TSN: PJ Stock explores fighting and cheap shots

[NCRanger]

Good question, what does stop Orpik from throwing a cheapshot, or James Neal kneeing someone's head?

Answer: Nothing.

If fighting is preventative then why did it happen in the first place?

Or are you going to promise me now that because Thornton in turn did something dirty and dangerous (which he showed sincere remorse for, not "that'll teach Orpik!") that Orpik is now a changed man?

Right. Nothing. NOW. Operative word being now.

Remember a few years ago when teenager mustache Dan Carcillo starting throwing punches at Marian Gaborik and Ranger fans were livid with Dan Girardi for standing there doing nothing?

Girardi stood there doing nothing because in today's NHL, he would have received an additional five minutes. Therefore, the goon Carcillo attacks the "star", gets a guy to retaliate, and gives his team a long power play.

Point is, there is a tremendous disincentive to fight, and a great incentive to throw a questionable hit, especially if it can be slightly behind the play where a ref doesn't get a great look at it.

 

[Thirty One]

What evidence (form, amount) would satisfy you to the extent that you would agree that fighting can be a contributing factor to a succesful team?

I don't know. Let's start with any.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Maybe because Colin Campbell's son plays on the team?

Actually, I think it's because not only can they police themselves, they're extremely dirty and get other teams to lay nasty illegal hits on their guys.

And on the contrary, why does Pittsburgh seem to always get the low end of the suspension numbers when one of their guys commits an infraction?

And what about that incident in Roswell, NM?????

 

[Ail]

Excuse my manners, as I'm still a quite tired from my company party last night and do not have the time nor the energy to reignite the entire debate, so I will have to refer you to my prior posts detailing the concept of fighting and its place in hockey.

To directly respond to your post, I agree that the reasons you cite (not very eloquent but the points remain) are largely foolish. Yes, PJ is an "analyst" but of course he has his biases. Yes, I question the intestinal fortitude of players that are emasculated in front of 18,200 people but to each their own. And yes, the 2011 squad did throw fists but they also excelled in many other facets of the game which had just as, if not more of, an impact on their performance.

For me, and I'd wager the 98% of NHL players that voted in favor of fighting would agree, toughness is a means towards developing an identity or "culture" within a team to help define their approach to success throughout each campaign (season). Toughness, and note that I do not necessary equate fighting to the more encompassing notion of toughness, is critical to building the moral fibre of the greater team if you will.

Sure, we can discuss the effects of fighting on cheapshots and the concept of players "policing themselves," which I do find to hold merit to some extent, and I'd agree with you that there is a middle ground somewhere between the extreme absolutes of "fighting eliminates cheapshots" and "fighting never eliminates cheapshots." At the end of the day cheapshots are tertiary to my main thesis of what fighting and on a deeper level, toughness, brings to a hockey club.

The only legitimate thing fighting brings to a hockey team is for the players and it is in no way preventative. It's a teammates way of saying, "Hey man, I got your back."

and yes, that creates a bond and chemistry in the lockeroom over time.

However the pro-fight crowd always wants to try and spin it to look like something that is benficial to player safety which is not only false, but ironic.

 

[pld459666]

call it what you want.

You run around laying out guys with thunderous hits, clean or not. If I'm on the ice, we're fighting.

Plain and simple.

I'm no tough guy, don't claim to be one, but YOU WILL BE THINKING OF OTHER THINGS WHEN WE ARE BOTH ON THE ICE TOGETHER.

take that to the bank

I take the health and well being of my teammates very seriously and if you are out there jeopardizing that? you may get a two hander behind the knee cap put you out of the game or an elbow to the face. But one thing you will know, you will have to answer for it.

That's me. That's an aspect of the game that I cherish, an aspect of the game that is waning which is allowing more and more fake tough guys the freedom to target the head of opposing players.

they have no respect for each other and absolutely no care that someone is going to ask them to answer the bells that THEY keep ringing.

I hope the NHL drops the Instigator.

 

[TheRightWay]

The real reason fighting should be part of the game is to keep guys like Orpik and others from running around and taking cheap shots at opponents.

Citation needed. What is your information to back it up? As someone else stated, isn't the fact that Orpik and Neal did what they did despite knowing that Chara and Thornton would probably seek retribution a confirmation that it DOESN'T work as a deterrent? For further anecdotal evidence, remember when Shanahan fought Brashear after he went around cheapshotting Jagr? Then a year later Brashear breaks Betts' jaw with a headshot. Didn't seem to deter him. Players who want to do stupid **** are going to do stupid ****. I'm still waiting for someone to give evidence that it's a deterrent. Repeating it 500 times doesn't make it so.

In the "old days", a player knew if he took a cheap shot at someone, he was going to have to answer for it. Player also knew that HE was going to have to defend himself and not turtle like a wuss. Too many times getting an ass kicking kept a cheap shot artist from continually doing it (unless his team had another goon that would do his fighting for him.)

Yeah yeah old days blah blah blah. Please provide statistical evidence that cheapshots during the 70s and 80s were down compared to today's game. You're still just repeating things without evidence. I can say that "back in the old days the sky was purple and apple juice could fuel airplanes." That doesn't make it truthful.

Now, what stops an Orpik from laying a cheap shot on a guy? The refs and Shanny? A couple thousand bucks?

I'm still waiting to see the evidence that the lack of instigator penalty 20 years ago stopped Dale Hunter and Marty McSorley and Tiger Williams from playing like idiots. Still more cute dramatic prose without evidence.

Heck, the cheap shot artist's team might even end up with a power play because the victim's team retaliated! It's kind of like thinking the police are going to save you from criminals. By the time you call them, you're already a victim, or you're dead. Allow the victims to protect themselves, the criminals think twice before attacking people.

You're right. Instead, the best way to stop gangs is by building your own gang and standing your ground. Surely, if we do this, then the initial gang will stop in its tracts, give up violence, and bring happy times to urban cities everywhere instead of just escalating more violence. Right?

But then again, I'm sure the people who want fighting banned think the game is so much safer with full face shields, even though it enables players to carry sticks higher and higher each year.

"Protection just encourage people to have sex at a young age. The best way to prevent teen pregnancy is through abstinence." That pretty much equals your logic. Again, statistical evidence that shields lead to more injuries than it prevents? All you have done is make assertions without any sort of sources to support you claims. Again, I can do this as well. Humans would live longer if they stopped wearing red t-shirts. Global warming is caused by people playing the guitar. Having a name that is 3 syllables long makes someone twice more likely to commit suicide. We can do this all day if all we're going to do is make **** up and just insist it's true because we say so.

 

[NGgator60]

Orpik is the same guy who sent Erik Cole head first into the boards breaking a vertebra in his neck. F

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRMz6A6r5fs

Whatever one thinks about fighting in general--sympathy for Orpik is misplaced. To me this was some ****ing karma. For that hit on Cole he got a 3 game suspension. That hit today puts him in the 10-15 game category. He turns down a lot of fights. It hasn't stopped his trying to lay people out whenever he can. It's part of 'his game' just as part of Thornton's game is to be an enforcer. Orpik has 14 fights over his career--one with Cole a couple years after that injury. Two of his other fights included kneeing majors and game misconducts. He won't fight anyone serious. He got nothing for Stepan. A lot of others he's got nothing for either. It's more or less the same kind of bull **** that the Pens used to excuse Cooke--he only got a minor or there wasn't a penalty so it was a good hit.

Orpik represents a case that doesn't necessarily support the concept of fighting to the extent that it detracts from the concept of the Instigator rule.

You could argue that the implementation of the Instigator has nullified a large portion of what fighting could and should "add" to the game.

 

[Dalagaze]

call it what you want.

You run around laying out guys with thunderous hits, clean or not. If I'm on the ice, we're fighting.

Plain and simple.

I'm no tough guy, don't claim to be one, but YOU WILL BE THINKING OF OTHER THINGS WHEN WE ARE BOTH ON THE ICE TOGETHER.

take that to the bank

I take the health and well being of my teammates very seriously and if you are out there jeopardizing that? you may get a two hander behind the knee cap put you out of the game or an elbow to the face. But one thing you will know, you will have to answer for it.

That's me. That's an aspect of the game that I cherish, an aspect of the game that is waning which is allowing more and more fake tough guys the freedom to target the head of opposing players.

they have no respect for each other and absolutely no care that someone is going to ask them to answer the bells that THEY keep ringing.

I hope the NHL drops the Instigator.

I'm glad I'm not the only one on this board who feels this way.

 

[NGgator60]

The only legitimate thing fighting brings to a hockey team is for the players and it is in no way preventative. It's a teammates way of saying, "Hey man, I got your back."

and yes, that creates a bond and chemistry in the lockeroom over time.

However the pro-fight crowd always wants to try and spin it to look like something that is benficial to player safety which is not only false, but ironic.

I think that this is a fair position.

I've never hid the fact that I enjoy the excitement of a fight within the context of a hockey game, but I cede the fact that we can definitively attribute an increase to playey safety because of it. We simply cannot. I do believe that in the extreme, the total elimination of fighting from the NHL game, we would see much more stickwork and chippiness, but again that is in the extreme.

 

[Thirty One]

I love when the instigator gets blamed. Yes, Thornton didn't want to put his team down 2 minutes, so he did the only reasonable thing he could: take a five minute major and a 15 game suspension.

 

[eco's bones]

Easy to make the argument that fights don't win hockey games.

OTOH just looking at most teams especially our Rangers--when our team fights a lot it tends to be more competitive. The season with Bickel, Prust and Rupp had lots of fights and was arguably our best year since the Cup year. Think by now some people here would be sick and tired of hearing people like Milbury, McGuire, Olczyk, Jones and Weekes telling them over and over ad nauseam how lifeless our team looks. Just saying...

 

[Ail]

Orpik represents a case that doesn't necessarily support the concept of fighting to the extent that it detracts from the concept of the Instigator rule.

You could argue that the implementation of the Instigator has nullified a large portion of what fighting could and should "add" to the game.

Yes that is a legitimate argument and something that merits discussion versus trying to sell narratives about how fighting in the current NHL is a preventative measure.

 

[pld459666]

There's no tangible evidence that having guys on the team that can fight is conducive to a winning team.

Guys play bigger when they know theri teammates are ride or die MF'ers.

The 2011 Rangers had no business getting to the Eastern Conference Finals.

They lacked scoring, they played a super perimeter game they bent but never broke.

They were tough as nails to play againstand it's no coincidence that they were one of, if not THE league leader in fighting majors.

No the fighting didn't directly lead to wins, but guys played a tougher brand of hockey knowing that the garbage would be taken care of.

 

[TheRightWay]

Excuse my manners, as I'm still a quite tired from my company party last night and do not have the time nor the energy to reignite the entire debate, so I will have to refer you to my prior posts detailing the concept of fighting and its place in hockey.

To directly respond to your post, I agree that the reasons you cite (not very eloquent but the points remain) are largely foolish. Yes, PJ is an "analyst" but of course he has his biases. Yes, I question the intestinal fortitude of players that are emasculated in front of 18,200 people but to each their own. And yes, the 2011 squad did throw fists but they also excelled in many other facets of the game which had just as, if not more of, an impact on their performance.

For me, and I'd wager the 98% of NHL players that voted in favor of fighting would agree, toughness is a means towards developing an identity or "culture" within a team to help define their approach to success throughout each campaign (season). Toughness, and note that I do not necessary equate fighting to the more encompassing notion of toughness, is critical to building the moral fibre of the greater team if you will.

Sure, we can discuss the effects of fighting on cheapshots and the concept of players "policing themselves," which I do find to hold merit to some extent, and I'd agree with you that there is a middle ground somewhere between the extreme absolutes of "fighting eliminates cheapshots" and "fighting never eliminates cheapshots." At the end of the day cheapshots are tertiary to my main thesis of what fighting and on a deeper level, toughness, brings to a hockey club.

The 98% of players voted that fighting should remain in hockey. They did not vote that fighting deters cheapshots and injuries. They did not vote that fighting leads to scoring more goals, or preventing fewer goals. This is not a debate over whether fighting should be banned or not. This is a debate about whether fighting helps deter cheapshots and makes a team better.

 

[jacko23]

call it what you want.

You run around laying out guys with thunderous hits, clean or not. If I'm on the ice, we're fighting.

Plain and simple.

I'm no tough guy, don't claim to be one, but YOU WILL BE THINKING OF OTHER THINGS WHEN WE ARE BOTH ON THE ICE TOGETHER.

take that to the bank

I take the health and well being of my teammates very seriously and if you are out there jeopardizing that? you may get a two hander behind the knee cap put you out of the game or an elbow to the face. But one thing you will know, you will have to answer for it.

That's me. That's an aspect of the game that I cherish, an aspect of the game that is waning which is allowing more and more fake tough guys the freedom to target the head of opposing players.

they have no respect for each other and absolutely no care that someone is going to ask them to answer the bells that THEY keep ringing.

I hope the NHL drops the Instigator.

I'm glad I'm not the only one on this board who feels this way.

you guys definitely arent the only ones who feel that way. i dont consider myself a fighter either, but when im on the ice, the wellbeing of my teammates is more important to me than just about anything. im playing with the best group of guys ive ever played with and if anything happens to one of my guys, if im not on the bench, im right there. if guys who are playing mens leagues, just to get out of the house and on the ice are doing it, why cant guys who do this for a LIVING?

 

[TheRightWay]

Easy to make the argument that fights don't win hockey games.

OTOH just looking at most teams especially our Rangers--when our team fights a lot it tends to be more competitive. The season with Bickel, Prust and Rupp had lots of fights and was arguably our best year since the Cup year. Think by now some people here would be sick and tired of hearing people like Milbury, McGuire, Olczyk, Jones and Weekes telling them over and over ad nauseam how lifeless our team looks. Just saying...

In a season where Marian Gaborik, Michael Del Zotto, Dan Girardi, and Henrik Lundqvist played the best hockey of their careers we were more competitive. In a season where we had an elite PK and a competent powerplay we were more competitive. This is still anecdotal evidence. Please now explain why the Blackhawks, Sharks, and Ducks, despite fighting less than majority of the NHL, are three of the most competitive teams while the Flyers, Blue Jackets, and Sabres, who fight more than everyone, are struggling just to be average.

 

[NCRanger]

The 98% of players voted that fighting should remain in hockey. They did not vote that fighting deters cheapshots and injuries. They did not vote that fighting leads to scoring more goals, or preventing fewer goals. This is not a debate over whether fighting should be banned or not. This is a debate about whether fighting helps deter cheapshots.

I don't know how old you are or how long you've been watching games.

There are a few facts though.

For the most part, as a generalization, players respected each other a lot more out on the ice than they do today. Part of that is that they grew up wearing cheap-ass helmets and learned how to keep their sticks down. Players now, grew up playing the game with as much equipment as football players and think they're invincible.

That's as much to blame for the cheap hits as fighting.

I have a meeting, talk later.

 

[pld459666]

I love when the instigator gets blamed. Yes, Thornton didn't want to put his team down 2 minutes, so he did the only reasonable thing he could: take a five minute major and a 15 game suspension.

lets put it in context shall we?

Brooks takes out a vulnerable Eriksson with a clean hit. Thornton confronts him, Brooks declines.

Thornton not going to take the instigator in that spot. Smart on his part.

a short while later Neal intentionally knees marchand in the head.

Thornton rightfully thought enough is enough and did what he did.

He was right to hold off the first time, and right for doing what he did the 2nd time.

Its unfortunate that Orpik got hurt, but had he answered the bell he himself rung earlier in the game, he'd still be playing right now and not counting the stars swirlinf about his dome.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

lets put it in context shall we?

Brooks takes out a vulnerable Eriksson with a clean hit. Thornton confronts him, Brooks declines.

Thornton not going to take the instigator in that spot. Smart on his part.

a short while later Neal intentionally knees marchand in the head.

Thornton rightfully thought enough is enough and did what he did.

He was right to hold off the first time, and right for doing what he did the 2nd time.

Its unfortunate that Orpik got hurt, but had he answered the bell he himself rung earlier in the game, he'd still be playing right now and not counting the stars swirlinf about his dome.

Went after the guy who threw the clean hit instead of the guy that kneed his teammate in the head?

Some policing.

 

[NGgator60]

call it what you want.

You run around laying out guys with thunderous hits, clean or not. If I'm on the ice, we're fighting.

Plain and simple.

I'm no tough guy, don't claim to be one, but YOU WILL BE THINKING OF OTHER THINGS WHEN WE ARE BOTH ON THE ICE TOGETHER.

take that to the bank

I take the health and well being of my teammates very seriously and if you are out there jeopardizing that? you may get a two hander behind the knee cap put you out of the game or an elbow to the face. But one thing you will know, you will have to answer for it.

That's me. That's an aspect of the game that I cherish, an aspect of the game that is waning which is allowing more and more fake tough guys the freedom to target the head of opposing players.

they have no respect for each other and absolutely no care that someone is going to ask them to answer the bells that THEY keep ringing.

I hope the NHL drops the Instigator.

That's a terrific summary of my thoughts as well, and I think that you're highlighting the concept of "culture" that I cite as my support for fighting in hockey.

We've recently seen an influx of voices telling us, "fighting is fine to allow the players to police themselves but players shouldnt have to fight for laying clean hits." In my opinion, this evades the inherent concept of fighting. Fighting is not necessarily a means to eliminate illegal hits, rather it is a proclamation that your team will not stand idle if physically abused. Again, clean or not, a thunderous hit can cause significant physical trauma and is often deemed unnecessary by players staking their careers/livlihoods each shift. A tough team lets it be known that they will respond in force to opponents that recklessly endanger their players. Will this curb suspensions, hits, or whichever proxy we want to use to represent on-ice injustice? Maybe, but at least our players know that we'll dish the punishment right back and that helps to make us a little bit more difficult to play against.

 

[TheRightWay]

I don't know how old you are or how long you've been watching games.

There are a few facts though.

For the most part, as a generalization, players respected each other a lot more out on the ice than they do today. Part of that is that they grew up wearing cheap-ass helmets and learned how to keep their sticks down. Players now, grew up playing the game with as much equipment as football players and think they're invincible.

That's as much to blame for the cheap hits as fighting.

I have a meeting, talk later.

"Players respected each other a lot more out on the ice than they do today."

Nobody has provided anything that actually establishes this as truth. Which incidents do you want me to cite? Dale Hunter on Pierre Turgeon. McSorley on Brashear. Tiger Williams swinging his stick at players. Dino Ciccarelli swinging his stick at Luke Richardson and ending up in jail because of it. The Bertuzzi crippling of Steve Moore. How about Ace Bailey's career being ended with a fractured skull and almost dying when Eddie Shore did the whole "self policing thing" and retaliated for a hit he didn't like? All of this crap happened back in the "good old days" when players supposedly respected each other, yet this stuff is just as bad, if not worse, than what we see now.

 

[Callagraves]

lets put it in context shall we?

Brooks takes out a vulnerable Eriksson with a clean hit. Thornton confronts him, Brooks declines.

Thornton not going to take the instigator in that spot. Smart on his part.

a short while later Neal intentionally knees marchand in the head.

Thornton rightfully thought enough is enough and did what he did.

He was right to hold off the first time, and right for doing what he did the 2nd time.

Its unfortunate that Orpik got hurt, but had he answered the bell he himself rung earlier in the game, he'd still be playing right now and not counting the stars swirlinf about his dome.

This is completely insane. I'm sorry, but it's insane.

Let me go through this with you. Orpik crushes Eriksson with a clean hit. Orpik declines to fight, which he has a right to, as it was a clean hit. Thornton backs away.

COOL. We're good there,

Neal decides to channel his inner Matt Cooke.

In response, Thornton jumps an unsuspecting Orpik, and punches him with a gloved hand while he's on the ice and defenseless.

Thornton doesn't need to be in the league anymore. It's a sport, not a gladiator arena. What he did wasn't fighting, or brave. It was cowardly, and honestly, criminal. He wants to challenge him again, or challenge Neal? GREAT. That's a reasonable reaction. He wants to wait, see if he can line one of them up for a big, clean hit? Even better! It's still hockey, but now with a storyline.

What he did is undefendable. It's Bertuzzi-esque. 15 games for assault is ****ing joke

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Fighting doesn't do anything. Literally nothing. Look at all the injuries in the league. Look at what happened to Brayden Schenn, and the Flyers are a team that can fight.

Ban it, don't ban it, I don't give a **** anymore. It can be entertaining, sure, but it has no use. I'm sick of seeing awful players like John Scott stick in the league because they can fight, though.

 

[pld459666]

Went after the guy who threw the clean hit instead of the guy that kneed his teammate in the head?

Some policing.

If I was in Thornton's shoes, it wouldn't matter who it was that I went after.

The name on the jersey means little at that point.

He probably saw Orpik's name and remembered what happened earlier and did what he did.

personally, if an opposing player is going to run my top guys, I'm going to hurt one of their top guys so I really can't explain why he chose Brooks there other than the fact that he refused to go earlier.

but like I said, at that point, there's not a Penguins player that should have thought himself safe from the rough stuff.

 

[Thirty One]

Fighting doesn't do anything. Literally nothing. Look at all the injuries in the league. Look at what happened to Brayden Schenn, and the Flyers are a team that can fight.

Ban it, don't ban it, I don't give a **** anymore. It can be entertaining, sure, but it has no use. I'm sick of seeing awful players like John Scott stick in the league because they can fight, though.

I personally having players like Scott in the league, as long as it isn't on my team.