Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Daniel

DeBoer and Torts Should Be Fined

157 posts in this topic

how do you officiate what is due to wrong doing and what is a staged fight? something happens and refs pull the people apart. they have words or the eforcers have words as they setup for puck drop and they drop gloves; is that a staged fight now? what about bad blood from the previous game? slippery slope to give power to the refs to stop any fight they like calling it staged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not once, in any of my posts, have I argued against this point. In fact I specifically wrote I agreed with it.

You did? It looked to me like you accused me of pulling that point of of my ass and refuted it by citing Norway's cold climate and hockey's weak following there.

I agree infrastructure is a huge part of the problem in Norway, however, funding comes from interest as well..

This is as close as you've come to making a valid point, but you fail to back it up.

I concede that fighting actually is a part of the reason for Norway's lack of hockey fever, but it's just part of the problem. I won't waste everyone's time by going into depth, but you can find a ton of great info on Norway's "East End" stigma towards hockey in this article (English translation), and there's a great 9-page thread on hockey's lack of popularity in Norway over at HF.

What I find interesting is that hockey has a brutish, bully kind of stigma in Norway (not just because of fighting, but also because of hitting, slashing, high sticking, etc.), and Norway is one of only a handful of nations that bans professional boxing along with Iceland, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. It begs the question as to whether the violence in hockey is the problem, or if Norway's aversion to violent sports is the issue.

In either case, I don't think hockey should tone down its physicality just to increase its appeal in one country. That'd be like soccer allowing open-field tackling in order to gain appeal in America. (Note: This is an opinion, not me posting a theory as a 'fact'.)

I am not the one posting my theories as 'facts' here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you are arguing right now. I agree on all the points you made about why soccer is and will continue to be the biggest sport in the world by a large margin. Hockey still has potential to grow however. In north america and northern europe in particular, which are the most important markets. The inability to follow the puck is definitely a big problem, one that Fox made great strides to alleviate once. Unfortunately that progress was later cancelled out by "purists". Likely the same people crowd who cling to fighting in hockey for sentimental reasons.

Maybe if you dig deeper you can find some more 'facts' up your ass. Norway is very much a cold and icy country, and yet hockey is a marginal sport here at best. It's horrible reputation based on misconceptions about fighting is very much one of the reasons.

What I'm saying is that your argument that fighting is why hockey can't get over in Norway is complete bull. It's clear why soccer is embraced there, because it's embraced everywhere. Like DiG said, Norway doesn't seem interested in any violent sports, not just hockey. Hockey will be a MUCH bigger deal in Norway if they make an Olympic run in it or something like that. It exploded in the US after 1980, it gained slight popularity after the 1996 World Cup, and then it was a HUGE deal when the US played Canada in 2010. Ryan Miller suddenly became a household name here.

But blaming the whole thing on fighting? Come on. That's entirely to simplistic. It's created more buzz among casual fans than highlight goals tend to.

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede that fighting actually is a part of the reason for Norway's lack of hockey fever, but it's just part of the problem. I won't waste everyone's time by going into depth, but you can find a ton of great info on Norway's "East End" stigma towards hockey in this article (English translation), and there's a great 9-page thread on hockey's lack of popularity in Norway over at HF.

What I find interesting is that hockey has a brutish, bully kind of stigma in Norway (not just because of fighting, but also because of hitting, slashing, high sticking, etc.), and Norway is one of only a handful of nations that bans professional boxing along with Iceland, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. It begs the question as to whether the violence in hockey is the problem, or if Norway's aversion to violent sports is the issue.

I am aware of the situation in Norway, as I am sure you have guessed by now, I live there. That was a good read nevertheless though, thanks.

I still think it's going to be difficult to market a sport where grown men routinely start bare knuckle fights to the soccer-mom/small-children-family demographic, all though, maybe that is less true in the US then in Norway, I don't know..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the game at MSG and also in Ottawa last night. The thing that pissed me off at the MSG-game was that the staged fighting did nothing to improve our chances of winning the game at all. Instead, we lose Salvador with a 10 minute misconduct, fall behind early, never able to tie it up, getting closer again and then giving up another goal on a pp that resulted from Boulton's stupid boarding. We play the game essentially with three lines and a 4th line of total stiffs while the other lines play extensive minutes a night before we play another important game in Ottawa. Now, yesterday was a totally different game, but it shows you basically have a better chance at winning with a more disciplined style of hockey. Boulton and Konopka both dressed, but I guess Boulton was too tired from the night before to have another fight.

Quite a few here in the forum think it's all real hatred between the players... in reality it has nothing to do with it. Cam Janssen's only chance to stick in this league and make lots of money compared to the average Joe is to fight whoever Deboer tells him to fight. He is like a pit bull in a dog fight. Real hate? Yeah, maybe DURING the fight because it is either him or me, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the summer Janssen and Prust play golf together. It's their job. You think it's hate? The moment Brodeur skates at the other end to fight Lundqvist I will believe it is hate, but not a second sooner. When professional fighters fight it has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with keeping their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the game at MSG and also in Ottawa last night. The thing that pissed me off at the MSG-game was that the staged fighting did nothing to improve our chances of winning the game at all. Instead, we lose Salvador with a 10 minute misconduct, fall behind early, never able to tie it up, getting closer again and then giving up another goal on a pp that resulted from Boulton's stupid boarding. We play the game essentially with three lines and a 4th line of total stiffs while the other lines play extensive minutes a night before we play another important game in Ottawa. Now, yesterday was a totally different game, but it shows you basically have a better chance at winning with a more disciplined style of hockey. Boulton and Konopka both dressed, but I guess Boulton was too tired from the night before to have another fight.

Quite a few here in the forum think it's all real hatred between the players... in reality it has nothing to do with it. Cam Janssen's only chance to stick in this league and make lots of money compared to the average Joe is to fight whoever Deboer tells him to fight. He is like a pit bull in a dog fight. Real hate? Yeah, maybe DURING the fight because it is either him or me, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the summer Janssen and Prust play golf together. It's their job. You think it's hate? The moment Brodeur skates at the other end to fight Lundqvist I will believe it is hate, but not a second sooner. When professional fighters fight it has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with keeping their jobs.

Whether you like fighting or not us up to you, but to say they don't hate each other is kind of ridiculous.

Brodeur (from his book): "I hate the Rangers, and Lou hates them to death."

“If they didn’t want to do it and didn’t think it was necessary, then they wouldn’t have done it,” Janssen said. “It takes two guys to fight and we both agreed upon and we both obviously thought it was necessary and that’s why we did it. It just kind of calmed everything down, but it was still actually a very physical game. They thought, ‘Hey, you’re not going to come into our barn and you’re not going to push us around’ and we thought, ‘Hey, we’re coming in your barn and you’re not going to push us around, so let’s do this right now.’ It what it is. We got it off our chest and we battled.”

Said Rangers center Brian Boyle after the game (3/6/12): “They hated us tonight, they wanted to kill us and we didn’t match that. I think for stretches we did but we need to take a look in the mirror."

“I guess in John’s world you can come into our building and start your tough guys, but we can’t do the same in here,” DeBoer said. “He’s either got short-term memory loss or he’s a hypocrite. So it’s one of the other.”

As for the opinion of other players...

Ryan White - "You don’t see it very often. A lot of people don’t really like it, but I bet the people at Madison Square Garden liked it. I liked it, I thought it was pretty cool. There were some big boys going at it, that’s for sure."

Now, did it backfire this time? Yes. But it could have gone either way. If the Devils got the momentum off of it and won, everyone would be talking about how smart Deboer was. Keep in mind the Devils beat the Rangers 2 weeks ago with a very similar start. No one seemed to complain then.

Edited by Devil Dan 56
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, did it backfire this time? Yes. But it could have gone either way.

So what exactly is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what exactly is the point?

The point is they took a risk and it didn't work. They tried to grab early intimidation and momentum. It was a strategy. They knew it was going to be a physical game so they tried for an early advantage. You also seem to want to ignore when it worked to their advantage in an earlier game.

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you officiate what is due to wrong doing and what is a staged fight? something happens and refs pull the people apart. they have words or the eforcers have words as they setup for puck drop and they drop gloves; is that a staged fight now? what about bad blood from the previous game? slippery slope to give power to the refs to stop any fight they like calling it staged.

No question it's an issue, but I'd say 3 fights at the beginning of the game is pretty blatant. Refs are pretty smart. A couple are former fighters. They usually know what's going on and why. I didn't think this way in the past, but the 3 deaths over the summer (even if they are a statistical anomaly) coupled with the concussion data coming from BU suggest that something needs to change. I think fighting's a necessary part of the game, because the players are better at policing themselves than anybody else is going to be, but it needs to happen less, and for better reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's going to be difficult to market a sport where grown men routinely start bare knuckle fights to the soccer-mom/small-children-family demographic, all though, maybe that is less true in the US then in Norway, I don't know..

The most popular sport in the US is football, a sport which lost no popularity despite the recent discovery that a champion team paid bounties for injuring opponents. For better or worse, American sports fans (casual or otherwise) are okay with violence.

Also, the reason bounties and other out of control things would never happen in hockey is because of those bare knuckle fights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is they took a risk and it didn't work. They tried to grab early intimidation and momentum. It was a strategy. They knew it was going to be a physical game so they tried for an early advantage. You also seem to want to ignore when it worked to their advantage in an earlier game.

So you think it was good strategy to fire up a team in a slump? Plus the other time we did it was in response to them doing at the Rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most popular sport in the US is football, a sport which lost no popularity despite the recent discovery that a champion team paid bounties for injuring opponents. For better or worse, American sports fans (casual or otherwise) are okay with violence.

Also, the reason bounties and other out of control things would never happen in hockey is because of those bare knuckle fights.

What? No. One of the suppressed aspects of the Bertuzzi-Moore thing was the possibility that Marc Crawford and/or other Vancouver players had a bounty on Moore.

When the game had more fighting it had more cheap play. There's still plenty of dangerous hitting and the like in the NHL, but I don't believe that more fighting is the answer to that problem. If you need a reminder, just look on youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me personally, I feel DeBoer sent those guys out there not only in hopes of making a statement to the Rangers but also just as much to psyche up his own team. The Devils were humbled badly by the Pittsburgh Penguins in the previous game, and something tells me they weren't going to be mentally ready to face a pissed-off Rangers team that wanted revenge on the Devils for the 4-1 loss the last time they played each other. From some of the postgame quotes I read online from Lundqvist, Tortorella had psyched up his team pretty good in the locker room pregame.

In the end, the Devs still lost the game, but who knows, for all anyone knows it might've been worse without those early fights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it was good strategy to fire up a team in a slump? Plus the other time we did it was in response to them doing at the Rock.

Keep in mind the Devils were also a team in a slump. In theory, it was a good strategy. Take the physical element to them and try to intimidate them like last game. If you noticed, Sykora, Elias, and Zubrus were hitting everyone on their first shift. It ended in a 4-on-2 the other way that the Rangers scored on. It all was part of the same strategy, which was to be physical early and wear the Rangers down. It didn't work (mostly because the Rangers gave it right back physically and scored early), and the Devils eventually fell into their shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAMPBELL: RULE CHANGES POSSIBLE AFTER DEVILS-RANGERS BRAWL

In an interview with ESPN hockey insider Pierre LeBrun, Campbell said it would not be out of the question for the NHL to institute a rule similar to the one employed in the last five minutes of a game. Rule 46.22 - which Campbell helped institute - says that an instigator fighting penalty in the last five minutes of a game carries with it a one-game suspension and a $10,000 fine levied to the offending team's head coach.
Edited by eaglejelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? No. One of the suppressed aspects of the Bertuzzi-Moore thing was the possibility that Marc Crawford and/or other Vancouver players had a bounty on Moore.

I'd forgotten about that, but I don't know that it's relevant, because some of the NHL's actions (including keeping Vancouver from fighting Moore in the last game) led to the situation escalating to an unhealthy place. That was a perfect sh!tstorm created by a lot of people, and it's tough to compare it to any other situation in sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAMPBELL: RULE CHANGES POSSIBLE AFTER DEVILS-RANGERS BRAWL

In an interview with ESPN hockey insider Pierre LeBrun, Campbell said it would not be out of the question for the NHL to institute a rule similar to the one employed in the last five minutes of a game. Rule 46.22 - which Campbell helped institute - says that an instigator fighting penalty in the last five minutes of a game carries with it a one-game suspension and a $10,000 fine levied to the offending team's head coach.

boohoo! There is really nothing to see here. No one instigated (except maybe bickle?) if you really look at it. The above is a solution looking for a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAMPBELL: RULE CHANGES POSSIBLE AFTER DEVILS-RANGERS BRAWL

In an interview with ESPN hockey insider Pierre LeBrun, Campbell said it would not be out of the question for the NHL to institute a rule similar to the one employed in the last five minutes of a game. Rule 46.22 - which Campbell helped institute - says that an instigator fighting penalty in the last five minutes of a game carries with it a one-game suspension and a $10,000 fine levied to the offending team's head coach.

Great. Instead of making common sense decisions regarding head injuries like taking the hard plastics out of skaters' elbow and shoulder padding or increasing goal scoring by significantly shrinking goalie equipment, the league's gonna waste time deciding whether or not willing participants should be allowed to fight. Why not paint some more superfluous lines all over the ice and designate No Fighting Zones?

This fvcking league ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. Instead of making common sense decisions regarding head injuries like taking the hard plastics out of skaters' elbow and shoulder padding or increasing goal scoring by significantly shrinking goalie equipment, the league's gonna waste time deciding whether or not willing participants should be allowed to fight. Why not paint some more superfluous lines all over the ice and designate No Fighting Zones?

This fvcking league ...

Well, when players are ok with something and fans love it, you should probably change it.

I for one look forward to the players singing Kumbaya and braiding each other's hair between periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. Instead of making common sense decisions regarding head injuries like taking the hard plastics out of skaters' elbow and shoulder padding or increasing goal scoring by significantly shrinking goalie equipment, the league's gonna waste time deciding whether or not willing participants should be allowed to fight. Why not paint some more superfluous lines all over the ice and designate No Fighting Zones?

This fvcking league ...

How about making common sense decisions regarding head injuries like taking the legal use of fists to one another's face out of the game? I'm fine with fighting having a place in the game, but what took place on Monday night is not hockey, it's a sideshow, done largely by sideshow players. It was a pissing contest between two coaches and several players, it had zero to do with the game of hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This league is soft as baby $hit. I mean we're all agreed that there's an unwritten rule that no one can touch Sidney Crosby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about making common sense decisions regarding head injuries like taking the legal use of fists to one another's face out of the game? I'm fine with fighting having a place in the game, but what took place on Monday night is not hockey, it's a sideshow, done largely by sideshow players. It was a pissing contest between two coaches and several players, it had zero to do with the game of hockey.

It has everything to do with the rivalry.

That 10 min. misconduct on Salvador was horrible. He was just making sure Bickel didn't keep hitting Carter who had his face bashed into the ice. He wasn't trying to cheap shot Bickel.

Edited by Mayday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with the rivalry.

Great. That doesn't make it any less meaningless or disgraceful.

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