Let's leave sports like Basketball and Baseball out of this discussion. I don't think they compare, there is not the same physical skin on skin component. There are sports like Football, Rugby, Lacrosse, League that are all very physical and they don't have players floating around punching people in the face (the one caveat to my post is Lacrosse. I don't know enough about the sport/rosters). The aforementioned sports have fighting sometimes, but for the amount of contact/abuse between players the number/instances of fights is minimal.
So what is wrong with Hockey players?
basketball is very physical and if there were cheapshots smacking players onto a hardwood floor, there would be a lot of fights.
I mentioned this earlier. Football and Rugby are extremely physical but they are not dirty like hockey. And anything that is dirty like hitting a QB late or hitting defenseless receivers in the head has been addressed.
Hockey is a collision sport. There's hitting from behind, charging, boarding, slashing, elbowing, running the goalie, facewashes, snowshowing the goalie etc... none of these happen in football. It's one play at a time, a player gets tackled hard, gets up and jogs back to the huddle.
They've made hockey more dangerous by increasing it's speed. Taking out the red line and taking out obstruction. You can't hold on and nuzzle/snuggle a guy into the boards anymore, you must drill him. In comparision, football and rugby are slow sports.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I guess I'm just one of those guys that doesn't get it according to Burke. But I think that my argument is more on the side of reason and evidence than his. I have never seen any proponent of fighting quote a statistical analysis of how fighting makes the NHL safer than other leagues that don't. I don't see it with other sports either and I don't see how the code results in dirty players taking fewer liberties. I see very little cause and effect between fighting and regulating dirty play which as far as I can tell is more prevalent in hockey than any other major team sport.
Precisely my point. Thank you.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
We're having two different conversations. Fighting has a place in the game, it has a role, it's PART of the game. It is those things because players almost unanimously agree that it is. There is no higher authority than the opinion of the players in this regard. This is not "getting back out there," this is an element of the game.
Now, you want to talk about safety? Alright, we can have that conversation, but what your post doesn't address and what I take issue with people like Textcritic saying is that players aren't the most reliable experts on the role of fighting in the game. We aren't talking about the negative after effects of fighting, we are talking about it's role in the game. Of course most players will not be experts on the health effects of fighting in the NHL, but they are the HIGHEST experts on fighting's effectiveness in the game of hockey.
Aside from that, I'm not sure what basis there is for saying hockey players aren't that smart, or if you weren't suggesting that but rather actually suggesting you had to be a scholar to understanding the effects of fighting, then I'm not sure I really agree with that either.
I think the extent of it being "part" of the game is debatable. It most definitely is part of the culture and tradition, but it exists outside the rules of the game. As for players deciding, if it were strictly up to the players lots still wouldn't be wearing helmets. If it had never been implemented as a rule, the culture would be the same as the Don Cherry view on visors. A macho culture can't make objective decisions on the removal of a physical aspect of the game.
I mentioned this earlier. Football and Rugby are extremely physical but they are not dirty like hockey. And anything that is dirty like hitting a QB late or hitting defenseless receivers in the head has been addressed.
Dunno about Rugby, but just look at a player like Bill Romanowski, who used to try to break other players fingers in scrums. He would use just about any dirty tactic he thought he could get away with.
...Fighting has a place in the game, it has a role, it's PART of the game. It is those things because players almost unanimously agree that it is. There is no higher authority than the opinion of the players in this regard...
Think about it like this:
In a debate about the existence of Sasquatch, are people who claim to have seen them the "highest authority", and are their credentials as "experts" derived from experience beyond repute?
OR,
are they subordinate to the collection of data and their evaluation in a controlled environment?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Let's leave sports like Basketball and Baseball out of this discussion. I don't think they compare, there is not the same physical skin on skin component. There are sports like Football, Rugby, Lacrosse, League that are all very physical and they don't have players floating around punching people in the face (the one caveat to my post is Lacrosse. I don't know enough about the sport/rosters). The aforementioned sports have fighting sometimes, but for the amount of contact/abuse between players the number/instances of fights is minimal.
So what is wrong with Hockey players?
Box Lacrosse at the Senior and Junior level had the same rules for fighting( 5 min major) as NHL hockey until this year. The Canadian Lacrosse Association( CLA) changed its rule in 2013 to a game misconduct. The overwhelming majority of high level lacrosse players and coaches will tell you that 2013 saw an increase in dirty dangerous play. I am close to the game, and every single player I have asked about it does not like the change.
it is a different game than hockey, as most teams employ offensive and defensive specialists. For the most part, the offensively gifted players were not typically those that would fight. Also, in lacrosse, the majority of points goals/assists are scored by a low percentage of players. Typically, two players will account for over 75% of goals scored. Having a "nuclear deterent" on the team protected those players. If you abused the offensive stars, their was a price. For the most part, that alone protected the players. Over the course of a season, you actually saw very few fights( it hurts more to get punched in the face on firm ground).
The result in 2013 was the gifted offensive players were targeted more than ever.
It is a hot topic of debate in lacrosse circles.
Just saying
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to clancy For This Useful Post:
In a debate about the existence of Sasquatch, are people who claim to have seen them the "highest authority", and are their credentials as "experts" derived from experience beyond repute?
OR,
are they subordinate to the collection of data and their evaluation in a controlled environment?
So you're trying to compare a mythical creature seen by less than 0.001% of the population with an element of a game that is found useful by 98% of the population?
Great logic.
The Following User Says Thank You to strombad For This Useful Post:
In a debate about the existence of Sasquatch, are people who claim to have seen them the "highest authority", and are their credentials as "experts" derived from experience beyond repute?
OR,
are they subordinate to the collection of data and their evaluation in a controlled environment?
If you believe they actually have seen a sasquatch, then IMO yes.
Pretty sure that NHL players actually play in the NHL.
...what I take issue with people like Textcritic saying is that players aren't the most reliable experts on the role of fighting in the game...
Is there any proof that the players are "the most reliable experts" with regards to this issue? Or is it more a product of the fact that fighting has always been part of the game, and it seems to make an impact?
To further clarify my point, I'm not suggesting that the opinion of hockey players as a group is less reliable than everyone else, only that BY HUMAN NATURE we all tend to make miscalculations and misinterpretations of causation and correlation by our experiences and perceptions. I'm not denigrating hockey players. I'm simply pointing out that their opinion is not supported by any evidence. I am also asserting that in the absence of any evidence, their perception is quite possibly inaccurate, and that the BEST source from which to draw our opinions is EVIDENCE.
I just don't understand why you hate evidence so much.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
So you're trying to compare a mythical creature seen by less than 0.001% of the population with an element of a game that is found useful by 98% of the population?
Great logic.
It's an absurdity to illustrate a point. That point being, hockey players are not qualified to determine the accurate correlation between cause and effect, and the usefulness of fighting in hockey by virtue of their experience alone. Far from it. The best source from which to draw one's opinions is from the evidence, and there is none to suggest that the player's are right.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
basketball is very physical and if there were cheapshots smacking players onto a hardwood floor, there would be a lot of fights.
it is clear we have a different definition of "physical"............
Quote:
I mentioned this earlier. Football and Rugby are extremely physical but they are not dirty like hockey.
Oh I see you think hockey is intrinsically dirty. I have had a huge number of "dirty" things done to me on the field, stood on, kicked, hit late, finger broken, eyes gouged, head stamped, etc etc etc. Hockey is not any dirtier, that IMO is a cop out
Quote:
Hockey is a collision sport. There's hitting from behind, charging, boarding, slashing, elbowing, running the goalie, facewashes, snowshowing the goalie etc... none of these happen in football. It's one play at a time, a player gets tackled hard, gets up and jogs back to the huddle.
All of which result in a penalty which should be called by the ref.
Quote:
They've made hockey more dangerous by increasing it's speed. Taking out the red line and taking out obstruction. You can't hold on and nuzzle/snuggle a guy into the boards anymore, you must drill him. In comparision, football and rugby are slow sports.
So prior, when the red line was in play, there was not these issues? So it is the speed of the game that makes the players fight?
Arugments for fighting in the NHL remind me of NRA arguments about guns. You can't tell a gun-owner that having a gun doesn't make them more safe no matter what the statistics say. Am I the only one who has noticed that the dirty plays that goons police are most often dirty plays by opposing teams' goons?
Box Lacrosse at the Senior and Junior level had the same rules for fighting( 5 min major) as NHL hockey until this year. The Canadian Lacrosse Association( CLA) changed its rule in 2013 to a game misconduct. The overwhelming majority of high level lacrosse players and coaches will tell you that 2013 saw an increase in dirty dangerous play. I am close to the game, and every single player I have asked about it does not like the change.
it is a different game than hockey, as most teams employ offensive and defensive specialists. For the most part, the offensively gifted players were not typically those that would fight. Also, in lacrosse, the majority of points goals/assists are scored by a low percentage of players. Typically, two players will account for over 75% of goals scored. Having a "nuclear deterent" on the team protected those players. If you abused the offensive stars, their was a price. For the most part, that alone protected the players. Over the course of a season, you actually saw very few fights( it hurts more to get punched in the face on firm ground).
The result in 2013 was the gifted offensive players were targeted more than ever.
It is a hot topic of debate in lacrosse circles.
Just saying
Thanks for that post. As I mentioned my knowledge of the sport is slim, but will have to grow (my son is crazy about playing it).
Love this comment by Burke and also the fact that many hockey fans refer to the dirt bags of the league as Rats. This type of bold statements i appreciate from Burke. There is no way Ken King would ever had said anything ever, remotely un-PC.
King was Vanilla, Burke on the other hand is Double Rockey Road.
Quote:
But today, these are the exceptions. Horrific injuries, stars being mugged, rats who run around hitting people from behind — these stand out to us because they don't happen with regularity. It's fighting that keeps these incidents to a minimum.
__________________
Last edited by Stay Golden; 11-01-2013 at 11:19 AM.
Box Lacrosse at the Senior and Junior level had the same rules for fighting( 5 min major) as NHL hockey until this year. The Canadian Lacrosse Association( CLA) changed its rule in 2013 to a game misconduct. The overwhelming majority of high level lacrosse players and coaches will tell you that 2013 saw an increase in dirty dangerous play. I am close to the game, and every single player I have asked about it does not like the change...
Two things:
1) Are there any numbers and statistics which show this demonstrable difference?
2) If this is a trend, will we expect it to continue at the current rate or to increase with time? Or would the better course of action be to wait and see what happens as players adjust to the rule changes?
I agree with Jiri in this: if fighting is removed, then it needs to be followed up by MUCH stiffer penalties for egregious, "dirty" infractions. Also, it would be necessary to give players time to adjust to the new rules, meaning that things would be likely to get worse before getting better. But I sincerely believe that it would improve over time and result in a superior product in the long run.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I just don't understand why you hate evidence so much.
Because you aren't requesting a reliance on evidence, you're requesting a reliance on your perceived notion of acceptable evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
It's an absurdity to illustrate a point. That point being, hockey players are not qualified to determine the accurate correlation between cause and effect, and the usefulness of fighting in hockey by virtue of their experience alone. Far from it. The best source from which to draw one's opinions is from the evidence, and there is none to suggest that the player's are right.
You're defining evidence by your own view of the game. The word of the players IS evidence, it's the most important evidence. How would you suppose that it be proven? What's good enough for you? Your entire argument is fallacy, pick your poison: argument from silence? from ignorance? from incredulity? Any one of those could fit the description. You're arguing that there is no evidence, yet there IS evidence. Fighting is out in place as a deterrent to control players from acting out to an extreme.
If players are the ones fighting directly effects, and the proof that it works as a deterrent can solely be sourced from the fact that players (who it is meant to deter) feel deterred and/or feel like it works as a deterrent. You have no argument outside of that. You can argue that YOU don't see it, thus there must be no evidence of it, but you are not involved. Fighting is not meant to have effect on YOU, you are not the intended recipient of the act of fighting.
Even if you wanted to based your argument on subjective evidence that only you find valuable, I'd question how you did not see the noticeable difference between the way other teams treated both the Flames and the Sabres in the past while there was no marked "threat". The difference is considerable compared to how they are treated now, it doesn't take a player to see that.
You suggest evidence, but you are dependant solely on subjective evidence that is specifically catered to reinforce your point of view. If the players change their mind and decide that fighting isn't working as a deterrent, then my mind changes with them. Being the sole recipients of the benefits and detractions that fighting has on the game, they are the utmost authorities.
Again, if you want to change your argument to say that players don't know the medical implications of fighting, that's a possible argument that I think you really could logically make. But any suggestion that anyone knows better about he in-game effect of fighting than players is just silly, and if that's the argument you want to continue making, then I suppose that's fine, but I won't continue to try to present logic to someone who depends on none.
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
If the people against fighting are so concerned about the safety of the players. Why do we never see threads or discussions about pro players wearing full face masks? How many players get hurt by a puck or stick to the face? The league lost its best player to a slap shot to the face last year. Face masks would make fighting pretty much useless. Where is the outrage and call for change?
If the people against fighting are so concerned about the safety of the players. Why do we never see threads or discussions about pro players wearing full face masks? How many players get hurt by a puck or stick to the face? The league lost its best player to a slap shot to the face last year. Face masks would make fighting pretty much useless. Where is the outrage and call for change?
Because it's not about player safety. They say it is, but if it was they would would more concerned about hard shelled shoulder and elbow pads. They would be more concerned about the Ashton hit than any fight that happened in the game. It's more about the fact that they just personally don't like fighting in the game and think they have a better idea about it's effectiveness than the players, coaches and G.M.s, which I find astounding.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zevo For This Useful Post:
