2013-14 NHL Season Discussion

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="213008" data-time="1383360216">
<div>


To all the pro fighting fans here, was there anything at all honorable in what Emery did there? Because that wasn't a goalie fight. That was an assault. That was one dumbass skating the entirety of the rink looking to jump another guy (who never wanted to fight) for no reason whatsoever other than just because. Just because. And the worst part of it to me, the refs did nothing. They actively tried to stop other players  from breaking it up and stood and watched as Holtby got hit in the back of the head repeatedly while he was on the ice. And Emery actually got the third star. What was honorable in any of that?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


As many have said, Nothing Emery did was honorable, but it had the same train-wreck entrtainment value that most goalie fights have.  And, if I'm a caveman for finding it amusing that two hihgly-paid athletes slug it out, then I will gladly accept that moniker while I grab the nearest femur bone, smack the nearest peacenik over the head with it and fling it to the heavens in Kubrickain glee.</p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="CLWolf81" data-cid="213036" data-time="1383406610">
<div>


Not while its run by the chickenshits who run the Department of Player Safety. In a perfect NHL, it would be.... but while the Count is running the Puppet Show, it won't be.</p>


 </p>


I expect 1 game and no more. Emery might even just get a slap on the wrist..... </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


That's the crux of the matter.  Discipline is all over the place and unfortunately, IMHO, it's driven by the almighty dollar.  IMHO any major-worthy act (with the exception of both parties agreeing to a fight), should have a suspension attached with a mandatory amount of time based on the act that was comitted (the league should say that each suspendible act--boarding, charging, checking from behind, kneeing, McSorely'ing, etc. has a minimum of an X-game suspension no matter what), plus a modifier based on whether or not the other player was injured, and the gravity of said injury as diagnose by a neutral doctor (hey, if you get pigged for driving drunk you're going to get into legal trouble, if you crash into someone and injure them you're going to get in more trouble, and if you kill them still more trouble), and more time added if it's a repeat offense.  Apply those criteria universally even if that means Any cash-cow player is not goign to be seeing the ice and you'll start to see cheap play taper off.</p>


 </p>


But as long as guys get slaps on the wrist there is no league deterrant, eliminating fighting will make the league lose whatever detterrent there is in "self-policing".</p>

 

[Variable]

Which is none lol. Nothing backs that up, not even, or I should say especially when the instigator rule was nonexistent.

 

[LordKOTL]

Come to think about it, variable, I can cite one example where fighting caused something that is "for the greater good".</p>


 </p>


The fight:  Evande Kane v Matt Cooke.</p>


 </p>


Most of us here remember where Evander Kane annihilated Matte Cooke.  It was one of the most beautiful moments in hockey history.  The result of that fight was Matt Cooke almost being carried out on a stretcher and him not playing the rest of the game.</p>


 </p>


Matt Cooke is/was also known as a cheapshot artist who is a danger to all players on the ice.</p>


 </p>


Ergo, the act of fighting caused a know cheapshot artist to be off of the ice for a good portion of the game, thus protecting all star players better than the league ever did (how many slaps on the wrists did he get before *finally* getting a suspension for his acts?).</p>


 </p>


Thus, IMHO until the league grows a par and starts throwing the book at cheapshot artists equally--whether they be superstars or plugs, the game needs some recourse to keep cheapshot artists off of the ice.  If that method is fighting because there is a chance that a cheapshot artist gets completely KO'ed , then fighting needs to be kept in until the leage gets stricter punishments for cheap play.</p>

 

[Variable]

Dude,  you've described maybe the only thing worse than what the NHL does currently. That's not only not an effective means whatsoever, that's just taking a "well what's one more body amongst the ashes?" type of view on it,. And it still changes nothing for the better even if  it somehow impossibly works every time, where the "good guy"  in the fight "wins" and he's not the one sent to the hospital and it's ALWAYS for a valid reason, which we all know hockey players are soooo objective in what they see as some sort of injustice going on or a slight to the their team. It's just....insane. There is just no other word for it. It's not even a sport at that point. All it really does is bolster the argument against it.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

You say "That's one more body among the ashes" like it's a bad thing.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I found this in Puckdaddys Vent section pretty interesting:


As the fighting debate continues on, here's a reader who has a plea that he wants heard.


by Gerald Morton


Dear Media,


I think I understand.


It must be hard being complicit in the damaging of young men’s brains. It has to be awkward to watch young people, barely more than kids, damage their bodies and brains in the pursuit of our entertainment and your livelihood. You seem to have unresolved guilt about living a lifestyle of relative leisure and travel at their expense. It makes sense to have complicated feelings and conflict about your job.


But please save us from your misguided outrage and moral panic.


If not for me, or others that enjoy the game, then do it for yourselves. Instead of howling at the void or taking a stance of moral and ethical superiority, convert your energy into something useful. Pressure junior, and lower, leagues to remove fighting, the most dangerous hits and make the game as safe as possible. Most of these kids will not make it as professionals and it is the job of those who have gone before to look after children.


But please save us from your quest to save millionaire adults from themselves.


Ya, I get it, twenty year old adults are still full of youthful idiocy. But every time a thirty year old has an affair, a forty year old buys a Porsche he can’t afford, or a fifty year old drinks too much at a holiday party and gets a DUI, we are reminded that short-sighted idiocy is not the sole domain of testosterone fueled twenty-somethings.


If you feel your job is to talk about brain damage and CTE in order to give these ‘kids’ the information they need I applaud you. But stop filtering everything through your ever changing moral compasses. One week hitting from behind is evil. Then, blind side head shots are the panic of the day. Soon fighting, and, god forbid, staged fighting, are the true menace in the game. Next the crusade turns towards visors, or even full cages.


All of these are ways to assuage guilt over a simple truth about hockey.



When bodies hit each other at speed the brain shifts in the head and the potential for damage is created. CTE is not simply caused by concussions. The medical data, although not yet conclusive, suggests sub-concussive hits may be as damaging as major concussive trauma. Put simply, a game that causes the free floating brain to bash against the skull will cause brain damage in some people, and eventually CTE in a few.


If you are truly concerned about the lives of these young men, then support the removal of all hitting from hockey. Stop talking about fighting and certain types of hits. All of them are dangerous and potentially deadly. If you can’t live with the level of guilt that comes with this knowledge, and it is not an option to remove yourself as an accessory, then focus your guilt into meaningful action. Don’t stop at the mere presentation of outrage. It’s easy and cheap.


And for the rest of us, especially those that toil for a living, please realize the inadvertent insult you give. You spend too much time and energy worrying about the health and well-being of millionaires. You let out your guilt through vitriol about the Patrick Kaleta’s and Raffi Torres’s of the hockey world. Meanwhile, men and women all over North America are wrecking their bodies working for your pleasure. Migrant workers are bent over pesticide sprayed, carcinogenic produce in the United States and Canada, for less than minimum wage and no benefits. Men and women will die on the ocean, in the woods, and in factories this year to provide you seafood, Ikea furniture and iPhones. Every year an unimaginable amount of people are killed, made sick and permanently altered for their work.


(Seriously, look up the stats. The best, and by all accounts conservative, estimate is that more than 2 Million people are killed on the job worldwide each year. And hundreds of millions have work related diseases).


Too few scream to protect them. They are not millionaires. They will not be allowed to retire before 40, never to worry about money again. They will have permanent injuries and sickness from chemicals and will be haunted to their graves by the daily grind of life in the working world.


So don’t actively, and callously, destroy their entertainment. Protect the children and underage kids who play the game. Educate the world about CTE and concussions and mental health and addiction. Stop oversimplifying these complex problems. Be nuanced and informed. Be true educators for the public good. But save us your endless moral panic and do your job—analyze the sport and add something to the entertainment or knowledge of the audience.


Please stop pretending your guilt about the horrific reality of CTEs comes from a position of superior intelligence, knowledge or ethical concern. When you read the reports and the personal accounts of ex-athletes who died you became sad, angry and guilty. Like us fans, you are reacting to visceral stimuli. I implore you to understand this, accept it, take a step back and contemplate what you can do to help.


I’m sure the proper course isn’t impudent rage.


Expend your energy in a useful way, as often as your job permits. Don’t simply download your guilt to your viewers, readers and listeners.


And please save your moral panic for the weak, the downtrodden and the exploited, not professional athletes.

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="213210" data-time="1383674273">
<div>


You say "That's one more body among the ashes" like it's a bad thing.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Yeah because it still doesn't achieve anything and you only end up with more players being seriously hurt, and that's in YOUR best case scenario. In reality, it could go either way, both fighters could get seriously hurt, the one who didn't lay out the cheap shot or whatever it was that caused the fight could be the one who gets hurt instead. And for what? For nothing to change afterwards in players like Matt Cooke, no matter what the outcome short of a career ending injury from that given fight. And is that what you really want to count on? Is that something even borderline acceptable for a supposed professional sports league? Of course not.  It only shows just how insane it is to have to depend that kind of "frontier justice" like that as some sort of default back up plan. And it ends up with there being loopholes existing like what just went down with Ray Emery. According to the NHL, there was little to nothing they could do about that essentially because of what they uphold and encourage with fighting in hockey.</p>


 </p>


As for Trev's article, again, that guy is ignoring everything that the league has already improved upon that we know elevates the standard of the game but were at first faced with similar if the not the exact same kind of criticism. If things were Gerald Morton's way, helmets would be optional. So would goalie masks. We know better. That's a head in the sand way of looking at the game with today's understandings. It's the same old "they know the risks" crock of shit that has been run out for decades against a myriad of changes to improve the game, not just dealing with fighting or checking. It's nothing new, it's the same old excuses. It's the embracing of willful ignorance. Cute the way he tried to deflect it though. That was a new spin on it, gotta hand it to him there. Of course all of it being incredibly irrelevant to the actual topic of discussion. </p>


 </p>


 </p>


Again, all  this goes back to the instigator rule and how before it existed, things were worse. That's the key misunderstanding, the thing hockey fans need to realize because that's where their primary argument stems from. What fans like Trev are talking about, when players supposedly had to worry about being held accountable for their actions without the instigator rule getting in the way, and that's what would hold them back. It was only worse.</p>


 </p>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLGES9YvctM</p>


 </p>


I mean, the first 30 seconds alone lol. In today's game watching that, it'd be : suspension, suspension, suspension......suspension. On and on. No doubters. It didn't stop hits like that from happening. It only elevated things to a worse, much more dangerous level.</p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Variable, I seriously wonder how you can even watch hockey if these things bother you this much.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

And the thing you're missing, Variable, is that if it weren't for "Frontier justice", the only justice there would be is corrupt justice or no justice at all.  Fix the justice system first before you go after the vigilantes.</p>


 </p>


And I do agree with Porkstacker.  If the current form of the NHL bothers you so much, why are you a fan?</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunky Porkstacker" data-cid="213224" data-time="1383741738">
<div>


Variable, I seriously wonder how you can even watch hockey if these things bother you this much.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Because we differ in our views on certain aspects in the NHL, why does that mean I should stop watching hockey? This is constantly brought up, because it is another one of the old defenses in this argument. Instead of actually addressing the counter points, people will say "If you don't like it, leave it". Because I criticize the league on certain things doesn't mean it's with malice as my intent, it's because I believe it can be better than it is.  It doesn't mean I hate the sport. If I wanted to, I could easily switch that argument around and say fans who defend fighting in hockey and believe it's "part of the game" forever are the ones who need to go away because they don't think it can stand on it's own without accessorizing it with a pointless display of fisticuffs between two players, hoping for one of them to be injured so as to rid themselves of a problem instead of wanting to actually deal with it in a rational way. But I'm not going to do that.</p>


 </p>


As I've said before, fighting in hockey, especially today, is nowhere near reason enough to stop watching a sport that, when uninhibited by that kind of nonsense (which is most of the time), is the most entertaining team sport to watch. But stopping the encouragement of fighting as part of the game is still an important step for the league to take, it signifies that they've finally stopped believing in their own myths they've been putting forth, that THEY will take accountability for players' action, that they will take control.</p>


 </p>


It also helps that I'm a fan of a team that is today and in the last several years, the most progressive team in hockey as far as this issue goes. Which just makes why Blackhawks fans defend this type of stuff even more confusing to me. It's very easy to watch them, even with my problems with the league overall that "bother me so much". Even with their own "goons" like Bollig, they  aren't used in the more traditional sense of a goon like players like Orr or McLaren or John Scott or other players in their mold on other teams. And you don't need to have a super skilled team like the Hawks have to make that choice.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="213232" data-time="1383752395">
<div>


And the thing you're missing, Variable, is that if it weren't for "Frontier justice", the only justice there would be is corrupt justice or no justice at all.  Fix the justice system first before you go after the vigilantes.</p>


 </p>


 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Of what use is it when nothing good comes of it? You might get "lucky" (if you want to call having another player seriously injure another player getting lucky) but when you take a step back and look at what you're hoping to happen, how you're hoping for it to work out in lieu of the league getting their head out of their ass, how do you see it as anything other than crazy? All it will accomplish will be more of a black eye for the game. How do you still see it as a sport when it gets to that point?</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

Since when did I say, "In leiu"?  I have been saying the whole time that the #1 primary thing the league needs to do is focus on better, more even-handed discipline for those that cheapshot--regardless of standing within the league.  That IMHO is the root of the problem and needs to be done 1st.  Getting rid of fighting *before* that will, IMHO put even MORE of a black eye on the league than continuing to allow fighting (which the bulk of the fans, players, and coaches are okay with, BTW) while working on getting rid of as many cheapshots as possible.</p>


 </p>


IMHO, if Emery's antics put a black eye on the league, then Torres', Cooke's, Kassian's and a few of Ovechkin's moves have raped it up the ass.</p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="213276" data-time="1383772340">
<div>


Because we differ in our views on certain aspects in the NHL, why does that mean I should stop watching hockey? This is constantly brought up, because it is another one of the old defenses in this argument. Instead of actually addressing the counter points, people will say "If you don't like it, leave it". Because I criticize the league on certain things doesn't mean it's with malice as my intent, it's because I believe it can be better than it is.  It doesn't mean I hate the sport. If I wanted to, I could easily switch that argument around and say fans who defend fighting in hockey and believe it's "part of the game" forever are the ones who need to go away because they don't think it can stand on it's own without accessorizing it with a pointless display of fisticuffs between two players, hoping for one of them to be injured so as to rid themselves of a problem instead of wanting to actually deal with it in a rational way. But I'm not going to do that.</p>


 </p>


As I've said before, fighting in hockey, especially today, is nowhere near reason enough to stop watching a sport that, when uninhibited by that kind of nonsense (which is most of the time), is the most entertaining team sport to watch. But stopping the encouragement of fighting as part of the game is still an important step for the league to take, it signifies that they've finally stopped believing in their own myths they've been putting forth, that THEY will take accountability for players' action, that they will take control.</p>


 </p>


It also helps that I'm a fan of a team that is today and in the last several years, the most progressive team in hockey as far as this issue goes. Which just makes why Blackhawks fans defend this type of stuff even more confusing to me. It's very easy to watch them, even with my problems with the league overall that "bother me so much". Even with their own "goons" like Bollig, they  aren't used in the more traditional sense of a goon like players like Orr or McLaren or John Scott or other players in their mold on other teams. And you don't need to have a super skilled team like the Hawks have to make that choic</p>


 </p>


<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-size:14px;">Hockey can't stand by itself without fighting?  :laughing-lmao:</span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-size:14px;">   Of the people in this discussion maybe I'm wrong but I doubt if anyone is of that opinion.</span></p>


 </p>


 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>

 

[Variable]

Oh there are people who believe that, maybe not here but there hockey fans that believe that. For people here, it's in response to saying it'll be worse than ever without the fighting. It can't possibly be worse. It was  way, way worse when there was no restrictions whatsoever on the fighting. The problem is people still don't see that.  Whether it's done first or last or second or third, it really doesn't matter because....it really doesn't matter. It never stopped players from playing like they do in the first place. In a more sane run league it would simply be done in conjunction, at the same time, but I'm not expecting that.</p>


 </p>


And if people don't believe what Emery did was a black eye to the sport, I don't know what to tell you. That doesn't lessen the things that players like Cooke do, not sure where that thought comes from. What was worse was that the league basically came out and said "We can't do anything about it because of our views on fighting in hockey". If  that's not yet another sign that things have got to change, I don't know what else it'll take.</p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

There is no doubt that hockey would be as popular as ever if fighting was banned. Stupid to think it wouldn't be.</p>


 </p>


Emery... black eye, meh.  Holtby wasn't hurt.    I think what he did was out of line but already forgotten. A Torres hit on Hossa sticks around and is still talked about.</p>

 

[Variable]

I'm not arguing it wouldn't be, just that there are people that think the sport would be worse off. How they mean that, I don't know, don't know if they're talking strictly about the popularity of the sport or what.  Could be more in the way people have said here: player respect, behavior, etc. But again, that's ignoring what happened before the instigator rule came into effect . The behavior was worse before it. But people ignore that. No one wants to answer that, some don't even want to acknowledge it as the most violent era of the sport, even when that's what it was widely known for.</p>


 </p>


And it shouldn't  take someone to be seriously injured to finally see the stupidity of something like fighting in hockey or of something like what Emery did which I refuse to call a fight. That's the same problem the league has with suspending players based on the outcome of a dirty hit, on whether or not a player was hurt. It's stupid and you end up protecting the wrong players. That makes a joke of the sport what he did and how it was handled at all levels. From the players, to the refs on the ice, to the GM afterwards to the league front office and what they said on it. There are boxing matches and MMA fights that are broken up quicker than that was. A lot of hockey fans complain about how the sport usually only gets negative press from the "outside" well it fucking deserves it when stuff like what Emery did happens and there is nothing done about it or worse, nothing that can be done about it because of their own rules.</p>

 

[Ton]

I don't think fighting should ever be made illegal.</p>


 </p>


There is a time and place, but most of the time it's unnecessary. </p>


 </p>


IE: Jonathan Toews vs Joe Thornton.</p>


 </p>


I don't see anything wrong with that one.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I am of the opinion that if you ban fighting, the injuries and cheap play will be worse. While it's bad now, usually it's the same guys going over the edge.


The idea of fighting is to keep guys in their place; to know that if you cross the line, you will need to answer to your opponent for those actions. For many guys, that keeps them honest for the most part.


Now take fighting away. That line that people didn't want to cross because they would have to answer for it, what's stopping them from crossing now??? Maybe it's not a dirty hit (or illegal) but that player keeps gunning for your superstar forward, how do the players answer for that when the league can't? Oh yeah, just keep taking shots on the more skilled guy because now we just need you to do something suspendable and until then it's pretty much free reign.


It will happen and I can absolutely guarantee it. To me, that's much more dangerous and will ruin the game then if you allow fighting.

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunky Porkstacker" data-cid="213224" data-time="1383741738">
<div>


Variable, I seriously wonder how you can even watch hockey if these things bother you this much.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I can answer that.  Because what I like about the sport far outdistances what I don't like.</p>


 </p>


And what I don't like, in this case fighting, is moving slowly toward extinction. </p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="213329" data-time="1383832821">


I can answer that. Because what I like about the sport far outdistances what I don't like.


And what I don't like, in this case fighting, is moving slowly toward extinction.</p></blockquote>


Again, you need the NHLPA to agree to it. 98% want it in the game. Doesn't sound like it's going anywhere.