28:54
I haven't weighed in on this for a while, but just read that linesmen are going to step in and break up a fight if helmets are taken off first? Fighting is gradually being weeded out, like it or not.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=434817
slozo Posted - 10/23/2013 : 08:50:55
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I give an example of how I have to explain fighting to my kids, and despite the fact that you also want stiffer penalties for fighting Beans . . . you make an allusion to my commentary, saying that I am somehow using hockey as a parenting tool, and that this somehow makes society in trouble?

I sure I hope I inferred that incorrectly. Especially since you apparently have no kids (I can tell from your answer).

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

I like how the explanation would go with your kids Slozo, which wasn't far off of how I explained it to my daughter who are hockey fans. Bean's analogy would be the end to fighting in the NHL. Doesn't mean your kids would watch a violence free hockey game, which is why I prefer Slozo's way, rather than Bean's way. Bean's way only deals with fighting. Do you notice how in Slozo's speech prepared for his kids he talks about how fighting is wrong, which his kids (should) understand. Then next he goes on to talk about checking which is harder for him to justify. Hockey is a violent game and kids are impressionable, but with good parenting no reason to insolate them from good ol hockey.



Yeah - explaining rules in sports is more difficult -especially when your kids are at an impressionable young age, and try to explain physical violence which is allowed.

Fighting is easy - it's NOT a part of hockey rules, is NOT allowed, and putting them into the penalty box does, in fact, quite hilariously mirror a "timeout" - ironically, the time for an NHL penalty and a timeout I give my kids for hitting one another is about the same. A sad state of affairs, when thinking about another man committing physical assault that is not allowed in the game, nor in society at large.

Checking IS more difficult, but again, it's because at first blush, it looks like a "no no Nooooo!" event to kids . . . but it's allowed in hockey under the rules. I have to explain to my daughter in detail that they wear special equipment, they are big and strong, they are careful, and they try not to REALLY hurt one another - they are just trying to win the game, that's all. Which is all basically true.

But to your last point . . . it IS, in fact, a reason to insulate kids at a very young age from violent hockey. I know it'll happen someday, and I'll have to turn it off when it does - a chippy game becomes a full-fledged free for all fight, and maybe it gets too violent, and I have to screen my boy from it.

Same way I love UFC, but would never watch it with my kids. Same with boxing. It's too violent, and goes far too against the bsic principles I try to teach my kids right now in terms of physicality and aggression . . . it doesn't mean I hate boxing or UFC, quite the opposite - they just aren't "ready" for it yet.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
OILINONTARIO Posted - 10/22/2013 : 13:36:29
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15





My opinion is that hockey adds zero value to the game and efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate it from the game.







Quite a controversial statement, indeed! You're gonna need a boatload of stats to back this one up, Beans. I will refrain from personal attacks, and merely state that I disagree with your opinion.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/22/2013 : 12:07:16
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I give an example of how I have to explain fighting to my kids, and despite the fact that you also want stiffer penalties for fighting Beans . . . you make an allusion to my commentary, saying that I am somehow using hockey as a parenting tool, and that this somehow makes society in trouble?

I sure I hope I inferred that incorrectly. Especially since you apparently have no kids (I can tell from your answer).

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

I like how the explanation would go with your kids Slozo, which wasn't far off of how I explained it to my daughter who are hockey fans. Bean's analogy would be the end to fighting in the NHL. Doesn't mean your kids would watch a violence free hockey game, which is why I prefer Slozo's way, rather than Bean's way. Bean's way only deals with fighting. Do you notice how in Slozo's speech prepared for his kids he talks about how fighting is wrong, which his kids (should) understand. Then next he goes on to talk about checking which is harder for him to justify. Hockey is a violent game and kids are impressionable, but with good parenting no reason to insolate them from good ol hockey.
slozo Posted - 10/22/2013 : 10:46:34
I give an example of how I have to explain fighting to my kids, and despite the fact that you also want stiffer penalties for fighting Beans . . . you make an allusion to my commentary, saying that I am somehow using hockey as a parenting tool, and that this somehow makes society in trouble?

I sure I hope I inferred that incorrectly. Especially since you apparently have no kids (I can tell from your answer).

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Beans15 Posted - 10/22/2013 : 10:41:17
I think that to use a term similar to Andyhack saying that a 10-20 game suspension is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, so is hockey fighting insignificant in the grand scheme of things. There is more violence on the 6pm news than there is in hockey. So, with all due respect, the little Timmy analogy is a little bit weak in the grand scheme of things, isn't it?? If people are using hockey as a parenting tool I think society is in trouble to begin with. I think it's far easier to explain why two grown men lost their temper and punched each other in the face if far easier to explain to a child than to explain why violent men took over a mall in Africa and killed a bunch of people or why an angry person put a bomb in their backpack and dropped it off at the Boston Marathon.

I disgress...

My opinion is that hockey adds zero value to the game and efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate it from the game.That doesn't happen over night but over time it will. I compare it to the way the NHL reduced the clutch and grab dead puck era in hockey. It took times, but with the proper enforcement of the rules, it changed the game and in my opinion for the metter.

I think the process needs to be twofold; player based and team based.

1 - Game misconduct for any player in a fight
2 Game misconduct and 1 game suspension for any player fighting in the 3rd period
3 A $10,000 fine to the team per fight and fine doubles every 5 fights. A team will pay $50,000 for the first 5 fights, $100,000 for the next 5 fights, $200,000 for the next 5 fights, so on and so forth. The money goes to charity groups focusing on abuse in the community the team plays in.


I would suggest that if the following measures were put in place you would see a dramatic drop in fighting, you would see a better quality product on the ice, and no fans would complain. Fighting would still happen on occasion (like in other sports) but it would actually bring something more to the table because it would happen so rarely. It's like players rushing the mound in baseball. It would still happen, it would be more rare so it would be more awesome, but it doesn't detract from every ball game in the way that fighting in hockey does.

At least we would be able to spend our time explaining the violence of Chechen rebels to our children rather than why George Parros bounced his face of the ice for no apparent reason.




slozo Posted - 10/22/2013 : 07:19:33
I have two small kids.

When you have children aged 2 and 4, and you are watching a hockey game (happens at least once a week during the season, at least for a half period, ha ha) and you choose to be a responsible parent . . . what do you think happens when a fight starts?

(to the boy - who is already a bit too rough, and we have to stop him from hitting - hey, he's 2, ok?)
No no NOOOOOO . . . . that's no good!
NO HITTING!

"Papa, why they do that?"

NO no no, that's NO GOOD. NO HITTING.
(desperately trying to distract, kid is now enamoured with the action on the TV)

[boy showing signs of sadness/fear, repeats pap's lines]
"No no no? No hitting . . ."

That's right son, NO. HITTING. See? He has to get a "time out" now.

Now, sometimes if my older daughter, aged 4, is present, she will quiz me further.

"Papa, why are they fighting?"

Well, they couldn't control their emotions, and they didn't follow the rules . . . that's a big no no!

"What's going to happen to them, papa?"
They are going to have a SUPER long time out now. [knowing this is a lie, but I have to somehow demonstrate to my children how brutally wrong it is to do that]

Now,
I know what you guys are thinking . . . what do you say when a big hit happens, and it's legal?

I tell it like it is - in this game, that's part of the rules . . . so, it's a very dangerous game, and you have to be very careful that when you are running/skating SO fast, that you don't bump into someone . . . [turning it into a lesson on checking your speed - mostly meant for my little guy, in fact]

Be Careful!!!

That's how I have to explain it to my kids.
Now let's go forward a couple of years, when I take out my girl and/or boy to their first game . . . and I have to be prepared for somehow explaining how a fight is against the rules, two guys are punching each other trying to hurt each other, and, it's totally against the rules.

Do you think it'll make sense to them that they just get a 5 minute "timeout", then get to play again?

Or do you think that slozo just desperately hopes that wIF a fight breaks out, the people in front rise up and block out the view of the kids thanks goodness, and the kids don't have to have this inner turmoil as to how to explain why everyone's cheering for something so wrong?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Alex116 Posted - 10/21/2013 : 17:09:05
Andyhack.....if you weren't a Bruins fan, i might just ask you to raise my children!

Brilliant post!
andyhack Posted - 10/21/2013 : 16:45:06
Joshua,

Just to clarify, I don't want to shield little Timmy from seeing a fight. In fact, I don't mind if he sees the occasional fight and think that it could be even kind of a good experience for him. But I want him to understand, when he see that fight, that the guys participating in it are going to be penalized harshly for their choice of doing something, that generally speaking, I want Timmy to know is not a particularly good thing to do.

The "generally speaking" qualification is important here. Hopefully, you, or I, or even a guy with a background like Milan Lucic, are there to explain the context behind some fights to Timmy so he can understand why Iggy felt compelled to make that choice (or why there may in fact in some circumstances be something that is arguably "right" about the choice). But I also want Timmy to understand that part of the choice even in the so-called "right" cases includes a kind of trade-off decision to face a stiff penalty.

Gotta run soon, so kind of cutting my thoughts short here, but one thing I have several times spouted on threads here about suspensions is that the perception of a hockey fan about the length of a penalty (in terms of suspensions) is very twisted . I think that point ties in here. Missing 10-20 games for a dirty/dangerous check for instance is often viewed as a "long" penalty when really it is not a very big deal in the larger scheme of things. I don't know what the minimum penalty for fighting should be (my first thought is minumum game misconduct though, and if it happens in the second half of the game, perhaps the next game too), but even if Iggy is clearly goaded into a fight, for him to just sit 5 or 10 minutes for making the choice to fight is not something I want little Timmy to take out of that experience.

Watch the fight Timmy. Learn from it. Let's talk about it. But see Iggy sit for a while for participating in it.

Gotta go. Lots of FIGHTS today!

Thanks for the clap Slozo
Beans15 Posted - 10/21/2013 : 13:42:12
Hmm, don't like UFC because of pounding a defenseless opponent but you like hockey fights??

I don't get that one at all.



JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 13:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Is anybody realizing that hockey is basically this times Gladiators throwing on a suit of Armour, grabbing basically a weapon, travelling as fast as a horse can run into opposing foes with all the natural instincts of rivalry. You got people yelling at each other to pass the puck, agitators trying to make you mad enough to draw a penalty through chirping on the ice. Cheap plays, sometimes with intent to injure and naturally gifted players being the targets of the other teams untalented roster. And now you wanna gentleman's game? This isn't golf ladies and gentleman.



No one is asking for the game to change. I think the majority of people are asking for more severe penalties for fighting, which is the same in every other professional sports league in the world with the exception of hockey and lacrosse to a certain degree.

And no, hockey is not the Gladiators of today. Hockey is hockey. Always has been and always will be. You want to compare Gladiators you should look at true combat sports like the UFC or boxing.


I think the 2 are tied together a lot more than you realize. I even seen a commercial from after the lockout and that's how they were promoting the sport. First time I ever looked at hockey that way. I think the violence in hockey is part of what makes it popular. I have no problem with leveling stiffer penalties on fighting as suggested, but I also don't have a problem with fighting being in hockey as long as its not a fight to justify why a person is playing in the NHL. Just so you know, I don't consider myself a fan of UFC or boxing.



The problem is there is no way to differentiate between player who are there only to fight and others. The time thing simply won't work. Are you thinking that a coach is going to have to play a 4th line player in the final 2 minutes of a game that the team might be losing just so that player can play in the next game?? Not happening.

The answer is simple: do what every other sport does and kick out any player who fights. Period. Done. No need for any special rules or making it acceptable for some people to fight and others don't. You fight, your are out of the game. You fight in the last 5 minutes you are out for the next game. Think of the yellow/red card process for soccer. It doesn't matter who the player is, a red card means you sit the next match in a major competition. It's perfect.

And just on a personal note, I cannot logically understand why a person can like fighting in hockey but not like combat sports. That makes zero sense.


There are 2 points I will respond to here.

1. I think the TOI is a direct indicator of who's role is simply that of a fighter. If the coach isn't willing to play a player enough to give him the TOI to avoid a suspension for fighting, then he can never regularly dress as a goon.

2. I like fighters of GSP because he is a talented fighter, but I don't like a sport which teaches someone to hit someone else while they are unprotected. UFC has greatly changed from the bloody sport it once was but ground pounding a defenseless opponent is not a sport to me. Hate to think how little Jimmy responds on the playground to that one.

BTW I brought up little Jimmy, not someone else because little Jimmy and Jimmy big brother are the NHL's target audience. Get a fan base as young as possible. You might not agree with it but 10-30 years olds have a taste for this and are the next generation of NHL players. You don't think reducing the fighting in the game will change the popularity of the NHL? If little Jimmy is a talented SOB at the midget to Junior level and he can't defend himself when he is targeted for fear he will get tossed from the game or suspended for multiple games, he might not end up playing in the NHL.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 13:02:33
I am trying to respond to all your points in kind and I am not saying some of the points I disagree with, just some I do not. There are a lot of positions against mine, but I have talked with a bunch of people at my work and they all agree with my point of view. Fighting is something you can try to limit, but is not all evil.
Beans15 Posted - 10/21/2013 : 12:55:03
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Is anybody realizing that hockey is basically this times Gladiators throwing on a suit of Armour, grabbing basically a weapon, travelling as fast as a horse can run into opposing foes with all the natural instincts of rivalry. You got people yelling at each other to pass the puck, agitators trying to make you mad enough to draw a penalty through chirping on the ice. Cheap plays, sometimes with intent to injure and naturally gifted players being the targets of the other teams untalented roster. And now you wanna gentleman's game? This isn't golf ladies and gentleman.



No one is asking for the game to change. I think the majority of people are asking for more severe penalties for fighting, which is the same in every other professional sports league in the world with the exception of hockey and lacrosse to a certain degree.

And no, hockey is not the Gladiators of today. Hockey is hockey. Always has been and always will be. You want to compare Gladiators you should look at true combat sports like the UFC or boxing.


I think the 2 are tied together a lot more than you realize. I even seen a commercial from after the lockout and that's how they were promoting the sport. First time I ever looked at hockey that way. I think the violence in hockey is part of what makes it popular. I have no problem with leveling stiffer penalties on fighting as suggested, but I also don't have a problem with fighting being in hockey as long as its not a fight to justify why a person is playing in the NHL. Just so you know, I don't consider myself a fan of UFC or boxing.



The problem is there is no way to differentiate between player who are there only to fight and others. The time thing simply won't work. Are you thinking that a coach is going to have to play a 4th line player in the final 2 minutes of a game that the team might be losing just so that player can play in the next game?? Not happening.

The answer is simple: do what every other sport does and kick out any player who fights. Period. Done. No need for any special rules or making it acceptable for some people to fight and others don't. You fight, your are out of the game. You fight in the last 5 minutes you are out for the next game. Think of the yellow/red card process for soccer. It doesn't matter who the player is, a red card means you sit the next match in a major competition. It's perfect.

And just on a personal note, I cannot logically understand why a person can like fighting in hockey but not like combat sports. That makes zero sense.



JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 12:34:27
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Well, Joshua,
If you really DID go back and read and try to understand what I said . . . and you are still going on like this...

quote:
You all talk about removing the fighting from the games so that teams can't defend there superstars except by having the offender, generally not superstars, sit a game or 2, yet when its suggested the removal of goon's, who are iced only as a sideshow, you claim its impossible without gods intervention. That's a joke. You wanna throw Iginla out for a game for defending himself, ok. Its easy, stiffen the penalties for fighting as suggested, but make it worse when its a fight just because its a fight. Add a penalty which is directly meant for goons who have no business on the ice except to fight. If a player has a fight without 60 minutes of TOI he is suspended 1 game, 2nd offense multiple game suspension, etc etc etc, until goons are gone or they learn to play the game enough to contribute on the ice. No team is gonna play there no talent goon 60 minutes in 10 games just so they can have 1 fight to avoid a suspension. Players who can play then can defend themselves without having to worry about multiple game suspensions.


...then it's completely useless, bud, me going on any further. Clearly I have reached the outer reaches of your education and reading comprehension, and we can no longer have a conversation to any intelligent degree.

But I'll thrust through the points you made with my bayonette anyways, since it's a moral prerogative with myself:

1) I never talked about the REMOVAL of fighting from the game. I have repeated ad nauseum, one can only make stiffer penalties, and thus remove it from the game to a greater degree. There is no "fighting in football", per se . . . but it does occasionally happen - and it's dealt with extremely harshly.

2) Accusing me of trying to remove fighting so that superstars can't defend themselves, is like me accusing you of turning on the music loudly so that no one can hear you beating up your girlfriend. Not only did I never say it, state it, or infer it; but your supposition infers I am tring to say/do something which I absolutely am not.

Very very poor taste here.

Try this concept on for size: with the goons out, the superstars of the game will have LESS goonery to deal with, not more.

Goonery as you put it is not what I was referring to. I was referring to cheap players or cheap plays. Gooning is different than that. At the NHL level you generally don't see a star player have a goon chasing him around. If that happens the other team throws out a goon to handle it, which is the problem. How do you remove goons from the game which we all seem to think only serve one purpose and that is to fight, which you have all said you would love to reduce.

3) My sarcastic comment about me suggesting your inane comment supposed God must come down to change everyone's mind was . . . well, if it wasn't patently obvious as a kind of joke, I can't reall help you. Seriously? You took that . . . seriously, and twisted it around as my serious opinion? Are you 6?

I took it as a joke, but I used it in my response to it none the less. Why not and how does this make me a 6 year old?

4) No, I don't want to throw out Iginla for "defending himself". Should I now accuse you of something you never did or said? Jeesh.

Why not? You are suggesting stiffer penalties against fighting. Why would this not affect him?

5) In an awkward way, at last you have a point of contention worth discussing . . . you don't like my suggestions for stiffer overall penalties for fighting (an illegal action in the game of hockey, for which the game stops), and instead, only want suspensions levied on players who fight who are below a certain minutes/game average or something of the sort. Your suggestion wouldn't work, btw - as an example, Colton Orr (goon for the Leafs) played 6 minutes against the Hawks tonight in a marquee match-up against the defending cup champs. He'll play more, on average, against other teams. Goon qualifies, under your standard.


The Colton Orr example is good. I like that one. So Colton has a fight and is sat for a game. Then he comes back and has another fight before playing 60 minutes of ice time. Now he sits for multiple games. He does this several times until he is suspended more than on the roster and his pay should be a reflection of his suspension. Would you risk playing a guy after his 4th fight if it meant you couldn't have him for another 5 games?

But I will take the suggestion on merit and idea at least, but I have this reply . . . it still condones fighting, and the Lucic's of the world are still then allowed to pick fights, interrupt the game, etc. It's a double standard, no matter which way you cut it. Should speeding be allowed for working people, but illegal for the unemployed (who have no job to rush to)? It's that kid of thinking that really muddies thing up into a mess . . . no, you need the same rule for everyone - equality.

Lucic is not the majority of the NHL, but he is not unique either. He is a skilled player who can drop the gloves. He isn't an unskilled player who's role is soley to goon. As far as speeding goes, it is not relevant to the game of hockey which has a system to handle fighting just like police have a system to handle speeders. I am not saying make it allowable or unpunishable, just the opposite. Change the rules to reflect those who's sole purpose is to be a fighter and stiffen the basic rules regarding fighting.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 12:07:45
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

Joshua, i don't think anyone here is suggesting hockey become golf on ice. No one that i've noticed has suggested removing the good clean bodychecking from the game, you know, the stuff that happens every shift but doesn't stall the game in any way on most instances? I don't even recall anyone mentioning "Timmy" or other kids as the reason for not wanting fighting in the game so violence in video games and injuries from learning to skateboard are irrellevant here. You really are grasping going there i must say?

Bottom line is this.....your opinion is that fighting should stay in the game more or less as is rather than be far more harshly penalized, which is the opinion of the majority here at PUH. Cool, i think everyone is OK with that and it's YOUR OPINION that really can't be argued. Now, your reasoning (protecting the skilled guys) on the other hand, is something that can be debated. So, rather than bringing up Timmy and his video games, tv shows and skateboarding, why not either move on and accept everyone else's opinions, OR, come up with some actual factual info that supports your feelings that fighting lessens the violence in other areas. Judging by the number of injuries we've already seen in the first few weeks of the season, you're gonna be hard pressed to find any concrete evidence of your claim!

I am on the bandwagon for stiffening the penalties, as I agree they are too minor to this point. I just wanna see them levied harsher on players who's roles rely on fighting and less on players who are responding to in game incidences.

My reasoning for whether fighting is a response to other factors and is meant to be a deterrent, will be hard to find proof as you say, but from experience that is the driving factor for why fighting happens whether it has the intended effect and is also part of human nature/rivalry in a very violent sport. I don't even think fighting is the worst of the violence in the sport. The injuries we have seen at the beginning of this season are likely similar to most seasons, which again isn't great press and likely why this debate has started again. That being said we go to a game together with our teams playing against each other and a fight breaks out, I guarantee your cheering for your teams fighter, not chastising him for dropping the gloves.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 11:57:10
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Is anybody realizing that hockey is basically this times Gladiators throwing on a suit of Armour, grabbing basically a weapon, travelling as fast as a horse can run into opposing foes with all the natural instincts of rivalry. You got people yelling at each other to pass the puck, agitators trying to make you mad enough to draw a penalty through chirping on the ice. Cheap plays, sometimes with intent to injure and naturally gifted players being the targets of the other teams untalented roster. And now you wanna gentleman's game? This isn't golf ladies and gentleman.



No one is asking for the game to change. I think the majority of people are asking for more severe penalties for fighting, which is the same in every other professional sports league in the world with the exception of hockey and lacrosse to a certain degree.

And no, hockey is not the Gladiators of today. Hockey is hockey. Always has been and always will be. You want to compare Gladiators you should look at true combat sports like the UFC or boxing.


I think the 2 are tied together a lot more than you realize. I even seen a commercial from after the lockout and that's how they were promoting the sport. First time I ever looked at hockey that way. I think the violence in hockey is part of what makes it popular. I have no problem with leveling stiffer penalties on fighting as suggested, but I also don't have a problem with fighting being in hockey as long as its not a fight to justify why a person is playing in the NHL. Just so you know, I don't consider myself a fan of UFC or boxing.
Alex116 Posted - 10/21/2013 : 11:55:05
Joshua, i don't think anyone here is suggesting hockey become golf on ice. No one that i've noticed has suggested removing the good clean bodychecking from the game, you know, the stuff that happens every shift but doesn't stall the game in any way on most instances? I don't even recall anyone mentioning "Timmy" or other kids as the reason for not wanting fighting in the game so violence in video games and injuries from learning to skateboard are irrellevant here. You really are grasping going there i must say?

Bottom line is this.....your opinion is that fighting should stay in the game more or less as is rather than be far more harshly penalized, which is the opinion of the majority here at PUH. Cool, i think everyone is OK with that and it's YOUR OPINION that really can't be argued. Now, your reasoning (protecting the skilled guys) on the other hand, is something that can be debated. So, rather than bringing up Timmy and his video games, tv shows and skateboarding, why not either move on and accept everyone else's opinions, OR, come up with some actual factual info that supports your feelings that fighting lessens the violence in other areas. Judging by the number of injuries we've already seen in the first few weeks of the season, you're gonna be hard pressed to find any concrete evidence of your claim!
Beans15 Posted - 10/21/2013 : 11:48:37
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Is anybody realizing that hockey is basically this times Gladiators throwing on a suit of Armour, grabbing basically a weapon, travelling as fast as a horse can run into opposing foes with all the natural instincts of rivalry. You got people yelling at each other to pass the puck, agitators trying to make you mad enough to draw a penalty through chirping on the ice. Cheap plays, sometimes with intent to injure and naturally gifted players being the targets of the other teams untalented roster. And now you wanna gentleman's game? This isn't golf ladies and gentleman.



No one is asking for the game to change. I think the majority of people are asking for more severe penalties for fighting, which is the same in every other professional sports league in the world with the exception of hockey and lacrosse to a certain degree.

And no, hockey is not the Gladiators of today. Hockey is hockey. Always has been and always will be. You want to compare Gladiators you should look at true combat sports like the UFC or boxing.



JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 11:38:29
Is anybody realizing that hockey is basically this times Gladiators throwing on a suit of Armour, grabbing basically a weapon, travelling as fast as a horse can run into opposing foes with all the natural instincts of rivalry. You got people yelling at each other to pass the puck, agitators trying to make you mad enough to draw a penalty through chirping on the ice. Cheap plays, sometimes with intent to injure and naturally gifted players being the targets of the other teams untalented roster. And now you wanna gentleman's game? This isn't golf ladies and gentleman.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/21/2013 : 11:27:36
Hate to tell you Slozo, but I acknowledge that fact it was a joke and suggested stiffer penalties in some of my prior posts. I even suggested a penalty system which would limit or remove no talent goons. But you disregarded even chastised my suggestions, because of my opinion that fighting will happen regardless of people's pc attitude to fighting. Oh my, lets take the fighting or limit the violence for the game of hockey, because poor little Timmy might get the wrong idea. At the same time, as pointed out in Football, basketball, baseball all see violence in the sports. Hell there are sports little Timmy can watch which are based soley on violence and some of them are as popular as hockey. Hell, play a videogame that little Timmy likely plays or watch little Timmys favorite tv show and you will see tonnes of violence, a lot worse than the fighters who throw a few haymakers, which cause less injuries than learning to skateboard, which little Timmy might also do. I think a lot of people are going way to soft trying to limit what a child see's or culture is now deeming too violent, but what is funny is if they look back to what they enjoyed as a child, young adult, included much of what you deem to be excessive. I am saying this as an adult of 36 with 2 teenage daughters, 2 nephews who play hockey and a fan of the sport.
slozo Posted - 10/21/2013 : 10:41:44
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack

I think we had a thread on this a few years ago and probably I basically said the same thing, but the penalties for fighting in hockey are now, and always have been, absolutely ridiculous. I mean it has always been a bizarre twisted mindset that has allowed someone to fight and potentially only have to sit out for 5 minutes (even if its longer due to misconducts, etc, still, 15, 20, 30 or whatever minutes are all ridiculously weak "penalties").

Even someone who loves the fighting and/or someone who thinks fighting somehow has a place in the game (notwithstanding the fact that it is penalized) and/or someone reasonably concerned about how really harsh penalties might be used as a strategy in the future to get a good player suspended, must on a very basic level see the blatent craziness in "Five for fighting" if he/she sits back for a second and thinks about it like a four year old (well, a bright 4 year old).

The conversation I believe has to start from this perspective. Forget grander ideas of "banning" fighting and just realize that the basic starting principle of "Five for Fighting" (regardless of whether a player is being forced to defend himself!) is a small small SMALL fraction of what the penalty just has to be in order to reflect the very basic point that fighting is, generally speaking, something most human beings hoping for a decent world to live in want to strongly discourage.




Andyhack,

Despite the fact that I have wanted to physically mangle and thrash violently every Bruins fan I could lay hands on after last postseason's game 7 debacle - don't worry, I "controlled" my emotions so no arrests had to be made - you just said it so simply and beautifully I feel like doing the slow clap online (if that's possible)

CLAP! . . . (extended pause) . . . CLAP! . . . .(really extended pause) . . . . CLAP! . . . . CLAP! . . . . .(pause) . . .CLAP!

Thank-you sir,
couldn't agree with you more.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
andyhack Posted - 10/20/2013 : 02:09:07
I think we had a thread on this a few years ago and probably I basically said the same thing, but the penalties for fighting in hockey are now, and always have been, absolutely ridiculous. I mean it has always been a bizarre twisted mindset that has allowed someone to fight and potentially only have to sit out for 5 minutes (even if its longer due to misconducts, etc, still, 15, 20, 30 or whatever minutes are all ridiculously weak "penalties").

Even someone who loves the fighting and/or someone who thinks fighting somehow has a place in the game (notwithstanding the fact that it is penalized) and/or someone reasonably concerned about how really harsh penalties might be used as a strategy in the future to get a good player suspended, must on a very basic level see the blatent craziness in "Five for fighting" if he/she sits back for a second and thinks about it like a four year old (well, a bright 4 year old).

The conversation I believe has to start from this perspective. Forget grander ideas of "banning" fighting and just realize that the basic starting principle of "Five for Fighting" (regardless of whether a player is being forced to defend himself!) is a small small SMALL fraction of what the penalty just has to be in order to reflect the very basic point that fighting is, generally speaking, something most human beings hoping for a decent world to live in want to strongly discourage.
slozo Posted - 10/19/2013 : 23:28:55
Well, Joshua,
If you really DID go back and read and try to understand what I said . . . and you are still going on like this...

quote:
You all talk about removing the fighting from the games so that teams can't defend there superstars except by having the offender, generally not superstars, sit a game or 2, yet when its suggested the removal of goon's, who are iced only as a sideshow, you claim its impossible without gods intervention. That's a joke. You wanna throw Iginla out for a game for defending himself, ok. Its easy, stiffen the penalties for fighting as suggested, but make it worse when its a fight just because its a fight. Add a penalty which is directly meant for goons who have no business on the ice except to fight. If a player has a fight without 60 minutes of TOI he is suspended 1 game, 2nd offense multiple game suspension, etc etc etc, until goons are gone or they learn to play the game enough to contribute on the ice. No team is gonna play there no talent goon 60 minutes in 10 games just so they can have 1 fight to avoid a suspension. Players who can play then can defend themselves without having to worry about multiple game suspensions.


...then it's completely useless, bud, me going on any further. Clearly I have reached the outer reaches of your education and reading comprehension, and we can no longer have a conversation to any intelligent degree.

But I'll thrust through the points you made with my bayonette anyways, since it's a moral prerogative with myself:

1) I never talked about the REMOVAL of fighting from the game. I have repeated ad nauseum, one can only make stiffer penalties, and thus remove it from the game to a greater degree. There is no "fighting in football", per se . . . but it does occasionally happen - and it's dealt with extremely harshly.

2) Accusing me of trying to remove fighting so that superstars can't defend themselves, is like me accusing you of turning on the music loudly so that no one can hear you beating up your girlfriend. Not only did I never say it, state it, or infer it; but your supposition infers I am tring to say/do something which I absolutely am not.

Try this concept on for size: with the goons out, the superstars of the game will have LESS goonery to deal with, not more.

3) My sarcastic comment about me suggesting your inane comment supposed God must come down to change everyone's mind was . . . well, if it wasn't patently obvious as a kind of joke, I can't reall help you. Seriously? You took that . . . seriously, and twisted it around as my serious opinion? Are you 6?

4) No, I don't want to throw out Iginla for "defending himself". Should I now accuse you of something you never did or said? Jeesh.

5) In an awkward way, at last you have a point of contention worth discussing . . . you don't like my suggestions for stiffer overall penalties for fighting (an illegal action in the game of hockey, for which the game stops), and instead, only want suspensions levied on players who fight who are below a certain minutes/game average or something of the sort. Your suggestion wouldn't work, btw - as an example, Colton Orr (goon for the Leafs) played 6 minutes against the Hawks tonight in a marquee match-up against the defending cup champs. He'll play more, on average, against other teams. Goon qualifies, under your standard.

But I will take the suggestion on merit and idea at least, but I have this reply . . . it still condones fighting, and the Lucic's of the world are still then allowed to pick fights, interrupt the game, etc. It's a double standard, no matter which way you cut it. Should speeding be allowed for working people, but illegal for the unemployed (who have no job to rush to)? It's that kid of thinking that really muddies thing up into a mess . . . no, you need the same rule for everyone - equality.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Alex116 Posted - 10/19/2013 : 22:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
of course there will be someone to stand up for St Louis if someone is riding him. Why does it have to be a no talent goon? All they have to do is be a quality player who can play 60 minutes of icetime between fights to avoid a suspension.



This is where I believe, as I've already mentioned, that it would go "full circle". If St. Louis doesn't fight his own battle and has a tough guy stand up for him, the other team simply gets a tougher guy to go after that guy when needed. It never stops, as teams then try to get the biggest, toughest guy who can play the game. Some, will go as far as having a guy who can hardly play at all and then we're right back to square 1. Unfortunately, there will always be teams willing to have a 12th forward who doesn't see the ice except when needed. Deep teams can and will do this.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/18/2013 : 23:30:52
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

You all talk about removing the fighting from the games so that teams can't defend there superstars except by having the offender, generally not superstars, sit a game or 2, yet when its suggested the removal of goon's, who are iced only as a sideshow, you claim its impossible without gods intervention. That's a joke.

Where did God get involved here??? All i said was it's unrealistic to think that teams can simply just dress guys who can play AND fight well. These teams don't like to see these valuable assets fighting much AND, other teams which can afford the roster spot, will simple employ a guy who's tougher but likely can't play well and voila, the goon exists.

I conceded that i could accept a guy like Iggy fighting if he really felt it necessary. However, in my world, he'd be subject to the discipline of a game suspension!

I don't mind your suggestion on TOI being involved, however the problem there is, how does a guy like Marty St Louis defend himself? In your world, he needs a tough guy to fight his battles, no? He's certainly not gonna do it!!! So, if it's a guy who can play and fight, do you grant him the leeway or is his considered a suspendable fight?

Bottom line is, until you prove to me that fighting does in fact protect the stars and fighting reduces cheap shots, etc, i won't be buying into you opinion on the matter at hand.


of course there will be someone to stand up for St Louis if someone is riding him. Why does it have to be a no talent goon? All they have to do is be a quality player who can play 60 minutes of icetime between fights to avoid a suspension.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/18/2013 : 23:26:19
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I have no problem with never having 1 dimensional players of the quality of the list you suggested ever playing a shift in the NHL. Remove the goons not the fighting.



If you condone fighting through its promotion on a pervasive level, and the penalties are not stiff enough (ie - at least one game suspensions if not more for fighting/initiation of a fight) then . . . you will still have goons.

Joshua,
You can't just make blanket statement like you made and think God will come down from his perch on the Stanley Cup and instill this new idea in the heads of coaches and GMs and players, and suddenly POOF! the goons are gone. This is not a children's movie, where people do things out of some moral need . . . the only movement in terms of having or not having goons has to start first with an increased punishment for goonery!

So climb on board the REALITY TRAIN . . . . choo choo! choo choo! What are your suggestions - real things to implement - to get the goons out, but keep fighting in?


"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

This was the quote with the god intervention I was referring to. As for your remark Beans about reading someone elses POV before responding, take you own advice. I was giving my own point of view.
Beans15 Posted - 10/18/2013 : 06:07:04
Joshua, please read and understand the other person's POV before posting. It will save many of us a significant amount of time repeating ourselves.

Please read below and then re-read your last point and help me understand the relevance of your post:

I have no beef if people want to say the like fighting for the entertainment value. I would personally disagree but others can love fights as much as they want. Just don't try to make excuses for why fighting should be in the NHL from any kind of deterrence angle. It's simple not true.





Alex116 Posted - 10/17/2013 : 16:13:51
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

You all talk about removing the fighting from the games so that teams can't defend there superstars except by having the offender, generally not superstars, sit a game or 2, yet when its suggested the removal of goon's, who are iced only as a sideshow, you claim its impossible without gods intervention. That's a joke.

Where did God get involved here??? All i said was it's unrealistic to think that teams can simply just dress guys who can play AND fight well. These teams don't like to see these valuable assets fighting much AND, other teams which can afford the roster spot, will simple employ a guy who's tougher but likely can't play well and voila, the goon exists.

I conceded that i could accept a guy like Iggy fighting if he really felt it necessary. However, in my world, he'd be subject to the discipline of a game suspension!

I don't mind your suggestion on TOI being involved, however the problem there is, how does a guy like Marty St Louis defend himself? In your world, he needs a tough guy to fight his battles, no? He's certainly not gonna do it!!! So, if it's a guy who can play and fight, do you grant him the leeway or is his considered a suspendable fight?

Bottom line is, until you prove to me that fighting does in fact protect the stars and fighting reduces cheap shots, etc, i won't be buying into you opinion on the matter at hand.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/17/2013 : 08:09:28
You all talk about removing the fighting from the games so that teams can't defend there superstars except by having the offender, generally not superstars, sit a game or 2, yet when its suggested the removal of goon's, who are iced only as a sideshow, you claim its impossible without gods intervention. That's a joke. You wanna throw Iginla out for a game for defending himself, ok. Its easy, stiffen the penalties for fighting as suggested, but make it worse when its a fight just because its a fight. Add a penalty which is directly meant for goons who have no business on the ice except to fight. If a player has a fight without 60 minutes of TOI he is suspended 1 game, 2nd offense multiple game suspension, etc etc etc, until goons are gone or they learn to play the game enough to contribute on the ice. No team is gonna play there no talent goon 60 minutes in 10 games just so they can have 1 fight to avoid a suspension. Players who can play then can defend themselves without having to worry about multiple game suspensions.
Alex116 Posted - 10/17/2013 : 07:48:38
The problem with trying to remove goons is the fact that there are very few Milan Lucic's in the world. Sure, guys like Clowe, Neil, Thornton (Shawn), etc can throw down too, but if those are the guys employed by teams, other teams are gonna go out and get a bigger, tougher guy, aka GOON, where they see fit to squeeze one in to a spot on their roster.

If your whole point is that you'd like to be able to see guys like Iggy defend himself by dropping the gloves now and then, so be it. But you can't have it both ways. Let Iggy drop'em, then he can sit out a game......
slozo Posted - 10/17/2013 : 06:25:51
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I have no problem with never having 1 dimensional players of the quality of the list you suggested ever playing a shift in the NHL. Remove the goons not the fighting.



If you condone fighting through its promotion on a pervasive level, and the penalties are not stiff enough (ie - at least one game suspensions if not more for fighting/initiation of a fight) then . . . you will still have goons.

Joshua,
You can't just make blanket statement like you made and think God will come down from his perch on the Stanley Cup and instill this new idea in the heads of coaches and GMs and players, and suddenly POOF! the goons are gone. This is not a children's movie, where people do things out of some moral need . . . the only movement in terms of having or not having goons has to start first with an increased punishment for goonery!

So climb on board the REALITY TRAIN . . . . choo choo! choo choo! What are your suggestions - real things to implement - to get the goons out, but keep fighting in?


"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/16/2013 : 15:27:35
I have no problem with never having 1 dimensional players of the quality of the list you suggested ever playing a shift in the NHL. Remove the goons not the fighting.
Alex116 Posted - 10/16/2013 : 14:14:49
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

So you think fighting isn't a deterrent for these plays, but acknowledge the team on the receiving end dropped the gloves. Was anybody injured in those fights? Did the fights change the tempo of the game? Did the game get cheaper or dirtier after the teammate stood up for the other teammate? Did the receiving team play with more energy and confidence post the fight?

Joshua, what exactly is your point about me acknowledging "the team on the receiving end dropped the gloves??? I don't get it? Feel free to explain. As for the rest of the game, i don't know the answers to your questions as i didn't see the game, however, i did hear that Brent Burns was called for running B. Morrow into the boards from behind not too long after the Lapierre hit?

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

If the fight causes no major injury and the team on the receiving end plays with more energy and confidence because a teammate stood up for another teammate, I don't see how you can say that fighting has no positive effect on a game. Fans like it and expect it, because it is suppose to be a release for the team on the receiving end and there fans.

Fighting does not deter the intial cheapshot physical play but it is suppose to be a deterrent for it to continue. The only time the animosity doesn't go away is if the fight doesn't go the way of the receiver.



So, let's face it, a fight is pretty much a 50/50 outcome. So, if animosity doesn't go away if the guy who's team mate got cheap shotted loses the fight, it's safe to say this happens half the time, no? So, half the time, there's still need for some justice?

As far as teams getting a boost from a fight or a guy standing up for his team mates, i get it. Trust me, until recently, i loved the fighting! I actually still do enjoy seeing them drop the gloves now and then, but at the same time, i wouldn't care, and would prob prefer, if they took fighting out of the game. It would not render me a non hockey fan one single bit in fact.

Your comments about whether or not the fight caused any injury is a good one. You are somewhat correct in saying that most fights end with neither guy being injured significantly. I say somewhat, because to get the truth, you have to look over a long period of time. Part of the reason many people are "done" with fighting in the game is due to the long term affects it can and does have on many of the so called "goons". Just ask the families of Wade Belak, Derek Boogaard, Rick Rypien, John Kordic and Bob Probert.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/16/2013 : 10:48:39
So you think fighting isn't a deterrent for these plays, but acknowledge the team on the receiving end dropped the gloves. Was anybody injured in those fights? Did the fights change the tempo of the game? Did the game get cheaper or dirtier after the teammate stood up for the other teammate? Did the receiving team play with more energy and confidence post the fight?

If the fight causes no major injury and the team on the receiving end plays with more energy and confidence because a teammate stood up for another teammate, I don't see how you can say that fighting has no positive effect on a game. Fans like it and expect it, because it is suppose to be a release for the team on the receiving end and there fans.

Fighting does not deter the intial cheapshot physical play but it is suppose to be a deterrent for it to continue. The only time the animosity doesn't go away is if the fight doesn't go the way of the receiver.
Alex116 Posted - 10/15/2013 : 22:57:23
Beans, good example. Apparently max Lapierre ran Dan Boyle from behind tonight as well. He was given a game misconduct for it and fought someone (not sure who likely jumped him after the fact). I guess the fact someone fought him will probably deter him from doing such a thing ever again, right?

BTW, do you write for the Sharks? Check out this bit from "fearthefin" (a Sharks blog I believe?)......

Players like Lapierre have no place in the game and it's laughable that some believe the existence of fighting keeps them out of it. It clearly doesn't.
Beans15 Posted - 10/15/2013 : 20:04:50
Patrick Kaleta has just been suspended for 10 games. The hit to Johnson was high and to the head and this is Kaleta's fourth suspension.

On the ice at the time of the incident was Jared Boll, the tough guy for the Blue Jackets. Directly after the hit, Kaleta and Boll fought and I would suggest Boll won the fight.

Two questions:

If fighting is such a deterrent to dirty plays, why did this happen?

Do you think that although being suspended three time previously that Kaleta will turn over a new leaf now that Boll gave him a beating?

If you like fighting in hockey, that's fine. But there is no examples that any has ( or can IMHO) that will show that fighting has any kind of value as a deterrent for dirty play or that players clean up their dirty play once they get in a fight. It's simply not true.



JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/15/2013 : 09:18:03
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I agree with that. Checking is not discussed and this is about fighting. Thats the problem, everyone wants to come down on something that happens infrequently, which causes less injuries, but does not want to discuss what actually causes the majority of the violence and injuries in the sport.

There are countless threads that touch on the body checking. I just started one on the Edler suspension and stated I don't like that hits like he dished out are being punished like they are and how the "hittee" needs to take some responsibility. We discussed the Kassian suspension / check that resulted in a high stick. Heck, pretty much every big hit that leads to an injury is discussed at length!!! So, I don't think it's fair to claim that no one wants to discuss the hitting end of things?

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA I am not advocating removal of checking from the sport, just defending why fighting is more or less tolerated in the game. Wish all you want about the removal of fighting in a game, but if a players travelling at 30+ mph collide with another player, clean check or not, I understand why one of them might lose his temper and drop the gloves. Same with high sticks, and cheap shots.


Well, i can "understand" a guy losing his temper after being hit, but the bottom line is, if it was clean, it should be accepted. And, if he still feels he must drop the mitts, i feel he should be penalized far more harshly than they do (ie. game misconduct at the very least). What good does dropping the mitts do as a retaliation vs a cheap shot? Think about it, half the time the guy who gets challenged ends up winning the fight anyway! Not to mention, the instigator often gets the extra penalty, hurting his team with either a short handed situation OR negating what would have been a power play!

Looks like the NHL has a system in place to deter fighting already, with the instigator penalty. I just understand a player who would be upset by a hard check and wanting to drop the gloves. Game misconduct would be fine, but I don't want to see a repeat offender penalty for fighting and multiple games lost. Its the fights for no purpose that I have a problem with, except as an excuse for 2 heavyweights to determine who is the better fighter.

Beans has touched on something that rings very true. IF fighting deters all these big hits and cheap shots, WHY DO WE STILL SEE THEM ALMOST DAILY???? Face it, the tough guys don't go around beating on anyone except for other tough guys!!!

Agreed, that's why I have said the unskilled heavy weights need to go.

Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page