[News] Flames recall Anthony Peluso from Stockton

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

I get what your saying. I can’t say I agree with all of it, but I do see your point. My question to you is though. If your an adult and you want to participate in a sport with fighting and hitting should you not be allowed? If a player is concerned about concussions it’s not like these guys are being forced onto the ice. With your rational we should cancel the entire X games as well as there’s no way to eliminate concussions past the helmets they already wear skateboarding and bmxing . If people don’t want to see the violence in hockey they don’t have to watch and if the players don’t want to participate in it they don’t have to play. And that’s why I think it will never be removed. The fans want to see it and the players want it in the game.

What about fans that want to watch hockey without seeing players suffer life-changing injuries because of head shots?
You are making sweeping comments about what fans want and don't want.

I get that you disagree. But the stance of "if you don't like it don't watch it" is incredibly short-sighted. I care deeply about the sport. I want to see it evolve because I care about it.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What about fans that want to watch hockey without seeing players suffer life-changing injuries because of head shots?
You are making sweeping comments about what fans want and don't want.

I get that you disagree. But the stance of "if you don't like it don't watch it" is incredibly short-sighted. I care deeply about the sport. I want to see it evolve because I care about it.

Well considering it’s been the way of life in Hockey for over 100 years and the anti-fighting group is a fairly new and small crowd pretty sure I’m more able to comment on what the majority of fans want more then you would. Your trying to change something that’s already established and enjoyed. If they split the league entirely into two separate leagues one with your rules and the other with things the way they are and the worlds best hockey players had the choice of playing in it and all the fans had the choice to watch it. In all honesty which one do you think would survive?

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If you believe the above, then why not simply allow players to play the sport without helmets?

This isn’t really a fair comparison. It’s basically apples to oranges. One is a minor equipment change that has zero effect on the actual gameplay or atmosphere of a game. It doesn’t take anything away from the game to change it. Removing fighting and hitting is neutering the sport and affects the game deeply. Yes they would both be changes done with player safety in mind but that’s where the comparison ends. And it’s a very poor attempt to rationalize your stance IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And then your opponent sends out a player who is a fighter first and a player never, and his goon and your superstar both end up in the penalty box.

This has always been why NHL teams employed enforcers. Not because the good players couldn't fight, but because nobody would miss the enforcer when he was gone for five minutes.

You can't get away with that today. No one can afford to dress a one shift player.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

...to my knowledge no player has died during an NHL game so I believe your referring to the handful of suicides that have occurred over the last decade as a way to make it sound like a big boogeyman. But again very very small amount of people and to me the bigger problem is the lack of follow up with players after leaving the league. You also fail to mention that many of the players who did commit suicide had substance abuse problems during their career as well so it’s tough to say that their struggles were solely to do with hockey related concussions and not just overall substance abuse. I’m sure for a lot of guys regardless if they were a fighter or not, going from a high paying and high spotlight job to now no money and no one cares about you anymore can be tough as well.

There is pretty clearly a cultural problem in hockey that manifests in the strong correlation between fighting, substance abuse, the pervasive onset of CTE, and suicide. It would be naive and irresponsible for us to ignore the fact that so many NHL enforcers endure significant and unusual difficulty adapting and coping with everyday life at the ends of their careers. Why do you think that is? Why do you think so many family members of dead former players with reputations as enforcers have entered into a lawsuit against the NHL?

It is pretty well known that in the ‘80s and ‘90s NHL enforcers often required unhealthy cocktails of painkillers to survive the daily grind of fighting in the NHL. The stress of having to step on the ice every night and engage in fights on skates—often without adequate rest and rehab between games—undoubtedly also exacts a serious psychological toll. I don’t believe any player aspires to be a “hockey fighter.” No, they want to play because they love the game. But for a lot of players the ONLY way they can see ice time or stay on the bench is to start a fight with a player on the other team when the coach taps them in. Desire fuels all sorts of unhealthy, dangerous choices that don’t just destroy individual lives; they destroy families. I think if we are serious about protecting players then this is part of the conversation that needs to take place.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

...Your trying to change something that’s already established and enjoyed. If they split the league entirely into two separate leagues one with your rules and the other with things the way they are and the worlds best hockey players had the choice of playing in it and all the fans had the choice to watch it. In all honesty which one do you think would survive?

It’s “you’re,” by the way...

As for the question, who knows under these especially vague conditions? However, given that I think most fans value the combination of skill and speed above all else I would imagine the most popular league would be the one which featured the best hockey players. How many of the NHL’s top skilled players are choosing to play in a league with high incidents of injury infliction and intimidation? How many would rather play under conditions which instill a safer working environment that creates more room to make skilled plays?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is pretty clearly a cultural problem in hockey that manifests in the strong correlation between fighting, substance abuse, the pervasive onset of CTE, and suicide. It would be naive and irresponsible for us to ignore the fact that so many NHL enforcers endure significant and unusual difficulty adapting and coping with everyday life at the ends of their careers. Why do you think that is? Why do you think so many family members of dead former players with reputations as enforcers have entered into a lawsuit against the NHL?

It is pretty well known that in the ‘80s and ‘90s NHL enforcers often required unhealthy cocktails of painkillers to survive the daily grind of fighting in the NHL. The stress of having to step on the ice every night and engage in fights on skates—often without adequate rest and rehab between games—undoubtedly also exacts a serious psychological toll. I don’t believe any player aspires to be a “hockey fighter.” No, they want to play because they love the game. But for a lot of players the ONLY way they can see ice time or stay on the bench is to start a fight with a player on the other team when the coach taps them in. Desire fuels all sorts of unhealthy, dangerous choices that don’t just destroy individual lives; they destroy families. I think if we are serious about protecting players then this is part of the conversation that needs to take place.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can’t dispute any of what you said as it’s all relatively new stuff that’s becoming to be linked exactly how much of what causes what isn’t known. Yes concussions are bad for you no one can dispute that. But like how you liked JiriHrdinas post about how sometimes a player won’t know what’s best for them. The same works for a grieving family looking for someone to blame. I enjoy fighting in hockey however I haaaaaaate a unprovoked staged fight. So I can get on board that there needs to be a cultural change and also that there has been one. Pure goons no longer exist in order to be a fighter in hockey now you also need to be able to play some resemblance of hockey. But yet again even in the case of the people you suggest they were adults making that choice to become fighters in order to make the big leagues the choice to not do so was also there. You can’t equate the desire to play the same as doing Heroin or something, these are level and also non level headed people making choices in life like it’s our right too. I hate when choices get taken away from people by other people who think they know better for the sake of them wether it’s sports or not. It’s your body to choose the risks you want to take with it.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It’s “you’re,” by the way...

As for the question, who knows under these especially vague conditions? However, given that I think most fans value the combination of skill and speed above all else I would imagine the most popular league would be the one which featured the best hockey players. How many of the NHL’s top skilled players are choosing to play in a league with high incidents of injury infliction and intimidation? How many would rather play under conditions which instill a safer working environment that creates more room to make skilled plays?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know why don’t we ask them......

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...-fighting-game

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/ca.sport...175557533.html

This last link is 6 years old however I’d be blown away to find that there’s been much a change I was looking for a large amount of NHL players that were asked and what percentage would want fighting the article states 98 percent of 318 asked NHL players voted in favor of fighting.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 868904

It would be nice if the very vocal minority can stop assuming that what they like is what the majority of Flames fans like. Calgarians are a tough breed and like their hockey tough, the hockey teams take on the persona of the City they represent. True Albertans like Darryl Sutter understand this and built teams tough and his teams were arguably the most popular in franchise history.

Since I thanked this post, and the conversation evolved since that point, I wanted to highlight this part and add my two cents.

I agree whole heartedly with this, and honestly, I think almost every fan of the Calgary Flames probably agrees. When you think of our identity over most of our history, it resonated best when we’ve been a tough team to play against. Where the disagreement over this is comes down to what “tough” means.

I want Calgary to be tough, I want us to have the reputation of Philly-west. I want us to finish our checks. I want us to make life miserable for the other team. I want teams to come into the Saddledome knowing that getting a win is going to hurt.

What I don’t want, and where I agree with Jiri, is that fighting (and especially the staged stuff, or the “storyline” revenge stuff) is and should be on its way out. My favourite player right now? Tkachuk. The guys who I like the cut of? Smith, Lindholm, Rittich, Bennett, Neal.

These aren’t fighters (hell, two are goalies), but they’ve got an attitude. They play hard. They use their body. They’re bulldogs. Some more than others (Lindholm is mostly just great at using his body to create turnovers, Bennett plays like a bulldog when he’s on which has admittedly been rare).

These are the guys you want. If you’re looking at an extra forward, I want the Hathaways, Lombergs, etc, not the Pelusos and Prouts. I liked Engelland, I liked Bouma for the one season. It’s guys who play tough, and that doesn’t mean dropping the gloves and doing nothing else. It means blocking shots, finishing checks, getting in the other team’s face.

That’s why Tkachuk is going to inspire the new identity of this team the better he gets. He’s going to make the other team mad, finish his checks, and make them take bad penalties, and to rub it in he’s going to score. That’s toughness that makes sense in this era and going forward. That’s the toughness that gets me out of my seat.

[monkeyman]

Fighting is a part of the NHL, whether you have guys like Peluso in the lineup or not. The result of not having a legitimate tough guy in the lineup however, is a guy confronting another guy who is clearly out of his weight class and ending up with a fractured face.
Believing Peluso is in the lineup just to fight is a simplistic take on the game, he's a deterrent to fighting and cheap shots, not the cause of them.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Well considering it’s been the way of life in Hockey for over 100 years and the anti-fighting group is a fairly new and small crowd pretty sure I’m more able to comment on what the majority of fans want more then you would. Your trying to change something that’s already established and enjoyed. If they split the league entirely into two separate leagues one with your rules and the other with things the way they are and the worlds best hockey players had the choice of playing in it and all the fans had the choice to watch it. In all honesty which one do you think would survive?

I think that's a loaded way of looking at it.
Long-term I think fighting and hard checking is going to be eliminated.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Since I thanked this post, and the conversation evolved since that point, I wanted to highlight this part and add my two cents.

I agree whole heartedly with this, and honestly, I think almost every fan of the Calgary Flames probably agrees. When you think of our identity over most of our history, it resonated best when we’ve been a tough team to play against. Where the disagreement over this is comes down to what “tough” means.

I want Calgary to be tough, I want us to have the reputation of Philly-west. I want us to finish our checks. I want us to make life miserable for the other team. I want teams to come into the Saddledome knowing that getting a win is going to hurt.

What I don’t want, and where I agree with Jiri, is that fighting (and especially the staged stuff, or the “storyline” revenge stuff) is and should be on its way out. My favourite player right now? Tkachuk. The guys who I like the cut of? Smith, Lindholm, Rittich, Bennett, Neal.

These aren’t fighters (hell, two are goalies), but they’ve got an attitude. They play hard. They use their body. They’re bulldogs. Some more than others (Lindholm is mostly just great at using his body to create turnovers, Bennett plays like a bulldog when he’s on which has admittedly been rare).

These are the guys you want. If you’re looking at an extra forward, I want the Hathaways, Lombergs, etc, not the Pelusos and Prouts. I liked Engelland, I liked Bouma for the one season. It’s guys who play tough, and that doesn’t mean dropping the gloves and doing nothing else. It means blocking shots, finishing checks, getting in the other team’s face.

That’s why Tkachuk is going to inspire the new identity of this team the better he gets. He’s going to make the other team mad, finish his checks, and make them take bad penalties, and to rub it in he’s going to score. That’s toughness that makes sense in this era and going forward. That’s the toughness that gets me out of my seat.

Tkachuk is my favorite player too but you do realize his way of gameplay is why other players on other teams would want a fighter in the line up right? He plays on the line and over the line. Which is what causes way more injuries then two guys squaring up and fighting. The reason why a lot of players want fighting in the game is as a deterrent to the type of guy Tkachuk is. So I just find it kind of ironic that the guy you tout as the example of what the future toughness should be is the exact kind of “toughness” that the actual players want fighters to still be in the league for.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think that's a loaded way of looking at it.
Long-term I think fighting and hard checking is going to be eliminated.

Well I just don’t see it but hey everyone’s entitled to they own opinions. Don’t think either of us are going to persuade the other by continuing so cheers! I always enjoy hearing others opinions wether I agree or not and I guess one day down the road if these changes ever get made or don’t get made we shall see who was right.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Tkachuk is my favorite player too but you do realize his way of gameplay is why other players on other teams would want a fighter in the line up right? He plays on the line and over the line. Which is what causes way more injuries then two guys squaring up and fighting. The reason why a lot of players want fighting in the game is as a deterrent to the type of guy Tkachuk is. So I just find it kind of ironic that the guy you tout as the example of what the future toughness should be is the exact kind of “toughness” that the actual players want fighters to still be in the league for.

It’s not ironic.

If other teams want to waste a spot on a face-puncher because we’ve got a gang of guys who play to the edge as a team, that’s absolutely fantastic.

Makes our job on the scoresheet a lot easier.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not ironic.

If other teams want to waste a spot on a face-puncher because we’ve got a gang of guys who play to the edge as a team, that’s absolutely fantastic.

Makes our job on the scoresheet a lot easier.

My point is that guys like Tkachuk cause more injuries then a face puncher does. It’s the play of guys like Tkachuk, Marchand, Neal with the cheap shots that players say why they want a tough guy around to try to deter it. Your “future toughness” is exactly what the league and players are trying to leave in the past.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

My point is that guys like Tkachuk cause more injuries then a face puncher does. It’s the play of guys like Tkachuk, Marchand, Neal with the cheap shots that players say why they want a tough guy around to try to deter it. Your “future toughness” is exactly what the league and players are trying to leave in the past.

I don’t really believe that’s true. And nowhere in my post did I take about cheap shots.

Take the cheap shots out, and Tkachuk and Neal both play great, tough hockey. I would even argue it really isn’t a significant part of either of their games’.

I would also argue that cheap shots are less prevalent in the NHL than fighting, and if we’re talking about the significance of injuries (especially head injuries) then fighting and head shots do way way way more damage than generic “cheap shots.”

[Jiri Hrdina]

Yeah they aren't mutually exclusive things. Head shots need to go. Full stop.
The best way for them to go are severe and consistent punishments by the league. Not the presence of enforcers
I would challenge anyone to prove that having an enforcer has been an effective way to eliminate head shots from the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yeah they aren't mutually exclusive things. Head shots need to go. Full stop.
The best way for them to go are severe and consistent punishments by the league. Not the presence of enforcers
I would challenge anyone to prove that having an enforcer has been an effective way to eliminate head shots from the game.

I think a case could be mounted to show the opposite, in point of fact. There have been numerous instances of enforcers gooning up a bad game because they were not good enough at actually playing hockey to be able to make any other sort of impact. Who can forget the dangerous antics by Derek Boogard, Scott Parker, et al. trolling the ice in the dying minutes of games, looking to hurt people and “send a message.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Nobody asked me to protect them but as a society, collectively, we put things in place to protect ourselves from ourselves.
In the case of pro sports there are long-term considerations as well. The pro leagues art the models for future generations.
If you believe the above, then why not simply allow players to play the sport without helmets?

No no no, you misinterpreted my sentiment. Risk mitigation is neccisarry, but changing a sport so that it no longer resembles the sport is rediculous, especially when you are doing it on behalf of people that are playing said sport, without their request for you to do so.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

No no no, you misinterpreted my sentiment. Risk mitigation is neccisarry, but changing a sport so that it no longer resembles the sport is rediculous, especially when you are doing it on behalf of people that are playing said sport, without their request for you to do so.

No longer resembles the sport?



We are talking about preventing head injuries through cracking down on fighting and dangerous hits to the head, not replacing the puck with a tennis ball and the nets with basketball hoops. It seems like a minor change to me much like putting helmets on goalies or getting rid of touch icing.



Hockey can still be a fast, exciting, and dangerous sport without subjecting the players to long term brain damage.