 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » The hockey thread
dirtdevil
May 19, 2010 at 04:16PM View BBCode
i don't watch basketball because i find the 20 second vs full timeout thing too confusing.
Jughead
I'm well aware of how fighting in hockey looks to the uninitiated, but making the officials police the game means everything is done reactively. Goons serve as a preventive force.
May 19, 2010 at 05:30PM View BBCode
Oh come on. If you take fighting out of hockey then the stars will get injured more often. All the fines and suspensions in the world are worth it if the other team's best player is off the ice. VORP is a bigger issue in hockey than baseball, I'd say.I'm well aware of how fighting in hockey looks to the uninitiated, but making the officials police the game means everything is done reactively. Goons serve as a preventive force.
thatrogue
(Unless of course, the whole object is to physically assault the other team...kind of like a MMA-on-ice type of deal. Then it makes sense.)
May 19, 2010 at 06:14PM View BBCode
That seems kind of, well, dumb, for something we call a "sport".(Unless of course, the whole object is to physically assault the other team...kind of like a MMA-on-ice type of deal. Then it makes sense.)
dirtdevil
the enforcer also plays a deterrent role with regard to dirty play. no matter how vigilant, 4 officials are not going to see everything, and even if they do a major penalty and a fine is often not an effective deterrent to prevent dirty play. if the enforcer can track down the offender and politely suggest he refrain from such behaviour, that is sometimes effective. there's also the revenge factor, of course.
the enforcer is also required by "the code" to engage in a fight with the other team's enforcer (who by the code is required to accept) if his team is playing poorly and needs a change in momentum. this is often more effective than his other two roles.
finally, there is the underlying belief that fights help sell tickets, especially in non-traditional u.s markets (and philadelphia). generally speaking i find that people who don't like hockey find the fighting aspect of the game distasteful and those who enjoy hockey find the fighting aspect fun. (this is, of course, not a hard and fast rule by any means) i used to play with a guy who played pro hockey in the florida league and for a team in alabama in one of the deep south minor leagues. apparently the alabama fans only went to the games to see some fights. they'd sit on there hands after the most impressive goals going, but once the gloves came off the place went crazy. they used to have two or three fights a period some nights, apparently.
[Edited on 5-19-2010 by dirtdevil]
May 19, 2010 at 08:31PM View BBCode
there is always the idea that hard, legal (more or less) contact on a superstar will get them off their game, just like a great number of nfl teams put a priority on getting hits on a star qb. the role of the enforcer in hockey in that situation is to say, "ok, go ahead and hit our star if you want. but if you do, i'm going to beat the living hell out of you." the idea being that teams with feared enforcers will allow their stars more room to perform. as with all such deterrent ideas it has mixed levels of success.the enforcer also plays a deterrent role with regard to dirty play. no matter how vigilant, 4 officials are not going to see everything, and even if they do a major penalty and a fine is often not an effective deterrent to prevent dirty play. if the enforcer can track down the offender and politely suggest he refrain from such behaviour, that is sometimes effective. there's also the revenge factor, of course.
the enforcer is also required by "the code" to engage in a fight with the other team's enforcer (who by the code is required to accept) if his team is playing poorly and needs a change in momentum. this is often more effective than his other two roles.
finally, there is the underlying belief that fights help sell tickets, especially in non-traditional u.s markets (and philadelphia). generally speaking i find that people who don't like hockey find the fighting aspect of the game distasteful and those who enjoy hockey find the fighting aspect fun. (this is, of course, not a hard and fast rule by any means) i used to play with a guy who played pro hockey in the florida league and for a team in alabama in one of the deep south minor leagues. apparently the alabama fans only went to the games to see some fights. they'd sit on there hands after the most impressive goals going, but once the gloves came off the place went crazy. they used to have two or three fights a period some nights, apparently.
[Edited on 5-19-2010 by dirtdevil]
khazim
It happens in every sport. Hockey has managed to turn it into a specialized position; that's all.
May 20, 2010 at 03:34PM View BBCode
Enforcing goes on in EVERY sport. What do you think beanballs are all about in baseball? What about taking the 15 yard personal foul in football to make a point to the other team?It happens in every sport. Hockey has managed to turn it into a specialized position; that's all.
thatrogue
May 22, 2010 at 12:01PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazimAnd that is what is dumb.
...
It happens in every sport. Hockey has managed to turn it into a specialized position; that's all.
Originally posted by khazimAnd, in a lot of cases...this is dumb too.
Enforcing goes on in EVERY sport. What do you think beanballs are all about in baseball? What about taking the 15 yard personal foul in football to make a point to the other team?
...
dirtdevil
leaving aside for the moment that you opted to ignore the thoughtful explanation for the sensationalized comment and thus ignored the full extent of the actual role you're railing against, i'll just ask, why?
May 22, 2010 at 01:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
Originally posted by khazim
It happens in every sport. Hockey has managed to turn it into a specialized position; that's all.
And that is what is dumb.
leaving aside for the moment that you opted to ignore the thoughtful explanation for the sensationalized comment and thus ignored the full extent of the actual role you're railing against, i'll just ask, why?
Jughead
They deserved to win last night, but I'll be the first to admit that that doesn't mean anything.
The team does not have the depth it had last year. I don't feel comfortable rolling four lines with this team, although that was more of a Ron Wilson thing anyway.
The Panthers are covering some of their seats next season so their "percentage of capacity" attendance stat will be higher. I guess that's easier than making the team good.
May 22, 2010 at 06:32PM View BBCode
Originally posted by cubfan531
San Jose is a game away from elimination.
They deserved to win last night, but I'll be the first to admit that that doesn't mean anything.
The team does not have the depth it had last year. I don't feel comfortable rolling four lines with this team, although that was more of a Ron Wilson thing anyway.
The Panthers are covering some of their seats next season so their "percentage of capacity" attendance stat will be higher. I guess that's easier than making the team good.
thatrogue
I think of games like soccer, American football and basketball. Each have varying degrees of "banging" yet none of them have nearly the level of fighting. Fighting and game-action plays that are too dirty result in lost games and lost money...and that tends to keep people in-line. Red cards, flagrant fouls, ejections, fines and suspensions have all proven to be somewhat effective in controlling the "craziness". But hockey clings to the use of enforcers and fisticuffs as a necessary part of the game.
May 22, 2010 at 07:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevilDeke, I get it...I fully understand your explanation. I just think that the role of fighting/outside-the-lines-violence in hockey is celebrated, which is why you'll never get rid of it...and thus continue to "need" enforcers to protect your stars.
Originally posted by thatrogue
Originally posted by khazim
It happens in every sport. Hockey has managed to turn it into a specialized position; that's all.
And that is what is dumb.
leaving aside for the moment that you opted to ignore the thoughtful explanation for the sensationalized comment and thus ignored the full extent of the actual role you're railing against, i'll just ask, why?
I think of games like soccer, American football and basketball. Each have varying degrees of "banging" yet none of them have nearly the level of fighting. Fighting and game-action plays that are too dirty result in lost games and lost money...and that tends to keep people in-line. Red cards, flagrant fouls, ejections, fines and suspensions have all proven to be somewhat effective in controlling the "craziness". But hockey clings to the use of enforcers and fisticuffs as a necessary part of the game.
dirtdevil
i'd argue that the continual ongoing need for fines, ejections and suspensions in all sports indicates that those tactics don't do any better job of policing behavior than does hockey's enforcer role. but just for the sake of argument, i'll accept your position as true. i guess my question then is, so what? what is it about 'permitted' fighting in hockey that is 'dumb'? given that it has been a part of the culture of the game for over a century, what specific reason does the sport have to dispose of it?
(and just for the record, as someone who officiates a great many hockey games in which a fighting major results in ejection from the game, i can assure you that doesn't do anything whatsoever to eliminate fighting.)
May 22, 2010 at 07:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
Deke, I get it...I fully understand your explanation. I just think that the role of fighting/outside-the-lines-violence in hockey is celebrated, which is why you'll never get rid of it...and thus continue to "need" enforcers to protect your stars.
I think of games like soccer, American football and basketball. Each have varying degrees of "banging" yet none of them have nearly the level of fighting. Fighting and game-action plays that are too dirty result in lost games and lost money...and that tends to keep people in-line. Red cards, flagrant fouls, ejections, fines and suspensions have all proven to be somewhat effective in controlling the "craziness". But hockey clings to the use of enforcers and fisticuffs as a necessary part of the game.
i'd argue that the continual ongoing need for fines, ejections and suspensions in all sports indicates that those tactics don't do any better job of policing behavior than does hockey's enforcer role. but just for the sake of argument, i'll accept your position as true. i guess my question then is, so what? what is it about 'permitted' fighting in hockey that is 'dumb'? given that it has been a part of the culture of the game for over a century, what specific reason does the sport have to dispose of it?
(and just for the record, as someone who officiates a great many hockey games in which a fighting major results in ejection from the game, i can assure you that doesn't do anything whatsoever to eliminate fighting.)
tworoosters
I realize that it is viewed as a negative aspect by a lot of people but I really think that it is such a part of the game's culture that eliminating fighting would cause far more problems than are caused by fighting. Very few injuries occur in fights and the players themselves are well aware of the rules and "codes" involved in fights so it's rare to see mismatches ,
This may be purely anecdotal but it seems to me there were far fewer head shots and hitting from behind prior to the introduction of the instigator rule .
May 22, 2010 at 08:15PM View BBCode
Without trying to patronize I just don't think that people who have not played the game at an adult level can understand why fighting occurs, and is accepted, in hockey .I realize that it is viewed as a negative aspect by a lot of people but I really think that it is such a part of the game's culture that eliminating fighting would cause far more problems than are caused by fighting. Very few injuries occur in fights and the players themselves are well aware of the rules and "codes" involved in fights so it's rare to see mismatches ,
This may be purely anecdotal but it seems to me there were far fewer head shots and hitting from behind prior to the introduction of the instigator rule .
FuriousGiorge
May 22, 2010 at 09:25PM View BBCode
How about the bottom line here? Fighting is also not the reason that hockey continues to lag in popularity behind the other three major sports. Casual/non-fans like it as much as fans do - fights often make Sportscenter highlight packages. Ultimately, there isn't much here; you guys can argue over the fighting, but it's a rationalization, not an answer.
tworoosters
May 22, 2010 at 11:59PM View BBCode
Looks like Hawks and Flyers in the Final, shouldn't really be close but with the way this playoff season has gone who knows .
thatrogue
I enjoy the sport, though I don't follow it nearly as much as baseball or football. And I'll admit that the fighting can be thrilling. I just think it is somewhat silly to build in a culture of fighting in a sport that is supposedly based on other skills (i.e. sports that are not boxing, MMA, etc.). Perhaps it cannot be eliminated from the culture, but that does not mean that it isn't ridiculous. It just means that people enjoy the thrill more than they disdain fighting as part of sports.
Just picture football players taking off their helmets and starting to deliver headshots until one falls or the "officials" finally decide to break it up.
May 23, 2010 at 11:30AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
I'd never argue that the fighting makes it less popular...I think it helps the popularity.
I enjoy the sport, though I don't follow it nearly as much as baseball or football. And I'll admit that the fighting can be thrilling. I just think it is somewhat silly to build in a culture of fighting in a sport that is supposedly based on other skills (i.e. sports that are not boxing, MMA, etc.). Perhaps it cannot be eliminated from the culture, but that does not mean that it isn't ridiculous. It just means that people enjoy the thrill more than they disdain fighting as part of sports.
Just picture football players taking off their helmets and starting to deliver headshots until one falls or the "officials" finally decide to break it up.
dirtdevil
May 23, 2010 at 04:15PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
what is it about 'permitted' fighting in hockey that is 'dumb'? given that it has been a part of the culture of the game for over a century, what specific reason does the sport have to dispose of it?
thatrogue
I have no expectation that the sport will do anything to curtail it. Most people have come to accept it as part of the culture that should not be changed. I...just...think...it...is...dumb.
(In the same way that I think endorsing many of baseball's unwritten rules, such as "owning the mound" is dumb...or that it would be dumb to endorse fighting whenever a defensive player got a debilitating but legal hit on a quarterback. I understand the emotion involved, and how players can get fired up and want to fight. And I understand how the fighting can boost attendance and ratings. But I still believe endorsing it as part of the sport seems like appealing to the lowest common denominator.)
Goodness, Deke...it is a personal opinion of mine...not a crusade.
May 23, 2010 at 05:00PM View BBCode
Is the purpose of the sport to see which team can beat up the other team? No? Then fighting as an acceptible part of the sport is dumb.I have no expectation that the sport will do anything to curtail it. Most people have come to accept it as part of the culture that should not be changed. I...just...think...it...is...dumb.
(In the same way that I think endorsing many of baseball's unwritten rules, such as "owning the mound" is dumb...or that it would be dumb to endorse fighting whenever a defensive player got a debilitating but legal hit on a quarterback. I understand the emotion involved, and how players can get fired up and want to fight. And I understand how the fighting can boost attendance and ratings. But I still believe endorsing it as part of the sport seems like appealing to the lowest common denominator.)
Jughead
May 24, 2010 at 03:41PM View BBCode
What is your experience regarding playing team sports?Originally posted by thatrogue
Is the purpose of the sport to see which team can beat up the other team? No? Then fighting as an acceptible part of the sport is dumb.
I have no expectation that the sport will do anything to curtail it. Most people have come to accept it as part of the culture that should not be changed. I...just...think...it...is...dumb.
(In the same way that I think endorsing many of baseball's unwritten rules, such as "owning the mound" is dumb...or that it would be dumb to endorse fighting whenever a defensive player got a debilitating but legal hit on a quarterback. I understand the emotion involved, and how players can get fired up and want to fight. And I understand how the fighting can boost attendance and ratings. But I still believe endorsing it as part of the sport seems like appealing to the lowest common denominator.)
carlthegreat
May 24, 2010 at 05:02PM View BBCode
I have been playing hockey since I am 5 year old and I am still playing once a week. I just love that game. My father have spend a lot of money on me (hockey school,tournament). When I was young , we were educate for always protect or defend a teamate that is in trouble by the coaching staff . If you do not do that you will not have the respect from your team. Hockey is a fast sport and umpire can not see everything so sometime player have to do their own justice. I will never be against a fight between 2 guys that want to fight or a fight just after a cheap shot.
Jughead
Someone brought his teenage son last Saturday night to play with us, but he is too advanced for a beginner league. He wouldn't get off the ice, and when he was out there, he would dive at every opportunity. It was as if every stereotype about Sidney Crosby were in his body. Thankfully I was never in a position to defend him, because he really deserved to get put in his place. Hopefully next time if he brings him again we'll be playing against him. (I was a sub on their team Saturday.) I will get him called for diving without even touching him.
May 24, 2010 at 08:11PM View BBCode
I was curious about his experience, but there's no harm in clarifying your position as well.Someone brought his teenage son last Saturday night to play with us, but he is too advanced for a beginner league. He wouldn't get off the ice, and when he was out there, he would dive at every opportunity. It was as if every stereotype about Sidney Crosby were in his body. Thankfully I was never in a position to defend him, because he really deserved to get put in his place. Hopefully next time if he brings him again we'll be playing against him. (I was a sub on their team Saturday.) I will get him called for diving without even touching him.
carlthegreat
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0WTb_4c4vpL23sAZCSJzbkF?ei=UTF-8&p=mike%20cammalleri&type=all&fr2=tab-img&fr=
Click on : if Mike cammalleri were a jedi
[Edited on 5-24-2010 by carlthegreat]
May 24, 2010 at 08:33PM View BBCode
I find this about Mike Cammallerihttp://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0WTb_4c4vpL23sAZCSJzbkF?ei=UTF-8&p=mike%20cammalleri&type=all&fr2=tab-img&fr=
Click on : if Mike cammalleri were a jedi
[Edited on 5-24-2010 by carlthegreat]
carlthegreat
Flyers dominate the Habs, But I am still proud of my Canadiens for what they have done in the serie..
It will be a Stanley Cup final for man. I predict a lot of of big hits in that serie.
May 25, 2010 at 02:02AM View BBCode
sniff, it will be a Flyers vs Chicago Stanley cup final.Flyers dominate the Habs, But I am still proud of my Canadiens for what they have done in the serie..
It will be a Stanley Cup final for man. I predict a lot of of big hits in that serie.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35