[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

Because every team has guys whose job it is to set the tone. Whether that be to be a #### disturber or to be an enforcer each player has their role. We saw last season with the Flames just how small a team can play when the hired gun is not available and how ineffective they can be with out that #### disturber. Scott was there to do his job and send a message.

The rather enormous difference between a pure enforcer like Scott and agitators like Clutterbuck or Torres is that the latter can actually take a regular shift and play the game. I have no problem with players whose primary role is to disrupt and interfere with the forward progress and puck possession of the opposition, but this is almost universally more effective when it occurs in the course of actual play.

Originally Posted by New Era

The question you should be asking is what was Kessel doing out there? Leafs had last change and Kessel was put out there for a reason. Why?

Seriously? I would expect he was out there to make a hockey play. He is, after all a pretty damn good hockey player.

Originally Posted by New Era

Yet teams continue to go out of their way to find them and give them roster spots. What is happening is that teams are now trying to find guys that can intimidate and contribute to some position in some meaningful way.

Wrong. The pure hockey enforcers are becoming an endangered species precisely because of what is happening now where teams are more and more focused on ensuring that every position is filled by players who can make hockey plays.

Originally Posted by New Era

Exactly, so why is Kessel put out there next to him?

For the same reason that these types of players are a dying breed. Carlyle likely realised the opportunity to take advantage of the massive skill mismatch between an actual hockey player like Kessel and a barely skating, mouth-breathing pugilist who is more apt to be victimised for his obvious playing deficiencies than he is to make any perceptible impact to the score.

Originally Posted by New Era

That's the big question, but based on the jawing before the faceoff I would say something was said by Kessel. Scott didn't hesitate and Kessel was ready with lumberjack routine all too quickly].

I have already agreed that Kessel goaded Scott, but there is virtually no way to judge from the video evidence whom between the two players is more culpable. One cannot simply call one or the other the instigator in this, although I will maintain that were Scott not on the ice in the first place, this incident does not happen.

Originally Posted by New Era

Seems that you're trying to say that you were on the ice to make the opposite claim. The only thing we can go on is the video and the results. It appears from the video that Kessel enjoyed poking, and slashing, the bear so to speak. We already concluded the tough guys and #### disturbers send a message, well so do the actions of the other players out there. You're ignoring the actions of Kessel.

I am not ignoring the actions of Kessel whom I have already agreed shares culpability. What I have been attempting to do is to better emphasise the balance by way of showing that players like Scott simply have no useful function in today's game, and their continued (but diminishing) presence only tends to result in these sorts of events that are not related, or tangential to the action during play.

Originally Posted by New Era

You're not asking the right question again. Toronto had last change. Why was Kessel out there?

Again, I suspect it was to MAKE A HOCKEY PLAY.

Originally Posted by New Era

*contrived speculation*

I'm not really that interested in guessing about Carlyle's motives, and you may very well be right: It could very well be that Carlyle was attempting to illicit a reactionary response. We can't know for certain anything beyond this: between Kessel and Scott there is only one hockey player, and there is a good bet that his presence on the ice is expected to result in some sort of hockey play. Since the other participant cannot play the game, then I really think that despite the Leaf's possession of last change, the onus is on the other coach to provide some explanation for his presence on the ice. I will repeat: It was NOT to play hockey.

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't disagree with you on the goon thing. They should be gone from the game. But the reason they still exist is so little punks that act like Kessel have to pay for their actions.at some point. I don't agree with it, but it is part of the game and part of the code the players follow...

This simply isn't good enough. If you don't agree with making concessions for the inclusion of players that cannot play hockey, then there should be no excuse here. Throwing your hands up and chalking it up to "part of the game" is lazy and defeatist.

Code be damned. There are MANY things that were once part of the game and have become obsolete, and it is high time that the enforcer was finally eliminated along with the rest of these dinosaurs. With how few of them there are left in the NHL; with the number of teams that no longer have one on their roster; with the way the game has evolved so far beyond their purpose, I can't think of a single good reason to continue with the charade. "Tradition" is only effective insofar is it reflects something meaningful in the current realia, and goon-fighting in today's NHL fails to conform. It has become arbitrary and it bears almost no resemblance to its place in so-called "old time hockey".