Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I've said this before, but the only way an anti-fighting advocate could use "safety" as an argument without being disingenuous would be if they advocate removing ALL CONTACT from hockey. Otherwise, you are simply cherry picking which aspects of player safety you care about to suit personal opinion.
|
Absolutely I cherry pick! So do you! Difference is, I do it based on evidence, you do it based on entertainment value.
Do you agree with removing head shots? Flying elbows? Slashing to the face?
All of those are banned because if the high potential for serious injury. It's a scale, not an all or none. You can't remove hitting as I agree is a vital part of the game. With the type of hitting that's allowed, it's justified because chance of injury is low enough. There isn't a magic spot and we're all arguing where that spot is. Recent evidence shows that CTE is very real, very prevalent and very dangerous. Unfortunately, it mostly manifests long after a players career when it's out of the limelight and too late for regret.
I'm confused on your argument then. Is everything is allowed, or do you choose what is allowed based on entertainment value?