Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Is this called "circular reasoning"?
Fighting is allowed because it prevents this kind of thing. Fighting didn't prevent this kind of thing. Only fighting could have prevented this kind of thing...
|
If you're suggesting my reasoning was circular, I disagree. I've never claimed "Fighting is allowed because it prevents this kind of thing". I think fighting is allowed because it's part of the game (i.e. it's a legacy rule; since the league's inception, it's been "allowed" in the sense of being a penalty but not worthy of being expelled from the game.) and because, like you said, people like watching fights.
If your standard for judging whether something prevents cheap shots is that there are never any cheap shots, then nothing does or will work. You'll always get some because guys sometimes react without thinking, and preventative measures are only effective when people put in enough though before an act to consider the consequences.
I do believe fighting does, to some extent, reduce cheap shots, and would do a better job without the instigator. However, the down side on removing the instigator (i.e. guys getting jumped) may not justify the benefits. I also think stiffer suspensions would, to some extent, reduce cheap shots. Finally, I do think Orpik fighting Thornton when he was challenged would have prevented 100% of the Thornton or Orpik cheap shots tonight.
Quote:
I also think what Neal did was worse. Thornton was stupid, but what he did went completely wrong and wasn't what he wanted to happen even though he should have known it might.
Neal aimed his knee at Marchand's head and connected perfectly. I couldn't have worked out better for what he was trying to do.
|
Agree 100%. If you showed people the Neal knee and the Thornton jabs in isolation, without the results, I think most people would view the Neal incident as much more likely to cause serious injury.