Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
How is it irrelevant in that sense either? You do realise they are the ones affected by fighting right?
I doubt you'd be so bold to walk up to an NHL player yourself and tell him that he doesn't know any better, and that his opinion on fighting is irrelevant.
That line of thinking is laughable. To think that YOU know better about fighting's role in the NHL than an NHL player is so incredibly arrogant and embarrassing that I can only assume any appeal to logic would have zero effect on you, being that your argument is based on none.
Regarding pucklucks point about helmets, that's an entirely different issue. That's taking a players opinion on safety, and if you're asking a player about the safety involved in fighting, you might have a point. But this isn't about that, this is about fighting's role in the game and how it affects the game. In this sense, there is NO higher authority than the players themselves, and no one with the requisite first hand knowledge of today's NHL than players playing in today's NHL.
If you're arguing about safety, sure. But if you're trying to argue that players don't know about fighting's role in the NHL, that is just idiocy.
|
It's relevant in the same way the opinion of football players and "getting back out there after you had your 'bell rung'" is. Lets face it here, other than the irony of Perros choosing to scrap, we're not exactly talking about a group of scholars here. Not only does it ruin the pace of the game, and not really keep anyone in line, one day someone
is going to die as a result of their head hitting the ice. And yes, someone dying during a fight is a
huge difference compared to someone dying during play.
Why have that black mark on the game forever?