Line brawl & Crazy Torts - Aftermath

[alan21]

Regardless of what happens, I haven't been entertained very often this season, this helps!
I was hoping it gets to the Anaheim vs Calgary level from the early 2000s, where Berube ran Giggy to start it all.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Dion

Seeing as how the NHL is trying to grow the sport Stateside, this will be a huge black mark.

Or a PR miracle...

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Dion

I heard on the post game radio that all the sports networks in the States are covering the brawl that went on in Vancouver. Seeing as how the NHL is trying to grow the sport Stateside, this will be a huge black mark. Given that I suspect Torts will be made an example by Bettman and will likely be given a 10 game suspension.

It was a line brawl... no one besides hockey fans are going to remember it a day later. Its not a Bertuzzi breaking a neck or McSorley swinging his stick at someone's head type deal.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Dion

I heard on the post game radio that all the sports networks in the States are covering the brawl that went on in Vancouver. Seeing as how the NHL is trying to grow the sport Stateside, this will be a huge black mark. Given that I suspect Torts will be made an example by Bettman and will likely be given a 10 game suspension.

A huge black mark? Nah. If anything, this might draw a few people in.

Regarding the whole Hartley fine/no fine issue, I don't think a fine is even remotely likely. He put out his 4th line, Westgarth took the faceoff (who actually HAS taken faceoffs before) and Bieksa (who NEVER takes faceoffs, being that he's a defenceman) decided he wanted a part of it.

A non-issue on the Flames part. I wasn't aware a team wasn't allowed to put their 4th line out to start a game.

[badradio]

There is a poll on TSN asking who's fault the line brawl was... So far people are blaming Hartley... I say we CP Gihad this to Torts fault (he had last change)... http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/

[btimbit]

All 3 of those choices in the poll are silly. Why does it have to be anyones 'fault' like it was some sort of brutal attak? Just a bunch of fights in a hockey game.

[Zach]

Haven't been that excited during a regular season game in along time. It's a shame these two won't meet in the playoffs.

[Ben_in_Canada]

Originally Posted by Dion

I heard on the post game radio that all the sports networks in the States are covering the brawl that went on in Vancouver. Seeing as how the NHL is trying to grow the sport Stateside, this will be a huge black mark. Given that I suspect Torts will be made an example by Bettman and will likely be given a 10 game suspension.

Doubt anyone down south would look at this as a black mark. I went to three games in the states in the last two weeks (Phoenix, Nashville & Florida) and they LOVE the fighting and rough stuff.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Tortorella had 3 other lines to start and his pick of 4 actual C's to take the draw. And didn't have to storm the Flames dressing room, whether or not he was legitimately surprised by how the matchup played out.

Having said that I could see no issue with his starting line. Flames start an energy line, he starts his counterpoint. No guarantee of anything, despite the higher likelihood.

It is part of the game or it isn't

This event is being over sensationalized but was pretty tame for a full line brawl. I can see how people get excited due to the rarity but it was pretty lame.

[FlameZilla]

I hope the aftermath is that this derails the Canucks' season!

[Beer-gut Murray]

I heard the brawl on Fan960 as I was getting to a friend's house. Loubardias made the comment that because the visiting team submits their lines first and home matches, that it would be Tortorella that gets the criticism for this.

[McG]

Voted! Interesting that TSN makes reference to Burrows being at the flames room, and photos of Bieksa as well.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dion

I heard on the post game radio that all the sports networks in the States are covering the brawl that went on in Vancouver. Seeing as how the NHL is trying to grow the sport Stateside, this will be a huge black mark. Given that I suspect Torts will be made an example by Bettman and will likely be given a 10 game suspension.

That's nothing but media speak and group speak from the anti-fighting contingent.

The one thing the anti-fighting cowd has no answer for is this...what did the people in attendance do when this occurred? Did they stand and cheer or did they hurry up and leave because "its a black mark that no one wants to see in the game"? We all know the answer and in a business where entertainment is number 1 in the list of things you provide to your customer, the customer has spoken loud and clear as to what they want.

This will do no such thing as leave "black marks" on the NHL and as the old saying goes, there is no bad PR.

[Table 5]

Yeah, there was one caller on Overtime calling in from South Carolina, saying that they never even show hilights on tv down there, and he's seen this game mentioned on multiple channels. His argument was that this would be bad for the growing the game in the US.

I would say not having the game of hockey ever on tv was bad for the game. This can only draw people to to the game. The people who don't like this stuff weren't watching anyway, and the people who might, will perhaps now check it out.

When you have 0% media market share, any news is good news.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by transplant99

...The one thing the anti-fighting cowd has no answer for is this...what did the people in attendance do when this occurred? Did they stand and cheer or did they hurry up and leave because "its a black mark that no one wants to see in the game"? We all know the answer and in a business where entertainment is number 1 in the list of things you provide to your customer, the customer has spoken loud and clear as to what they want...

"No answer"?

I didn't realise that it was incumbent upon these of us who want fighting removed from hockey to provide an "answer" for what is pretty typical group think. It's pretty obvious that human nature has an instinctive blood lust. It doesn't mean that we must do everything we can to satisfy it.

I get that fighting is popular. In my mind, that is not enough to justify the place of fighting in hockey. I don't want to get into it (again), so I will leave it at that.

[Wastedyouth]

If anything the focus should be on the players. All 10 agreed to fight. No one was jumped. Chris effing Butler was on the ice. If Hartley wanted a true line brawl it would have been O'Brien out there.

All the false outrage and ridiculous melodrama from this is really annoying.

[Voodooman]

I think the argument that it was our fourth line, so what's the big deal with starting them, is a bit weak. In general, isn't the 1st or 2nd line the usual starters? How many times this season has Hartley started the 4th line?

His comments about it were a bit funny as well. Stated that they had played well, scored a goal last game, and given that the team is struggling to score goals, he put them out there. Seems like a bit of an eye roller to me.

It's hard to say what would have happened had Torts put out the Sedin line, but it's irrelevant now. He's definitely getting a suspension for the first period antics, I'd say it'll be 3-5 games, plus some $$. Hartley will be getting a $10k fine for his line selection. Putting McGratton out to start after the flying elbow in the last meeting had nothing to do with generating goal scoring.

I'm not saying the brawl was 100% Hartley's fault, but it does seem obvious that it was the intent in putting the meathead squad out. I don't have a problem with it, but his fine is deserved.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's nothing but media speak and group speak from the anti-fighting contingent.

The one thing the anti-fighting cowd has no answer for is this...what did the people in attendance do when this occurred? Did they stand and cheer or did they hurry up and leave because "its a black mark that no one wants to see in the game"? We all know the answer and in a business where entertainment is number 1 in the list of things you provide to your customer, the customer has spoken loud and clear as to what they want.

This will do no such thing as leave "black marks" on the NHL and as the old saying goes, there is no bad PR.

Show me answer where anyone has argued that people don't like to see it??

The "anti-fighting" crowd makes a safety argument, not a customer service one. And you're wrong. Safety goes number one due to litigation fears, so there's that

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Voodooman

I think the argument that it was our fourth line, so what's the big deal with starting them, is a bit weak. In general, isn't the 1st or 2nd line the usual starters? How many times this season has Hartley started the 4th line?

His comments about it were a bit funny as well. Stated that they had played well, scored a goal last game, and given that the team is struggling to score goals, he put them out there. Seems like a bit of an eye roller to me.

It's hard to say what would have happened had Torts put out the Sedin line, but it's irrelevant now. He's definitely getting a suspension for the first period antics, I'd say it'll be 3-5 games, plus some $$. Hartley will be getting a $10k fine for his line selection. Putting McGratton out to start after the flying elbow in the last meeting had nothing to do with generating goal scoring.

I'm not saying the brawl was 100% Hartley's fault, but it does seem obvious that it was the intent in putting the meathead squad out. I don't have a problem with it, but his fine is deserved.

Hartley did this quite often for the opening faceoff in Colorado and still does it here after goals or when a new period is starting. When the other team expects you to put your 1st line out he's going to put his shutdown line out. So instead Hartley puts out his third or fourth line to get the energy started and stir #### up, and then tries to get the matchup he wants on the fly. Pretty common

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Hartley did this quite often for the opening faceoff in Colorado and still does it here after goals or when a new period is starting. When the other team expects you to put your 1st line out he's going to put his shutdown line out. So instead Hartley puts out his third or fourth line to get the energy started and stir #### up, and then tries to get the matchup he wants on the fly. Pretty common

I agree that after a goal, it's a very common occurrence. But for the opening draw? I just went back and looked at the starting lines back to the start of December, and not once has Hartley started the fourth line. It's been the Hudler line for the past few weeks, and always a combination of Hudler, Cammy, Stempniak, Backlund to start the games.

Again, I don't have a problem with what Hartley did, but trying to say he wasn't trying to start something (especially after the McGratton incident last time) is foolish. As others have said, he was baiting Torts, and he bit, hook, line and sinker. But Bobbo is still going to eat a $10k bill for it.