Speculation: Do you believe it's generally in the best interest of a Player to "Answer The Bell"?

[Betamax*]

Until you're interested in addressing the obvious holes in your argument that you never respond to, I have no interest in your bad faith arguments

This thread is pretty much a carbon copy of your shot blocking thread...

Yeah the same shot blocking thread where you cite a study and ask "Why don't you try reading the links you've provided?" when clearly you haven't read the links carefully yourself and then when taken to task on that faux pas, you tried to ignore it, therefore, showing your own hypocrisy. So with all due respect, if we are going to talk about bad faith arguments, you need to look in the mirror, Proto.

BTW, If you didn't like how the shot blocking thread turned out why have you been one of the most active participants in this thread?

Did you actually vote in the poll?

re:

At the time of this post, days later ... apparently not.

So, I gotta wonder, do you have a personal agenda here i.e. are you trying to pull a messageboard equivalent of Jumbo Joe on me like he did on the Sedins and think I'll just stand there? Uh, I don't think so.

 

[Betamax*]

You're right. He'll still be a rat. But my teammate will know I have his back and he doesn't have to back down and I'll be able to sleep at night.

Yeah ... that's why I think fighting is important to the players. Not for the actual outcome (since most of the time the fights don't end up doing serious damage to the perpetrator of the offending hit) ... but for the symbolism it offers and how it builds esprit de corps.

 

[Betamax*]

Yeah ... that's why I think fighting is important to the players. Not for the actual outcome (since most of the time the fights don't end up doing serious damage to the perpetrator of the offending hit) ... but for the symbolism it offers and how it builds esprit de corps.

To illustrate this point, on Mar 7, 2010, Matt Cooke hammered Marc Savard:



On Mar 18, 2010 he was given the option to fight or ignore the culture of NHL hockey and flee:



He chose the former.

Now compare Mr. Cooke's decision to "Answer The Bell" against the one made by Mr. Orpik and you tell me who made a better decision in retrospect.

 

[Scurr]

There are also plenty of examples of the guy coming in to defend a teammate getting his ass handed to him(Stanton). That's the part that bugs me about a guy like Orpik not fighting. Either we're all being honourable and answering the bell or we should all just be throwing cheap shots at each other. If Orpik doesn't have to fight then Stanton should have just taken Nolans head off with an elbow/shoulder/gloved punch.

 

[Betamax*]

There are also plenty of examples of the guy coming in to defend a teammate getting his ass handed to him(Stanton). That's the part that bugs me about a guy like Orpik not fighting. Either we're all being honourable and answering the bell or we should all just be throwing cheap shots at each other. If Orpik doesn't have to fight then Stanton should have just taken Nolans head off with an elbow/shoulder/gloved punch.

Can you think of one example from the NHL where a player decided to "Answer The Bell" after a clean or dirty hit and then ended up being carried out in a stretcher or seriously hurt to the point that he couldn't continue playing after the penalties was assessed during that game?

 

[Canucker]

There are also plenty of examples of the guy coming in to defend a teammate getting his ass handed to him(Stanton). That's the part that bugs me about a guy like Orpik not fighting. Either we're all being honourable and answering the bell or we should all just be throwing cheap shots at each other. If Orpik doesn't have to fight then Stanton should have just taken Nolans head off with an elbow/shoulder/gloved punch.

Still going on about Orpik?

 

[Proto]

There are also plenty of examples of the guy coming in to defend a teammate getting his ass handed to him(Stanton). That's the part that bugs me about a guy like Orpik not fighting. Either we're all being honourable and answering the bell or we should all just be throwing cheap shots at each other. If Orpik doesn't have to fight then Stanton should have just taken Nolans head off with an elbow/shoulder/gloved punch.

Or someone like Stanton could just drop the gloves and square him up. Might get a game or two if Orpik really turtled, but he'd probably end up fighting in that scenario.

But, as I've said before, it's never going to be a goon. No normal player ever fights a goon. That's why goons are bloody useless antiquities of a bygone era.

 

[Scurr]

Still going on about Orpik?

Not still.. I took a break to relate this to real life. Still really bugs me though... obviously

Or someone like Stanton could just drop the gloves and square him up. Might get a game or two if Orpik really turtled, but he'd probably end up fighting in that scenario.

If Orpik turtles the linesmen grab Stanton and nothing happens but a PP for Pittsburgh. You know it and Orpik knows it.

 

[Betamax*]

Well, Proto ... on the topic of wondering ... I wonder what you and my other good hfboards buddy, dave here thinks of the following:

This ...

and this ...

Why did you think Jumbo Joe "trolled" both of the twins in those two incidents cited above? Besides the obvious of him acting like a Jumbo "Dick" ... Similarly, why did you think Marchand used Daniel as his his personal Piñata as referenced previously?

Thoughts or special insights you care to share?

p.s. These questions are of course, open to everyone else here who has an opinion on this particular issue.

Well, to answer my own question ... I think it's because they had a good idea the Sedins wouldn't "Answer The Bell" and offer physical resistance back.

I think this is one of the key area to their overall game that I think during their tenure here has been frustrating for many Canucks supporters and why there seems to be an underlying negativity and derogatory comments that we see and hear from certain media and hockey fans around the league questioning their "manhood."

 

[dave babych returns]

Yeah the same shot blocking thread where you cite a study and ask "Why don't you try reading the links you've provided?" when clearly you haven't read the links carefully yourself and then when taken to task on that faux pas, you tried to ignore it, therefore, showing your own hypocrisy. So with all due respect, if we are going to talk about bad faith arguments, you need to look in the mirror, Proto.

Actually if one reads the thread rather than clicking your carefully selected link showing only your own post, they'll see the very next post is Proto accepting your observation (ie. "Okay,") and attempting to move the discussion forward ("pretend the article doesn't exist then...").

Link

It would seem your characterization of the response to the post you've linked to is either uncharitable (lacking "all due respect") or that you've intentionally presented one side of the story here to claim another poster is making bad faith arguments.. not the first time you've made that claim about other fairly credible posters (nor is it the first time you've done it in direct response to someone questioning the effectiveness of your arguments) iirc.

 

[Betamax*]

Actually if one reads the thread rather than clicking your carefully selected link showing only your own post, they'll see the very next post is Proto accepting your observation (ie. "Okay,") and attempting to move the discussion forward ("pretend the article doesn't exist then...").

Link

It would seem your characterization of the response to the post you've linked to is either uncharitable (lacking "all due respect") or that you've intentionally presented one side of the story here to claim another poster is making bad faith arguments.. not the first time you've made that claim about other fairly credible posters (nor is it the first time you've done it in direct response to someone questioning the effectiveness of your arguments) iirc.[/QUOTE]

Uh, I think that was a rather weak attempt by Proto to change the topic after being exposed for his own hypocrisy. In other words, if you are going to criticize someone for (allegedly) not "reading" the study which I did, you best do so carefully yourself. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy, in my opinion. And if we follow that thread, it seems you have a vested interest to chime as well as you were also guilty of parroting the "study" without doing your own due diligence.

Anyway, I am open to discuss any specific outstanding "shot blocking" issues you have in another thread or venue where that's more appropriate ... but not in this thread, okay?

 

[dave babych returns]

Uh, I think that was a rather weak attempt by Proto to change the topic after being exposed for his own hypocrisy. In other words, if you are going to criticize someone for (allegedly) not "reading" the study which I did, you best do so carefully yourself. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy, in my opinion.

So you agree, your interpretation is uncharitable (ie. lacking "all due respect"). You've decided that the salient point in that exchange is that you nailed a poster on a point of fact and they did not issue an extended mea culpa, rather than the fact that they granted it and moved on with the discussion at hand.

Proto was "changing the topic" to the topic of the thread. The one you started.

And if we follow that thread, it seems you have a vested interest to chime as well as you were also guilty of parroting the "study" without doing your own due diligence.

Well if you read the post below Proto's, it happens to be one where I thanked you for drawing my attention to the problems with the Dellow post in question and said I wouldn't be using it again (unless/until there was some kind of update to address those issues).

I'm not really sure if you feel like you're 'owed' something beyond that?

But if you're interested in discussing things in venues that are "more appropriate" (reading further down this very post it would appear that you are) then it would be best to gracefully accept the battle you've won and resume discussing the broader subject as poster Proto attempted to do.. much to your apparent chagrin.

Anyway, I am open to discuss any specific outstanding "shot blocking" issues you have in another thread or venue where that's more appropriate ... but not in this thread, okay?

You brought it up. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate further posts in that thread being brought up to provide context that is valuable in understanding a specific post you linked to (which provides incomplete evidence of a claim you made another poster), but if you want to bring up a subject without further posts addressing it then you should probably do so in a fairly comprehensive and even handed manner - particularly if you are doing so in order to take potshots at another poster.

 

[F A N]

I voted no. I don't like the idea of forcing guys to fight. There's the saying that you live by the sword you die by the sword. That doesn't mean that a dirty low-bridge hit from a guy like Brad Marchand should result in Marchand having to fight another team's HW enforcer. I also don't like the idea of having to fight after a big but clean hit.

With that said, I have no problems with a player having to drop the gloves after throwing a dirty hit but it should be with the victim of that dirty hit or a player who is comparably sized and skilled. There are weight classes in professional fighting so why is it that some players and fans expect players to fight a much bigger guy? Even if a player is the same size a nonfighter shouldn't be obligated to fight a guy who is a trained fighter and regularly fights.

 

[dave babych returns]

With that said, I have no problems with a player having to drop the gloves after throwing a dirty hit but it should be with the victim of that dirty hit or a player who is comparably sized and skilled. There are weight classes in professional fighting so why is it that some players and fans expect players to fight a much bigger guy? Even if a player is the same size a nonfighter shouldn't be obligated to fight a guy who is a trained fighter and regularly fights.

I don't really disagree with this and even further I think as long as it's a hockey player fighting another hockey player, I see no problem with a guy taking exception to misconduct towards a teammate and taking an instigator (or whatever) forcing the opponent to answer for it.

edit: Meant to add that I don't even see size as an issue, in most cases - a guy like Manny Malhotra (6'3, 220 lbs) isn't a heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination and isn't going to hospitalize someone based on a size advantage..

(However I reject the notion that if a guy turtles initially he is responsible for the extremely remote possibility that someone might become unhinged and literally assault him on the ice later in the same game or even in a subsequent game.)

 

[Proto]

I don't really disagree with this and even further I think as long as it's a hockey player fighting another hockey player, I see no problem with a guy taking exception to misconduct towards a teammate and taking an instigator (or whatever) forcing the opponent to answer for it.

(However I reject the notion that if a guy turtles initially he is responsible for the extremely remote possibility that someone might become hinged and literally assault him on the ice later in the same game or even in a subsequent game.)

Exactly. And the notion that at any point in history a normal player who throws a dirty hit has been forced to "answer the bell" against a goon is ridiculous. Goons just exist to fight each other and every once in awhile do something heinous. That's the part of fighting in the game that's useless. And, generally speaking, those are also the guys with serious long-term issues,, possibly due to their careers as bareknuckle fighters who are ostensibly hockey players.

 

[Betamax*]

I don't really disagree with this and even further I think as long as it's a hockey player fighting another hockey player, I see no problem with a guy taking exception to misconduct towards a teammate and taking an instigator (or whatever) forcing the opponent to answer for it.

edit: Meant to add that I don't even see size as an issue, in most cases - a guy like Manny Malhotra (6'3, 220 lbs) isn't a heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination and isn't going to hospitalize someone based on a size advantage..

What the Hell are you talking about when you state as long as it's a "hockey player fighting another hockey player?"

Are you implying that someone as Proto implied earlier i.e. Shawn Thornton isn't "a hockey player?"

(However I reject the notion that if a guy turtles initially he is responsible for the extremely remote possibility that someone might become unhinged and literally assault him on the ice later in the same game or even in a subsequent game.)

How about you answer the the question in this thread with a direct answer as 66 others here (besides myself) have:

Do you believe, given the current climate of the NHL, it is generally in the best interest of a Player to "Answer The Bell" i.e. fight when challenged by teammate of a player from the other team when a hit delivered by said player, whether it be clean or otherwise, injures that player from that other team?

If you directly answered the question earlier, I apologize ... because I must have missed it.

 

[Proto]

youtubevideoofsomeonevoting.mkv

 

[dave babych returns]

I totally missed this.

Well, to answer my own question ... I think it's because they had a good idea the Sedins wouldn't "Answer The Bell" and offer physical resistance back.

I think it's probably because Thornton is a petulant loser with the maturity level of an adolescent, but you're right that the Sedins have too much class, integrity and just plain sense to resort to violence over this and other examples of completely asinine (and almost completely inconsequential) behaviour from their opponents.

I think this is one of the key area to their overall game that I think during their tenure here has been frustrating for many Canucks supporters and why there seems to be an underlying negativity and derogatory comments that we see and hear from certain media and hockey fans around the league questioning their "manhood."

I'll give you this poster Betamax, you do an excellent job of articulating the views of "many Canucks supporters" and "certain media and hockey fans."

I don't agree with any of those people on this or most other subjects, but kudos regardless.

 

[dave babych returns]

What the Hell are you talking about when you state as long as it's a "hockey player fighting another hockey player?"

Are you implying that someone as Proto implied earlier i.e. Shawn Thornton isn't "a hockey player?"

Yeah that is what I am saying. Which you know full well.

How about you answer the the question in this thread with a direct answer as 66 others here (besides myself) have:

Do you believe, given the current climate of the NHL, it is generally in the best interest of a Player to "Answer The Bell" i.e. fight when challenged by teammate of a player from the other team when a hit delivered by said player, whether it be clean or otherwise, injures that player from that other team?

If you directly answered the question earlier, I apologize ... because I must have missed it.

Why vote in the poll? If you want to know what I think you're welcome to read my posts..