The Myth Of "Finishing Checks" Thread

[icehogfan08]

Fighting has a purpose, and should always have a purpose. I believe there is a difference in a staged fight and a fight that means something as a momentum shift or sending a message. Players know that when a John Scott and Colton Orr line up something is going to come. Sure it gets the fans into it but the players know its coming. Now when a mayers goes out there and and challenges a torres that sparks the team. as far as shifting momentum the meaningful fights that happen will shift the momentum. Teams may win or may not but from watching and playing hockey for years if a Andrew Shaw goes out and takes on a Ryan Reaves the team respects that a lot more.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/117523
As for the proof look at the islanders and Penguins series. The Islanders at the time of the fight where losing 3-1. Islanders come back to win 4-3

News:

Kyle Okposo potted the game-winning goal in the Islanders' 4-3 come-from-behind win against the Penguins in Game 2 on Friday night.

Okposo was the catalyst for the Isles in this one, as his fight -- the first of his career -- against Matt Niskanen at 4:58 of the second period shifted momentum New York's way, when it was down 3-1. The Islanders would score three unanswered goals, one by Colin McDonald 14 seconds after the fight and the second by Matt Martin just over five minutes after that. Matt Moulson had a power-play marker in the first period. Mark Streit chipped in with two helpers. Any fear about John Tavares' first-game struggles carrying over can be put to bed, too, as he was superb, getting an assist, four penalty minutes and a team-high six shots on goal.

 

[Gunzaan]

FT and Rory serve their purpose as devil's advocates on other boards because they actually know what they are talking about. With hockey, they are mentally Special person and just taking an opinion and trying to make a story with it, aka like Bernstein, whom they claim to hate but emulate all the time. Irony at it's best

Fighting has some purpose in playoff hockey, check out Ottawa/Montreal if you are clueless. Physical play is playoff hockey and how Bettman and others want the games to be played. It brings in ratings, its a tradition and it isn't changing. So, why do the players change their style during the playoffs? It is quite simple. If they played that way during a 82, or 48 (this year), game regular season, there would be no one left to play the game and they also wouldn't get paid. I understand the NFL is a more "physical" game, but they play 16-19 games and have a week off in between each game. Teams could not withstand playing "playoff hockey" all regular season long.

If you don't like the physical play of playoff hockey, then don't watch the sport. Playoff hockey is the very essence of the fucking sport.

 

[FirstTimer]

Fighting has a purpose, and should always have a purpose. I believe there is a difference in a staged fight and a fight that means something as a momentum shift or sending a message. Players know that when a John Scott and Colton Orr line up something is going to come. Sure it gets the fans into it but the players know its coming. Now when a mayers goes out there and and challenges a torres that sparks the team. as far as shifting momentum the meaningful fights that happen will shift the momentum. Teams may win or may not but from watching and playing hockey for years if a Andrew Shaw goes out and takes on a Ryan Reaves the team respects that a lot more.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/117523
As for the proof look at the islanders and Penguins series. The Islanders at the time of the fight where losing 3-1. Islanders come back to win 4-3

News:

Thanks for not reading the link I posted.

What you just posted is a tremendous case of confirmation bias. Want me to start posting fights where the team still ended up losing? Then again you'll just jump in and say the OTHER team who ended up winning got the boost. It's Special person circular logic. Fighting boosts momentum whether you win or lose the fight...but only if you win the game. If you lose the game..disregard.

 

[FirstTimer]

FT and Rory serve their purpose as devil's advocates on other boards because they actually know what they are talking about. With hockey, they are mentally Special person and just taking an opinion and trying to make a story with it, aka like Bernstein, whom they claim to hate but emulate all the time. Irony at it's best

Fighting has some purpose in playoff hockey, check out Ottawa/Montreal if you are clueless. Physical play is playoff hockey and how Bettman and others want the games to be played. It brings in ratings, its a tradition and it isn't changing. So, why do the players change their style during the playoffs? It is quite simple. If they played that way during a 82, or 48 (this year), game regular season, there would be no one left to play the game and they also wouldn't get paid. I understand the NFL is a more "physical" game, but they play 16-19 games and have a week off in between each game. Teams could not withstand playing "playoff hockey" all regular season long.

If you don't like the physical play of playoff hockey, then don't watch the sport. Playoff hockey is the very essence of the fucking sport.

Physical play =/= to fighting.

The Bulls and Heat game last night was "physical". There were no fights. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[FirstTimer]

Theres kind of a blurring over of physical play, dirty play, and fighting. And it seemed like Igalia and the Pens cheap-shotting and fighting the Islanders after the game was more like "sour grapes" than "changing the momentum" or "upholding tradition".

My "mentally Special person" take is that if you know you are playing a 7-game series against a singular opponent, you know that your hits/cheap shots will have an immediate direct effect on all upcoming games, so the reward pretty much outweighs any suspension risk. It makes no sense for the Coyotes to play the Blackhawks in the regular season and try to go all out to inflict punishment, because they might not see the Blackhawks again the rest of the month, so their is no direct effect on upcoming games. But if the Coyotes play the Blackhawks in the playoffs, it makes bottom line sense for a schleb like Raffy Torres to take out the Blackhawks best player, even if it means Torres has to sit out the rest of the series.

Exactly.

 

[Ares]

If you hate fighting in hockey seems like your SOL with the NHL.... watch college hockey I guess, I went to a bunch of U of I hockey games when I was at school there and its all hockey, no fighting.

You can rail against fighting in hockey games all you want.... in this case the loudest voice doesn't matter.... more people tune in with the added violence so the NHL will never get rid of fighting.... shit with MMA exploding they might have a mini cage lowered on to the ice lol

 

[FirstTimer]

If you hate fighting in hockey seems like your SOL with the NHL.... watch college hockey I guess, I went to a bunch of U of I hockey games when I was at school there and its all hockey, no fighting.

You can rail against fighting in hockey games all you want.... in this case the loudest voice doesn't matter.... more people tune in with the added violence so the NHL will never get rid of fighting.... shit with MMA exploding they might have a mini cage lowered on to the ice lol

And Olympic hockey....sigh

 

[DMelt36]

Theres kind of a blurring over of physical play, dirty play, and fighting. And it seemed like Igalia and the Pens cheap-shotting and fighting the Islanders after the game was more like "sour grapes" than "changing the momentum" or "upholding tradition".

My "mentally Special person" take is that if you know you are playing a 7-game series against a singular opponent, you know that your hits/cheap shots will have an immediate direct effect on all upcoming games, so the reward pretty much outweighs any suspension risk. It makes no sense for the Coyotes to play the Blackhawks in the regular season and try to go all out to inflict punishment, because they might not see the Blackhawks again the rest of the month, so their is no direct effect on upcoming games. But if the Coyotes play the Blackhawks in the playoffs, it makes bottom line sense for a schleb like Raffy Torres to take out the Blackhawks best player, even if it means Torres has to sit out the rest of the series.

Regarding Iginla and the Pens, yeah, that was just frustration over a 1-seed that was named Cup champs at the deadline being frustrated about losing to an 8-seed again. But hockey isn't the only place where teams lose composure during playoff losses. See: Chicago Bulls, Game 2.

This line of yours interest me: There's kind of a blurring over of physical play, dirty play, and fighting.

I don't have any quantitative information for this, but would it be hard to reason that the number of dirty plays isn't what increases in the postseason, it's merely the spotlight on them?

Over the course of an 82-game season it's hard to generate hatred towards one team when you're playing so many against several opponents per week. Sure, divisional opponents lend some familiarity, but the NHL's days of frequent home-and-home divisional matchups re long gone. But when you start facing the same guys every other night, you're going to develop some more animosity between teams. Suddenly, that slash across your leg is a lot fresher in your memory when you spot that number on the ice 48 hours later. But, again, is this something that's unique to hockey?

And I also think you see more physical play in the postseason because when you remove half of the league from the field, you're more likely to find teams with players who bring both skill and physicality to the table.

Also, regarding your point about the sense of headhunting your opponent's top players in series, you're right. It makes bottom line sense, as you called it. That's why the NHL leads to legislate the **** out of those incidents, as they did to Raffi Torres. Those missed paychecks are about the only thing you can get to deter those events. And if you find out a coach or a front office exec is ordering those hits, you hammer the **** out of them, too, just like the NFL did with Sean Payton.

 

[DMelt36]

Also, not going to argue whether or not those Saints' bounty allegations were legit or not because I know there's been a lot of evidence to the contrary out there. Just using that as an example.

 

[HawkWriter]

This is JMO, but I feel that the whole "hatred against frequent opponent" makes the dirty play seen almost inevitable, and also makes it seem that the dirty play is a spur-of-the-moment thing. I would disagree with that. I think its more calculated. When I see Detroit's coach put in some schmuck who hasn't played a shift all game, and the first thing the guy does is target Anaheim's best player and launch himself into that player's face for the KO, I have to think it was done with intent. I don't think Rafy Torres was reacting with pent-up anger to Marian Hossa...he just took him out.

Are you referring to the Abdelkader hit?

 

[HawkWriter]

I fear what will happen if I say "yes"...

I'm just trying to figure out who you could be talking about or what incident you could be talking about. Abdelkader's hit is the one I am guessing you are speaking of...but you are pretty mistaken if you call him a schmuck, say he hasn't played all game, and then targeted Anaheim's best player.

 

[HawkWriter]

How would you describe the situation then?

An unfortunate situation. Leaving your feet results in stupid plays.

Abdelkader has been playing top 6 this year so he has been getting plenty of time on ice. He plays on the edge but has never been suspended. Also, Lydman isn't a star play for the Ducks at all.

I would have a very hard time saying there was any intent there. Stupid play? Absolutely. No intent there from the Wings, Babcock, or Abdelkader. Sometimes guys just lose focus or get out of hand, Abdelkader did that and is paying for it by sitting out. His team is paying for it by him sitting out. It is the playoffs and it happens, Shanahan actually got it right on this one.

 

[Diehardfan]

To me, it seemed like intent because Lydman wasn't involved in the action, and Abdelkader actually had to change direction against the flow of the play to deliver the hit. Abdelkader is out for 2 games...has Lydman returned yet? If not, then its not exactly a fair shake.

It almost never is....the guy that's concussed sits for weeks, the guy who caused it is back in 3 or 4 games. Welcome to the NHL.

 

[DMelt36]

This is JMO, but I feel that the whole "hatred against frequent opponent" makes the dirty play seen almost inevitable, and also makes it seem that the dirty play is a spur-of-the-moment thing. I would disagree with that. I think its more calculated. When I see Detroit's coach put in some schmuck who hasn't played a shift all game, and the first thing the guy does is target Anaheim's best player and launch himself into that player's face for the KO, I have to think it was done with intent. I don't think Rafy Torres was reacting with pent-up anger to Marian Hossa...he just took him out.

Ten years ago you would've had a more compelling argument. But since the 2004-05 lockout, I think there's been a decline in those kinds of plays, led by the onset of the instigator rule.

Don't get me wrong, I would not be surprised to learn that hits laid by guys like Torres or Abdelkader weren't spur-of-the-moment hits. When championships are being decided in a sports business world, sportsmanship is merely a rumor.

But the evolution of the hockey towards a more skill-based game as opposed to guys beating the shit out of each other 60 minutes with the last man standing declared the victor is ongoing, I think. You can have tough guys, sure, but they better be able to play hockey otherwise teams like the Blackhawks, who have 4 lines capable of scoring goals, will destroy you. My current example of this would be the 2013 meetings between the Blues and the Blackhawks.

 

[DMelt36]

It almost never is....the guy that's concussed sits for weeks, the guy who caused it is back in 3 or 4 games. Welcome to the NHL.

But what if the opposite happens? Do you excuse a player for hitting someone in the head if the hit player is not injured? It's like you're rewarding the player for not being good at taking cheap shots.

 

[DMelt36]

To me, it seemed like intent because Lydman wasn't involved in the action, and Abdelkader actually had to change direction against the flow of the play to deliver the hit. Abdelkader is out for 2 games...has Lydman returned yet? If not, then its not exactly a fair shake.

There's a good chance he was just trying to make a big hit to spark his team, similar to the belief that a fight will change the momentum. You can look at it from the outside and argue that those hits/fights have no effect on the game's outcome, but I'd think that the guys on the team would wholly disagree with you. They think those hits and fights turn momentum. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. But every postgame interview usually involves references to a play like that.

And if Abdelkader was really out there headhunting, he certainly could've picked a target higher than Lydman.

 

[Diehardfan]

Funny how this thread has played out. I actually couldnt care less how many fights there are or how many cheap shots or dirty hits. I just want this league to join the ranks of other pro sports and dole out proper punishment for the dirty deeds being done. If it's a charge, call it....boarding, call it. Don't use cheap rhetoric like "finishing checks" or "playoff hockey" to disquise the fact that the game is officiated differently. The players need parameters, don't let everything fall under the cover/all of "Playoff hockey".

BTW, someone mentioned that there is no fighting in college hockey. There are a couple of reasons for that....1) The NCAA requires that you wear so much fucking protective gear that its hard enough to even play much less fight someone. 2) while it's been many moons since I played in college but I imagine this rule is still intact....if you fight, you're gone. No 5 minute majors...fighting is a game misconduct in the college game.

 

[icehogfan08]

Thanks for not reading the link I posted.

What you just posted is a tremendous case of confirmation bias. Want me to start posting fights where the team still ended up losing? Then again you'll just jump in and say the OTHER team who ended up winning got the boost. It's Special person circular logic. Fighting boosts momentum whether you win or lose the fight...but only if you win the game. If you lose the game..disregard.

There's always going to be the winner and loser of a fight and game. I've seen and been in games where a guy fights loses and it still lifts the bench. I don't know if you've ever played the game or what your background is with the sport but I can tell you a fight puts a jump in both teams games. Some guys can go out and get that extra jump in their teams game, some cant.

 

[icehogfan08]

Funny how this thread has played out. I actually couldnt care less how many fights there are or how many cheap shots or dirty hits. I just want this league to join the ranks of other pro sports and dole out proper punishment for the dirty deeds being done. If it's a charge, call it....boarding, call it. Don't use cheap rhetoric like "finishing checks" or "playoff hockey" to disquise the fact that the game is officiated differently. The players need parameters, don't let everything fall under the cover/all of "Playoff hockey".

BTW, someone mentioned that there is no fighting in college hockey. There are a couple of reasons for that....1) The NCAA requires that you wear so much fucking protective gear that its hard enough to even play much less fight someone. 2) while it's been many moons since I played in college but I imagine this rule is still intact....if you fight, you're gone. No 5 minute majors...fighting is a game misconduct in the college game.

I'm pretty sure if you fight you get booted still

 

[HawkWriter]

BTW, someone mentioned that there is no fighting in college hockey. There are a couple of reasons for that....1) The NCAA requires that you wear so much fucking protective gear that its hard enough to even play much less fight someone. 2) while it's been many moons since I played in college but I imagine this rule is still intact....if you fight, you're gone. No 5 minute majors...fighting is a game misconduct in the college game.

EJ is the same way now, but there are still plenty of fights. Very few happen at the D1 level because there can be ramifications through the school, won't happen in juniors. NA/USHL (other American Juniors) allow fights and half visors, mostly for crowd pleasing reasons.

Plenty of guys still are willing to take off the buckets and go at it. In the EJ you are tossed for the current game and the next one in most cases. I'm not 100% sure how D1 now works but I'm pretty sure it is similar enough.