Sam Bennett Value: Have the Flames held on TOO long? OR is he awesome?

[Red Slinger]

You may not agree with Jiri but you could at least respond in a more mature and reasoned way.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'll wade back in as it seems like folks objected to me bowing out which wasn't my intent.

I think the Sam check is an important part of the conversation as it really pushes to think about what checking is now and what it should be. And the ramifications of evolving the game.

For me, a lot of what I want to do is simply provoke that conversation. How far should the sport re-define the concept of body checking with what we now know about concussions. A hit like this, is not illegal at all, so it provides an important example to debate. The stuff that is way over the line is easier, as the debate is more about how to eliminate that stuff. The stuff that is in the squishy middle is hard.

My view is that concepts like "finishing your check" need to be removed. That the entire sense that intimidation and violence is part of the game, is what needs to shift.

How you go about doing that though is very hard. What would this check have looked like if Sam had just intended to do enough to take the puck? I don't know for sure, but those are the questions I'm interested in posing and discussing.

I believe it would be of best interest to create a new thread with this discussion as its broader then scope of this thread (as silly as it seems this thread is at time)
I would be interested to read about this subject as a ongoing redefinition of the sport.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Anyone who thinks the Sam Bennett on Compher hit needs to be removed from hockey needs to find a new sport to watch...

Why?
I love the sport.
I don't love this part of it.
These are the drive-bys that aren't a meaningful part of a conversation.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Why?
I love the sport.
I don't love this part of it.
These are the drive-bys that aren't a meaningful part of a conversation.

Here is my issue.

You (Not just you, but the general you) say that you want it so that hits like this don't happen, and that Bennett wouldn't even looking to make the hit. But that you don't want all hitting out of the game.

We say, well if you take this hit out of the game you pretty much take all hitting out of the game. You (general you) disagree. Ok, so then it's asked what rules you would change to make these hits not happen but still have hitting in the game, but you don't know.

It's hard to discuss what you think the idea situation would be when you don't even know yourself.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Why?
I love the sport.
I don't love this part of it.
These are the drive-bys that aren't a meaningful part of a conversation.

You say this...yet you want it drastically altered.

Hitting is, has been , and hopefully always will be, a core part of what makes the sport so great.

You take it out and you literally have changed the entire sport itself.

IMO it would be a death knell to the game. it's all about being entertained and a big hit/fight has always made fans erupt out of their seats.

Look at the crowd in NJ last night when Benn and Wood hooked up for a big boy/throw back scrap....they went crazy.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Why?
I love the sport.
I don't love this part of it.
These are the drive-bys that aren't a meaningful part of a conversation.

You may love the sport but if the current game doesn't suit your needs then perhaps find hockey to watch which meets the parameters you like? Maybe watch women's hockey more and find some non contact games around the city. The realm of contact you want, seperating the man from the puck is just not going to happen. The entire game itself would be different.

For example a friend of mine whom I trained in martial arts my whole life no longer wanted to watch UFC for the sheer brutality. They still love the martial arts so they dont watch those fights. So instead watches point based martial arts non contact tournaments. He still can watch one part of skill that martial arts has by this change of viewing.

The chance of him seeing a less violent UFC was not happening anytime soon. So he chose something else which meets his criteria.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Here is my issue.

You (Not just you, but the general you) say that you want it so that hits like this don't happen, and that Bennett wouldn't even looking to make the hit. But that you don't want all hitting out of the game.

We say, well if you take this hit out of the game you pretty much take all hitting out of the game. You (general you) disagree. Ok, so then it's asked what rules you would change to make these hits not happen but still have hitting in the game, but you don't know.

It's hard to discuss what you think the idea situation would be when you don't even know yourself.

Right now I'm interested in provoking the discussion so collectively we can start to figure out what it would look like. I don't pretend to have all the answers. Sometimes its OK to raise questions.

I do think though that one approach is to distinguish the concept of hitting from the concept of checking.

Perhaps indeed hitting needs to go away completely. Hitting is just one type of checking.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Here is my issue.

You (Not just you, but the general you) say that you want it so that hits like this don't happen, and that Bennett wouldn't even looking to make the hit. But that you don't want all hitting out of the game.

We say, well if you take this hit out of the game you pretty much take all hitting out of the game. You (general you) disagree. Ok, so then it's asked what rules you would change to make these hits not happen but still have hitting in the game, but you don't know.

It's hard to discuss what you think the idea situation would be when you don't even know yourself.

Well, I think it's pretty dumb to assume if you take a borderline charge out of hockey you won't see guys stand up at the blueline or bang a guy in the corner or put a hip on someone in the neutral zone.

There was all kinds of hitting in that game and the only one that appears to have caused a head injury is the hit that was borderline charging.

Like, if we don't allow Dion Phaneuf to almost kill Kyle Okposo in a meaningless preseason game, then adrian aucoin won't be able to hit a guy in the corner to turn the puck over?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You say this...yet you want it drastically altered.

Hitting is, has been , and hopefully always will be, a core part of what makes the sport so great.

You take it out and you literally have changed the entire sport itself.

IMO it would be a death knell to the game. it's all about being entertained and a big hit/fight has always made fans erupt out of their seats.

Look at the crowd in NJ last night when Benn and Wood hooked up for a big boy/throw back scrap....they went crazy.

the deathknell of hockey will be the same one afflicting football right now:

Parents not enrolling their kids because the sport is too dangerous.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

You may love the sport but if the current game doesn't suit your needs then perhaps find hockey to watch which meets the parameters you like? Maybe watch women's hockey more and find some non contact games around the city. The realm of contact you want, seperating the man from the puck is just not going to happen. The entire game itself would be different.

For example a friend of mine whom I trained in martial arts my whole life no longer wanted to watch UFC for the sheer brutality. They still love the martial arts so they dont watch those fights. So instead watches point based martial arts non contact tournaments. He still can watch one part of skill that martial arts has by this change of viewing.

The chance of him seeing a less violent UFC was not happening anytime soon. So he chose something else which meets his criteria.

My view is that sports like hockey and football are going to have to figure out how to evolve or risk their very existence.
I think the timeline for that is probably pretty long (20-25 years) but this is something almost every sport is going to have to confront.

So I see change happening. I just don't know when.

I don't know why we have to speak in absolutes though. Including basically telling me to not watch the sport anymore.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I think it's pretty dumb to assume if you take a borderline charge out of hockey you won't see guys stand up at the blueline or bang a guy in the corner or put a hip on someone in the neutral zone.

There was all kinds of hitting in that game and the only one that appears to have caused a head injury is the hit that was borderline charging.

Like, if we don't allow Dion Phaneuf to almost kill Kyle Okposo in a meaningless preseason game, then adrian aucoin won't be able to hit a guy in the corner to turn the puck over?

It wasn't a boarderline charge.

If there was no injury on the play would it be talked about? 100% no. So because it turns out he was concussed a few days after the hit it's now a borderline charge?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Right now I'm interested in provoking the discussion so collectively we can start to figure out what it would look like. I don't pretend to have all the answers. Sometimes its OK to raise questions.

I do think though that one approach is to distinguish the concept of hitting from the concept of checking.

Perhaps indeed hitting needs to go away completely. Hitting is just one type of checking.

But shouldn't you have some sort of input, more than "I think that hit shouldn't be in the game"? You are the one who wants to make the changes afterall, so I would think that the responsibility of laying out some new ideas should fall to you. Discussion would then easily continue from there.

Off the top of your head, ideally what would be an acceptable amount of contact in your mind? Do you want any hit where players are not travelling in the same direction banned? Do you want it like most beer leagues where no contact is allowed? Do you want it a little more complicated where hitting is allowed but "big hits" aren't?

If you really do want to discuss the topic I feel like you should be giving a little more than "a hit like this shouldn't happen anymore".

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

the deathknell of hockey will be the same one afflicting football right now:

Parents not enrolling their kids because the sport is too dangerous.

So take hitting out of lower levels. No kid NEEDS to blow up another kid during a Trails West 3 v Symons Valley 4 game on a Wednesday in November.

Royals/Canucks/Bisons, Division 1 hockey, fine. Allow hitting and call hits to the head. There's no PA in minor hockey, it's not like there's going to be fierce opposition.

Football is now moving to 7v7 flag leagues. Parents aren't going to stop letting kids play hockey if there's a reasonable level of risk.

The biggest issue, to me, is letting kids continue to play after they've already sustained a concussion. I was a goalie for ten years and my worst injuries were pucks to the knees. Things that hurt but didn't impact my ability to walk to school in the morning.

I played with a kid who had suffered at least five concussions before he was 16. That's crackers. That kid shouldn't have been playing hockey. I don't have kids - when I do, they are going to know going in that their contact hockey career is done after their first concussion. They will have signed a contract with me agreeing to as much.

If these sports truly 'die', it will be because of legal verdicts so enormous that they cripple a league's ability to function.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I think it's pretty dumb to assume if you take a borderline charge out of hockey you won't see guys stand up at the blueline or bang a guy in the corner or put a hip on someone in the neutral zone.

There was all kinds of hitting in that game and the only one that appears to have caused a head injury is the hit that was borderline charging.

Like, if we don't allow Dion Phaneuf to almost kill Kyle Okposo in a meaningless preseason game, then adrian aucoin won't be able to hit a guy in the corner to turn the puck over?

Also, just because it's funny that it's now a boarderline charge.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=379

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Also, just because it's funny that it's now a boarderline charge.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=379

Yeah, I love big hits, you're not going to shame me or cast me as a hypocrite on this.

It was a great hit by Bennett that was a borderline charge.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, I love big hits, you're not going to shame me or cast me as a hypocrite on this.

It was a great hit by Bennett that was a borderline charge.

It was a great hit of which I expect every player to take when given the opportunity. Momentum changing and a part of this great game!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

So take hitting out of lower levels. No kid NEEDS to blow up another kid during a Trails West 3 v Symons Valley 4 game on a Wednesday in November.

Royals/Canucks/Bisons, Division 1 hockey, fine. Allow hitting and call hits to the head. There's no PA in minor hockey, it's not like there's going to be fierce opposition.

Football is now moving to 7v7 flag leagues. Parents aren't going to stop letting kids play hockey if there's a reasonable level of risk.

The biggest issue, to me, is letting kids continue to play after they've already sustained a concussion. I was a goalie for ten years and my worst injuries were pucks to the knees. Things that hurt but didn't impact my ability to walk to school in the morning.

I played with a kid who had suffered at least five concussions before he was 16. That's crackers. That kid shouldn't have been playing hockey. I don't have kids - when I do, they are going to know going in that their contact hockey career is done after their first concussion. They will have signed a contract with me agreeing to as much.

If these sports truly 'die', it will be because of legal verdicts so enormous that they cripple a league's ability to function.

I’m glad someone is talking about minor hockey because that is the issue. I’m not really familiar with the levels you are referring to. But are you saying elite bantam and midget players should allow hitting but not at other levels? That’s a fair position to throw out there but not one I would support.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I think it's pretty dumb to assume if you take a borderline charge out of hockey you won't see guys stand up at the blueline or bang a guy in the corner or put a hip on someone in the neutral zone.

There was all kinds of hitting in that game and the only one that appears to have caused a head injury is the hit that was borderline charging.

Like, if we don't allow Dion Phaneuf to almost kill Kyle Okposo in a meaningless preseason game, then adrian aucoin won't be able to hit a guy in the corner to turn the puck over?

I know we're not supposed to derail the Sam Bennett thread, but you've reminded me that I never liked Adrian Aucoin. Hated the acquisition when it was made, for an old, slow defenseman Chicago fans were only too happy to see go away. They were barely happier when Old Man Wirtz died.

But a quick look at his Hockey Reference page reveals he had two 30+ point seasons, sub-50 PIMs each year, and was up over 20 minutes a night each year. Whatever the reasons they didn't get it done those years, it wasn't Aucoin's fault.

Sorry, Adrian. You went on and played 20+ a night for another three years, and finished your career as a Jacket, sure showing me.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, I love big hits, you're not going to shame me or cast me as a hypocrite on this.

It was a great hit by Bennett that was a borderline charge.

I'm confused how it can be great it was boarderline illegal.

Also, still wasn't borderline anything.

I think it's dumb to think a hit was good and clean until it's found out later that an injury occured on the play, and that same hit is now bad for the game.

[Robbob]

I think the next logical step would be to take a page out of the junior and IIHF, a check where the principal point of contact is the head is a 2 minute penalty plus a 10 min misconduct. Hitting properly is as much as a skill as the rest of a players skillset.

Would probably also go a longs way to helping the NHL get serious on head trauma.