Post-Game Talk: Caps @ Devils 1pm

[Hivemind]

No real difference if you're going to try and make a point based on head injuries killing people via delayed effects.

Here we go

There absolutely is. One is inherent risk of playing the game. The other is additional risk tacked on for spectacle's sake. Sanctioned fighting is not some intrinsic part of contact sports (see football) or even hockey specifically (see Olympic hockey).

And I do think there should be steps made to mitigate the risks of head injuries from other contact, largely through better enforcement of safety gear standards. For starters, make player's tighten their chin straps, for Pete's sake.

 

[AtNightWeFly]

Minus the injury of course, i do think the bad blood generated by the Wilson hit is the kind of thing which actually gets our team more engaged and committed, especially Ovie. And we play better for the rest of the game.

That bad blood, and the resulting energy teamwide, has been largely absent from our game this year.

Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate and admire the team's effort to reverse Wilson's reputation and turn him into a valuable PK'er and 4th-line grinder. I am just pointing out the correlation between heavy hitting and the passion and energy it seems to generate right through the roster, but especially in 8.

 

[g00n]

There absolutely is. One is inherent risk of playing the game. The other is additional risk tacked on for spectacle's sake. Sanctioned fighting is not some intrinsic part of contact sports (see football) or even hockey specifically (see Olympic hockey).

Bull. Nobody has to hit in hockey. It's "sanctioned" by the NHL just like fighting.

 

[peterthegreat12]

The Caps are a better team when they play physically. FACT.

 

[Hivemind]

Bull. Nobody has to hit in hockey. It's "sanctioned" by the NHL just like fighting.

I can't tell if you're being serious here.

 

[twabby]

EVIDENCE!!!!

Several fighters have NOT done any of the things you've said. It's also possible people who are prone to destructive behaviors gravitated toward similarly violent behavior in sports.

I guess you want to ban hitting, too, since there's far more obvious damage coming from that.

Evidence is a good thing. I like it more than gut feelings. Fighting causes CTE.

Given the scientific evidence that CTE causes other mental illnesses, why risk it with something that literally has nothing to do with the game? It's against the rules and there have been studies showing fights don't actually change momentum of the game.

Also here's an analogue to your ridiculous statement: "Several smokers have NOT gone on to develop lung cancer." So I guess smoking doesn't cause lung cancer at all then!

 

[g00n]

I can't tell if you're being serious here.

What's so confusing?

 

[twabby]

I mean just say you like fighting because it's entertaining. I can dig that.

Just don't make things up to rationalize it to yourself.

 

[AtNightWeFly]

The Caps are a better team when they play physically. FACT.

Anybody with at least one good eye can see that. Now, who's bright idea was it to stop?

 

[Hivemind]

What's so confusing?

That someone would seriously pursue the angle that physical contact is not an intrinsic part of contact sports.

 

[g00n]

I mean just say you like fighting because it's entertaining. I can dig that.

Just don't make things up to rationalize it to yourself.

I like it AND I can make a logical case for it, as I have. Your "evidence" is pure correlation that's drowned in bad logic since legal acts such as hitting are tolerated, and as we saw with Moore today can cause serious injuries.

So which is it? Are you opposed to fighting because of evidence or are you making things up to rationalize your position to yourself? If you think there's ENOUGH of a link between fighting and guys killing themselves due to head injuries then you have to be equally opposed to hitting due to the equally serious risk of debilitating injury.

 

[Cappy76]

The Caps are a better team when they play physically. FACT.

Agreed I can't understand why we've backed so far off the physical play this season unless of course we really are saving it for the 'loffs. If that is the case I just hope we turn on soon to get to playing 100% before April. I feel like we're at 70% this season unless we get tuned up for a matchup (Pittsburgh game) or engaged in a physical one like today

 

[Hivemind]

I like it AND I can make a logical case for it, as I have. Your "evidence" is pure correlation that's drowned in bad logic since legal acts such as hitting are tolerated, and as we saw with Moore today can cause serious injuries.

So which is it? Are you opposed to fighting because of evidence or are you making things up to rationalize your position to yourself? If you think there's ENOUGH of a link between fighting and guys killing themselves due to head injuries then you have to be equally opposed to hitting due to the equally serious risk of debilitating injury.

Speaking of "bad logic"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

 

[g00n]

That someone would seriously pursue the angle that physical contact is not an intrinsic part of contact sports.

Does high level hockey exist without hitting? Can it?

May as well ask how someone can seriously pursue the angle that violence is not an intrinsic part of a violent sport.

 

[Chukcha]

turtle in the 3rd?

 

[g00n]

Speaking of "bad logic"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

not really.

speaking of "evidence"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/s...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

 

[AtNightWeFly]

turtle in the 3rd?

And you know it!

Is it New Year yet in Mongolia?

 

[Hivemind]

Do they hit in the NCAA? Does high level hockey exist without hitting? Can it?

May as well ask how someone can seriously pursue the angle that violence is not an intrinsic part of a violent sport.

They absolutely hit in the NCAA. There isn't fighting, however.

Fighting is not an intrinsic part of hockey.

 

[Capathetic]

I can't remember the last time this team got a few bounces to go their way like the second half of that period. They were also dominant on a few shifts there. They seem better on the road to me.

 

[Chukcha]

And you know it!

Is it New Year yet in Mongolia?

yup, i'm drunk

 

[Hivemind]

not really.

speaking of "evidence"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/s...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

It is absolutely a false equivalence. Read the definition of the fallacy. Just because someone opposes an action that has a particular outcome in its set of outcomes doesn't mean that they have to oppose every action that has that same outcome in their set of outcomes. Making such a statement is a textbook example of a false equivalence.

As for your "evidence," that's an anecdote from someone defending their livelihood. If you want an actual conversation on the issue, go back and search the NUMEROUS articles that were posted when we had this discussion in the off-season. The actual numbers show that fighting does not reduce the risk of dangerous hits.

 

[CapsJunkie]

5-1 so far. Massive penalties. How can this not be entertaining.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

not really.

speaking of "evidence"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/s...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Ironic that you post that about McSorly, given that Gretzky has praised his role as his enforcer/bodyguard many times. That statement about more concussions from playing than fighting should open eyes of anyone reasonable.

Then again, what do a couple of multi-Cup winners know that Hivemind doesn't?

 

[AtNightWeFly]

Boar-akovsky they keep saying on MSG.

 

[g00n]

They absolutely hit in the NCAA. There isn't fighting, however.

Fighting is not an intrinsic part of hockey.

I remembered about the NCAA as soon as I typed it, as you'll notice in the immeidate ninja edit. I notice you didn't really address the concept, though. Can high level hockey be played without hitting? Do they HAVE to hit?