Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Daniel

DeBoer and Torts Should Be Fined

157 posts in this topic

That was an amazing beginning to a highly entertaining game. Old time hockey at it's finest. I would like to see that fire and grit down the stretch. Reminded me of the good ol' days when contact was allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I admit that I over-reacted saying there should be fines, the beginning of last night was still an embarrassment. Fighting's fine and actually entertaining when it serves some kind of purpose like sticking up for a teammate or sending a message, which is what guys like Clarkson and very rarely Boulton does.

It becomes a pointless sideshow when Cam Janssen gets into a two minute wrestling match. Janssen's a decent and funny person, but his act serves absolutely no purpose. It's a boring schtick, nothing more.

The issue or problem is that I have heard so many quotes from players saying when the Devils win...

"Janssen set the tone tonight."

"He quieted the building."

"I think that fight was the difference."

"The energy on the bench was electric."

"He sparked this team."

"People think those guys are fighting for themselves, but they are not. They are fighting for the team."

"People don't appreciate what those guys do for the team."

Typical hockey cliche talk. I honestly believe most of those guys believe what they are saying about the fights. In the last win by each team, both coaches and benches credited the fighters for setting the tone and being the difference. Those who watched the game would prob say the Rangers were just better than the Devils in every facet. They were faster and more aggressive. But in hockey circles, it's the fights that set that all up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of staged fighting. With that said, kudos to Carter for pulling off his helmet & doing it so elegantly before the fisticuffs began.

Sure its a stupid thing to do when fighting on ice skates as you could split your skull open, but he gets points for courage (or stupidity) -- your choice !

On topic, of course Tortorella shoulders more of the fault than DeBoer. I say fine each coach $25,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of staged fighting. With that said, kudos to Carter for pulling off his helmet & doing it so elegantly before the fisticuffs began.

Sure its a stupid thing to do when fighting on ice skates as you could split your skull open, but he gets points for courage (or stupidity) -- your choice !

On topic, of course Tortorella shoulders more of the fault than DeBoer. I say fine each coach $25,000

That was more a respect thing. Both fighters do it so they are fighting man to man and not punching visors or helmets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have loved to see the heavyweight pound the queen. That might have been the only way this could have gotten better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue or problem is that I have heard so many quotes from players saying when the Devils win...

"Janssen set the tone tonight."

"He quieted the building."

"I think that fight was the difference."

"The energy on the bench was electric."

"He sparked this team."

"People think those guys are fighting for themselves, but they are not. They are fighting for the team."

"People don't appreciate what those guys do for the team."

Typical hockey cliche talk. I honestly believe most of those guys believe what they are saying about the fights. In the last win by each team, both coaches and benches credited the fighters for setting the tone and being the difference. Those who watched the game would prob say the Rangers were just better than the Devils in every facet. They were faster and more aggressive. But in hockey circles, it's the fights that set that all up.

Which is all well and good, but the concussion data, while far from perfect, is scary. I don't have much of a problem with fighting for protection, but if players can't get energized for a rivalry game without a teammate risking his future health, then they shouldn't get paid to play hockey.

I understand the tradition, but we know more than we used to. We need to evolve. Once upon a time players didn't wear helmets. The sport survived that change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is all well and good, but the concussion data, while far from perfect, is scary. I don't have much of a problem with fighting for protection, but if players can't get energized for a rivalry game without a teammate risking his future health, then they shouldn't get paid to play hockey.

I understand the tradition, but we know more than we used to. We need to evolve. Once upon a time players didn't wear helmets. The sport survived that change.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you remove fighting from the game, you will have stick-swinging anarchy. If you remove that release of aggression from a game, it will come out somewhere else. Anyone here who has played any kind of organized hockey (and I think most of us have at some point), you know how quickly a game can escalate.

Another thing, call it canned or staged or whatever... the fact of the matter is these 2 teams HATE each other. They wanted to get it right out in the open and set the tone for the night. That game was a playoff caliber game until the Devils dropped off a bit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you remove fighting from the game, you will have stick-swinging anarchy. If you remove that release of aggression from a game, it will come out somewhere else. Anyone here who has played any kind of organized hockey (and I think most of us have at some point), you know how quickly a game can escalate.

Another thing, call it canned or staged or whatever... the fact of the matter is these 2 teams HATE each other. They wanted to get it right out in the open and set the tone for the night. That game was a playoff caliber game until the Devils dropped off a bit.

That's why I'm saying fighting should be allowed for protection/retaliation to keep the dirty sh!t out. I'd argue that the pregame staged fight because teams don't like each other, as well as the fights to get guys excited serve less of a purpose, and can therefore be eliminated. I'd go as far as to say these fights weaken the positive effects of fighting -- if everybody knows a fight is breaking out either way, there's less incentive to avoid stupid sh!t. I know you can't regulate this, but I'd also like to see more of the guys who do the stupid sh!t drop the gloves instead of letting the heavyweights do it for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you remove fighting from the game, you will have stick-swinging anarchy. If you remove that release of aggression from a game, it will come out somewhere else. Anyone here who has played any kind of organized hockey (and I think most of us have at some point), you know how quickly a game can escalate.

Another thing, call it canned or staged or whatever... the fact of the matter is these 2 teams HATE each other. They wanted to get it right out in the open and set the tone for the night. That game was a playoff caliber game until the Devils dropped off a bit.

THIS. It's lesser for the Flyers, but when you're heated rivals, you can't play a timid game, and expect the same from your opponent. Things are going to happen that in a normal game wouldn't be a big deal, but between these teams is amplified at least 10x. There's gotta be a release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have the link because I'm on my phone but torts response to deboer's post game comments is quite funny. Said deboer should shut up and that he was disrespectful. At first I was kind of mad about deboer starting the fourth line but then I realized torts did the same thing at the rock. No reason to get all pissy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have the link because I'm on my phone but torts response to deboer's post game comments is quite funny. Said deboer should shut up and that he was disrespectful. At first I was kind of mad about deboer starting the fourth line but then I realized torts did the same thing at the rock. No reason to get all pissy about it.

That's the first I hear about this. Most of the articles in today's papers have Tortorella saying he doesn't comment on how other people run their teams.

When it originally happened, I was liking how it pissed him off. Part of me thinks that one way to get that team sidetracked is to get him flying off the wall. The more heated he gets, the better. Of course, it didn't work yesterday, but maybe it would in a seven-game series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like there is an article on Newsday about Tortorella telling Deboer to "shut up". Of course...with Newsday you need a description

My link

Edited by McMullen82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That crap at the beginning of the game, to try and manipuate it into it. I just don't think it's right for the game." tort's from that link

So Pete manipulated the lineup? I didn't see a D start at center for NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually...better yet, here's some more comments from Tortorella...

My link

Following the contest DeBoer was quoted as saying, "I guess in John's world you can come into our building and start your tough guys, but we can't do the same here...He's either got short-term memory loss or he's a hypocrite." On Tuesday, following practice, Tortorella responded to DeBoer's comments.

"I think Peter needs to jog his memory as far as starting lineups I have put in over in his building, and really, basically, just shut up," said Tortorella. "And I need to, also. I think the situation last night is disrespectful to the players, and I think we took a backwards step. I get put in a position, when he puts a lineup like that out, and I don't know what's going to happen if I put my top players out, so I have to answer the way I think I need to answer. Really, just look at the two lineups and some of the things he has done here. I don't want to coach his team, but just shut up."

In the three meetings between these two teams at The Prudential Center this season, Tortorella started three different line combinations---Anisimov-Stepan-Gaborik most recently on March 6th, Dubinsky-Richards-Callahan on January 31st, and Fedotenko-Rupp-Prust on December 20th. The visiting coach must always submit his starting lineup first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how Torts is one of the most outspoken coaches in the NHL, and half of what comes out of his gigantic mouth is telling other coaches they need to shut up.

AttentionWhore.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like someone pointed out elsewhere, this is the same coach that sent his goons out at the end of Game 5 in 2007. Utter hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to police the game is through sanctions towards the players during and after the games. Harder penalties for dangerous plays, more 4-5 minute penalties perhaps. While also being kicked out for the rest of the game, and if deemed fit banned for X amount of more games. (Possibly some kind of correlation between injuries incurred with duration of ban.) Most importantly, bans and FINES need to be put in place immediately after nasty incidents following post game video reviews. The need to increase the size of the fines considerably, so that it actually HURTS THE WALLET to play like a dick. Ideally fines should be based on a % on the players salary instead of the current ridiculous $2500 pocket money stuff. IE, "X player is fined 2 weeks salary".

EDIT: http://www.vg.no/sport/ishockey/artikkel.php?artid=10079529

That's a link from Norways biggest newspaper (both paper and online) today. They *very* rarely cover any NHL at all. It illustrates the enormous problem hockey has with unecessary fighting. It will continue to be a second rate sports as long as this type of behaviour is encouraged.

Edited by njdevsftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to police the game is through sanctions towards the players during and after the games. Harder penalties for dangerous plays, more 4-5 minute penalties perhaps. While also being kicked out for the rest of the game, and if deemed fit banned for X amount of more games. (Possibly some kind of correlation between injuries incurred with duration of ban.) Most importantly, bans and FINES need to be put in place immediately after nasty incidents following post game video reviews. The need to increase the size of the fines considerably, so that it actually HURTS THE WALLET to play like a dick. Ideally fines should be based on a % on the players salary instead of the current ridiculous $2500 pocket money stuff. IE, "X player is fined 2 weeks salary".

EDIT: http://www.vg.no/sport/ishockey/artikkel.php?artid=10079529

That's a link from Norways biggest newspaper (both paper and online) today. They *very* rarely cover any NHL at all. It illustrates the enormous problem hockey has with unecessary fighting. It will continue to be a second rate sports as long as this type of behaviour is encouraged.

If you really think players are thinking "I shouldn't do this because it will cost me money or a suspension" before they do something, I really don't know what to tell you. Players do a lot of things in the heat of the moment. There's a reason fighting has been around for as long as the sport has been.

As for saying too much fighting makes it a second rate sport, the number of fights a season has been dropping for a long time. It's not like it's some sort of epidemic. Additionally, one of the first things a casual fan asks about is the fighting. It's very unique and intriguing to an outsider.

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for saying too much fighting makes it a second rate sport, the number of fights a season has been dropping for a long time. It's not like it's some sort of epidemic. Additionally, one of the first things a casual fan asks about is the fighting. It's very unique and intriguing to an outsider.

I assume the NHL has done some market research on the issue. Guessing that's one of the reasons they want it gone. I can safely say that the fighting and the bad rep it has given hockey is the main reason it is not taken seriously as a 'big sport' on this side of the pond. Womens handball (not joking) gets a TON more media coverage here then hockey. I have plenty of soccer fan friends who dismiss hockey outright as "silly fighting".

Edit: And yes, if a player risks being sidelined for the duration of the injury he causes another player while additionally getting fined 2 months salary, I do believe you will see the end of dangerous plays real soon.

Edited by njdevsftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the NHL has done some market research on the issue. Guessing that's one of the reasons they want it gone. I can safely say that the fighting and the bad rep it has given hockey is the main reason it is not taken seriously as a 'big sport' on this side of the pond. Womens handball (not joking) gets a TON more media coverage here then hockey. I have plenty of soccer fan friends who dismiss hockey outright as "silly fighting".

Edit: And yes, if a player risks being sidelined for the duration of the injury he causes another player while additionally getting fined 2 months salary, I do believe you will see the end of dangerous plays real soon.

And soccer can easily be dismissed outright for the ridiculous (and sometimes constant) diving and 'ow my leg is broken but now I'm ok' theatrics. That's part of the sport, though, and it's fans accept it. Same for fighting in hockey.

As for tying injury duration to suspension duration, that is an absolutely terrible idea. Bad hits aren't always intentional. That's way too black-and-white of a solution. It's bad enough that someone gets injured on a bad play, but then you're going to make the guy who admittedly hit someone too high, for example, sit out? Hedman would have missed an entire year for hitting Crosby into the boards last January if it was deemed he targeted the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weird TG tweet regarding no damage to visitors lockerroom @ MSG. did someone say there was?

I think I read a line about it in the Daily News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0