Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
How is this lopsided or backwards? There is fighting in hockey, Kessel obviously instigated, Scott responded and Kessel didn't like the response...
|
I think that this interpretation of the events actually quite clearly illustrates precisely why this is lopsided and backwards. Later you state that "Scott is a goon, and his place in the game is questionable," and I think that this is actually at the heart of the issue here. My problem with all of this is as follows:
1. Why is Scott in the game in the first place?
Players like Scott are becoming more and more unnecessary because they are becoming less and less effective. The only time Scott sees ice-time is NOT to make a hockey play, but rather to "send a message". Usually that message ends up in the delivery of a quasi-orchestrated exchange of blows between him and another useless player with no skill set beyond his ability to box on skates. It is predictable and arguably, completely ineffective, since the end result always sees the two combatants in the penalty box, and then firmly stapled to the bench. Do you honestly believe that the 5 mins average ice-time that a player like Scott logs per game makes any discernible difference at all to the outcome? More often than not, these sorts of players who are not good enough to play NHL hockey end up costing their teams possession time, zone-starts, and points because of their inability to follow or keep up with the play.
But this isn't really what happened last night...
2. Why did Scott attack Kessel?
"Kessel obviously instigated"?? Really??!! I am not sure how you can determine that based on the video from the game, as I am assuming you were not present on the ice to hear and witness the exchange between Scott and Kessel in person. From the first YouTube video posted in this thread we see Kessel say something to Scott, and a sudden retaliation from Scott.
A lengthier account of the lead-up to the altercation includes mention from the commentators that Scott was engaging the Toronto bench, then that he was lined up on the ice (again, why is he there in the first place?), and you can then clearly see that there he also engages in a verbal exchange with Kessel. How can anyone really determine the instigator in this instance? Given the sort of player Scott is; given the fact that his ONLY function in a game is to "send a message", then it is also probably not too far off to suggest that his very presence on the ice is itself an instigation. After all, he's certainly not there to play hockey (since he can't play NHL hockey).
Did Kessel goad him? I expect that he probably did, but it is patently naïve to ignore the obvious here: that Scott had predetermined to start an altercation—perhaps not necessarily with Kessel, but pretty clearly with someone. Kessel confirms as much in his statement following the game that Scott had verbally threatened him (why the hell is he yapping with Kessel in the first place, if not to threaten him)?
3. Why did Kessel and the rest of the Leafs respond as they did?
I should be clear at the outset that I in no way endorse the ensuing stickwork, taunts and altercations, and I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SYMPATHETIC with the Leafs in this. Having said that, the initial reaction is quite obvious and to be expected. Kessel was scared to death, and his team-mates figured a response of some sort was immediately warranted. (As an aside, given Kessel's obviously panic induced reaction, I find it absurd to label him as the instigator in this. This would in some way assume that he intended to fight with Scott, which seems pretty clearly not to have been the case). Right or wrong, the incident would not have occurred if Scott had not been on the ice in the first place. We coming back to this fundamental point.
So, how is this incident a sign of the lopsided, backwards thinking of the NHL with regards to the place and purpose of violence in sports? Pretty simply, it encourages the participation in sport of players without the requisite skills to impact the game in any meaningful way, and whose sole presence is intended to induce physical and psychological intimidation. It promotes bullying at the expense of a competition of skills—the skilled players will endure the weightier punishments while the bully receives none. It is an implicit endorsement of barbarism by which young men are pressured to sacrifice their own mental health and long-term well-being for a few minutes of fame and fleeting fiscal reward.
If John Scott could play hockey, then by all means he should play. But because he can't, he does not belong on the ice in the NHL.