| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 15:54:00
Another thread got me thinking, what would be acceptable payback for an injustice, legitimate or not, done to a player, within the rules as they are today?
What was 'old time hockey' in this regard, and is there any place for it in the game today?
|
| 36 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 10:28:31
hey Slozo - all good points. See what happens when you argue and debate in good faith, instead of just writing someone's thoughts off as a "waste of time"? Perhaps my off-the-top-of-my-head scenario's would not play out as stated.
There is an interesting article in wikipedia on fighting in hockey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_in_ice_hockey. It goes over the basics, but also goes into the history of fighting (how it emerged, evolved up to today), as well as some commentary on why fighting happens and efforts to ban it.
Both players and management seem to accept fighting as a part of the game, and have no (current) plans to ban it. If players want it, and management wants it, and most fans want it (and judging by the way they all jump up and cheer when a fight starts, they do), should we really be thinking about banning it at all?
As beans says, I think the key is to distinguish between a useless fight and a reasonable fight - which would certainly be a subjective thing.
- Perhaps look at TOI, relative interaction with the play, something like that. That would help to treat the Ivanans/MacIntyre fight differently than a fight that breaks out after a scrum at the net.
- I also like the idea of an automatic game misconduct for any fight - that would probably lessen fights between legit players even more (Iginla doesn't want to leave the game in the first period, so he likely won't fight).
- I would also like to see the fight for retaliation of a clean hit treated as a 3rd man in. If a player checks another player cleanly, and a 3rd player comes in to fight him, that player that comes in is treated as a 3rd man in. The rules already treat 3rd man in pretty harshly. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 08:26:23
I see a lot of the points made and agree with many of them. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that players will engage in other forms of physical conflict(stick work) if they are at a suspension level of 10 or more games for a fight. At the end of the day, the purpose of a fight is to hurt the other guy. Sure, there is also the added point about firing up your team and blah blah blah, but it is really about inflicting pain on the other player. If it can't be fighting it will be in other means either legal or illegal.
I do like the idea of an automatic game ejection for a fight. Period. You fight, you are out. I also like the idea of there being fines/suspensions for the fights we all some what agree are pointless. The Boogaard's/John Scott's of the world kind of fights. The MacIntyre/Ivanans fights. Or even worse, the retaliation for a clean hit fight. The off the face off talk about it kind of fights. If there is a scrum that gets heats and turns into a fight, so be it. But the premeditated crap is what needs to be cleaned up.
I also think that neither the NHL nor the players have the chops to handle this kind of discipline. There should be an impartial, 3rd party hockey committee formed by former players, coaches, GMs, etc that will handle the disciple. They are paid by both the NHL and the NHLPA and their job is to review every fight and decide what kind of action is required. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 07:44:28
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
you don't think an automatic 5 game (and possibly escalating) suspension will serve to eliminate fighting? At the point where a simple fight is a 5 or 10 or 15 game suspension, its much easier to high stick someone in the face or commit a dangerous boarding major and only get a game or two. Perhaps you'll see more players running over goalies when they get tense, or cross checks to the head. Or, just play shifts where they don't care about the puck and just run over players.
Remove fighting, and players will just find different methods to escalate things. And no player is going to willingly take a 5 game suspension for a simple fight.
Or perhaps, teams will stock 5 goons instead of 1 goon, so that they can have a "goon ladder"  . Who knows.
Fighting provides an outlet for tension and increasing physical play doesn't usually occur in other sports - football has constant extreme physical contact that IMO actually keeps tensions down, basketball (and baseball) have rules that penalize you for pretty much any meaningful physical contact.
If you heavily penalize fighting in hockey, players will just replace it with something else.
Ok, fine then - you asked for it. I will go point by point:
1. I never said there would be an automatic 5 game suspension for fighting. I clearly stated my suggestion, which started at a 1 game suspension for the first fight of the season, followed by a 5 game suspension for the second fight. Maybe 3 games is better for the second offence, 5 games for the third. Details to be worked out as to whether it starts at 0 for each season, or somehow cumulative. At any rate, I at no time stated I would start with a 5 game suspension as you imply, so don't put words in my mouth.
2. No, fighting would not be eliminated in my scenario - fighting can never be eliminated in any sport - it still happens in basketball, football, etc - just way more rarely. It would be impossible to eliminate anything happening, you can't totally control player's actions . . . but you can certainly curb them by giving stiffer penalties for the infraction.
3. "At the point where a simple fight is a 5 or 10 or 15 game suspension, its much easier to high stick someone in the face or commit a dangerous boarding major and only get a game or two."
I disagree that players would improve their chances of getting suspended for a lengthy infraction by high sticking . . . as at that point, because of the penalties given and the hit to the team, they may not be playing very long! This argument that goonery somehow has decreased or held to a decent level the high stick and boarding penalties is both ludicrous, and totally unsubstantiated . . . ie, there is ZERO EVIDENCE of this.
4. Perhaps you'll see goalies run over when they "get tense"? So, I guess hockey players are so tense, compared with all other athletes in all other intensely physical disciplines, that they NEED to fight, and if it isn't satisfied - this animal urge to fight - they will become mean and nasty and run over goalies and cross check to the head? Why do you think a cross check to the head, which would receive a similar stiff penalty under my system, wouldn't be deterred in much the same way as fighting? How many cross checks to the head do you see in the playoffs, as opposed to the regular season?
5. "Remove fighting, and players will just find different methods to escalate things"
Give me an example of this in the playoffs? When players escalate things in different ways, those infractions are usually stiff penalties/suspensions as well. I fail to see your logic. Give me an example if you can of someone trying to avoid fighting, and instead doing another escalated infraction where they get off "light".
6. "And no player is going to willingly take a 5 game suspension for a simple fight."
YOU GOT IT!!!! Now, you understand the concept, VERY GOOD!!! That means NO STUPID FIGHTS, only the occasional one that has greater meaning - and that would receive a one game suspension. Players would understand that a second fight is a big hit (5 games), and thus, would reserve the right to fight only under the direst of circumstances.
7. "Or perhaps, teams will stock 5 goons instead of 1 goon, so that they can have a "goon ladder""
No team would ever do this, and no team would ever carry any goons again with my system - they would be useless. They generally have well below acceptable NHL hockey skill, and now we would see skilled players taking their place. Any team full of goons wouldn't be able to compete.
8. Fighting creates an outlet for tension? Only for out of control idiots. Football is a lot like hockey in terms of physicality, actually . . . in hockey, you have a rest between shifts - and in football, you have a rest between downs/offence and defence (unless playing both). Both sports have lots of protective equipment. But football very rarely has fighting, because of the stiff penalty - and this leads to teams themselves not wanting players who may get into the odd fight, as it hurts the team. If a sport like football - which IMHO has the most violent and psycho players of any sport - can put an effective muzzle on fighting, certainly hockey can too.
9. "If you heavily penalize fighting in hockey, players will just replace it with something else."
. . . and if they replace their response with something as bad or worse than a fight (ie a vicious high stick, crosscheck, slash, etc), then they will get duly penalised, and suspended as appropriate. There is no getting around it . . . and besides, without the goons, this kind of idiot response would dramatically decrease in the first place.
But, as I stated earlier, it all MUST come from the top (Campbell replaced, director of officiating replaced) and all penalties must be called.
done!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 22:32:34
Perhaps Booregard is a real leader in the locker room  . Its all about the intangibles!
Not only did he play 1:34, but the next closest forward was Prust, at just shy of 7 minutes. Clearly Boo is there for a particular reason, and in tonight's high scoring back and forth game, NYR didn't feel his presence was needed or would be helpful.
The Canucks 4th line tonight saw about 5-7 minutes of ice time, which is normal for them - even why Rypien is in the lineup. I am glad that they got rid of Hordichuk in the offseason and have elected to go without a uni-purpose goon this year.
Perhaps the road to change is to see teams have success without employing that type of player. If that happens consistently, other teams will follow suit. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 21:52:49
Just as a quick aside, check the box score for the Rangers game tonight, Boogeyman got 1:34 of ice time tonight, no PM's, no points.
1.625 million per season for that, what an investment!
But it's okay, he must have been there to ensure Trevor Gillies for the Islanders could be kept in check, he also played a staggering 1:34. Couldn't find what his one year deal is worth, but if it's more than 375K, that means these two are making at least 2 mil a year, and they played less than 3 minutes 8 seconds tonight, combined. WTF???
I don't know what the answer is, as asked earlier by Nuxfan, but it sure highlights how ridiculous it is when you see these kind of numbers. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 20:45:29
ah, the old "thats too ridiculous to argue against" line. well, glad you could stop by to lay it down.
So, you think that if fighting becomes a prohibitively suspend-able offense, that players will simply resort to really hard-but-fair bodychecks to mete out justice?
|
| n/a |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 19:42:23
nuxfan - That is the most ridiculous set of arguments I have ever heard.
Really. I just realised I am wasting my time.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 12:22:57
you don't think an automatic 5 game (and possibly escalating) suspension will serve to eliminate fighting? At the point where a simple fight is a 5 or 10 or 15 game suspension, its much easier to high stick someone in the face or commit a dangerous boarding major and only get a game or two. Perhaps you'll see more players running over goalies when they get tense, or cross checks to the head. Or, just play shifts where they don't care about the puck and just run over players.
Remove fighting, and players will just find different methods to escalate things. And no player is going to willingly take a 5 game suspension for a simple fight.
Or perhaps, teams will stock 5 goons instead of 1 goon, so that they can have a "goon ladder" . Who knows.
Fighting provides an outlet for tension and increasing physical play doesn't usually occur in other sports - football has constant extreme physical contact that IMO actually keeps tensions down, basketball (and baseball) have rules that penalize you for pretty much any meaningful physical contact.
If you heavily penalize fighting in hockey, players will just replace it with something else. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 11:18:39
nuxfan - I made it very clear what I want. Just read what I wrote!
With the penalties that I propose (or similar, less forgiving ones than currently in the rulebook), fighting will go waaaaay down. Once the penalty for an infraction increases, it happens less and less frequently. Simple equation.
Does that mean fighting would completely leave the game? No. Look at games like football and basketball that treat fighting as a very serious matter . . . it still happens sometimes. But very rarely, as the penalty is harsh.
Hockey should be the same. If applying my proposed rules, the only fights you would see would be 'real' ones, and the goon would go the way of the dodo bird.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 10:39:50
quote:
CORRECTION: The league already HAS made fighting illegal. It is written clearly in the rulebook - that is why there is a penalty for it.
The fact that two refs will stand by and watch as two meatballs posture and skate around like a couple of amateur boxers on skates . . . well, that to me means only one thing: they are not doing their jobs. In fact, no one is - not the refs, not the linesmen, not Campbell.
To me, it is like the refs watching any bad infraction until they are "finished" . . . why do they step in against a high stick to the face, but let the clowns fight at centre ice? It doesn't make a lick of sense.
As I said in another thread about fighting in hockey, all they need to do is increase the penalty for it - first offence is a one game suspension, second is a 5 game. Done. No more goonery.
But along with that, you'd need the refs to do their job - and they are directed not to by their bosses.
It is high time for Campbell to go the way of the dinosaur.
When I say "illegal", I mean "not specifically covered by existing rules". We have penalties for lots of infractions, and if you do those infractions you get a penalty for it. Fighting is but one of those infractions.
There is a big difference between a fight and a high stick to the face that causes an injury. In the former, both are agreeing to fight, and therefore both agreeing to take the penalty. In the latter, there is a single individual unilaterally committing an infraction against the other.
The refs are doing their jobs as directed by the league - fighting is technically allowed to happen in a game, so long as one side isn't dominating the other the refs let it go, and both parties get a penalty after its done.
I think people are forgetting that while goons fight, there are skill players that fight as well - hell, I even saw Datsyuk drop the gloves over the weekend. You either have to ban fighting completely in the NHL, or let it happen and deal with it case-by-case (ie, penalty).
So Slozo, are you advocating that fighting be completely removed from the NHL? |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 07:44:43
nuxfan: I don't have a particularly strong opinion on these sorts of fights, they have been part of my game for so long that I accept them for what they are. They are defined within the rules (a penalty is given), and as long as both combatants are willing, then so be it.
If the league chooses to make the illegal, then so be it, I wouldn't particularly miss them either.
CORRECTION: The league already HAS made fighting illegal. It is written clearly in the rulebook - that is why there is a penalty for it.
The fact that two refs will stand by and watch as two meatballs posture and skate around like a couple of amateur boxers on skates . . . well, that to me means only one thing: they are not doing their jobs. In fact, no one is - not the refs, not the linesmen, not Campbell.
To me, it is like the refs watching any bad infraction until they are "finished" . . . why do they step in against a high stick to the face, but let the clowns fight at centre ice? It doesn't make a lick of sense.
As I said in another thread about fighting in hockey, all they need to do is increase the penalty for it - first offence is a one game suspension, second is a 5 game. Done. No more goonery.
But along with that, you'd need the refs to do their job - and they are directed not to by their bosses.
It is high time for Campbell to go the way of the dinosaur.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 14:16:31
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
The NHL cannot ban "goons".
No, but they could change the rules (no fighting) to render them useless. I believe that's what a lot of those against fighting think should happen. No way a goon is employed if the only way for retribution is with a hard hit. The goons, while usually pretty big, aren't usually the best on their skates and therefore not very valuable as a bodychecker! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 13:29:45
I don't think there is an answer - you explained why the goon exists, I agree with you, they're there to protect their skill guys that they would otherwise not want to see fighting, or who otherwise would not be able to play their game with increased agitation from the opposition.
The NHL cannot ban "goons". There is no way for them to fairly evaluate a Booregard vs a Stortini vs an Iginla, and decide that Booregard is out but Stortini and Iginla are allowed - even though all 3 can,and do, fight. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 06:56:10
It is one of those things that as long as one team has one, others kinda have to. Could you imagine what would happen to little Jordan Eberele is Ivanans could grab a hold of him and feed him lefts and rights without MacIntyre around.
The other thing to note on this is that not every single team has a guy like MacIntyre of Boogaard. However, if they other team does not have a 'designated hitter' there is still some guy in the line up that gets paid to make sure the little guys don't get taken advantage off.
Much like Stortini in Edmonton.
So what is the answer?? |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 02:39:08
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
OK, fair enough - I didn't realize that this was commentary on heavyweight fights in general, and was wondering why this fight was being singled out.
Elvis - if there was no need for these sorts of players, then why do teams stock them? There is no rule indicating that a playing spot must be filled with a no-skill goon, yet nearly every team in the league has one (MTL didn't have one thru the playoffs, but certainly benefitted from Laraque for most of the regular season). Teams must feel that the player serves a purpose - whether it be from a motivational or protectionist angle - otherwise they would not employ them. Because you're right, those spots could be taken by another player with some skill.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on these sorts of fights, they have been part of my game for so long that I accept them for what they are. They are defined within the rules (a penalty is given), and as long as both combatants are willing, then so be it.
If the league chooses to make the illegal, then so be it, I wouldn't particularly miss them either.
There is the million dollar, or in the case of Boogard the 1.625 million dollar question. Why do teams have these guys on their roster.
If you listen to the mindless drivel of the Keith Jones' and Kypreos' of the world, it's all about creating time and space for the skilled players, giving them the confidence to know that they are looked after if something may happen. Sounds fine and dandy doesn't it.
If those guys wore big furry hats and had a couple teeth, gold capped, at least they would look the part of the pimps they are. In my opinion, these players have become common, to help sell the game, to fans that don't understand what the game actually is. The market machine that is the NHL, is so desperate to sell, sell, sell, they have forgotten there is a skill level to the game, otherwise, exactly right, why have these guys playing. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 18:26:26
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
It's amazing how the perception can change. The announcers were all over how Ivanans was doing his job, trying to light up his team, and how it's the kind of thing the Flames need.
Didn't work out too well, did it. They did comment on the class of the Oiler faithful, and how they were grateful for his effort, by giving him a nice round of applause as he wobbled off, it's too bad, I'm sure he won't remember it.
For all the previous posts where some fired up poster talks about how fighting is integral to the game and it's a man's sport and only p*ssies don't fight, etc. etc. etc....
This should put things in perspective shouldn't it? A nothing fight, at a point in the game where it didn't matter against, another player whose only role, is to do what he did, beat someone into submission.
That's not 'old school', 'old time', or even hockey, it's a sideshow event that seems to have found it's way into the game, with alarming support.
I am not against a player who is taking liberties on players, having to account for his actions, even a scrap, in that circumstance, can be understood. But, to refer to stickwork, a la, Cammalleri, as 'old school', or to glorify a nothing fight, like the announcers do, is just getting silly.
Agree completely FER but I honestly suspect there is some background behind that Cammalleri incident. I don't know if something happened earlier in the game or previously but that type of thing from Cammalleri seems incongruous with what I've seen from him. Now, if there was some previous incident and Cammalleri responded as he did then I actually would call that old time hockey as that is exactly what used to happen. You simply had to be tough to play in the original six era. It's how guys like Ted Lindsay survived. However if what he did was unprovoked and he was simply trying to goad Niederreiter into something, no that isn't what I would refer to as old time hockey.
I would also like to understand why gm's feel the need to have goons in their employ. I honestly can't make sense of it.
I said this in another thread a player i played with in midget was in the Canadians camp this year and he told me personnaly it was because Neideirrieter spit on Cammalleri that cammy lost his cool.
Pasty |
| willus3 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 09:46:20
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
It's amazing how the perception can change. The announcers were all over how Ivanans was doing his job, trying to light up his team, and how it's the kind of thing the Flames need.
Didn't work out too well, did it. They did comment on the class of the Oiler faithful, and how they were grateful for his effort, by giving him a nice round of applause as he wobbled off, it's too bad, I'm sure he won't remember it.
For all the previous posts where some fired up poster talks about how fighting is integral to the game and it's a man's sport and only p*ssies don't fight, etc. etc. etc....
This should put things in perspective shouldn't it? A nothing fight, at a point in the game where it didn't matter against, another player whose only role, is to do what he did, beat someone into submission.
That's not 'old school', 'old time', or even hockey, it's a sideshow event that seems to have found it's way into the game, with alarming support.
I am not against a player who is taking liberties on players, having to account for his actions, even a scrap, in that circumstance, can be understood. But, to refer to stickwork, a la, Cammalleri, as 'old school', or to glorify a nothing fight, like the announcers do, is just getting silly.
Agree completely FER but I honestly suspect there is some background behind that Cammalleri incident. I don't know if something happened earlier in the game or previously but that type of thing from Cammalleri seems incongruous with what I've seen from him. Now, if there was some previous incident and Cammalleri responded as he did then I actually would call that old time hockey as that is exactly what used to happen. You simply had to be tough to play in the original six era. It's how guys like Ted Lindsay survived. However if what he did was unprovoked and he was simply trying to goad Niederreiter into something, no that isn't what I would refer to as old time hockey.
I would also like to understand why gm's feel the need to have goons in their employ. I honestly can't make sense of it. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 08:57:16
OK, fair enough - I didn't realize that this was commentary on heavyweight fights in general, and was wondering why this fight was being singled out.
Elvis - if there was no need for these sorts of players, then why do teams stock them? There is no rule indicating that a playing spot must be filled with a no-skill goon, yet nearly every team in the league has one (MTL didn't have one thru the playoffs, but certainly benefitted from Laraque for most of the regular season). Teams must feel that the player serves a purpose - whether it be from a motivational or protectionist angle - otherwise they would not employ them. Because you're right, those spots could be taken by another player with some skill.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on these sorts of fights, they have been part of my game for so long that I accept them for what they are. They are defined within the rules (a penalty is given), and as long as both combatants are willing, then so be it.
If the league chooses to make the illegal, then so be it, I wouldn't particularly miss them either. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 04:52:24
nuxfan - no need for me to make a comment at all - please see Fat Elvis' very strong commentary on these "heavyweight" bouts. 100% agree with him, and it's a pleasure to know there are a few others out there that have this opinion.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 02:11:13
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
"old time hockey",
First of all the term does not really refer to the 90's, 80's or even 70's. Before that every player took care of himself on the ice. Teammates would help out but you fought your own battles. What happened back then was, if a player took a liberty with you, you payed that liberty back in kind. Perhaps even taking it a step further than the original infraction. Not necessarily right away either, sometimes weeks later. That was done to make a point - play with the bull you get the horn type of thing. If you didn't the other players would eat you alive.
Game's not played that way today with the exception of a few players, Jarome Iginla being the best example I can think of. That man could play in any era without issue.
They send the goons out today to serve up justice. Seems cowardly to me. Not sure how people can feel good about themselves having other people fight their battles or seek retribution.
My stance on fighting has been the same for years, and it is realtes to what willus just pointed out about Iginla. Fights like Ivanans and Macintyr should be illegal this usper heavyweight class should be banished, Its like Willus said it is cowerdly to send your good out to seek justice or even worse to demonstrate you're not loseing the game without a fight!
If you want to show you are not going down without a fight in a game that is all but lost.. take it to the other team poor on the shots and hit everything (legally) that moves.
And if a player wants to fight to seek justice well you better do it yourself with the player that you think needs to pay period,, this sorta stge fight thing off the draw pisses me off.
In my humble opinion the ONLY time a fight should be tolerated is when it happens in the heat of the moment, a perfect example Vincent Lecavalier and Jarome Iginla i believe it was in the playoffs when Tampa won it all. Two great players fighting hard to win a battle along the boards tempers boil over the gloves get dropped! I love watching this kind of fight. I do not follow MMA or any kind of organized fighting because to me its not sport it is incredibly boring to watch in my opinion as are staged fights in hockey.. ..
I'll watch Golf or even worse Gossip Girl rather than watch MMA or Boxing,,,,,
Pasty |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 01:21:07
Actually Nuxfan, I am far from 'riled up' about this particular fight. I have stated on numerous other posts, my disdain for these, contrived, rehearsed, premeditated displays of nothing useful to the game of hockey.
The fact that these two silverbacks take away a position from a minor leaguer with twice the skill, is what irritates me. I am all for the Iginla example of player who can and will fight. I can gladly accept and enjoy, a player like that who gets in to a scrap, because it is most likely happening because of a situation that is a direct impact to the game. It's done with emotion and intensity.
The brontosaurs that are the 'heavyweights', are no more than sub-par hockey skilled, WWE wannabes, who spend more time in the penalty box with their 5 minute majors than they get for their regular ice time each game. They'd be better off wearing wrestling tights on the ice, the odds of them actually being involved in a hockey play are so remote, it'd make no difference.
"- Both of them were willing to fight - I assume that both felt they had a reason to drop them - and they looked to have talked it out from the faceoff forward"
Of course they were, what else would they do out there? They can't keep up with others, I had more fun at an Oilers game last year yelling at Boogaard about how 'he's missing a good game out there', while he was out there, than I've had in a long time.
"- Both MacIntyre and Ivanans are heavyweights, paid to fight. Every NHL team has at least one of these players"
Not every team, Montreal doesn't and it didn't hurt them in last year's playoff run, oh yeah, the knucklechuckers don't usually dress, when the games are important, like playoffs, imagine that.
"IMO, this is no different from any other fight between 2 NHL tough guys on any given night. Ivanans probably wanted to set a tone for the next game. MacIntyre was probably obliging a fellow heavyweight"
What tone? That the same two lumbering meatballs can do exactly the same thing, because they are the only ones who fight each other? And for what, to set a tone for the NEXT game? Stop the ride, I wanna get off!!
It just causes me dismay, that there are large contingents of fans, who see this a necessity. Even the announcers last night were quick to give their expert analysis on how these 'players give their teammates extra space out there'. Of course they do, when each team has their heavy out there, it's like 4 on 4 for the skill guys, maybe the big guys should wear designated pylon orange sweaters, to really ensure they have provided that 'space'.
It's all sideshow silly, is all I'm saying.
And please Nuxfan, know that even though I liberally quoted from your post, I am not snubbing your opinion, only debating and defending mine. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 23:11:05
quote:
Ivanans does get paid to fight and that's pretty much it. However, it would have been far more effective to 'talk' about things next week when the Flames and Oilers play again.
No doubt they'll "talk" again next week... Ivanans and MacIntyre look to be starting a bit of a personal war with each other.
quote:
This should put things in perspective shouldn't it? A nothing fight, at a point in the game where it didn't matter against, another player whose only role, is to do what he did, beat someone into submission.
That's not 'old school', 'old time', or even hockey, it's a sideshow event that seems to have found it's way into the game, with alarming support.
Elvis - I'm not sure why you're getting riled up about this particular fight
- Both MacIntyre and Ivanans are heavyweights, paid to fight. Every NHL team has at least one of these players
- Both of them were willing to fight - I assume that both felt they had a reason to drop them - and they looked to have talked it out from the faceoff forward
IMO, this is no different from any other fight between 2 NHL tough guys on any given night. Ivanans probably wanted to set a tone for the next game. MacIntyre was probably obliging a fellow heavyweight.
Why is everyone so down on this fight? Just because Ivanans got hurt more than usual? Or because it was a fight with seemingly no direct cause? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 21:00:10
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
"old time hockey",
First of all the term does not really refer to the 90's, 80's or even 70's. Before that every player took care of himself on the ice. Teammates would help out but you fought your own battles. What happened back then was, if a player took a liberty with you, you payed that liberty back in kind. Perhaps even taking it a step further than the original infraction. Not necessarily right away either, sometimes weeks later. That was done to make a point - play with the bull you get the horn type of thing. If you didn't the other players would eat you alive.
Game's not played that way today with the exception of a few players, Jarome Iginla being the best example I can think of. That man could play in any era without issue.
They send the goons out today to serve up justice. Seems cowardly to me. Not sure how people can feel good about themselves having other people fight their battles or seek retribution.
Wow, is the name Willus or Phoenix?? Risen from the ashes have we?? Silent for so long......
I completely agree with your opinion on what actual 'old time hockey' is and in some respects, my idol WG was one of the first players who didn't really take care of his own issues. Could have been the begining of the end.
I also agree with the Jarome Iginla analogy. I also see guys like Lecavalier, Heatley, and even Crosby who have taken care of their own issues. Granted, I can imagine what Crosby's coach is thinking when he starts tossing his weight around.
Finally, one point I think is missing is that old time hockey was not all about fighting. It was more physical play but it didn't have to be a fight. And it also didn't have to happen immediately. Back in the day the boys would take numbers. If a guy was wronged he did get his own retribution. Might not be that game, but some time down the road it was coming. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 19:17:55
It's amazing how the perception can change. The announcers were all over how Ivanans was doing his job, trying to light up his team, and how it's the kind of thing the Flames need.
Didn't work out too well, did it. They did comment on the class of the Oiler faithful, and how they were grateful for his effort, by giving him a nice round of applause as he wobbled off, it's too bad, I'm sure he won't remember it.
For all the previous posts where some fired up poster talks about how fighting is integral to the game and it's a man's sport and only p*ssies don't fight, etc. etc. etc....
This should put things in perspective shouldn't it? A nothing fight, at a point in the game where it didn't matter against, another player whose only role, is to do what he did, beat someone into submission.
That's not 'old school', 'old time', or even hockey, it's a sideshow event that seems to have found it's way into the game, with alarming support.
I am not against a player who is taking liberties on players, having to account for his actions, even a scrap, in that circumstance, can be understood. But, to refer to stickwork, a la, Cammalleri, as 'old school', or to glorify a nothing fight, like the announcers do, is just getting silly.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 19:07:14
"old time hockey",
First of all the term does not really refer to the 90's, 80's or even 70's. Before that every player took care of himself on the ice. Teammates would help out but you fought your own battles. What happened back then was, if a player took a liberty with you, you payed that liberty back in kind. Perhaps even taking it a step further than the original infraction. Not necessarily right away either, sometimes weeks later. That was done to make a point - play with the bull you get the horn type of thing. If you didn't the other players would eat you alive.
Game's not played that way today with the exception of a few players, Jarome Iginla being the best example I can think of. That man could play in any era without issue.
They send the goons out today to serve up justice. Seems cowardly to me. Not sure how people can feel good about themselves having other people fight their battles or seek retribution. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 17:45:04
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
MacIntyre had not reason or business fighting there, Ivanans had no reason to take the fight.
From what I saw, Ivanans wanted that fight... jawing at MacIntyre before the faceoff, jawing at each other down the ice, Ivanans drops the first glove.
From being there, I nudged by friend as soon as MacIntyre came on the ice and told him there would be a fight. MacIntyre started the jawsing, Ivanans started skating into the Oilers zone and MacIntyre kept it up. Eventually, the both dropped the mitts.
Ivanans does get paid to fight and that's pretty much it. However, it would have been far more effective to 'talk' about things next week when the Flames and Oilers play again. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 17:05:44
quote:
MacIntyre had not reason or business fighting there, Ivanans had no reason to take the fight.
From what I saw, Ivanans wanted that fight... jawing at MacIntyre before the faceoff, jawing at each other down the ice, Ivanans drops the first glove. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 16:28:10
Agreed Beans. Completely pointless. It was sad to see another human being in such a poor physical state, sad that it was his own responsibility for ending up in that state(could also have been MacIntyre one punched by Ivanans), and even sadder that thousands of humans cheered on. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 09:47:30
If youwant an example of why 'old time hockey' should stay old time just watch the beating that Ivanans took last night at the hands (literally) of MacIntyre.
Nothing point in the game (less than 4 minutes left) Oilers were up 4-0 and the Flames were not taking liberties anywhere with the Oilers. MacIntyre had not reason or business fighting there, Ivanans had no reason to take the fight.
From where I was, it looked like Ivanans was hurt pretty bad. Took 3 Flames to lift him off the ice and he couldn't walk to the dressing room on his own.
Pointless. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 03:38:11
Ah the old "Slap Shot" reference of "Old Time Hockey".
Everyone always feels the need to play a little old time hockey when things get heated or they want get the team or fans into the game. The phrase has always meant to hockey players that some sort of payback or intimidation by roughing up their opponents with cheap shots or fights. Maybe even stepping up the on ice jestures and taunting to throw the other players of their game. The old Broad St. Bullies were a classic example of what "old time hockey" was like in the NHL.
In todays game with the instigator and aggressor penalties the old time hockey has switched to stick swinging and blindside hits and coreographed fighting.
There is no "old time hockey" in todays game because back in the day if someone did what Cammalleri did last week then someone on the other team would have dropped the mits and exacted justice whether the other guy liked it or not.
The debate will always go on about fighting and payback in the NHL and whether it still has its place in the game. I for one am old school and when someone is taking advantage of someone on my team then payback is the only option.
Funny thing about the phrase "Old Time Hockey". In the movie Slap Shot when coach Reggie Dunlop was telling his players to play "old time hockey" he actually wanted them to stop fighting and play the game. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 22:30:36
Good points slozo. I doubt real 'old time hockey' would excuse goonery, so when we use it today to excuse certain things that are currently deemed dangerous or illegal in hockey seems contradictory.
Never thought of that point Slozo.
This leads me to a question:what is "old time hockey"?
What era are we referring to? 90's 80's 70's 60's 50's 40's?
Hockey has changed, I doubt fighting was always "acceptable" and I think that never has using your stick as a weapon been legal or justifiable in sport. So, what is old school? |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 20:37:37
Alex - agreed, it is a slight contradiction. When I say "within the rules", I mean "within accepted playing parameters, where rules are in place to govern regular infractions". I admit, its not black and white.
Fighting is a good example - fighting is a penalty, but is generally accepted in the game, and when 2 willing combatants drop the gloves they both implicitly accept the consequence of a 5 minute major. Same with a regular minor penalty - you do something wrong, and you get a penalty for it. No one plays a perfect game, penalties happen. There is a big step from regular gameplay to vigilante justice.
Elvis - if both combatants are not willing, then that becomes unacceptable. Bertuzzi is a great example of what can happen when one person wants to fight and the other does not. That is not cool, and has no place in the game.
At that point, acceptable "justice" needs to be measured out in some other (acceptable) way. A few hard checks, another proposed fight with a willing combatant, whatever it takes to satisfy. Perhaps a public "chicken calling", like Kesler and Ladd last year (they eventually duked it out to clear the air) - no one with a hockey player ego likes to be seen as a turtle. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 20:13:18
I'll say this (and thanks to Fat Elvis for starting up this thoughtful topic):
Any time someone mentions "old time hockey", it invariably tries to dress up something which is illegal, and sometimes very dangerous, on ice behaviour as moral or justified. The topic will start off with the argument that they're just talking about hard, clean checks and whatnot . . . but what they invariably defend is goonish, rogue behaviour.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 17:20:10
Nice posts gentlemen, but I'll take it a step further and play Devil's advocate a bit here, what becomes acceptable if the player doesn't want to fight? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 16:55:57
nuxfan, i agree with everything you say, but there was one slight contradiction in there. When talking about "dropping the gloves", that's not "within the rules". I know what you were getting at with your post and two willing combatants, while not technically within the rules, is good in my books too! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 16:40:27
acceptable payback means "acceptable within the rules", plain and simple. Any player that steps outside the rules - whether it be accidental or on purpose to serve "justice" - should be dealt with harshly. However, within the rules, anything goes really - if you want to paste a player into the boards legally because he took down your star player a few shifts ago, then go for it - the fans will love it. If you want to drop the gloves with a willing opponent and duke it out, thats cool too. If you want to take your stick and two-hand the back of someone's ankle, or "Bertuzzi-punch" a dude from behind, thats not cool.
The game has changed a lot since the old days. Players are a lot bigger and faster, they can do more damage. The stakes are higher, in terms of potential payday for players that perform well vs those that don't - players skate the thin line between responsible and reckless more often. Perhaps even player ego's are larger than they used to be, given the globalization of the game and the virtual stardom players enjoy (inside their home city and outside). It seems easier for things to get out of hand today, and the results seem to be more severe. |
|
|
