League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) | 2023-24 Regular Season Edition

[twabby]

We can't be sure that smoking causes cancer in any individual. After all, plenty of non-smokers also get lung cancer.

 

[usiel]

Since the era of the heavy weights fighters and line brawls are gone I wonder if the NHL is calculating that new generation of light/middle weight fighters will drastically reduce potentially CTE. Oh and the focus on headshots.

 

[g00n]

We can't be sure that smoking causes cancer in any individual. After all, plenty of non-smokers also get lung cancer.

Terrible analogy. You can diagnose cancer while alive and test carcinogens in a lab.

When are you going to publish your peer reviewed double blind experiments showing fighting causes suicide?

 

[twabby]

Terrible analogy. You can diagnose cancer while alive and test carcinogens in a lab.

When are you going to publish your peer reviewed double blind experiments showing fighting causes suicide?

Of course you can't determine which carcinogen caused the cancer in the first place. Plenty of smokers with tar-filled lungs don't develop lung cancer after all.

 

[Calicaps]

I honestly can't believe this is an argument.

Getting hit in the head a lot is bad for you. It frequently leads to serious and recognizable brain deterioration later in life and one of the main symptoms is depression often with the attendant outcomes of substance misuse, homelessness, and suicide. It doesn't really matter HOW you get hit in the head, whether it's a flying elbow, a football tackle, or a punch. It's the repeated beating that matters.

Is it a straight line to suicide? No, of course not. Some guys don't get CTE. Obviously, there's a confluence of factors for any individual. But it's common enough that the role of CTE in these kinds of stories cannot be ignored.

Should fighting be banned? No. And anyway, fighting is barely a thing anymore anyway, so why bother. What sucks is the hedging. Hits to the head are dangerous. The NHL has already acknowledged that. Admitting that fighting involves hits to the head hardly seems a stretch.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Matt Cooke played his whole career in the league that allows fighting and players policing themselves. He still did all the things that he did.

Now imagine him with no “policing”….dude would have been running unchecked…

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I feel like these guys take way more punishment over time from the constant melon shaking body checks than they do actual punches to the head…

Like I don’t recall Chris Simon getting his ass kicked a lot.

 

[TheSmokingMan]

Tooth for a tooth: Does fighting serve as a deterrent to greater violence in the modern NHL

Fighting has been part of the fabric of the NHL for nearly a century. Recent sharp declines in the frequency of fighting and increased understanding of the long-term consequences of traumatic brain injuries have led many to question whether fighting still ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Fighting isn't a deterrent. The deterrent argument has been used without proof for years in order to defend fighting.

This. Fighting doesn't stop cheap shots and dangerous plays. Having rules and consequences for breaking those rules does. Matt Cooke didn't change his ways until he received massive suspensions from the league (hurting his team and his wallet). Same thing for Tom Wilson. They didn't change the way they played until the league interceded.

Just for the record, I am not against fighting, nor do I wish to see it banned. I have no problem if two players, through the course of heated competition, agree to settle their dispute by dropping the gloves. However, I am glad that the league has gotten rid of the staged goon fights of the past with players whose only role is pugilism. They need to stay gone.

 

[g00n]

I honestly can't believe this is an argument.

Getting hit in the head a lot is bad for you. It frequently leads to serious and recognizable brain deterioration later in life and one of the main symptoms is depression often with the attendant outcomes of substance misuse, homelessness, and suicide. It doesn't really matter HOW you get hit in the head, whether it's a flying elbow, a football tackle, or a punch. It's the repeated beating that matters.

Is it a straight line to suicide? No, of course not. Some guys don't get CTE. Obviously, there's a confluence of factors for any individual. But it's common enough that the role of CTE in these kinds of stories cannot be ignored.

Should fighting be banned? No. And anyway, fighting is barely a thing anymore anyway, so why bother. What sucks is the hedging. Hits to the head are dangerous. The NHL has already acknowledged that. Admitting that fighting involves hits to the head hardly seems a stretch.

Agree with almost all of this, and as you said fighting should not be banned like other hits to the head. Two guys voluntarily accepting the risks and punching each other isn't the same thing as someone going full steam and blindsiding an unsuspecting player in the melon with a shoulder or elbow into the boards.

I feel like these guys take way more punishment over time from the constant melon shaking body checks than they do actual punches to the head…

Like I don’t recall Chris Simon getting his ass kicked a lot.

One only has to view one of the old Don Cherry "Rock em Sock em" videos to see what the problem was in decades past.

 

[g00n]

Of course you can't determine which carcinogen caused the cancer in the first place. Plenty of smokers with tar-filled lungs don't develop lung cancer after all.

Correct. It's a risk factor, and a known one with outcomes we can test in a lab.

Yet smoking is not "banned" entirely. Cigarettes are still sold and people still smoke them. They know the risks and choose to ignore them. Not only that, they pay do to so.

Professional hockey players are grown adults who are generally paid very well to take certain risks. All of them assume some level of risk-- from sticks or pucks to the face, skates to the neck or achilles, hits that cause injury, or other elements of wear and tear. All of these things can have serious long-term consequences and drastically impact quality of life.

Nearly every professional athlete comes away with chronic injury and pain.

Nick Backstrom and some other players who needed hip replacements may never be fully pain-free or have the same quality of life, probably simply because of their skating and training.

Guys who fight just take on a different kind of risk. Maybe they don't skate as long as Backstrom and are less likely to lose their mobility, which is a trade off they try to manage by not letting themselves be punched.

Some of these guys are generally unstable to begin with. If they didn't have a career in hockey they might have ended up criminals, or working in some menial job and abusing drugs or alcohol or engaging in other self-destructive behaviors. At least hockey gave them something better for a while, and they at least had a chance to defend themselves.

Punching the asshole boss who gives you a heart attack from stress is usually a bad choice. And pays a lot less than punching faces in the NHL.

 

[twabby]

Correct. It's a risk factor, and a known one with outcomes we can test in a lab.

Yet smoking is not "banned" entirely. Cigarettes are still sold and people still smoke them. They know the risks and choose to ignore them. Not only that, they pay do to so.

Professional hockey players are grown adults who are generally paid very well to take certain risks. All of them assume some level of risk-- from sticks or pucks to the face, skates to the neck or achilles, hits that cause injury, or other elements of wear and tear. All of these things can have serious long-term consequences and drastically impact quality of life.

Nearly every professional athlete comes away with chronic injury and pain.

Nick Backstrom and some other players who needed hip replacements may never be fully pain-free or have the same quality of life, probably simply because of their skating and training.

Guys who fight just take on a different kind of risk. Maybe they don't skate as long as Backstrom and are less likely to lose their mobility, which is a trade off they try to manage by not letting themselves be punched.

Some of these guys are generally unstable to begin with. If they didn't have a career in hockey they might have ended up criminals, or working in some menial job and abusing drugs or alcohol or engaging in other self-destructive behaviors. At least hockey gave them something better for a while, and they at least had a chance to defend themselves.

Punching the asshole boss who gives you a heart attack from stress is usually a bad choice. And pays a lot less than punching faces in the NHL.

Yes, chronic pain and injuries are risks that players accept and that we as fans are ok with when choosing to support the game. You can also choose to support fighting as well. It's a free country, provided you have sufficient financial means.

But criticizing opponents of fighting for speaking up when another enforcer offs himself is like when gun nuts criticize people who call for stricter gun control in the aftermath of another pile of dead children. The argument is we're using a tragic event to exploit our agenda. No shit! Of course we are! The whole point is to avoid these tragic events! It's the whole point of our agenda!

Also that paragraph about how enforcers may otherwise resort to being criminals or alcoholics or druggies if not for punching other dudes in the head in hockey is kind of deranged to be honest.

 

[kicksavedave]

The idea of goons or enforcers as deterrents isn't backed up by much of any actual evidence. If it was a real deterrent, then as teams slowly started to phase out enforcers in favor of 4th liners who could actually play some hockey, then those team which lacked a goon would be the victims of cheap shots far more often than those that still had goons. But we never saw anything like that. The idea that, without enforcers, guys like Cooke would have run wild, is also unsupported - Cooke (and other cheap shot artists like Marchand), did their shenanigans in a random, spur of the moment way, not some strategically planned thought process like "this team doesn't have an enforcer, so I'm clear to elbow this dude in the head" or the converse "I'm going to play clean because this team has Brashear, or Reaves, or whoever". That's just not how any of it ever played out.

Fighting is a very poor method of revenge, and slightly useful for changing momentum, but its deterrent usefulness is mostly all myth. If someone likes fighting because of the momentum factor, that's fine. But its easy to say that goals and saves and even big checks, change momentum far more effectively than fights do.

There's also tons of evidence in other leagues and international play that not having fights doesn't lead to increased cheap shots - See the Olympics for example.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

who cares about this deterrence argument crap….the players want it to “self-police”, because you hear every one of them (pretty much) say that when pressed about fighting….whether or not anyone outside of the game believes it or agrees with it is irrelevant….get over it, or go pretend to not watch another sport.

 

[g00n]

Yes, chronic pain and injuries are risks that players accept and that we as fans are ok with when choosing to support the game. You can also choose to support fighting as well. It's a free country, provided you have sufficient financial means.

But criticizing opponents of fighting for speaking up when another enforcer offs himself is like when gun nuts criticize people who call for stricter gun control in the aftermath of another pile of dead children. The argument is we're using a tragic event to exploit our agenda. No shit! Of course we are! The whole point is to avoid these tragic events! It's the whole point of our agenda!

Also that paragraph about how enforcers may otherwise resort to being criminals or alcoholics or druggies if not for punching other dudes in the head in hockey is kind of deranged to be honest.

Oh for f***'s sake, no it's not like gun control. Guns and fists are not the same and death from a gunshot wound is pretty damn clear cut.

If someone shoots you in the face you clearly died from a gunshot wound. If someone punches your face and you die 20 years later from suicide you can't just automatically blame that punch.

JFC

who cares about this deterrence argument crap….the players want it to “self-police”, because you hear every one of them (pretty much) say that when pressed about fighting….whether or not anyone outside of the game believes it or agrees with it is irrelevant….get over it, or go pretend to not watch another sport.

We're talking to the crowd who refuse to listen to what the players and coaches and sports psychologists say, and instead rely entirely on spreadsheets.

They're not going to get it.

 

[Hivemind]

There's also tons of evidence in other leagues and international play that not having fights doesn't lead to increased cheap shots - See the Olympics for example.

This is my favorite part of the "fighting is an essential deterrent" argument - the fact that there are plenty of leagues that do eject players for fighting. NCAA hockey doesn't allow fighting. The IIHF doesn't allow fighting. The leagues in Sweden, Finland, and Russia all will eject a player from a game and give suspensions for fighting. The QMJHL banned fighting starting this season. OHL suspends players after their third fight of the season.

 

[kicksavedave]

who cares about this deterrence argument crap….the players want it to “self-police”, because you hear every one of them (pretty much) say that when pressed about fighting….whether or not anyone outside of the game believes it or agrees with it is irrelevant….get over it, or go pretend to not watch another sport.

The deterrence argument was put out by several posters, yourself included. So obviously people care about it as a factor for keeping it in the game. NHL players may or may not want to keep it on an individual level, but there is simply no evidence that it serves a deterrent purpose, so for those that like fighting, they should use a different reason for wanting to keep it.

I like it, I want to keep it, but purely because I think its fun to watch and serves as a potential momentum changer. I don't want to keep fighting to reduce cheap shots, because it simply doesn't do that.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

The deterrence argument was put out by several posters, yourself included. So obviously people care about it as a factor for keeping it in the game. NHL players may or may not want to keep it on an individual level, but there is simply no evidence that it serves a deterrent purpose, so for those that like fighting, they should use a different reason for wanting to keep it.

I like it, I want to keep it, but purely because I think its fun to watch and serves as a potential momentum changer. I don't want to keep fighting to reduce cheap shots, because it simply doesn't do that.

I didn’t put it out….I’ve recently mentioned policing in response to others comments….the deterrent idea is something I don’t care to argue…deterrent is just a word. You wanna talking fighting and policing, I’m in, because there is some small deterrent factor in policing…we just don’t have to suggest that’s fighting’s only purpose….or even main….

 

[kicksavedave]

I didn’t put it out….I’ve recently mentioned policing in response to others comments….the deterrent idea is something I don’t care to argue…deterrent is just a word. You wanna talking fighting and policing, I’m in, because there is some small deterrent factor in policing…we just don’t have to suggest that’s fighting’s only purpose….or even main….

Sorry, you used the word policing instead of deterrent. I'm not entirely clear on the distinction but as I've said, the revenge factor is minimal. Cooke ends someone's career with an elbow that gives him his 9th concussion and he just gets a black eye and 10 min misconduct out of it, there's no revenge or deterrent or policing going on, just a milligram of payback that's woefully unequal to his original offense.

I like watching hockey fights purely for the entertainment factor, but I'm not under any impression that they alter the nature of bad actors making bad non hockey plays. Long suspensions do that much better, a 40 second beat down does almost nothing. I'm not on any crusade to protect hockey players brains either, by now they all know the risks and they willingly take them.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Well Dave…the dictionary is pretty clear on the difference.

Best hockey I’ve ever seen didn’t have fighting, but the NHL game is different than tournament hockey.

 

[kicksavedave]

Anyone over 40 knows that there were a lot more cheap shots in hockey when enforcers were prevalent, and much less now that they're essentially extinct. Fighting remains as a pure entertainment factor, it has no other useful value at all.

That said, I like it. I'd be bummed if they banned it.

Well Dave…the dictionary is pretty clear on the difference.

Best hockey I’ve ever seen didn’t have fighting, but the NHL game is different than tournament hockey.

Its a distinction without a difference in this case because neither word is actually applicable in the NHL, at all, see post above. That's my point and its pretty much indisputable.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Anyone over 40 knows that there were a lot more cheap shots in hockey when enforcers were prevalent, and much less now that they're essentially extinct. Fighting remains as a pure entertainment factor, it has no other useful value at all.

That said, I like it. I'd be bummed if they banned it.



Its a distinction without a difference in this case because neither word is actually applicable in the NHL, at all, see post above. That's my point and its pretty much indisputable.

If you say so!

 

[kicksavedave]

If you say so!

I'm not always right, but I'm definitely right on this one. Every bit of evidence supports that fighting has no preventative or policing effect at all. It has solid entertainment and momentum changing impacts though. Revenge impacts are minimal, almost nil. Purely emotional.

 

[g00n]

Ex-Canadiens enforcer Chris Nilan on Chris Simon's suicide, fighting

The age-old debates over violence and head injuries in hockey were reignited this week by the tragic suicide of long-time NHL enforcer Chris Simon, a complicated 52-year-old former player.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Further complicating the discussion is the source of Simon's potential CTE. Whereas deputy NHL commissioner Bill Daly dismissed the connection between repeated head trauma and the brain disease on Wednesday, angry fans have insisted that Simon's death was the direct result of brain injuries from his many on-ice brawls.

But to Chris 'Knuckles' Nilan, a 66-year-old former Montreal Canadiens enforcer, fighting isn't the only possible culprit. Speaking with DailyMail.com in the wake of Simon's death, Nilan questioned the conclusion that fighting inherently leads to CTE, instead suggesting that violent checks are primarily to blame for head trauma in hockey.

'When guys get body checks, shoulder to shoulder, and they go into the boards, there is some disturbance there in the head, right?' Nilan, the South Boston native, told DailyMail.com from his adopted home of Montreal. 'The brain moves inside that cranium. So it's not just from a punch, it's from a lot more than a punch.

'I'm not saying it can't happen in fights and it has,' Nilan continued. 'But I believe that the instances of guys getting really bad concussions comes more from violent body checks than [punches] to the head.'

Cautiously, Nilan refrained from making any assumptions about Simon's condition: 'I don't know if he had [CTE] or not.'

'When guys get body checks, shoulder to shoulder, and they go into the boards, there is some disturbance there in the head, right?' Nilan, the South Boston native, told DailyMail.com from his adopted home of Montreal. 'The brain moves inside that cranium. So it's not just from a punch, it's from a lot more than a punch.

'I'm not saying it can't happen in fights and it has,' Nilan continued. 'But I believe that the instances of guys getting really bad concussions comes more from violent body checks than [punches] to the head.'

Cautiously, Nilan refrained from making any assumptions about Simon's condition: 'I don't know if he had [CTE] or not.'

As for CTE, Nilan doesn't know if he has the disease and it's not something he spends much time worrying about. He's done well on recent cognitive exams despite decades of abuse on and off the ice, and while his own mother has battled dementia, the retired winger believes he's avoided any noticeable decline.

From the same article, Nilan on "deterrence" and "policing"

And while it may come as a surprise to some who want to see fighting eradicated from the NHL, Nilan believes it still serves a purpose.

'I know it can be a deterrent at times, and I'm not saying all the time, but it can be a deterrent,' Nilan said.

To him, fighting offers a way to police a sport that officials often struggle to control.

'I saw a guy get two handed over the head this year in Boston and nothing,' Nilan said. 'It wasn't even a penalty.'

By fighting, he explained, players have the ability reprimand each other for dirty plays in a way that officials can't.

'When you open a door to [taking] fighting out, I think you're gonna see a lot of instances where people do crazy stuff,' he continued. 'Like whether it's a chicken wing elbow to someone's head and knocks 'em out cold or leaving their feet and ramming their head through the glass or running someone from behind through the boards and then they don't get up and they're laying there.'

Nilan doesn't think that all fighting is warranted, and he's encouraged to see fewer and fewer enforcers doting NHL rosters in recent years. Whereas decades ago, teams had one or two players who could do little else but fight, these days, even the league's biggest brawlers happen to be skilled.

'I think they've done great strides in stopping all the brawling and all that stuff,' he said. 'And also stopping the guy that just sits on the bench and goes out to fight, doesn't play the game.'

Asked if the NHL is doing enough to help former players, Nilan pointed to his two stints in rehab, both of which were paid for by the league: 'They were there for me.'

 

[kicksavedave]

Ex-Canadiens enforcer Chris Nilan on Chris Simon's suicide, fighting

The age-old debates over violence and head injuries in hockey were reignited this week by the tragic suicide of long-time NHL enforcer Chris Simon, a complicated 52-year-old former player.

www.dailymail.co.uk

From the same article, Nilan on "deterrence" and "policing"

Ex enforcer says "my entire NHL existence was actually justified, despite it no longer existing" , news at 11.

Wonder how many chicken wings to the head occurred in the Bobby Clarke era, vs today? I'm sure it's gone way up since the enforcers all left the game, right? I mean the movie Slapshot was reflective of a different era than today.

Again, suspensions are a deterrent and a suitable punishment for the occasional offense. Fights accomplish neither.

 

[g00n]

Ex enforcer says "my entire NHL existence was actually justified, despite it no longer existing" , news at 11.

Wonder how many chicken wings to the head occurred in the Bobby Clarke era, vs today? I'm sure it's gone way up since the enforcers all left the game, right? I mean the movie Slapshot was reflective of a different era than today.

Again, suspensions are a deterrent and a suitable punishment for the occasional offense. Fights accomplish neither.

So you don't know anything about Nilan. Cool.

Nor did you read what he actually said, because your mockery is the opposite of his comments.

Whatever.