| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 01:09:36
I will get the link up from Youtube so anyone who hasn't seen it can a bit latter (im at work right now and can't use youtube)
Basicly Avery and him shove eachother after the play and then Winiewski makes and obscene hand gesture, (the kind you don't make when you re on National Television and are a potential role model for kids across the world)
pretty dumb on his part i don't quite know how many games he deserves but if there is no suspension here i think the league loses any credibility it has left!
Pasty |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| TheRC |
Posted - 10/17/2010 : 21:12:57
For things like giving the finger, I'd go for fines rather than suspensions. Classless? Sure. But it didn't injure anybody, it wasn't dangerous, it didn't unfairly change the outcome of the game. It feels weird removing somebody from the actual game for something that only damaged the *reputation* of the game, if that makes sense. A big fine would hurt the guys who go over top when they get frustrated without hurting their team.
This is slightly off topic, but I might as well bring it up here: I read a good article in the National Post a week or two ago about just how *boring* hockey stars have become. 9 times out of 10 you can guess the answer to the questions they are asked during or after a game. Most of them do their best not to stir up any controversy. Who is the biggest personality left? Ovie?
It seems like now all we have are perfect, boring hockey machines, and the odd lunatic who flips out and gets obscene or violent every now and then. What happened to the funny characters in between? Discuss.
"If at first you don't succeed, you fail" |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 10/16/2010 : 00:38:43
Ok, I think i've seen a few thousand hockey games in which curses and non verbal gestures have been thrown around since I was a young kid. Not saying it belongs in hockey, but I guess I am used to hockey players and parents being foul mouthed people who used bad gestures. Personally if they want to tackle that now to remove it from the game, they gotta go into the younger playing crowd and deal with it then. 2 games is sufficient for this infraction, but does bring to light the unequal punishment versus actual dangerous physical infractions. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 11:34:36
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller
See what gets me is that we see a 2 game suspension handed out for an obscene gesture (To clarify my point, I think it definetly needs to be addressed and punished but I think 2 games is too harsh a punishment for this) and yet, they same day the punishment is handed out, we get a player from Buffalo, defending his fallen teammate actually issuing a threat of physical harm through the media (Sorry, can't remember the player's name at the moment but in essence he said that Hjalmasson (sp?) would be "Dealt" with when they play next.) In my opinion, issuing a threat of physical violence is a MUCH bigger deal than a rude gesture. As a Father of 2 young boys, I could blow off (no pun intended) the rude gesture as just that, a rude gesture, than to explain how one of these "role models" is threatening to hurt another "role model". Had the media not made such a big deal over this obscene gesture, it probably would never have been seen and yet the same media is airing this threat like it is no big deal.
Heard about this this morning and the player being discussed was Patrick Kaleta from the Sabres. Apparently he has a reputation / history already so the league will be keeping an eye on things i'm sure. Ferraro pretty much called him an idiot for what he said / threatened! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 09:28:01
Slozo, I absolutely agree however I don't think the NHL is being moral only when it suits them. One does have to consider that the NHL has 'condoned' (not allowed) fighting in the game for decades. It is a far more difficult nut to crack when something has been established compared to something that is relatively new. Frankly, I don't recall a single sexual gesture being made by any player pre mid-90's. Maybe my memory is not as good as it once was but I don't recall. So the NHL had the ability to punish swiftly and severely.
Ultimately, it comes down to the all mighty dollar. Get the wrong PC group upset with your league and you might see an impact on the bottom line. Or, even worse, an upset major sponsor. However, taking fighting out of the game, at least in some people's eyes, will hurt the bottom line.
Hence the lack of equality. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 09:21:28
Good points traveller.
I think toxxik summed up the situation best. |
| Traveller |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 08:13:20
See what gets me is that we see a 2 game suspension handed out for an obscene gesture (To clarify my point, I think it definetly needs to be addressed and punished but I think 2 games is too harsh a punishment for this) and yet, they same day the punishment is handed out, we get a player from Buffalo, defending his fallen teammate actually issuing a threat of physical harm through the media (Sorry, can't remember the player's name at the moment but in essence he said that Hjalmasson (sp?) would be "Dealt" with when they play next.) In my opinion, issuing a threat of physical violence is a MUCH bigger deal than a rude gesture. As a Father of 2 young boys, I could blow off (no pun intended) the rude gesture as just that, a rude gesture, than to explain how one of these "role models" is threatening to hurt another "role model". Had the media not made such a big deal over this obscene gesture, it probably would never have been seen and yet the same media is airing this threat like it is no big deal. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 08:12:16
Polishexpress: No, that sounds ok to me now. And I agree for the most part with what you say - as you also attest to, it's a public relations move to come down hard on this obscene gesture . . . they know it'll be on all the sports highlights, on youtube, etc, so they have to make sure they look like they are doing the right thing.
And your comments about the fighting are correct. I just feel it's shortsighted by the NHL in regards to what potential money they are missing out on, but as you say, it's tangential to this obscene gesture ruling.
I think we can agree on this as well: There is no equality in the NHL, just like real life. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 06:50:41
I'll clarify my comments: I simply mean that playeres have a different moral code, in that they can get away with more than we can (more so off-ice than on-ice)
I simply wanted to comment that when it comes down to it though, the only moral code is whether it makes money or not.
I think I stated that the NHL's concern was not the inappropriateness of the gesture for children, but rather of how it would reflect upon the NHL.
If the NHL really was concerned about children, like you say, fighting wouldn't be supported at all.
But it is. It keeps and/or draws people to games and televisions sets, thus it related to the bottom line, so fighting stays in as long as it doesn't hinder the NHL financially.
(Proof that it is not a hindrance financially is how much the super-heavy weights are being paid., but this is all an aside from the original topic)
Does this clarify, or am I still appearing contradictory? |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 05:50:53
Polishexpress - you contradict yourself.
If you agree with me (as you stated) that there IS a different moral code among NHLers as opposed to us working slobs . . . then you can't also say that it's the same in the next sentence because both cowtow to the almighty dollar. You gotta choose one.
But all this is sidetracked from my original point about the moral code of enforcing rules, and being very concerned about personal safety, and teaching kids the right things.
If the NHL was really concerned about obscene gestures because of the inappropriateness of this for the children watching/in attendance, then why do they glorify and support fighting? The two things are totally incongruent in terms of "moral code".
If the league is truly serious about player safety, why no seriously long suspensions for terrible plays?
My point was, the NHL only gets "moral" when it suits them, largely for PR purposes.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 19:19:44
Oops. Sorry I'm guest 9964. |
| Guest9964 |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 19:18:56
Slozo, in saying that athletes have a different moral code than the rest of us, I agree, and I think Beans nicely commented on how the codes relate just above me.
But in saying that it is nothing like the real world, think again. The NHL is like the real world in EVERY way.
In your so-called real world, the only "moral code" is the bottom line, the almighty dollar.
Same in the NHL, anything bad for business is bad for "hockey".
Consider how the Wisniewski's gesture is bad for business: it is a potential discriminatory gesture, as it's connotation is negative towards a certain group of individuals in society. You will no doubt agree that allowing vulgar discrimination never helps the bottom line.
And, comparing to other major sports leagues, such behaviour would never be condoned, which would be another negative against the NHL. Nope, can't allow obscene gestures like Wisniewski's. Bad for business. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 12:46:15
Ah, yes. As I expected I have drawn the response of the NHL is totally different than the real world. I agree completely when you are looking at it from a 1 to 1 comparison.
I am not talking about a 1 to 1 comparison as it is not reasonable. You can't compare body checking the opponent during a hockey game to walking into a boardroom and body checking your wife's divorce lawyer. Even though they are both your opponent, one situation has rules defining body checking as acceptable and the other’s rules define body checking as unacceptable.
However, you can look at things at a comparative level. For example, the obscene gesture made to an opponent during a hockey game on national TV can be compared to (for example) sending a co-worker (who really made you made by trying to kiss your wife at the company Christmas Party) an e-mail that will activate his speakers upon opening and will play lewd music and derogatory comments during a tour of Executives through your cubicle city.
The action may be different, but the outcome and the intention is the same. One has to act in a professional manor up to the standards established by the organization they work for. There are consequences when one does not uphold their professionalism. This holds true in real life as it does in sports. That is why all organizations (including professional sports leagues) have some kind of Code of Conduct or Code of Ethics that all staff/members are held accountable to.
Avery got 6 games for the sloppy seconds comment, Winiewski got 2 games for the gesture.
Seems right to me.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 11:11:54
Well, you brought up a good point Beans, but made it a comparison as opposed to a contrast: the "real world", and the world of the NHL (ie millionaire sportsmen) are absolutely nothing alike.
Fighting isn't allowed in the office here, but if I did get in a fight, I might lose my job and get arrested to boot.
If I made gestures like Wisniewski did and others saw it, I might get fired, and if lucky, get sued for some kind of sexual harrassment.
No one is paying to WATCH me work, and I don't make millions of dollars.
I don't have to fight off a bunch of 'puck bunnies' after leaving my workplace (my wife is very thanful for that  )
. . . and the list goes on and on.
No, here in the real world, we have to go by another set of values, another moral code. To pretend otherwise is to be totally blind. The NHL as it stands right now is pretty lawless, promotes thuggery and flaunting of rules, and yet pretends to have this high standard of morality when it comes to a gesture seen by almost no one in the stands at the time.
And speaking of negative light on the NHL . . . I would think that properly penalising fighting - the one thing that makes us bush league compared to the big boys (NFL, MLB, NBA) would be the greatest stride forward in terms of a "moral obligation".
Otherwise, what message are you giving the kids? I'll tell you what message:
Fighting is alright. Violence is good.
If we stand up and cheer for two guys punching each other - an illegal play that is not part of the rules of the game - why should we care about a gesture AFTER the play, essentially between two players?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 09:06:06
Hey folks, just a quick note.
People complain at length about how poor the NHL is at suspensions regarding hitting to the head, blind side hits, etc and you are 100% correct. The punishments doled out for those kinds of offenses are not nearly severe enough to stop the problems.
However, I can recall just a few cases of situations regarding sexual gestures, comments, etc that have happened in the past few seasons. The first was Avery's 'sloppy seconds' comments and now this Winiewski situation.
Both were punished very severely but you know what?? It must be working because they sure don't happen very often. I would like to think that it's (at least partially) because the NHL does handle these kinds of things very seriously.
Finally, I think people are missing the point between the gesture being a sticks and stones kind of situation between two players and a completely classless act by a player which shines a negative light on the image of the NHL.
Anything sexual, racial, etc should and must be handled severely and I seriously thing the NHL could have gone harder than they did.
PS - The Terry Tate thing, although funny, is purely satirical. There are various links between hockey and the real world and because the guys play hockey does not give them any kind of higher rights to act like d-bags than the rest of the world. Regardless of what industry you are in, if you partake in an act that will bring any negativity to your employer, you will be punished. That's a very simple commonality between the NHL and the real world.
|
| Traveller |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 08:05:37
I agree that the punishment does not fit the crime. Until this point I thought that he just gave Avery the Finger...I am now figuring out this was a bit more...uh...risque than that but still, 2 games for a gesture...whatever happened to "Sticks and Stones"? I am by no means saying that there should not have been action taken but a 2 game suspension is way too harsh. A (largish) fine and possibly a public apology would have been justified and still send the message that this behavior would not be tolerated. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 07:58:35
Guest 6520 - you hit the nail on the head there, agreed.
The NHL has gone mad here. Totally out of proportion to the crime, and I suppose it's as a result of the politics of selling the game to youngsters, and satisfying parental concerns.
Which is hilarious, considering that the gratuitous violence is engendered, nurtured and cheered on (ie. hockey fights, big hits); the outfits of some "ice girls" are sexist and demeaning if you are looking for family entertainment; and the gestures and clearly mouthed profanities of some coaches has gone on unfettered and unfined. On top of that, at least at the Leaf games, they have this popular "kissing cam" which puts a camera on members of the fans in the stands to try and get complete strangers to smooch, girls to kiss each other, etc in a sort of lampoon/comedy bit.
This is all a reflection of our society, which is totally out of whack with what moral values are, and where the line is drawn. And once again, the NHL has it ALL. WRONG.
Do people even realise what is on tv and radio, even during the day and early evening, and compare it to what Wisniewski did here? Our children see this kind of crap daily, even hourly, already . . . that is, if you let them watch it. As a parent myself, I would have a lot more concern about the level of swearing in the crowd, than I do about a gesture that is probably not understood by my young kid in the first place (most likely not seen). If it is understood . . . that means they have already seen it and understand what it means, so what is the point of giving out a suspension that equals a dangerous, potential career ending hit from behind?
It's a head scratcher.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest6520 |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 00:10:42
Ok, two things.
One, awesome. Rivals Eberle's goal as best moment of the year to date. And seriously, couldn't have picked a better player to offend. Does anyone actually care about Avery's feelings? I say, great burn.
Two, Polski...analogies between the NHL and a regular work place don't really fly, for obvious reasons, Terry Tate office linebacker anyone? But my real point is the following:
This season his penalty is double Cammalleri's ankle slash, equal the Hjalmarsson hit, and double Boynton's throat slashing gesture. DOUBLE the throat slashing gesture.
Think about that for a minute, "sexual throat motion" 2 games, "murdering throat motion" 1 game.
All is not well in the state of Denmark. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 22:47:08
Gotta side with Beans.
Walter, try doing what Wisniewski did to one of your co-workers, or better yet, to whoever the business you work for competes against. Tell me what happens.
Gotta, say, though Beans, I like that the NHL goes on a case by case basis, though it isn't always fair. I like having gray areas, not solid, black and white lines.
It shows you who truly respects the principles of the rules as well as others trying to abide by them, but also allows for human error.
(A possible response will probably be that the most error has come from the NHL's disciplinary judgment, but hey, we wouldn't be talking about this otherwise, would we?) |
| Walter.Ego |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 22:14:42
Two games is harsh, but you still think he should have gotten more? I dont see how that gesture can be any worse than concussing someone, as Hjalmarsson received the same number of games. Theres something wrong with this picture. So maybe it wasnt what you would call appropriate, and people were shocked, but big deal. Seriously, what were the consequences? Brain trauma? No. But I suppose it did upset Beans. And it really doesnt matter what the NFL does. |
| Guest4776 |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 19:02:23
not gonna lie here......... that was the greatest thing i have ever seen happen on tv |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 18:55:26
2 games is light to me. This was completely classless. Regardless of who was involved as the 2nd party, this was a completely joke.
Should have gotten more. |
| semin-rules |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 16:21:04
He got two game suspension ! |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 16:19:14
I am just anticipating how the NHL will frame its wording in describing the gesture . . . lol
I'd guess a minimal fine, and I'm happy with that.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 07:33:54
I will watch the link later as I can not get to it from work. That being said, one of the biggest if not the biggest issue with NHL discipline is their focus on punishing the person and the outcome rather than the behavior.
The NFL, for example, punishes everyone for infractions. Such as obscene gestures. It does matter weather it is Brett Farve or Plexico Burress. However, everyone is punished for breaking the rules.
Hopefully the NHL will look at it the same way. |
| Traveller |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 06:49:44
I can see them giving him some sort of fine. 5 Grand or so...purely because of the "role model" argument...plus it will take away some of Avery's "if it were me I would be in rehab" argument...Personally I wish he was being investigated for doing us all a favour and ripping Avery's head off...litterally...T. |
| Walter.Ego |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 01:40:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONb5waVYAGM
I dont see any good reason to have him suspended but I do think it's kind of hilarious. Maybe if it was in an interview, but it's a game situation. And it's not the NHL's job to discipline kids around the world either. And come on, who doesnt think Sean Avery is a [ moderator edit ] sucker? |
|
|
