Tom Wilson KOs Oleksiak - UPD: Oleksiak is dealing with a concussion.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Aren't appeals to emotion the entire foundation of spectator sports? There isn't much in the way of logical benefit to spending so much money on watching other people do things while eating and drinking garbage.

Logic has value, but it is not everything. I'm sure you could significantly reduce the number of injuries by instituting a speed limit so people aren't moving fast enough to injure knees in collisions and make the puck soft so it can't cause as much damage hitting someone, but the sport sure wouldn't be as exciting anymore.

I don't mean this as a pro-fighting stance. I'm not really sure where I stand in the fighting debate. I just don't think this appeal to logic is a very good argument or as triumphant a closing point as people often seem to think it is.

Respectfully, the appeal to logic, reason, and empirical evidence is the only approach when dealing with matters of health. Otherwise you can head back to the times when we did use emotional appeals in health matters, resulting in people assuming illness had to do with the wrath of God or some sin not atoned for. I, for one, would rather we don't.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

That's sort of the problem. Players are only vaguely aware of the risks, and they certainly are not part of academia or active research. A bit too busy playing hockey to read up on the issues for the most part. They rely on the league and specifically team doctors to manage their health for them and provide them that information. Being that clinical recommendations are often decades behind active research, it is unlikely that hockey players have all the pertinent information.

Honestly, even the research community doesn't have all the pertinent information yet, but there is a strong push to find it out as soon as possible. Long term studies are the next step in this issue as we only really have anecdotal cases to work with in that regard. Not to mention that the ability to confirm an actual concussion is based on symptom reporting and few biological markers, which makes it exceedingly hard to get accurate data for studies, and even harder to give players a proper diagnosis.

However, there seems to be new work being done in blood biomarkers, which gives hope for an accurate test in the near future. Spoiler alert: We aren't there yet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...erts-are-wary/

So all in all, this is a new field of study that is in its infancy. It's presumptive to think players have all the information to make an effective decision, and that's not even getting into the cultural norms set in the profession that push them towards a possibly dangerous act. There's enough evidence out there now to look at concussions as life-altering threats, one that may end a player's life early. We aren't even talking about big concussions either, but repetitive blows that add up over a career. Some of that is an unavoidable part of playing on a frozen sheet of ice with hard boards and equipment, but the stuff that can be avoided, i.e. unnecessary fights, should be taken out of the game as much as possible to ensure the best possible environment for hockey players to pursue their career in. Consider it part of WHMIS if you need a proper analogy.

The players will never know all the risks because science will never reach a 100% conclusion on the risks, but like you said above there is enough evidence out there for the players to be informed. If the risk is acceptable with the player then why should I have the right to tell them not to participate. We should still have some freedoms left in our society.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Fire

The players will never know all the risks because science will never reach a 100% conclusion on the risks, but like you said above there is enough evidence out there for the players to be informed. If the risk is acceptable with the player then why should I have the right to tell them not to participate. We should still have some freedoms left in our society.

Quite the slippery slope fallacy you just presented. I'm pretty sure we aren't living under authoritarian rule by trying to remove fighting from hockey, but then again, like you said, we can't ever reach a 100% conclusion on the risks.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Respectfully, the appeal to logic, reason, and empirical evidence is the only approach when dealing with matters of health. Otherwise you can head back to the times when we did use emotional appeals in health matters, resulting in people assuming illness had to do with the wrath of God or some sin not atoned for. I, for one, would rather we don't.

False dichotomy.

I'm not saying logic doesn't have a place in the argument. I'm saying it isn't everything. There is a place in between banning everything that hurts people and going full anti-science. I would like to believe that we pretty much all fall somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum. Logic just isn't the sole arbiter of where the "right" place to fall on that spectrum is.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

False dichotomy.

I'm not saying logic doesn't have a place in the argument. I'm saying it isn't everything. There is a place in between banning everything that hurts people and going full anti-science. I would like to believe that we pretty much all fall somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum. Logic just isn't the sole arbiter of where the "right" place to fall on that spectrum is.

Right. And I would say that most among the so-called "anti-fighting" crowd would be happy with a compromise that saw most of the unnecessary, dangerous head contact removed from the game, while attempting to retain as much of the physicality as practically possible. No one in this discussion would advocate for "banning everything that hurts people."

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Right. And I would say that most among the so-called "anti-fighting" crowd would be happy with a compromise that saw most of the unnecessary, dangerous head contact removed from the game, while attempting to retain as much of the physicality as practically possible. No one in this discussion would advocate for "banning everything that hurts people."

Yes. Exactly.

[SaskUke]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Quite the slippery slope fallacy you just presented. I'm pretty sure we aren't living under authoritarian rule by trying to remove fighting from hockey, but then again, like you said, we can't ever reach a 100% conclusion on the risks.

Removing staged fights - no argument here. Taking out fights from a game that arise out of plays or scrums is difficult, if not impossible. Beer leaguers get in fights when there are zero stakes to the game.

Medical science may suggest that we do everything to eliminate head injuries. The fact is, hockey is a contact sport played at high speeds, where the players are armed with sticks. Injuries are going to occur whether all fighting is eliminated or not.

I practice criminal law. I can tell you that when Parliament adds a mandatory minimum sentence to a certain offence, it doesn't have the desired effect of eliminating said offence. If we wanted to cut down on murders in Regina, for instance, we could ban Weiser's brand Rye Whiskey (a legit 28 out of 30 murder files i've had involved the consumption of Weiser's). But we live in a society that allows citizens to take on risks.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SaskUke

Removing staged fights - no argument here. Taking out fights from a game that arise out of plays or scrums is difficult, if not impossible. Beer leaguers get in fights when there are zero stakes to the game.

Medical science may suggest that we do everything to eliminate head injuries. The fact is, hockey is a contact sport played at high speeds, where the players are armed with sticks. Injuries are going to occur whether all fighting is eliminated or not.

Would fewer injuries occur with less fighting in the NHL? If so, why would we not do whatever we could to ensure a safer working environment for players?

While ideally we would strive to make hockey perfectly safe, I think the realistic course of action is to make it as safe as practically possible.

I practice criminal law. I can tell you that when Parliament adds a mandatory minimum sentence to a certain offence, it doesn't have the desired effect of eliminating said offence. If we wanted to cut down on murders in Regina, for instance, we could ban Weiser's brand Rye Whiskey (a legit 28 out of 30 murder files i've had involved the consumption of Weiser's). But we live in a society that allows citizens to take on risks.

So, your argument here is basically that a ban on fighting in hockey—being analogous to the mandatory minimum sentence—would not have the effect of eliminating fighting in games?

Are hockey players somehow completely unable to control their own emotions during the game? What makes hockey players so different from all other non-combative athletes who do not engage in fights during games?

[doctajones428]

Why do we need an update every time something Tom Wilson related happens?

Also, dude steps up for his teammate, how is this different than when any other player does it? Oh yeah, because it’s Tom Wilson it’s suddenly wrong

[bluck]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Why do we need an update every time something Tom Wilson related happens?

Also, dude steps up for his teammate, how is this different than when any other player does it? Oh yeah, because it’s Tom Wilson it’s suddenly wrong

To be honest, it could have been another player and I would have still posted it. A lot of people have different views on fighting, fighting after hit, concussions and everything related and I enjoy reading others peoples opinions. That's what makes this forum so great!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, your argument here is basically that a ban on fighting in hockey—being analogous to the mandatory minimum sentence—would not have the effect of eliminating fighting in games?

If so, his argument is correct. Fighting has never been allowed in baseball, but they still, to this day, have bench-clearing brawls in MLB.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If so, his argument is correct. Fighting has never been allowed in baseball, but they still, to this day, have bench-clearing brawls in MLB.

Bench clearing brawls in baseball are rarely more than both teams hugging each other.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

Bench clearing brawls in baseball are rarely more than both teams hugging each other.

I remember Bautista taking a pretty good punch from a guy named Odor.

Maybe he had it coming for laughing at his funny name.

[wwkayaker]

That wasn’t a brawl as was mentioned in the post I responded to. I’m not saying baseball doesn’t have an odd punch landed but it’s certainly nowhere close to what hockey players endure.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

That wasn’t a brawl as was mentioned in the post I responded to. I’m not saying baseball doesn’t have an odd punch landed but it’s certainly nowhere close to what hockey players endure.

So? The point was that banning it from the game didn't stop it from happening.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So? The point was that banning it from the game didn't stop it from happening.

The point being that brawls in baseball aren’t really brawls. Also, MLB has not banned fighting as it has no rules against fighting.

[Harry Lime]

MLB brawls are usually 2 to 6 guys actually fighting, followed by 40 guys all hugging it out. Punishment is doled out in game for the actual fighters, and after game for extraneous circumstances. Not unlike hockey, actually, just more rare.

It's NBA fights that are hilarious.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

The point being that brawls in baseball aren’t really brawls. Also, MLB has not banned fighting as it has no rules against fighting.

MLB has indeed banned fighting. The rule is that if you fight, the umpire at his discretion can eject you from the game.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

MLB has indeed banned fighting. The rule is that if you fight, the umpire at his discretion can eject you from the game.

Here is a link to the official rules. There is no mention of fighting. The umpire can rule based on player conduct.

http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/8/0/2...ball_Rules.pdf

News article explaining the absence of a rule on fighting

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...wls/513140002/