Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Triumph

NHL GMs looking to cut down on fighting

51 posts in this topic

and what will they gain from getting rid of the hockeyfights menatality. Same thing they gained from the sh!tout...nothing, not a single fan.

hockey only stands to lose from these decisions.

The NHL should send out official surveys to its season ticket holders, or have one you can fill out online. Ask what the consumers want to do about fighting. I've seen one's done on websites and by papers that show 85-95% IN FAVOR of fighting. They are really going agains the grain this time.

And how about some surveys about loosening restrictions on fighting and the instigator penalties? What are they afraid we might tell them something they don't want to hear? Ever wonder why some of youtubes most popular videos are of bench clearing brawls and the general mayhem of old time hockey?

Seems like the pansies are dictating to us what's good for hockey

the nhl is clearly trying to limit its liability. someone will get seriously injured as the result of these fights.

they're not taking fighting out, they're trying to limit the sideshow aspect of it. i enjoy fights too. it's clear the GMs see this as a problem, so this isn't a mandate on high from gary bettman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You put 20 children in an enclosed space and give them sticks I promise there will be one who hits another with it. With teenagers I'd up it to at least 2.

You can't make a violent sport not violent. You want to stop fighting? Make players wear full face cages that can't come off. In NHL fights you don't see many guys going for body blows.

I always wondered why they never went for body shots. Are their midsection's protected or is there some unspoken rule that I am unaware of? I would think that a clean body shot would really take the fight out of a player and give you a good advantage all in all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't see what the big deal is. so they can't have scripted fights. Rupp's fight today was bascially a scripted fight that took place in the course of play. I don't think that's been outlawed.

I'm not a big fan of the enforcer unless there's a specific reason for it. The game is different now and it's hard to hide their general uselessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the league is trying to get rid of fights that happen immediately after face-offs. What ever this means. I think the visor part of the rule (extra two for fighting with a visor) is GAY. If the league implements their mandatory visor plan, how can they also penalize a guy for fighting with one?

Tonight I happened to be in Nashville and saw the Preds play the Capitals. Great game. In the first period, there were two fights - and I think they gave clear examples of how the league views fighting. The first one was Wade Belak and Donald Brashear. It happened at the tail end of a play after several big hits from both teams. Classic "pump your team up stuff". Tail end of a play, two big guys square up while play is going, great fight - fans love it. (Brashear gets hit clean twice and is all loopy walking to the box - neat stuff). I think the league is okay with this fight... No need to clean these up.

The second fight happend on the ensuing face-off. Jordin TooToo is running his mouth (shock) and Erskine immediately challenges him to a fight as they are lining up. Puck drops, gloves come off, and TooToo makes hamburger out of Erskine's face. Lot's of blood - scary fight, but a "good" one. Fans love it, I'm guessing the league doesn't. Here's the thing - ref's call no instigating, no extra penalties.

So here's my point. Why does the league need all these extra penalties and rules? Clearly, the second fight was planned / staged. I agree that this kind of situation (while entertaining) doesn't do much for the league's image, and is not really necessary. But why not just give an extra two to the douche that started it?

The league has "room" for that interpretation - it's called instigating. IF the refs called that a few times, these fights wouldn't happen. We don't need an additional 10 mins in penalties - that's just stupid. I would support a more vigorous implementation of instigating - it would be no different than refs actually calling hooks, holds, etc to open the game up.

We have enough rules in the game, why not just enforce what we have - I think it work just fine.

Sorry for the long post! By the way, if ESPN or TSN has it, both fights were worth checking out. Brashear knocked senselss, Erskine's face turning to hamburger. Priceless. :blink:

Edited by Motor City Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the league is trying to get rid of fights that happen immediately after face-offs. What ever this means. I think the visor part of the rule (extra two for fighting with a visor) is GAY.

Does GAY = BAD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does GAY = BAD?

Yes... In this case, Gay is being used as a "Pejorative" adjective.

"Gay" can also be a non-sexual derrogatory term. If a word is used in a strongly negative tone, especially in terms where sexuality is not applicable, the word can have other meanings. "Gay" can also mean, brightly colored, jovial, or optimistic. The "gay 80's for example" refer to the 1880's in most history books.

"You are so gay for bringing that up" might be another example of a pejorative use of the adjective.

Edited by Motor City Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trapezoid IS the dumbest rule in all of hockey. Essentially, this was Bobby Clarke's Marty Brodeur rule.

its a shame they will prolly never get rid of the trapezoid either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes... In this case, Gay is being used as a "Pejorative" adjective.

"Gay" can also be a non-sexual derrogatory term. If a word is used in a strongly negative tone, especially in terms where sexuality is not applicable, the word can have other meanings. "Gay" can also mean, brightly colored, jovial, or optimistic. The "gay 80's for example" refer to the 1880's in most history books.

"You are so gay for bringing that up" might be another example of a pejorative use of the adjective.

Nice try. Of the 1000's of words you could have picked you pick the one that would need an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the nhl is clearly trying to limit its liability. someone will get seriously injured as the result of these fights.

they're not taking fighting out, they're trying to limit the sideshow aspect of it. i enjoy fights too. it's clear the GMs see this as a problem, so this isn't a mandate on high from gary bettman.

And someone can get seriously injured from a check, or taking a deflected shot to the face. It's a dangerous game. The fighters know the risks, and they know what they are doing. Fights have been in the game forever. I know that poor kid died in Canada hitting his head on the ice, and it was a horrible accident, but that's a once in a century occurence.

Edit - Forgot to add... if that kid hadn't passed away, I wonder if this would even be an issue at the GM meetings?

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horrible....Hockey has already been on a downward slide. Cutting out fighting basically would ruin the game and make the regular season games a lot more dull.

Nothing better then knowing that a fight is going to occur before a game starts. (Rupp vs. Cote or Rupp vs. Orr)

Yeah... and like... Roy vs Gionta!

:boogie: FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! :boogie:

I see a GMs point, is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes... In this case, Gay is being used as a "Pejorative" adjective.

"Gay" can also be a non-sexual derrogatory term. If a word is used in a strongly negative tone, especially in terms where sexuality is not applicable, the word can have other meanings. "Gay" can also mean, brightly colored, jovial, or optimistic. The "gay 80's for example" refer to the 1880's in most history books.

"You are so gay for bringing that up" might be another example of a pejorative use of the adjective.

Umm... it's the gay 90s - just a little FYI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And someone can get seriously injured from a check, or taking a deflected shot to the face. It's a dangerous game. The fighters know the risks, and they know what they are doing. Fights have been in the game forever. I know that poor kid died in Canada hitting his head on the ice, and it was a horrible accident, but that's a once in a century occurence.

Edit - Forgot to add... if that kid hadn't passed away, I wonder if this would even be an issue at the GM meetings?

the point is that sideshow fighting encourages needless violence. the pro-fighting crowd always gets up on its soapbox - 'well, what about when your star player gets run, what do you do then?' 'i guess you have to fight him. but what about 5 minutes into the game, no one's done anything to anybody?' 'oh that's just to get the crowd into the game'. for the old-school GMs, perhaps they've decided enough is enough. to me, this isn't the ban-fighting crowd talking, it's actually the super old-school crowd talking that wants the fights to be about something, not just because two guys have to earn a paycheck somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you view sports as entertainment - and I do - and fighting is entertaining to the people who support the sport then why are you going to ban it? It isn't like the fighting is a random act that players aren't expecting, it is part of the game. If you are arguing that fighting is violent and should be banned then why don't you start with banning boxing and UFC - there are plenty of other endevours you could rail against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you view sports as entertainment - and I do - and fighting is entertaining to the people who support the sport then why are you going to ban it? It isn't like the fighting is a random act that players aren't expecting, it is part of the game. If you are arguing that fighting is violent and should be banned then why don't you start with banning boxing and UFC - there are plenty of other endevours you could rail against.

huh? first of all, no one is talking about banning anything. second, i don't think the general managers view the sport as entertainment, nor the players - it's ancillary to their concerns. if you asked the 30 GMs, if you could win the Cup playing an incredibly boring style, would you? i imagine at least 20 would say yes.

if this gets enacted, it is an attempt to destroy the culture where the fighters agree to fight just to fight. a culture which i think has arisen in the last ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two guys squaring off immediately after the puck drops is really that big of a problem? Is it ruining the game somehow?

Honestly, maybe it's because I mostly watch the Devils, but I rarely ever see it as negatively impacting the game.

I just think that once they start legislating when two players, one-on-one, can and can't fight on the ice -- within the 60-minute regulation timeframe plus overtime -- then that will be the beginning of the end of fighting. They will only be encouraging the ban-fighting crowd to keep trying to take it a step further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the tsn article now has quotes, seems like they're talking in the way i was:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=270621&amp...s=headlines_nhl

"Recently now it's gone to you hit Joe Schmoe and you've got to fight somebody," said Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke. "We never worried about protecting Joe Schmoe before. I don't get that, that's one thing I never understood."

Added league disciplinarian Colin Campbell: "If it's staged, why are we doing it? If it's staged, let's do it between periods."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crash, I hear your point but they already legislate when players can fight & how etc.

I won't be a smarty and provide links but the rules can be found easily.

Wide discretion is given to the refs to clamp down on anything that is not deemed to be part of "the game".

Evidently the GMs now feel that "immediately following the faceoff" is no longer part of the game.

This is in contrast to rule that already exists, so your point is well taken

But they can always make new rules, and it appears that they may do so in this regard.

47.10 Fighting Prior to the Drop of the Puck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
second, i don't think the general managers view the sport as entertainment, nor the players - it's ancillary to their concerns.

And I am sure actors view their craft as art not entertainment. That doesn't make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I maybe wrong but I think Buttman and Friends are using this to slowly weed out fighting to market skill. Butthole's vision of hockey is that in 5yrs it will be played like the allstar game. With addition to fighting the hitting restrictions are putting a chokehold on the overall physical side of hockey. No one likes to see your player get boarded but 50% of the time players turn thier head to get the 5minute major. 15 yrs ago boarding wasn't a problem because people wouldn't think of trying to draw a boarding call. Back to Butthead, I get sick to my stomach watching games (Devil's aren't immune) that are like a intersquad scrimmage were there's virtually no hitting. I love fighting but It's not the only reason I love hockey. Call me a neanderthal or whatever, I would probably agree with you lol but I love watching players that shut their mouth and do everyting their team asks them to do. I enjoy watching players like David Clarkson and Janssen because they are fearless on the ice and I have allot of respect for those players. I get more excited seeing a goal like when clarkie ran over toskala, A defenseman, dislodged the net and scored the goal because he puts so much effort into that goal rather than a nice deke. 1 More thing get rid of the fvcking instigator. Thats half the problem with dirty hits. It protects Avery, Rutuu, and hollweg and those players make me sick. PLEASE bring back physical hockey I know so many people who can't stand post lockout hockey bring back the old NHL and your revenue will skyrocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I am sure actors view their craft as art not entertainment. That doesn't make it true.

Oh my arse - acting is entertainment -- ART is entertainment or else it's BAD art! Even if it evokes negative emotion it's still entertaining - like officer farva's posts which actually I have on ignore because I dont find him remotely amusing actually... but some do.

(PS I know we're agreeing here - I just had to go and say the same thing being an actress and all! formerly... and you know, I DID get yelled at for dropping out... I guess maybe I shouldln't be so hard on Sutter... <_< a$$#Q^(&*&*)^*#&*^&*#^& )

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NHL should send out official surveys to its season ticket holders, or have one you can fill out online. Ask what the consumers want to do about fighting.

I 100% agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the point is that sideshow fighting encourages needless violence. the pro-fighting crowd always gets up on its soapbox - 'well, what about when your star player gets run, what do you do then?' 'i guess you have to fight him. but what about 5 minutes into the game, no one's done anything to anybody?' 'oh that's just to get the crowd into the game'. for the old-school GMs, perhaps they've decided enough is enough. to me, this isn't the ban-fighting crowd talking, it's actually the super old-school crowd talking that wants the fights to be about something, not just because two guys have to earn a paycheck somehow.

That's an interesting take on it. Hadn't thought of that view. The way I look at it, and I think the way alot of fans look at it, is this is one more step towards banning fighting. It's clear that a lot of bigwigs want the NHL to be high-scoring and pretty, and fighting doesn't really fit into that.

But is the fighting right after the faceoff really a big recent problem? There is an average of less than a fight per game right now, as opposed to the late 80's, when it was more than double that. I know fighting is back on the rise, but it still is nowhere near the level it was before the Devils single handedly ruined hockey when the were the first team to ever ever use the trap ever.

Would 2 fights a game be acceptable if they occured during game play, and therefore were not 'planned'? I'm just confused at where the GM's are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an interesting take on it. Hadn't thought of that view. The way I look at it, and I think the way alot of fans look at it, is this is one more step towards banning fighting. It's clear that a lot of bigwigs want the NHL to be high-scoring and pretty, and fighting doesn't really fit into that.

But is the fighting right after the faceoff really a big recent problem? There is an average of less than a fight per game right now, as opposed to the late 80's, when it was more than double that. I know fighting is back on the rise, but it still is nowhere near the level it was before the Devils single handedly ruined hockey when the were the first team to ever ever use the trap ever.

If you read the TSN article on it, that's their take on the whole thing; fights after a faceoff are a true sideshow, in the GMs eyes. The reason why fighting is legal in hockey is ostensibly because it serves a purpose, it's not to entertain the fans. in fact, that's precisely why it was legal in the Ontario Senior League where that player died as the result of a fight.

Would 2 fights a game be acceptable if they occured during game play, and therefore were not 'planned'? I'm just confused at where the GM's are coming from.

sure, but that's never going to happen. there's more european players who don't or rarely fight, and there's other skill players who won't fight because their team doesn't want to lose them for 5 minutes. throw in the number of guys with visors who shouldn't be fighting - there's most of the league right there. as opposed to the 80s when the range of player heights and weights was much smaller than it is now, cheap shots behind the play were much more prevalent, there's no instigator penalty, few visors, and bench-clearing brawls were still 'legal'.

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