NJDevs4978 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Of course three pairs could have each decided to fight at the same time. Why is that impossible? My sarcasm meter must be off, because if not I'm speechless. Yeah, six guys are going to randomly decide to drop the gloves at the opening faceoff, especially when one of the six is a defenseman who moves up to take the draw. When have EITHER of those instances happened in the history of the league (six guys 'randomly' deciding to fight in three different bouts at once before a puck drop or a defenseman taking the opening faceoff)? Anyone who believes it wasn't scripted, well I don't know what to tell you other than it was the most remarkable example of at least nine people on two different teams (including the coaches and Dubinsky) thinking the same thing at the same time I've ever heard of. If everyone could know what eight different people were thinking at once, life would be so much better Edited March 22, 2012 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 My sarcasm meter must be off, because if not I'm speechless. Yeah, six guys are going to randomly decide to drop the gloves at the opening faceoff, especially when one of the six is a defenseman who moves up to take the draw. When have EITHER of those instances happened in the history of the league (six guys 'randomly' deciding to fight in three different bouts at once before a puck drop or a defenseman taking the opening faceoff)? Anyone who believes it wasn't scripted, well I don't know what to tell you other than it was the most remarkable example of at least nine people on two different teams (including the coaches and Dubinsky) thinking the same thing at the same time I've ever heard of. If everyone could know what eight different people were thinking at once, life would be so much better You don't understand. The point is that it MAY not have been A. Decided among the players beforehand and B. Each player may not have known for sure the others would fight. The reason they all fought could have been that each player individually realized his role as a starter was to fight. i.e. DeBoer and Torts set it up indirectly. People who don't understand hockey find fighting one of the most intriguing parts of the sport. A standard reaction is "wait, they're gonna let them fight? No way!" It's exciting and is unique to hockey. It doesn't make a mockery of it. It's a huge part of it. Just because you don't want to understand the reasoning or approve of it doesn't mean it's a joke. In the end it most likely made that game safer than it would have been. Again, there were no additional fights, and there were very few penalties, 2 of which were for tripping. Yea that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) People who don't understand hockey find fighting one of the most intriguing parts of the sport. A standard reaction is "wait, they're gonna let them fight? No way!" It's exciting and is unique to hockey. It doesn't make a mockery of it. It's a huge part of it. Just because you don't want to understand the reasoning or approve of it doesn't mean it's a joke. In the end it most likely made that game safer than it would have been. Again, there were no additional fights, and there were very few penalties, 2 of which were for tripping. I understand the reasoning - by and large, it's absolute nonsense. I don't think it's a deterrent to have an enforcer. I don't think it stops teams from taking penalties or playing physical. I don't think it changes momentum. Mostly it's there so two willing combatants can go at it, one of them ostensibly answering for something he did in an earlier shift or game. Fighting is not a 'huge part' of the game. It's a tiny part that is biggest during the pre-season, smaller during the regular season, and usually goes away in the playoffs. And there are some teams that hardly fight at all. Edited March 22, 2012 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I understand the reasoning - by and large, it's absolute nonsense. I don't think it's a deterrent to have an enforcer. I don't think it stops teams from taking penalties or playing physical. I don't think it changes momentum. Mostly it's there so two willing combatants can go at it, one of them ostensibly answering for something he did in an earlier shift or game. Fighting is not a 'huge part' of the game. It's a tiny part that is biggest during the pre-season, smaller during the regular season, and usually goes away in the playoffs. And there are some teams that hardly fight at all. You don't think any of that because you don't believe that emotion exists or affects sports. You also are the one that thinks some players have the ability to raise their game for big games and in big moments, and you don't believe in the idea of a player being considered 'clutch'. All those things exist on the ice and sadly have nothing to do with graphs or percentages or corsi numbers. Anyone who has played any organized sport will tell you that, especially one where fighting isn't aloud. Cheap shots get answered by cheap shots until someone is seriously hurt. Look at how out of hand the finals got last year, specifically the games in Boston. There was one actual fight in the finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) You don't think any of that because you don't believe that emotion exists or affects sports. Not true. It does all the time. It's just that it's not predictable, at all. Like Kovalchuk smacked Brayden Schenn in the face, that must've fired up the Devils, right? Except they gave up 2 goals and got outshot like 15-1 after that fight. Fights have two participants - either team could get 'fired up' by a fight, regardless of the outcome. You also are the one that thinks some players have the ability to raise their game for big games and in big moments, and you don't believe in the idea of a player being considered 'clutch'. All those things exist on the ice and sadly have nothing to do with graphs or percentages or corsi numbers. They have everything to do with those things, since those things merely describe what's going on on the ice. Clutch players might exist, we just have no idea who they are, and their clutch ability is certainly tiny. A player without the ability to play in the big game almost certainly would've been weeded out well before the NHL. And skill levels vary too - a player might get hot and be playing 'better' or he might get cold and play 'worse'. The key is that we just have no idea when these things are true, or if they're true, when they might end. Cheap shots get answered by cheap shots until someone is seriously hurt. Look at how out of hand the finals got last year, specifically the games in Boston. There was one actual fight in the finals. Things were heated, but I don't think fighting would've solved anything. There were way more cheap shots in the NHL when fighting was more prevalent. Edited March 23, 2012 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) its like pulling a goalie, statistically its a loser, but the chance that it may equal a goal is worth it... ...seriously though this exists in all sports, and i cant understand the argument against it; an enforcer does help to quell the shenanigans, you might not like it, but i think an enforcers game also diminishes due to that responsibility. respect, good. edit: this was meant for Deboer should be fined thread Edited March 23, 2012 by lazer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Talking about fights in the playoffs, I think there is an obvious reason why they don't happen as much. Nobody wants to give the opposition a chance to get a jump going. Think back to Philly-Pit a couple years ago. The Flyers were wrecking the Pens looking like they were going to win the series. Talbot gets into a fight, gets beat pretty bad, maybe it sunk in and sparked the Pens seeing someones face bashed in. From that point on they were on a tear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 My sarcasm meter must be off, because if not I'm speechless. Yeah, six guys are going to randomly decide to drop the gloves at the opening faceoff, especially when one of the six is a defenseman who moves up to take the draw. When have EITHER of those instances happened in the history of the league (six guys 'randomly' deciding to fight in three different bouts at once before a puck drop or a defenseman taking the opening faceoff)? Anyone who believes it wasn't scripted, well I don't know what to tell you other than it was the most remarkable example of at least nine people on two different teams (including the coaches and Dubinsky) thinking the same thing at the same time I've ever heard of. If everyone could know what eight different people were thinking at once, life would be so much better Ok, well now we are really delving into the word 'literal' now, as in what is your definition of the word 'scripted'?, 'pre-determined'? (Rhetorical questions lol). As far as im concerned, they all decided they would have a go at their counterpart once they got to the faceoff circle and had a quick word. None of them decided well beforehand that they HAD to fight, nor did any of them feel obliged either, im sure. Nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roomtemp Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Not sure if he is a Devils fan, but there were photos of him and Stevens (both shirtless I believe) in the locker room after the 2000 Cup win.... I'm sure Pepperkorn has a poster of it somewhere Look how young Rafalski looks in the background of this Would have made a hell of a tag team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe B Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Not true. It does all the time. It's just that it's not predictable, at all. Like Kovalchuk smacked Brayden Schenn in the face, that must've fired up the Devils, right? Except they gave up 2 goals and got outshot like 15-1 after that fight. Fights have two participants - either team could get 'fired up' by a fight, regardless of the outcome. Loosing salvador and a-train during that scrum probably had more to do with giving up those goals then any energy from the fights. I'm phi I take getting kovy off the ice for 5+mins for an ass kicking every day of the week and twice on sunday. I have always felt that it really doesn't matter who won the fight(unless you are playing blades of steel) but it more the timing off the fight. I don't think we've had an enforcer that knew when to fight since Peluso. If a guy(who's hockey skill 9 times out of 10 could be replaced by anyone off the street(there is a reason that most cement heads are good locker room guys and hard workers, they need that extra qualities to stand out) compared to a skill player that just has that rare athletic ability) is willing to put is face on the line, you should be willing to go that extra bit in whatever your role is. Do I want the days of weekly bench clearing brawls, no. But I do admit when the rangers and devs had one in the playoffs, it got my emotion up and I was only in the stands. There is a balance and I think the league is about right where it should be. I understand why people don't want it. I also understand that some people may just only watch it for the fights like some watch nascar just for the crashes. I know this is a devils board so it's devils centric thinking, but I still think people have it backwards, it was torts that wanted that 3 way dance off the face off to pump a little emotion into a slumping ranger team. Didn't a few players say he was fired up in the locker room about the starting lineup? I'll ask again, has anyone ever seen a defenseman take the opening draw of a game? since I'm off on a fighing tangent. I think Lou does a better developing enforcers then trading for them. It's probably due to all the intangibles that go with the job that you just can't scout without being int he locker room. Talking about fights in the playoffs, I think there is an obvious reason why they don't happen as much. Nobody wants to give the opposition a chance to get a jump going. Think back to Philly-Pit a couple years ago. The Flyers were wrecking the Pens looking like they were going to win the series. Talbot gets into a fight, gets beat pretty bad, maybe it sunk in and sparked the Pens seeing someones face bashed in. From that point on they were on a tear. My feeling is that it more along the lines of, all penalties are so huge in the playoffs. One bad penalty can turn into a PP goal that leads to one loss that leads could lead to your being out of the dance. You drop the gloves and he doesn't could be the difference. You can always get your payback next preseason. That was a trait of the Devils that I liked in the 90's. Don't take the stupid retalitory penalties and don't bitch to the ref all the time. In general holik and claud were good at that because they both knew that they probably got away with 4 times as many things as they should have been called. I think the inconsistant officiating keeps away more fans then the fighting. I know I tend to avoid the judged sports in the olympics so that may scew my judgement. Then again I still don't like the 2 refs. I know I don't post much but when I due, I tend to babble, sorry for those tl;dr types. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.