Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
I fundamentally disagree with this:
Reduced to its simplest truth, fighting is one of the mechanisms that regulates the level of violence in our game. Players who break the rules are held accountable by other players. The instigator rule has reduced accountability. Eliminating fighting would render it extinct.
First – the league is the party that regulates the game. No other sport puts this in the hands of the players, except for baseball with its equally foolish practice of guys throwing pitches at each other.
Second – If this was an effective deterrent – where is the evidence? There are dirty players in virtually every game. If this is the purpose of fighting – it is doing a piss poor job of achieving it
In short the same tired arguments that have no real basis.
|
To be fair, don't you think that an executive who is terribly close to the game knows more about whether or not it actually deters interactions than you, a guy who just watches the game?
I have to imagine that most people who say it isn't a deterrent have never actually had a chat with the players about whether or not it is. Pretty easy to say it isn't when you're sitting on your couch, I imagine it's a bit more difficult when you're on the ice or in the locker room.
You might find his arguments tired, good for you, but if they have no real basis, then essentially every comment you dare to make is without basis or merit. Burke has 100x more basis for hockey related comments than you, so reign it in a little.
Honestly, if his comments have no basis, where does the basis for your comments come from?