TSN: PJ Stock explores fighting and cheap shots

[Thirty One]

You don't really need to explain it, I was just curious as to why the anti-fighting crowd believes the vast majority of players believe that it shouldn't be removed from the game? What value do they see in it, other than being a potential deterrent?

I think there's a variety of reasons. I think some probably see fighting as jobs for themselves or for close friends that won't be there once they abolish it. I think some mistakenly believe that it's a deterrent. I think some probably don't feel strongly about it, and picked the option that didn't require change.

 

[Ex Officer Friendly]

This argument is completely out of control... The fact is even fighting gets banned... Fights will still happen. Look at baseball, when someone "steps over the line" the benches clear and there's a fight.

If you want to prove you have a teammates back the fight that gets you kicked out of a game would show that and hold more value then say one of the staged ones per night. And if you are sticking up for a teammate and get destroyed or sent to the hospital, what then? What does that prove to the team?

Some of the sociopaths that have post here feel it's essential to bring a bunch of knuckle dragging, mouth breathing cavemen who have the only purpose to "protect". Maybe it's the moral sense you get from watching the movie Goon, however the top 5 currently in fighting majors include the likes of Toronto, Buffalo, Columbus, Philly, and Montreal. While three of them would make the playoffs I would rather see teams like Chicago, San Jose, and Anaheim in the playoffs (also note these skilled teams are among the leaders in gf/g). The winners of the game is the team that puts the puck in the net more times then the other, not the one that lands more punches.

 

[pld459666]

Please show me all the times that Sean Avery became tame because another team's enforcer was knocking on the door ready to say hello to him. How about Donald Brashear. Esa Tikkanen? Matt Cooke? Scott Stevens? Dale Hunter?

you just made my point.

Thank you.

When did Avery have to fight any real goon? He fought the Cooke's and the Tucker's of the world because he could beat them and or at the very least stay with them in a fight.

He never had to answer to the tough guys.

THATS the point.

Now, regarding Brash, he did what he wanted and answered the bell when asked. 277 Career NHL fights

Esa was a guy that was willing to take the beating, but he played during an era where there was no instigator and had guys on his team that were ready, willing and able to step up for him and his antics. Additionally, while Esa Tikanen was a ***** to play against, he was also not reckless or dangerous. He was also very skilled so fighting wasn't part of his skill set.

Cooke has played the majority of his career in the post instigator era meaning he played with reckless abandon and didn't have to answer for his actions, when he did, guys like E. Kane put that head to bed.

Scott Stevens? REALLY? One of the most feared fighters in the game when he was coming up in Washington. Do your homework pal. Also, Stevens had 151 fights.

Dale Hunter? 227 career NHL fights.

What are you trying to prove?

 

[Thirty One]

When did Avery have to fight any real goon? He fought the Cooke's and the Tucker's of the world because he could beat them and or at the very least stay with them in a fight.

He never had to answer to the tough guys.

And what would have to happen, in your mind, for him to have to answer to the tough guys, and hence, straighten up and fly right?

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Plus, look at guys like Belak, Boogaard, Rypien. Probert had CTE too and he died at 45. Have we forgotten about that entirely? Getting punched in the head and slammed into the ice ****s with the brain. CTE ruins lives.

Exactly. Also to your list you can add Scott Parker: http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche...cer-scott-parker-battling-effects-concussions

 

[TheRightWay]

you just made my point.

Thank you.

When did Avery have to fight any real goon? He fought the Cooke's and the Tucker's of the world because he could beat them and or at the very least stay with them in a fight.

He never had to answer to the tough guys.

THATS the point.

I don't get it. Apparently, a clean check from Brooks Orpik plus a poor one from James Neal was enough to send Shawn Thornton overboard and knock Orpik unconscious with blindside punches. However, a full culmination of Sean Avery's career and he didn't have to answer to anyone? How does this make any sense?

Fine, let's use Steve Ott. On April 6th, 2008, Jody Shelley, one of the biggest heavyweights of the last decade, had enough of Ott's **** and instigated a fight with Ott. He got kicked out of the game for it and sent the message you're so keen on here. On February 19th, 2009, Steve Ott interfered with an Oielrs player and Ethan Moreau instigated a fight against him. Pretty much a week later, Ott pulled his **** again, got an attempt to injure penalty and Travis Moen went after him, kicking his ass. On October 29th, 2009. Ott kneed a player and B.J. Crombeen, and experienced fighter and bigger player than Ott, instigated vs him. On January 7th, 2012. Steve Ott HEADBUTTED a player and Josh Green dropped the gloves, beating him decidedly. On January 25th, 2013, Steve Ott elbowed a player and Tim Gleason made him respond and kicked his ass.

Some of these guys are middleweights. Some are heavyweights. In any case, the pattern is pretty clear. Steve Ott does reckless ****. Players instigate against him, many times kicking his ass. Steve Ott still continues to do reckless ****. Now please explain how all this fighting and instigating has forced Steve Ott to tame himself.

Now, regarding Brash, he did what he wanted and answered the bell when asked. 277 Career NHL fights

So your point here is what, exactly? Donald Brashear answered the bell whenever someone challenged him, and therefore sucker punching Aaron Ward, breaking Blair Betts' jaw with an awful blindside interference, and all the other reckless **** did in his career is perfectly okay? Aside from it being morally questionable, it does not explain how the game was safer.

Scott Stevens? REALLY? One of the most feared fighters in the game when he was coming up in Washington. Do your homework pal. Also, Stevens had 151 fights.

Dale Hunter? 227 career NHL fights.

What are you trying to prove?

Again ties into the Brashear thing. Your assertion is that fighting "polices the game" and makes it safer for everyone. Players will think twice about doing reckless crap because they'll be afraid of someone who will challenge them and make them answer for it. Clearly, this does not apply to Brashear, Hunter, or Stevens, all of whom despite the hundreds of times you cite them having to answer the bell, still doing whatever the hell they wanted. Scott Stevens having to answer the bell doesn't make the game safer if he's perfectly willing to answer. Dale Hunter will do whatever the **** he wants to Pierre Turgeon because he doesn't care who will come after him. I'm waiting for you to explain how this serves to prove that fighting served as a deterrent from Brashear or Hunter or Stevens from playing the brutal game, sometimes illegal game they did.

 

[pld459666]

And what would have to happen, in your mind, for him to have to answer to the tough guys, and hence, straighten up and fly right?

Drop the portion of the instigator penalty where it is an automatic game misconduct.

2-5-10 and the player stays in the game.

simple.

And really Sean Avery is not the right guy to use. He's never injured someone that I can recall. He was a PITA and he ran his mouth non stop but he was not dangerous.

Cooke is dangerous.

Kaleta is and was dangerous.

Neal doing what he did is dangerous

These are the guys that need to be checked. The guys like Avery and previously mentioned Tikanen are not problems. The guys that put other players careers in jeopardy are the problem that know they are protected

 

[NGgator60]

Well for a number of players, without fighting, they don't have a job. Guess what happens to John Scott, George Parros, and Matt Carkner if fighting is eliminated from the game? Nobody has a reason to employ them. They lose a job. For a lot of the depth players fighting remaining in the game means a higher chance of maintaining their livelihood.

Again, let's use the smoking comparison. Let's say we held a vote and 80% of people voted that smoking should be kept legal. Does that mean that 80% of people believe smoking serves to benefit health? Of course not. It means that 80% of people either want to smoke or believe others should have the right to smoke, regardless of the consequences. These are a group of ridiculously strong men with a lot of pent up energy, testosterone, and competitiveness. It's easy to see why fighting would complement this very well.

You'd make a valid point if it were not from many primary accounts from players that voice their reasoning for why they voted how they did. We know, for a fact (which are hard to come by in these debates), that many players believe that fighting serves a valuable purpose in the NHL. We can anectdotally surmise that fans are entertained by fighting judging by their reaction to the spectacle at games.

What we know
- Players overwhelming do not want to abolish fighting
- Many players have openly championed fighting as adding value in some form to the game
- A large portion of fans find enjoyment in the act

We also know that there are safety risks inherent to the participants of a fight.

What conclusion would a reasonable person draw from the aforementioned evidence?


Soapbox Sidenote:

I politely suggest that folks discontinue referring to NHL enforcers with such derogatory terms as "mouth breathers","neanderthals","meatheads", etc. These players are often some of the most well-liked, revered, and intelligent teammates on a hockey club. George Parros, a goon for all intents and purposes, is perhaps the most intelligent hockey player in the NHL. If you'd like to argue the merits of his hockey skill that's fine but to constantly take not-so-subtle jabs at his intelligence, and that of players like him is childish and foolish.

And let's be real with one another, using derogatory terms to reference enforcers is really a cute way of circumventing the impoliteness of using those same terms to describe the fans that support their style of play.

 

[Thirty One]

Drop the portion of the instigator penalty where it is an automatic game misconduct.

2-5-10 and the player stays in the game.

That is currently the penalty for the instigator, so obviously it's not working.

 

[NGgator60]

And what would have to happen, in your mind, for him to have to answer to the tough guys, and hence, straighten up and fly right?

You're really not getting this? I think at this point you're just trying to troll because any reasonable person could understand why getting your ass kicked over and over again for a certain act might cause that person to become hesitant to committ that same transgression. I'm not going to get into the psychology of it because this is pretty basic stuff.

And, as another poster demonstrated, some folks like Steve Ott can get their ass handed to them perpetually but still make no real attempt to change. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

You'd make a valid point if it were not from many primary accounts from players that voice their reasoning for why they voted how they did. We know, for a fact (which are hard to come by in these debates), that many players believe that fighting serves a valuable purpose in the NHL. We can anectdotally surmise that fans are entertained by fighting judging by their reaction to the spectacle at games.

What we know
- Players overwhelming do not want to abolish fighting
- Many players have openly championed fighting as adding value in some form to the game
- A large portion of fans find enjoyment in the act

We also know that there are safety risks inherent to the participants of a fight.

What conclusion would a reasonable person draw from the aforementioned evidence?

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/news/story?id=6544238
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/rick-rypien-dead-winnipeg-jets_n_927825.html
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=587564

Same deal as it is in the NFL. Old time players will always talk about how the league is becoming soft, even though their brains were turned into apple sauce. Just because somebody supports something doesn't mean it's a necessary or good thing. Deadspin did a good series on former players talking about life after playing, I suggest you read some of those.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

You're really not getting this? I think at this point you're just trying to troll because any reasonable person could understand why getting your ass kicked over and over again for a certain act might cause that person to become hesitant to committ that same transgression. I'm not going to get into the psychology of it because this is pretty basic stuff.

And, as another poster demonstrated, some folks like Steve Ott can get their ass handed to them perpetually but still make no real attempt to change. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

You were literally proven wrong by the Steve Ott example.

Yet you then claim the Steve Ott example proves your point?

I'm really confused.

 

[TheRightWay]

You'd make a valid point if it were not from many primary accounts from players that voice their reasoning for why they voted how they did. We know, for a fact (which are hard to come by in these debates), that many players believe that fighting serves a valuable purpose in the NHL. We can anectdotally surmise that fans are entertained by fighting judging by their reaction to the spectacle at games.

What we know
- Players overwhelming do not want to abolish fighting
- Many players have openly championed fighting as adding value in some form to the game
- A large portion of fans find enjoyment in the act

We also know that there are safety risks inherent to the participants of a fight.

What conclusion would a reasonable person draw from the aforementioned evidence?

Here, maybe if I put it in big bold letters you'll start to get what is being said here.



THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE ENJOY FIGHTING OR WHETHER NHLERS WANT FIGHTING. THIS IS A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER FIGHTING AND "SELF POLICING" MAKE THE NHL A SAFER LEAGUE.

 

[Thirty One]

You're really not getting this? I think at this point you're just trying to troll because any reasonable person could understand why getting your ass kicked over and over again for a certain act might cause that person to become hesitant to committ that same transgression. I'm not going to get into the psychology of it because this is pretty basic stuff.

So that's the answer? Have the NHL allow straight-up assault?

 

[TheRightWay]

You were literally proven wrong by the Steve Ott example.

Yet you then claim the Steve Ott example proves your point?

I'm really confused.

Yeah I'm struggling to understand what he's trying to claim here. He insists that players will stop playing like idiots if bigger, stronger guys kick their ***** repeatedly. However, Steve Ott, no matter how many times he's gotten his ass kicked by bigger, stronger, more experienced fighters, continues to play like an idiot. In exactly what way does this prove that fighting deters people like Steve Ott from acting stupid?

 

[pld459666]

I don't get it. Apparently, a clean check from Brooks Orpik plus a poor one from James Neal was enough to send Shawn Thornton overboard and knock Orpik unconscious with blindside punches. However, a full culmination of Sean Avery's career and he didn't have to answer to anyone? How does this make any sense?

Because the major difference between Sean Avery running his mouth, diving and turtling is alot different than playing a very physical brand of hockey and a dirty style of hockey. Say what you want about Sean Avery. He's never really hit anyone the way Orpik has in his career. Orpik also came close to concussing Kreider late in a game we were clearly losiing. He's crosses the line often (clean or not to me there is no difference) enough that he should be "talked to" Neal is also starting to play a dangerous brand of hockey as evidenced not by the knee to Marchands head, but what he did in the PO's against the Flyers a few years ago. These guys do this and nothing happens, the do it again, next time a little harder/dirtier, then a little harder and dirtier.

Fine, let's use Steve Ott. On April 6th, 2008, Jody Shelley, one of the biggest heavyweights of the last decade, had enough of Ott's **** and instigated a fight with Ott. He got kicked out of the game for it and sent the message you're so keen on here. On February 19th, 2009, Steve Ott interfered with an Oielrs player and Ethan Moreau instigated a fight against him. Pretty much a week later, Ott pulled his **** again, got an attempt to injure penalty and Travis Moen went after him, kicking his ass. On October 29th, 2009. Ott kneed a player and B.J. Crombeen, and experienced fighter and bigger player than Ott, instigated vs him. On January 7th, 2012. Steve Ott HEADBUTTED a player and Josh Green dropped the gloves, beating him decidedly. On January 25th, 2013, Steve Ott elbowed a player and Tim Gleason made him respond and kicked his ass.

Some of these guys are middleweights. Some are heavyweights. In any case, the pattern is pretty clear. Steve Ott does reckless ****. Players instigate against him, many times kicking his ass. Steve Ott still continues to do reckless ****. Now please explain how all this fighting and instigating has forced Steve Ott to tame himself.

There are going to be exceptions to every rule. Ott seems to be one. If I was an opposing player, not only would I target one of Ott's more talented teammates, I would tell him exactly why i am going after him. These guys talk all the time, and you can bet your last dollar that Richards or Benn (assuming Ott was in Dallas when you make these references) would have asked Ott to tone down the recklessness. When your actions start putting your more talented teammates physical well being in jeopardy, guys, the more rationale guys tend to tone that stuff down.


So your point here is what, exactly? Donald Brashear answered the bell whenever someone challenged him, and therefore sucker punching Aaron Ward, breaking Blair Betts' jaw with an awful blindside interference, and all the other reckless **** did in his career is perfectly okay? Aside from it being morally questionable, it does not explain how the game was safer.

Again ties into the Brashear thing. Your assertion is that fighting "polices the game" and makes it safer for everyone. Players will think twice about doing reckless crap because they'll be afraid of someone who will challenge them and make them answer for it. Clearly, this does not apply to Brashear, Hunter, or Stevens, all of whom despite the hundreds of times you cite them having to answer the bell, still doing whatever the hell they wanted. Scott Stevens having to answer the bell doesn't make the game safer if he's perfectly willing to answer. Dale Hunter will do whatever the **** he wants to Pierre Turgeon because he doesn't care who will come after him. I'm waiting for you to explain how this serves to prove that fighting served as a deterrent from Brashear or Hunter or Stevens from playing the brutal game, sometimes illegal game they did.

to your final point.

I have absolutely no issues with guys that live and die by the sword. If you are going to play a rough, borderline and outright dirty style, then you better be willing to answer the bell when called upon. All of the guys you mentioned all played a physical brand of hockey that bordered dirty, sometimes CLEARLY crossing the line.

These guys were also willing to answer for every action.

Today's players are not. They are protected by a rule-change that they did not forsee being a problem.

THAT is the problem.

 

[TheRightWay]

to your final point.

I have absolutely no issues with guys that live and die by the sword. If you are going to play a rough, borderline and outright dirty style, then you better be willing to answer the bell when called upon. All of the guys you mentioned all played a physical brand of hockey that bordered dirty, sometimes CLEARLY crossing the line.

These guys were also willing to answer for every action.

Today's players are not. They are protected by a rule-change that they did not forsee being a problem.

THAT is the problem.

So what would happen if Steve Ott did his ****, then you told him you were going after Benn, but THEN Krys Barch (Ott's teammate) overhears this and tells you that if you try that then he's going to go after your team's top scorer? What do you do now? Are you going to now put your own All-Star teammates at risk? And what's the end-game here? Either you stand pat and Ott got away with his **** or you act upon it and 10 minutes later Krys Barch clotheslines your team's top scorer. Now, because of two bottom of the barrel forwards two all-star forwards are dealing with concussions. Who is the winner in either of these scenarios?

Now let's make up another scenario for the Brashear example. Let's say it's a blowout game midway through the 3rd period. Brashear decides to charge right at Rick Nash, jump as high as he can and drive his elbow right into Nash's skull. Colton Orr sees this and goes after Brashear. They both fight, and let's say Orr wins, bloodying Brashear's lip and chipping a couple of teeth.

Please now explain how hockey is now safer due to this "policing." Is Donald Brashear now going to stop making stupid hits? If you're okay with how this played out then that's your prerogative, but your whole argument here is that fighting and self-policing makes guys "think twice" and makes the game "safer." Please explain how, in the above scenario, hockey is now safer.

 

[Wolfy*]

Again. It ultimately does not matter what the fans or players want. Fighting will be banned soon

Nonsense...that will not happen in the NHL.

Fighting actually prevents dirty play and serious injury related to those kind of hits, not many injuries caused by the actual fighting.

Besides, ticket sales will definitely drop if they ban this part of the game.

 

[pld459666]

So what would happen if Steve Ott did his ****, then you told him you were going after Benn, but THEN Krys Barch (Ott's teammate) overhears this and tells you that if you try that then he's going to go after your team's top scorer? What do you do now? Are you going to now put your own All-Star teammates at risk? And what's the end-game here? Either you stand pat and Ott got away with his **** or you act upon it and 10 minutes later Krys Barch clotheslines your team's top scorer. Now, because of two bottom of the barrel forwards two all-star forwards are dealing with concussions. Who is the winner in either of these scenarios?

Now let's make up another scenario for the Brashear example. Let's say it's a blowout game midway through the 3rd period. Brashear decides to charge right at Rick Nash, jump as high as he can and drive his elbow right into Nash's skull. Colton Orr sees this and goes after Brashear. They both fight, and let's say Orr wins, bloodying Brashear's lip and chipping a couple of teeth.

Please now explain how hockey is now safer due to this "policing." Is Donald Brashear now going to stop making stupid hits? If you're okay with how this played out then that's your prerogative, but your whole argument here is that fighting and self-policing makes guys "think twice" and makes the game "safer." Please explain how, in the above scenario, hockey is now safer.

first point, Yes. If they are targeting my guys, i target theirs and let my teammates know what is going on so that we're all on the same page.

2nd point, idiots are going to exist in the game. There's not going to ever be a point where all the idiots of the game are eliminated.

Goons by and large are not the guys that cause the most damage. To each other. Absolutely.

Yes, there is always an exception to every rule like the John Scott thing. And the previously mentioned Brashear hit on Betts a few years ago.

It's the guys that dont' normally cross paths with the goons that are the problem.

the head hunters and the guys that hit from behind more often than other players because they are so "un lucky"

 

[TheRightWay]

first point, Yes. If they are targeting my guys, i target theirs and let my teammates know what is going on so that we're all on the same page.

2nd point, idiots are going to exist in the game. There's not going to ever be a point where all the idiots of the game are eliminated.

I think this is everyone's point. Fighting does not serve as a deterrent. This pretty much ends the debate but let's see what else you come up with.

Goons by and large are not the guys that cause the most damage. To each other. Absolutely.

Yes, there is always an exception to every rule like the John Scott thing. And the previously mentioned Brashear hit on Betts a few years ago.

It's the guys that dont' normally cross paths with the goons that are the problem.

the head hunters and the guys that hit from behind more often than other players because they are so "un lucky"

So basically what you're saying is that fighting, while something you PERSONALLY enjoy and something you PERSONALLY believe in, does not objectively deter a lot of the bs that goes on and will not actually make the game safer. And that a more productive method to prevent injuries would be to find ways to get the idiots out of the game through diplomatic, executive means.

I think we're done here, everyone.

 

[pld459666]

So basically what you're saying is that fighting, while something you PERSONALLY enjoy and something you PERSONALLY believe in, does not objectively deter a lot of the bs that goes on and will not actually make the game safer. And that a more productive method to prevent injuries would be to find ways to get the idiots out of the game through diplomatic, executive means.

I think we're done here, everyone.

well, in your fantasy scenario, no it's not going to make the game safer.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

What I have been saying, and you have been ignoring it is that when guys are allowed to address things on the ice, like (a real life situation) the Bos-Pitt game where had Orpik danced when invited, I believe Neal DOESN'T knee Marchand to the head.

Thus making everything that happened after the initial Thornton-Orpik scrap a non issue.

Fighting does a few things. It tends to rile up the fans. It CAN get the bench going. It also has a tendency to calm a game down.

A great example of that would be that we saw during the Rangers Devils game after the three fights 2 seconds into the game.

A pretty tame game.

What I believe will happen if we allow the "goon's" to address the idiots is we are going to see less checking from behind. Less deliberate head hunting. And ultimately less injuries resulting from those careless actions, often perpertrated by the "non" goon type where they know the rules provide them some level of protection from his peers.

The league is doing a piss poor job of policing the game. The NHLPA is not helping their members.

Let the players do it.

We had more fights in the 80's, yet less injuries from head hunting and checking from behind and stick work.

You may not see a tie in.

I do.

Now we're done.

 

[Clausewitz]

It can't hurt to try ...

Hi everyone! After frequenting these forums for over eight years, I finally decided to join the fun, mostly because our team's current Golden Age sarcasm requires maximum participation from fans.

To business! The fighting subject is obviously controversial--otherwise commentators and fans alike wouldn't still be deliberating it. Some who call themselves "purists" (including a few friends of mine) argue that fighting is indispensable to the sport. That's totally understandable: fighting shows tremendous dedication to your teammates and your team's success. I think we can all agree on that. The argument that fighting deters the opposition from taking liberties against your teammates is equally understandable.

But, if hockey is to expand in the States, we need to find an alternative to fighting; I've met far too many people (male and female) turned off by hockey because fights are "barbaric" or "savage." Fortunately, though, we do have such an alternative: hitting/checking. You probably didn't take too many liberties against the Kings when Rob Blake played in LA, for example, or against the Devils during the Scott Stevens years. You knew that they'd go after you with a monstrous but (far more often than not) clean hit. All the better, checking can be preemptive, rather than reactive (which fighting often is). Most fights break out after a dirty hit or something dodgy.

Granted, if hitting replaces fighting, then officiating needs to be tighter when it comes to hits, which can become excessive or intend to injure. For my part, I wouldn't mind seeing:
-- More ten-minute misconducts--with an accompanying 2-minute power play--or game misconducts with a five-minute power play.
-- A multiple-game suspension (the first instance sans pay but without a fine) for a player after each time he accumulates at least 10 minutes in misconducts since the previous suspension
-- Increasing suspension durations and fines

Unfortunately, such a scheme might decrease hitting in the short-run, as players might think twice before laying out big hits. But let's look at the positives: clean hitters will continue to hit, dirty hitters will think twice before making a move, and up-and-coming players will have to learn to hit cleanly.

But seriously, before we introduce penalties for playing the puck with your hand off a face-off or shooting the puck into the crowd, let's focus on penalties for protecting our players.

Just my two cents ...

 

[TheRightWay]

well, in your fantasy scenario, no it's not going to make the game safer.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

What I have been saying, and you have been ignoring it is that when guys are allowed to address things on the ice, like (a real life situation) the Bos-Pitt game where had Orpik danced when invited, I believe Neal DOESN'T knee Marchand to the head.

Thus making everything that happened after the initial Thornton-Orpik scrap a non issue.

Fighting does a few things. It tends to rile up the fans. It CAN get the bench going. It also has a tendency to calm a game down.

A great example of that would be that we saw during the Rangers Devils game after the three fights 2 seconds into the game.

A pretty tame game.

So basically what you're saying is that Brooks Orpik needs to answer the bell whenever challenged to prevent this other crap. That's great and MAYBE addresses some short term issues. But how many more Belak's and Boogaard's and Probert's and Rypien's are we now inviting? Now basically every player is expected to answer, even for CLEAN HITS, and now we're inviting all sorts of concussion issues and head trauma and the array of health issues affecting all the guys who fought so much. Maybe Brooks Orpik now answers for every hit, clean or unclean, that he throws. And while the game itself might be tame, he's effectively setting himself up for dementia or all sorts of other awful mental issues.

What I believe will happen if we allow the "goon's" to address the idiots is we are going to see less checking from behind. Less deliberate head hunting. And ultimately less injuries resulting from those careless actions, often perpertrated by the "non" goon type where they know the rules provide them some level of protection from his peers.

The problem here is that guys are dropping the glovs for CLEAN hits. Let's assume your hypothesis is true (even though Hunter, Stevens, Messier, Howe, Shore, etc. show this isn't the case). Now what happens when Ryan Callahan throws a perfectly legal hit and George Parros comes running over and insists Callahan drops the gloves? What is the rule going to be? The instigator is dropped, but only for illegal hits? How would that even be decided in the heat of the moment? What's now stopping the a team from making a 4th line of goons and having them just demolish Crosby and Malkin?

We had more fights in the 80's, yet less injuries from head hunting and checking from behind and stick work.

You may not see a tie in.

I do.

Now we're done.

Did we see fewer head injuries? Or did we lack an understanding of concussions and head trauma and protocol for allowing players to play? How many guys that went out for the next shift would have failed concussion protocols today?

But even still I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You have the entire 50s to early 90s to choose from here: name me one player who went around making dirty plays, then got beat down by another guy, and suddenly became afraid of making similar dirty plays in the future as a result of that kind of retaliation.

 

[Thirty One]

well, in your fantasy scenario, no it's not going to make the game safer.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

What I have been saying, and you have been ignoring it is that when guys are allowed to address things on the ice, like (a real life situation) the Bos-Pitt game where had Orpik danced when invited, I believe Neal DOESN'T knee Marchand to the head.

Thus making everything that happened after the initial Thornton-Orpik scrap a non issue.

Fighting does a few things. It tends to rile up the fans. It CAN get the bench going. It also has a tendency to calm a game down.

A great example of that would be that we saw during the Rangers Devils game after the three fights 2 seconds into the game.

A pretty tame game.

What I believe will happen if we allow the "goon's" to address the idiots is we are going to see less checking from behind. Less deliberate head hunting. And ultimately less injuries resulting from those careless actions, often perpertrated by the "non" goon type where they know the rules provide them some level of protection from his peers.

The league is doing a piss poor job of policing the game. The NHLPA is not helping their members.

Let the players do it.

We had more fights in the 80's, yet less injuries from head hunting and checking from behind and stick work.

You may not see a tie in.

I do.

Now we're done.

So what could the NHL do that makes Orpik fight Thornton there?

And if it's a clean hit (which I don't agree, but whatever), why should he have to?

 

[CarpeNoctem]

Exactly. Also to your list you can add Scott Parker: http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche...cer-scott-parker-battling-effects-concussions

If you read the full article you quoted, you'd have seen that Parker said his most debilitating injuries/symptoms began after he took a puck to his eye.
"Despite the thousands of punches he received, Parker believes the downward spiral of his health started not from a fist, but a puck that hit him in the right eye in a 2005 preseason game when he was playing for San Jose. He immediately felt symptoms he had never experienced before."


If you're going to bust on people, at least do your own homework. You failed the reading comprehension test.