[News] Flames recall Anthony Peluso from Stockton

[Jay Random]

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.

As a society, collectively, we let politicians and bureaucrats do more every day to run our lives for us because they think that they have all the wisdom in the world and we are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's been going on for far too long and needs to stop.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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

No. And no one can afford to lose their best player for fighting, either. The idea that you can replace a designated goon with a superstar is silly.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

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.

Jiri is talking about eliminating body checking.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Jiri is talking about eliminating body checking.

To be clear my changes would be as follows
- Eliminate all fighting immediately
- Severely punish any check where the principle point of contact is the head. And by severe I mean long suspensions

I would then assess if additional changes are needed. I suspect that you need to evolve the game more to really make checking more about seperating puck from player and nothing more. I can see body contact being primarily around positioning and "muscling players" off the puck and less about "hitting".

That's the nuance I see. The difference between checking and hitting.
Checking can be inclusive of stick checks, body positioning, and puck battles. What it would exclude is any instance where someone is doing more than they need to in order to re-gain the puck.

Within that there is a lot of stuff to figure out. But conceptually that's where I see the game going.

And I know that is not what a lot of people want. I'm aware of that.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Didnt people have a similar meltdown last year at the prospect of Gazdic playing? In the end, he never did. I think Peluso lacing them up for a small handful of games is going to be the least of the team's concerns.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

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.

Juri suggested removing contact from hockey. And this wasent originally about banning enforcers, it was about banning fighting. So yea, fundemtenally changing the game so that it doesn't resemble the sport.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Juri suggested removing contact from hockey. And this wasent originally about banning enforcers, it was about banning fighting. So yea, fundemtenally changing the game so that it doesn't resemble the sport.

Depends on your concept of what makes the sport the sport

[memphusk]

Why even bother watching the game now if you want hitting removed? Why not wait until hitting is removed?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Why even bother watching the game now if you want hitting removed? Why not wait until hitting is removed?

Ummm because I like other parts of the game?

Weird post

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ummm because I like other parts of the game?

Weird post

Not that weird. I guess that's just the first time I have ever heard somebody wanting to take it out. I suppose there will always be people that want change though.

[soulchoice]

Lets be real here, for anyone that has ever played the game at a contact level, hitting isn't just about separating the man from the puck. There is an intimidation factor for contact hockey. Big hits happen when people are stick handling through the zone with their head down and that won't ever stop, nor should it. Intimidation and hits are part of the game and always will be. Sure, take out head shots, that i can agree with.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No. And no one can afford to lose their best player for fighting, either. The idea that you can replace a designated goon with a superstar is silly.

That's not what I said.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's not what I said.

No, this is what you said:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If you want fighters today you need ones that are players first, fighters second. Iginla, Chara, Buf, etc.

What you're saying is that you want the best player on your team to be the one spending five minutes in the box. If you're dumb enough to do that, the other team will gladly dress a one-shift goon to dance with him. Then they double-shift their best player to fill in for the goon, and you have to double-shift a lesser player to try to fill in for your star. Bravo.

Maybe that's not what you meant to say – but you said it by the examples you chose.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, this is what you said:



What you're saying is that you want the best player on your team to be the one spending five minutes in the box. If you're dumb enough to do that, the other team will gladly dress a one-shift goon to dance with him. Then they double-shift their best player to fill in for the goon, and you have to double-shift a lesser player to try to fill in for your star. Bravo.

Maybe that's not what you meant to say – but you said it by the examples you chose.

It's not what I said, though, you are just taking the two exampless I used and stretching them to the entirety of the premise I stated. They happened to be good examples of players who could fight.

Let's be clear then - fighters don't have to be the best player, but they have to be a player who can take a regular shift. Don't like those examples? OK, try pre-concussion Ferland, Gudbrandson, Engelland, or even Nurse.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Not that weird. I guess that's just the first time I have ever heard somebody wanting to take it out. I suppose there will always be people that want change though.

I mean, it's not that crazy. At some point, there'll be enough restrictions on how you can hit that hitting will become a marginal part of the game. We're definitely past the era where a guy with his head down getting blown up is celebrated. 90% of defense nowadays is stickwork and gap control anyways, and clean hits still lead to scrums and fights all the time.

Look at the NFL and its roughing the passer rule. No one knows how to tackle a quarterback and tackles that look clean are getting flagged. At some point, you just can't dance around the fact that huge collisions between big athletes are extremely dangerous. I don't know how football is going to adjust, but I think hockey is fortunate that there's still a great game even if you removed hitting.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's not what I said, though, you are just taking the two exampless I used and stretching them to the entirety of the premise I stated. They happened to be good examples of players who could fight.

They happened to be very bad examples of players who could fight, because they could not fight without giving a huge advantage to the other team.

Let's be clear then - fighters don't have to be the best player, but they have to be a player who can take a regular shift. Don't like those examples? OK, try pre-concussion Ferland, Gudbrandson, Engelland, or even Nurse.

That I agree with – mostly. However, players like that are few and far between. The other reason why teams used to employ goons is that the ability to fight on skates is not often coupled with the ability to play NHL-quality hockey. So you get teams using mooks like Gazdic or Peluso.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

To be clear my changes would be as follows
- Eliminate all fighting immediately
- Severely punish any check where the principle point of contact is the head. And by severe I mean long suspensions

I would then assess if additional changes are needed. I suspect that you need to evolve the game more to really make checking more about seperating puck from player and nothing more. I can see body contact being primarily around positioning and "muscling players" off the puck and less about "hitting".

That's the nuance I see. The difference between checking and hitting.
Checking can be inclusive of stick checks, body positioning, and puck battles. What it would exclude is any instance where someone is doing more than they need to in order to re-gain the puck.

Within that there is a lot of stuff to figure out. But conceptually that's where I see the game going.

And I know that is not what a lot of people want. I'm aware of that.

What you’d have would be Soviet hockey of the 70’s. Incredibly boring and unentertaining to watch, yet full of vicious pokes, hits, crosschecks, knees and spears, when refs are not watching.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

They happened to be very bad examples of players who could fight, because they could not fight without giving a huge advantage to the other team.



That I agree with – mostly. However, players like that are few and far between. The other reason why teams used to employ goons is that the ability to fight on skates is not often coupled with the ability to play NHL-quality hockey. So you get teams using mooks like Gazdic or Peluso.

Given a choice between having no fighter at all and having to ice a guy to play one shift, I choose the former. Especially when the situation that gives rise to this debate would have happened either way, and nothing would have changed afterwards either.

PS. Iggy fighting rarely gave a "huge advantage" to the other side I. My recollection. Chara either. In the former case, Iggy chose premium times to fight, when the emotion gained would supersede the fact he was off for 5 minutes. And he would also fight key guys often. Chara didn't actually have to fight much. He was that good.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Given a choice between having no fighter at all and having to ice a guy to play one shift, I choose the former. Especially when the situation that gives rise to this debate would have happened either way, and nothing would have changed afterwards either.

PS. Iggy fighting rarely gave a "huge advantage" to the other side I. My recollection. Chara either. In the former case, Iggy chose premium times to fight, when the emotion gained would supersede the fact he was off for 5 minutes. And he would also fight key guys often. Chara didn't actually have to fight much. He was that good.

I remember the Chara - McCabe tussle which was just comical.

McCabe after being rag dolled had a ‘wha’ happened?’ expression

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, this is what you said:



What you're saying is that you want the best player on your team to be the one spending five minutes in the box. If you're dumb enough to do that, the other team will gladly dress a one-shift goon to dance with him. Then they double-shift their best player to fill in for the goon, and you have to double-shift a lesser player to try to fill in for your star. Bravo.

Maybe that's not what you meant to say – but you said it by the examples you chose.

Again, please name the teams that are deploying this supposed strategy today. How many pure enforcers are left in the league and playing in the lineup regularly?


I’m afraid you speak about an era that has passed us as of 3-4 years ago.