Fights down to just 0.24 per game - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

GirlySports · 10-30-2015, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CroFlames

To the ban fighting crowd: when tempers are flaring and emotions are high like in the Vancouver series, the players are just supposed to appeal to the refs calmly "he hit me sir, please penalize him".

Yes.

Tempers just wouldn't flare.

You can already see it changing. Bobby Ryan running into Hiller on Wednesday night. Just a few years ago a couple of Flames would have went after Ryan immediately.

Coach · 10-30-2015, 10:17 AM

I'm glad it's going down. I don't think it will ever completely go away, as the heated exchanges will still happen and boil over at some point, especially in playoffs. Those are the exciting moments.

But the staged goon fights are going the way of the dodo and it's better that way.

Erick Estrada · 10-30-2015, 10:17 AM

I don't mind an entertaining non-staged fight but if there was never another fight in the NHL again I would be fine with it. I watch hockey for hockey not fights and it's always been a bit of a joke that hockey is the only team sport where fighting is accepted. Also as has been said we now have medical evidence that suggests fighting is dangerous and any way the sport can reduce the amount of head injuries the better. I don't want any of these players living crippled post-hockey for my selfish entertainment reasons.

adc · 10-30-2015, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Split98

Other leagues on NA ice certainly serve as an example. But I don't know if any analysis has been made yet to show liberties vs. fighting.

CIS hockey is a slash and hack fest. Guys can whack anyone with out any fear of getting punched by anyone and it seems to be the default way to express anger/frustration.

I have only seen limited European league action but it seemed to have more stick work as well.

Coach · 10-30-2015, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes.

Tempers just wouldn't flare.

You can already see it changing. Bobby Ryan running into Hiller on Wednesday night. Just a few years ago a couple of Flames would have went after Ryan immediately.

In their first game against an eastern team that they play maybe twice per year? No, probably not happening. Against a division rival in the heat of a playoff race, or series, yeah, it'll happen. It won't be from Richardson following around Ferland trying to get him to fight. it will be in response to cheap plays or born out of violent scrums in front of the net.

Textcritic · 10-30-2015, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adc

CIS hockey is a slash and hack fest. Guys can whack anyone with out any fear of getting punched by anyone and it seems to be the default way to express anger/frustration.

I have only seen limited European league action but it seemed to have more stick work as well.

Split98 wondered aloud about any actual study of the correlation between stick work and fighting, not some random observer's entirely anecdotal opinion.

Coach · 10-30-2015, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't mind an entertaining non-staged fight but if there was never another fight in the NHL again I would be fine with it. I watch hockey for hockey not fights and it's always been a bit of a joke that hockey is the only team sport where fighting is accepted. Also as has been said we now have medical evidence that suggests fighting is dangerous and any way the sport can reduce the amount of head injuries the better. I don't want any of these players living crippled post-hockey for my selfish entertainment reasons.

This has always bothered me. It's not accepted. There's a penalty for it. It is against the rules.

Whether or not the penalty is enough to deter it is kind of a different debate (it's not, especially for people instigating after clean checks).

Culturally accepted by fans and players? Yes. Against the rules? Yes.

I liken it to touch down dances in football. Are they allowed? No. Do they happen? Yes and are acceptable by the players and the fans, but not the league rules.

GirlySports · 10-30-2015, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

In their first game against an eastern team that they play maybe twice per year? No, probably not happening. Against a division rival in the heat of a playoff race, or series, yeah, it'll happen. It won't be from Richardson following around Ferland trying to get him to fight. it will be in response to cheap plays or born out of violent scrums in front of the net.

Then they'll just get game misconducts and maybe fines and suspensions. If it's worth it then it'll still happen.

Just like other sports.

Armchair Quarterback · 10-30-2015, 10:28 AM

Every sport needs heroes and stars to admire. But we could not have heroes without villains. Every sport also needs villains. Above everything else, hockey is about entertainment, and people want to hate goon players as much as they want to love the heroes. It is cathartic. It gets the crowd into the game. Fighting is just another part of this hero-goon relationship where the fans get involved emotionally in the game by getting fired up about perceived (or real) slights, uncalled penalties, dirty hits, etc.

How pumped was everyone to see Bennett avenge Gaudreau getting crosschecked from behind the other night? Not a specifically goon vs. hero scenario, but one where the players are obviously showing some anger. You want to see that. That is without a doubt part of the game, and fighting is only the furthest expression of it.

Keep fighting. But even if the league doesn't, and has obviously begun its slow phasing out of fighting, they can ban fights, they can ban goons, but they cannot ban anger or competitiveness. Nor can they ban intensity and hatred between individual players and teams.

adc · 10-30-2015, 10:30 AM

I do like the staged goon fights but I also don't want the Flames to have a goon on their team because 9.5 times out of 10 they are a much bigger liability on the team than an asset.

So I guess even though I support fighting in my world a lot of the fights would be eliminated by the removal of guys who do most of the fighting.

undercoverbrother · 10-30-2015, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

This has always bothered me. It's not accepted. There's a penalty for it. It is against the rules.

Whether or not the penalty is enough to deter it is kind of a different debate (it's not, especially for people instigating after clean checks).

Culturally accepted by fans and players? Yes. Against the rules? Yes.

I liken it to touch down dances in football. Are they allowed? No. Do they happen? Yes and are acceptable by the players and the fans, but not the league rules.

It is accepted. If it wasn't accepted the repercussions of fighting would be greater. Thrown out of the game and banned from the next.

The NHL accepts fighting. All the talk about "the code" further supports that fighting is accepted. If it wasn't accepted there wouldn't be a "code" to fighting in the game.

adc · 10-30-2015, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Split98 wondered aloud about any actual study of the correlation between stick work and fighting, not some random observer's entirely anecdotal opinion.

Its not opinion it is fact.

Textcritic · 10-30-2015, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adc

Its not opinion it is fact.

Good.

Facts are established on the basis of evidence. I look forward to seeing the iron clad case that you have built to show the correlation between fighting and dangerous plays in hockey.

adc · 10-30-2015, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Good.

Facts are established on the basis of evidence. I look forward to seeing the iron clad case that you have built to show the correlation between fighting and dangerous plays in hockey.

Why would I have an ironclad case for something I never claimed existed?

Split98 · 10-30-2015, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Good.

Facts are established on the basis of evidence. I look forward to seeing the iron clad case that you have built to show the correlation between fighting and dangerous plays in hockey.

Why take an entirely valid topic between two rational sides of view and subject it to 'I'm taking my ball and going home' mentality. Here I thought you were taking my POV into consideration, but maybe you weren't.

Do you have an iron-clad case for fighting having no effect on players accountability?

I base my view in what I think if human mentality. If a player wants to take liberties, 'that big guy is going to cave my face in' seems like something that could deter him from doing that. Do you not agree with that?

If not. I'd like to see an iron-clad case that players actions are not influenced by potential retaliation for their actions.

OR, we could take peoples opinions and observations to be as credible as our own and entertain ourselves with conversation.

Itse · 10-30-2015, 11:12 AM

I'm not sure if there are threads that are more copies of each other than these fighting threads. The people might change, but the arguments are exactly the same.

It would be nice if we had yearly polls on this, so we could track the development of fan sentiment over time. Unfortunately it's too late to start now.

(I'm in the "hockey is better, safer and more entertaining without fights" camp.)

Itse · 10-30-2015, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Split98

Why take an entirely valid topic between two rational sides of view and subject it to 'I'm taking my ball and going home' mentality. Here I thought you were taking my POV into consideration, but maybe you weren't.

Do you have an iron-clad case for fighting having no effect on players accountability?

When somebody claims something is a "not opinion but a fact", they are making a falsifiable claim and should be called out on that. Either it is a proven fact or it's not. If it's not a fact it's an opinion.

I can have my opinion and you can have yours, but the moment either one claims that their opinion is "fact", the burden of proof is on them. People are not entitled to their own imaginary facts.

undercoverbrother · 10-30-2015, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not sure if there are threads that are more copies of each other than these fighting threads. The people might change, but the arguments are exactly the same.

It would be nice if we had yearly polls on this, so we could track the development of fan sentiment over time. Unfortunately it's too late to start now.

(I'm in the "hockey is better, safer and more entertaining without fights" camp.)

Cue the "soft European" Don Cheery rant.

Split98 · 10-30-2015, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itse

When somebody claims something is a "not opinion but a fact", they are making a falsifiable claim and should be called out on that. Either it is a proven fact or it's not. If it's not a fact it's an opinion.

I can have my opinion and you can have yours, but the moment either one claims that their opinion is "fact", the burden of proof is on them. People are not entitled to their own imaginary facts.

Fair enough.

I neglected the post Textcritic was specifically referring to, my apologies Textcritic

Textcritic · 10-30-2015, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adc

Why would I have an ironclad case for something I never claimed existed?

You called it a fact. The onus is upon you to provide proof for that. If you are unable or unwilling, then your opinion about the positive benefits of fighting in hockey remains just that—your opinion. And in this instance, based upon what you have posted in this thread, it appears that your opinion is anecdotal.

Feel free to correct me on anything I have said up to this point.