[News] Flames recall Anthony Peluso from Stockton

[Reign of Fire]

Watching hockey without hitting is like watching flag football, no thank you. Ppl that dont like contact sports should stick to NBA.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

To be clear my changes would be as follows
- Eliminate all fighting immediately
- Severely punish any check where the principle point of contact is the head. And by severe I mean long suspensions

I would then assess if additional changes are needed. I suspect that you need to evolve the game more to really make checking more about seperating puck from player and nothing more. I can see body contact being primarily around positioning and "muscling players" off the puck and less about "hitting".

That's the nuance I see. The difference between checking and hitting.
Checking can be inclusive of stick checks, body positioning, and puck battles. What it would exclude is any instance where someone is doing more than they need to in order to re-gain the puck.

Within that there is a lot of stuff to figure out. But conceptually that's where I see the game going.

And I know that is not what a lot of people want. I'm aware of that.

Barf!

[RichKlit]

Hockey without hitting, good grief just bubble wrap the world and be done with it.

[flambers]

I can't see any scenario where the NHLPA would authorize hockey without body contact.

However I understand the concussion issues etc.

As for fighting, I would imagine the league is already pleased with how the fighting has been reduced over the last several years.

Primarily with the speed of the game, I would bet no further rules changes will be made in regards to fighting.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

What you’d have would be Soviet hockey of the 70’s. Incredibly boring and unentertaining to watch, yet full of vicious pokes, hits, crosschecks, knees and spears, when refs are not watching.

Ah, yes. The age-old trope about how big, open-ice hits and fighting in hockey actually protect players from stick fouls and dirty play is a common fall-back in this discussion. Even in the event that what Jiri has described is essentially how the game mostly plays out already. So long as the best players in the world are playing on the biggest stage the game will always be entertaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Ah, yes. The age-old trope about how big, open-ice hits and fighting in hockey actually protect players from stick fouls and dirty play is a common fall-back in this discussion. Even in the event that what Jiri has described is essentially how the game mostly plays out already. So long as the best players in the world are playing on the biggest stage the game will always be entertaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the poster suggesting hits and fighting keep those things out of the game? Maybe, I didn't read that into it though.

I don't really understand the bolded part. He has hypothesized about removing body contact from the game which is not how the game is played, at any competitive level, anywhere in NA for males above 14 years of age.

The discussion seems focused on what people would or wouldn't watch at the NHL level, but Jiri's suggestion would fundamentally change the way the game is played for thousands of people.

I understand the hypothesis, and maybe he is just trying to be provocative, but if that is truly the type of game you want hockey to be, I don't know how:

1) You could spend time watching and being entertained by hockey today
2) Spend time playing the game yourself, other than in strictly no contact leagues
3)Support any friends or family members, children or otherwise, who were playing hockey at a competitive level

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is the poster suggesting hits and fighting keep those things out of the game? Maybe, I didn't read that into it though.

Really? Then how would you interpret what is being insinuated here, if not the same as me?

I don't really understand the bolded part. He has hypothesized about removing body contact from the game which is not how the game is played, at any competitive level, anywhere in NA for males above 14 years of age.

No. I don’t think so. Jiri has recommended three things:
1) eliminate fighting.
2) severely punish all head contact.
3) re-evaluate.

In point of fact he has actually talked about what sort of body contact would be permissible: separating players from the puck, which I assume would also include board-work. And yes, this is how most of the game unfolds today. Fights are relatively infrequent, and big, open-ice hits are rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Watching hockey without hitting is like watching flag football, no thank you. Ppl that dont like contact sports should stick to NBA.

Hockey without hitting is not the same as hockey without contact, and Jiri made the distinction pretty clear.

I don’t think we’re close to seeing that future in any official rule-based sense, but I also don’t think it’s hard to imagine. Hitting, the type Jiri is talking about, is a lot more rare than people realise.

I just find it ridiculous how triggered and reactionary people get over it with the false machismo. Look at how often guys like Gaudreau and Tarasenko get “hit,” it’s extremely rare. And every year there are more and more of these guys.

Hockey sense and agility is getting better and better. Guys are less susceptible to hits, and guys are learning its more effective to actually get the puck than just lay the hit. The future of big hits is dark, even without a rule evaluation.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Really? Then how would you interpret what is being insinuated here, if not the same as me?




No. I don’t think so. Jiri has recommended three things:
1) eliminate fighting.
2) severely punish all head contact.
3) re-evaluate.

In point of fact he has actually talked about what sort of body contact would be permissible: separating players from the puck, which I assume would also include board-work. And yes, this is how most of the game unfolds today. Fights are relatively infrequent, and big, open-ice hits are rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I thought they were saying that hockey without fighting and hitting can still be "dirty"and boring. Perhaps your interpretation is correct of their insinuation, although the poster certainly did not say that.

"Re-evaluate" is not exactly what Jiri has been saying for quite some time. I am not suggesting I know what he ultimately believes should happen, but he has made many comments about the inevitably of removing bodychecking from hockey, and how hockey could still survive whereas a sport like football could not.

No one is arguing about removing hits to the head.
And fighting occurs so rarely that we are not really talking about a major change. And fighting does not happen at many levels of competitive hockey that allow body checking.

It is the concept of removing bodychecks that has been floated by Jiri that really is the subject of debate IMO.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Hockey without hitting is not the same as hockey without contact, and Jiri made the distinction pretty clear.

I don’t think we’re close to seeing that future in any official rule-based sense, but I also don’t think it’s hard to imagine. Hitting, the type Jiri is talking about, is a lot more rare than people realise.

I just find it ridiculous how triggered and reactionary people get over it with the false machismo. Look at how often guys like Gaudreau and Tarasenko get “hit,” it’s extremely rare. And every year there are more and more of these guys.

Hockey sense and agility is getting better and better. Guys are less susceptible to hits, and guys are learning its more effective to actually get the puck than just lay the hit. The future of big hits is dark, even without a rule evaluation.

I think hitting still has a place and will forever. A guy like Gaudreau may not get hit often, but the oncoming possibility of a hit might still cause him to throw away the puck to protect himself, and that giveaway is not from a hit, but from the mere possibility of one.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well I thought they were saying that hockey without fighting and hitting can still be "dirty"and boring. Perhaps your interpretation is correct of their insinuation, although the poster certainly did not say that.

"Re-evaluate" is not exactly what Jiri has been saying for quite some time. I am not suggesting I know what he ultimately believes should happen, but he has made many comments about the inevitably of removing bodychecking from hockey, and how hockey could still survive whereas a sport like football could not.

No one is arguing about removing hits to the head.
And fighting occurs so rarely that we are not really talking about a major change. And fighting does not happen at many levels of competitive hockey that allow body checking.

It is the concept of removing bodychecks that has been floated by Jiri that really is the subject of debate IMO.

For me it is about re-defining what we mean by checking not eliminating it all together. Over simplifying but it is about what we mean by checking and how this is different from hitting. Hitting is one type of checking but where it is not just about gaining the puck back, that for me is the stuff that should go away.

Essentially the game should be about having, keeping and taking the puck back - not trying to hurt the other player.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

For me it is about re-defining what we mean by checking not eliminating it all together. Over simplifying but it is about what we mean by checking and how this is different from hitting. Hitting is one type of checking but where it is not just about gaining the puck back, that for me is the stuff that should go away.

Essentially the game should be about having, keeping and taking the puck back - not trying to hurt the other player.

I hear you on the bolded part. There are a lot of hits that I would like to see penalized more heavily. The hit on Dube on game 1 for example. I truly don't believe there was malicious intent there but he didn't have the puck. An interference penalty should be impeding a player without the puck. Smoking him before he can get the puck should be a serious infraction, accidental or not.

But the majority of hits in hockey are against the boards, right after a player has played the puck. This has always been a hockey strategy. Wear down another team's defense by punishing then every time they handle the puck in their own zone. I have watched many a long playoff series where this strategy has determined the winner. I like this type of hockey. It rewards strength, courage and also skill.

BUT

I have seen a lot of dirty hits against the boards. Especially in minor hockey. Players that don't how to take a check. Players that don't know how to deliver a clean check along the boards or probably more often, let their emotions get the better of them.

These hits aren't about separating puck from player but to me, make up a huge component of the physicality of the game. I believe there are ways to make this type of play safer without changing what I consider to be a fundamental part of the sport.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

For me it is about re-defining what we mean by checking not eliminating it all together. Over simplifying but it is about what we mean by checking and how this is different from hitting. Hitting is one type of checking but where it is not just about gaining the puck back, that for me is the stuff that should go away.

Essentially the game should be about having, keeping and taking the puck back - not trying to hurt the other player.

I can get behind your sentiment. Still, the subjectivity of that difference would lead to horrible officiating. It would be the small differences that lead to missed or blown calls, Think about the goaltender interference. But instead of watching a few times and deciding it would be split second decision making. The NFL for example has done an awful job of trying to make the game safer while keeping offensive defensive balance.

If they wanted to change the checking rules they would have to make it an objective thing, like did you hit their head yes or no, is that hit from behind yes or no. Not is that hit in the open ice? well kind of but he was only a stride from the boards and the other player was moving quickly...

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I can get behind your sentiment. Still, the subjectivity of that difference would lead to horrible officiating. It would be the small differences that lead to missed or blown calls, Think about the goaltender interference. But instead of watching a few times and deciding it would be split second decision making. The NFL for example has done an awful job of trying to make the game safer while keeping offensive defensive balance.

If they wanted to change the checking rules they would have to make it an objective thing, like did you hit their head yes or no, is that hit from behind yes or no. Not is that hit in the open ice? well kind of but he was only a stride from the boards and the other player was moving quickly...

No doubt that any time these adjustments are made there is a period of time where it kinda sucks.
I think it is worth it though.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I hear you on the bolded part. There are a lot of hits that I would like to see penalized more heavily. The hit on Dube on game 1 for example. I truly don't believe there was malicious intent there but he didn't have the puck. An interference penalty should be impeding a player without the puck. Smoking him before he can get the puck should be a serious infraction, accidental or not.

But the majority of hits in hockey are against the boards, right after a player has played the puck. This has always been a hockey strategy. Wear down another team's defense by punishing then every time they handle the puck in their own zone. I have watched many a long playoff series where this strategy has determined the winner. I like this type of hockey. It rewards strength, courage and also skill.

BUT

I have seen a lot of dirty hits against the boards. Especially in minor hockey. Players that don't how to take a check. Players that don't know how to deliver a clean check along the boards or probably more often, let their emotions get the better of them.

These hits aren't about separating puck from player but to me, make up a huge component of the physicality of the game. I believe there are ways to make this type of play safer without changing what I consider to be a fundamental part of the sport.

And indeed that's the fundamental change i think is required. I understand that historically what you describe is true. But the concept of "finishing your check" has often been used to justify a player hitting another player with no intent to get the puck.

So I acknowledge this has been part of the game. And that some fans love it.
But that is indeed one of the elements that I think should be removed.

The best dman of our generation (Nik Lindstrom) was all about getting the puck from you. He almost never took penalties. He just cared about getting the little round thing away from you. That's what it should be.

[TheIronMaiden]

I would be interested in learning two things before making a decision about changing rules to make the game safer.

1. Have the amount of acute injuries that occur each year increased or decreased over the last decade. (chronic injuries like bad backs and knees happen in non contact sports as well)

2. How do Current NHL players, and recently drafted players feel about the rules that keep them safe.

If the players are fine with the rules and the amount of acute injuries has gone down, then there shouldn't be a need for a drastic change. That said, if there are as many acute injuries, and the players don't feel that they rules keep them safe than the league to invest some time making improved rules.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well I thought they were saying that hockey without fighting and hitting can still be "dirty"and boring. Perhaps your interpretation is correct of their insinuation, although the poster certainly did not say that...

Okay, so let's review here.

Jiri's post explicitely makes three recommendations:

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

To be clear my changes would be as follows
- Eliminate all fighting immediately
- Severely punish any check where the principle point of contact is the head. And by severe I mean long suspensions

I would then assess if additional changes are needed...

To which Captain Yooh responded:

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

What you’d have would be Soviet hockey of the 70’s. Incredibly boring and unentertaining to watch, yet full of vicious pokes, hits, crosschecks, knees and spears, when refs are not watching.

I understand this to mean that the changes Jiri is promoting will result in a slower game full of stick infractions and dirty play for some reason. The insinuation here is that at present, the game is not slow and boring and big hits and fighting have something to do with game tempo, speed and lower incidents of dirty plays.

So, what am I over-reading here?

As for my own response, I am suggesting that the incidence of hitting and fighting bears NO CORRELATION to "vicious pokes, hits, crosschecks, knees and spears." One has NOTHING to do with the other.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

"Re-evaluate" is not exactly what Jiri has been saying for quite some time. I am not suggesting I know what he ultimately believes should happen, but he has made many comments about the inevitably of removing bodychecking from hockey, and how hockey could still survive whereas a sport like football could not.

Well, it is exactly what he said just now. In his last post he clarified again that he is also attempting to make a sharp distinction between "checking" and "hitting," which I think is a valuable starting point. "Checking"—which can include various and certain types of hits—is good in that it is part of the strategy for separating players from the puck. "Hitting" on its own is not good, in that it often occurs with the intent to cause physical damage, and not necessarily as part of the process of separating the player from the puck.

No one is arguing about removing hits to the head.
And fighting occurs so rarely that we are not really talking about a major change. And fighting does not happen at many levels of competitive hockey that allow body checking.

It is the concept of removing bodychecks that has been floated by Jiri that really is the subject of debate IMO.

I agree that Jiri is still being a bit vague here, but here is what I would do:

1) Eliminate fighting. As you noted it is already becoming less and less common, so I see no good reason not to get rid of it altogether.
2) Implement stiff, no-tolerance infractions for all hits to the head. I agree that these should be subject to big suspensions, but I also think there may be some latitude on deciding between in-game penalties and supplemental discipline.
3) Virtually all the rest of the in-game body contact probably sorts itself out. Like I said above, forechecking, board battles, net-front battles for position and puck-battles in the middle of the ice are all things where body contact does and should continue to be a significant part of how the game is played. (Although I would also come down harder on cross checking—especially in front of the net.

I don't see here in my description anything that radically alters the quality of the on-ice product except to improve it—especially the flow of the game.

[Calgary4LIfe]

If they totally eliminate hitting and fighting - removing the physical play - then you are left with a sterile game devoid of as much emotion. Why not just watch ringette? I am half serious.


Hockey has always been a fairly violent sport. Boxing is violent. MMA is violent. If you don't want to watch any sort of violence, then why would someone tune into watching them?



Hockey has risks. It is up to the league to try and reduce injuries - better and more consistent officiating/disciplinary action, better use of technologies and long-term studies to better implement protective equipment, etc.


With that being said, if you remove actual hitting and fighting, how sterile would the games be? There are a tonne of games that way already. Do I feel bad for when players get hurt? Of course I do, especially if they suffer long-term injuries that cut their careers short, and especially to those that suffer injuries that last beyond their playing careers. However, there is always a choice whether to play hockey or not. There is a choice if an athlete wants to enter Boxing, MMA, American Football, Lacrosse... just like the choice of whether or not someone wants to enter Policing, Firefighting, etc.



You make the rules to try and lessen injuries - especially long-term injuries - but the game is what it is. Changing it as much as what Jiri suggests would change this game into something akin to Ringette. Last I checked, not many people watch it.



So many games are rather boring throughout the season. The games that elicit the most excitement in any arena, or pub, or anywhere else that a number of fans get together? The games that are physical.



I can't speak for everyone, but I would probably start tuning into a lot more international football matches and start following that sport much more. I got really tired of basketball. Boxing became too boring and corrupt. MMA is fine, but over the years I have lost some interest there as well. Hockey is the sport I follow most, but if they change it I know I will start following American football and international football a whole lot more, and hockey a whole lot less. These sterile games are just not very interesting personally, and feel more like a chore, and I end up watching it all 'just in case I miss something'.


Not criticizing here, but if someone feels so strongly about making rather large changes in an existing sport, why not just watch another sport where it fits what you are looking for? Don't get me wrong, nobody should tell you what to watch and not to watch, but from a curiosity standpoint, why watch a sport that has a fairly large component of something you detest? I watched the NBA from when I was a kid right through my 20's.. maybe into my 30's, and eventually I just stopped watching. Just curious here, actually, and not judging.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^To answer your last question, I don't think it actually has a large component of something I detest. I view it as a decreasing part of the game. It's importance to the game, and how much of it even remains is, again in my view, highly over-stated.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

And indeed that's the fundamental change i think is required. I understand that historically what you describe is true. But the concept of "finishing your check" has often been used to justify a player hitting another player with no intent to get the puck.

So I acknowledge this has been part of the game. And that some fans love it.
But that is indeed one of the elements that I think should be removed.

The best dman of our generation (Nik Lindstrom) was all about getting the puck from you. He almost never took penalties. He just cared about getting the little round thing away from you. That's what it should be.

This represents a significant majority of bodychecks in today's game and I think there are ways make the game safe without eliminating this from the game.

No doubt Lidstrom was a great defenseman. I enjoyed watching him play.

I enjoyed watching Robyn Regehr play as well.

And to reference back to my back and forth with textcritic, this really is the point. Eliminating fighting and head hits (which by the way are subjective) are entirely different than eliminating the finishing of a check.

Because then what are you left with?

1) Open ice hits on the puck carrier. These are rare as hell, and often come from players playing with their heads down. Candidly I don't derive much joy from guys getting blown up at full speed. That's where injuries happen.

2) Hits along the boards where guys have the puck on their stick. I don't know how you can eliminate finishing your check without getting rid of these as well.

I appreciate Jiri's perspective on this and think it's a good debate. But let's not pretend we're talking about getting rid of fighting and head shots and everything will sort itself out. It's a change where the majority of hitting comes out of the game.

And if you think that needs to happen, IMO it would be very hard to be a fan of today's game or advocate anyone playing it at a competitive level.

My argument here is heavily influenced by the fact my son has played competitive hockey for years. If I thought most hitting doesn't belong in hockey, don't think I could live with that fact. Or spending time and money on watching the current product in the NHL.

Eliminating fighting, hitting from behind, head shots. Yeah. I personally don't want that in the game and wish the NHL would take the lead in showing they were serious about it.