| Author |
 Topic  |
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2010 : 13:23:56
|
Something I've bee thinking about with the rash of questionable conduct going on in the NHL as of late, with the late hits, bad hits, head hits and dumb *hits.
Why are the refs not doing what they are supposed to?
They have a whole rulebook at their disposal, having access to various penalties, covering what really should be all situations in a game.
Intent to injure major - covers a lot of ground
Unsportsmanlike conduct - covers more ground yet
Why oh why do the refs not make more of the on ice calls and actually begin to control the game, is it Campbell? Bettman? Crosby? Ovechkin? Slozo? Beans?....
Thoughts?
|
Edited by - willus3 on 03/16/2010 20:53:54
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 13:45:45
|
My thoughts, especially after reading the boarding and charging rules you (i think it was you?) quoted the other day is that they're worded poorly. This was my big argument back when we discussed the Liambas / Fanelli his a few months back. They are somewhat vague. I said if Ovechkin hit campbell from the side with a clean bodycheck and Campbell fell the same way and the same injuries resulted, i'd be okay with it. Why not, right? BUT, read the "boarding" rule again:
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
Does this not imply that even a clean hit that results in a guy ending up the way Campbell did, should be called a penalty?
This is what i mean when i say a lot of the penalties are poorly worded! |
 |
|
|
Guest6840
( )
|
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 14:11:08
|
| Just to answer the title, a Ref is an official who calls fouls penalties etc. a ref does his job as long as he gets 90% good calls. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 14:43:13
|
At least hockey refs actually do get most calls correct. It is a rarity to make a big mistake in hockey.
If any of you tune in to the World Cup in South Africa, I can guarantee that you will see at least one game changing call. Soccer refs regularly give out questionable red cards(like a game misconduct in hockey), miss or invent offsides, and disallow or allow goals, all of which would be avoided if they were able to use replays(FIFA bans them- not every country governed by FIFA rules could afford installing video replays in every pro stadium)
So, actually, I'm pretty happy with refs, they do what their told: if the NHL changes the rules, they'll change their calls.
Besides: calling penalties for intent to injure have to be clearly justifiable, otherwise, refs could call the penalty on any player that irks them. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 14:43:15
|
My answer is that it's the NHL Brass as well as Joe Fan/media.
Firstly, the job of a ref is tough. hockey may be the fastest team game on earth and the refs literally have split seconds to make their decisions. Anyone remember Ron MacLean getting all over Campbell a couple of years ago about the refs? He was asked to come out and ref and he shut his mouth really quick. It's significantly harder than it looks.
When they do a good job, no one says a thing. But make one mistake and the masses punish the poor guy. Even this recent Ovechkin situation. The ref did EVERYTHING possible within their power and some people continue to criticize.
Simply put, the ref can not do a good enough job. When you have Colin Campbell (who has the consistency of chicken noodle soup) managing the discipline piece, it makes the job even harder. Even more so, the rules of the NHL have change dramatically since the lock out. Does someone run the risk of making a mistake and getting no playoff games or getting slide out the backdoor??
The NHL has taken away the power from the ref by their inconsistent discipline and Joe Fan/TSN calling for head as soon as a ref makes a mistake. Bottom line, the ref is human and mistakes may happen. Rather than learning by these mistakes, people get punished for them.
What does one expect???
Here is an idea that I think would serious help. Make one head official, one alternate official, and give the linesmen the ability to call any penalty. Above this, anything more than a minor penalty call or at the refs choosing there should be an NFL official style huddle. This would reduce the number of questionable calls and give the officials a chance to convene on grey areas.
I believe that the NHL is the only league of the 4 big one's in North America to not have a true 'officiating team." or the ability to change their minds based on a conversation. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 16:14:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6840
Just to answer the title, a Ref is an official who calls fouls penalties etc. a ref does his job as long as he gets 90% good calls.
Thank you for the enlightening response to a question that, much like the meaning of life, has been bothering me for some time now, when is a ref a ref? Glad to see you could take time from your busy "Mike Green will you marry me campaign", to educate me with such a cerebral response. Now I can truly sleep at night.
PS. If you're going to try sarcasm, you may want to enroll in the advanced class next semester, the kindergarten version isn't quite making it.
PSS. The phrase 'rhetorical question', may be another thing you get the teacher to talk to you about, I realize it's a biggie, but I have faith, you'll get it eventually. 
note - Moderators, before you get all uppity with my poking fun at the poster, just remember......he started it!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 18:05:28
|
| Since he clarified his response with 'just to answer the title', It wasn't even really sarcasm at all. Ease up a bit Fat Elvis, make yourself a fried grease sammich or something and toss one out to a photo of a cadillac. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 18:54:33
|
My mistake, thought he might have known I knew what a ref was. Guess I'll have to be clearer and post non-rhetorically.
I just thought that since he let another post go numerous replies before letting posters know it was a joke, he would appreciate the reply, which was why I made sure to make it clear I was poking fun at the poster, not being malicious.
So am I then correct in taking your 'grease sammich' and 'toss one out to a photo of a cadillac.', as sarcasm? Or are you just looking after my welfare regarding the sandwich, and continuing to make us wonder about your interest in all things penile, with the other comment? Just asking.
Oh yeah, I am just poking fun, again not trying to be malicious.
To the Moderators:
I know, I know...stop the negative banter, or this topic will get locked down, my bad. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 20:37:03
|
polishexpress......good points on the World Cup. That's a real frustrating part of soccer, as well of course as the lack of scoring. The only part that is a bit skewed is the offside calls they may make or miss. It's the linesmen in soccer who make the offside decisions actually. Regadless, if you're including them i agree because even though it doesn't seem like a difficult call, it is often called incorrectly by the linesmen!
Beans, didn't Maclean take him up on the job offer and actually ref a game?
BTW, excellent point about the refs getting nothing other than negative press and/or comments towards them. It is somewhere between extremely rare and never that you hear a ref get complimented. Maybe for a particular call or incident, but hardly ever regarding their work for a game as a whole. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 20:47:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
My thoughts, especially after reading the boarding and charging rules you (i think it was you?) quoted the other day is that they're worded poorly. This was my big argument back when we discussed the Liambas / Fanelli his a few months back. They are somewhat vague. I said if Ovechkin hit campbell from the side with a clean bodycheck and Campbell fell the same way and the same injuries resulted, i'd be okay with it. Why not, right? BUT, read the "boarding" rule again:
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
Does this not imply that even a clean hit that results in a guy ending up the way Campbell did, should be called a penalty?
This is what i mean when i say a lot of the penalties are poorly worded!
Well let's take a look at the boarding penalty.
To answer your question at the end of your post, yes and it wouldn't have to end up in an injury to be called a penalty either.
First of all, you have to go way, way back to when the rules of the game were created and understand what the purpose of a check was. It is to separate the man from the puck. Now when you consider this and then read the boarding rule you can clearly see how the finish your check mentality(along with other things) has eroded the ground(melted the ice?) the refs stand on. A check was never intended to be an avenue to injure another player. Skating full force into another player is not within the rules of the game. But this is what you see players today do with regularity without penalty.
To change anything, it has to be driven by the nhl brass. From time to time they will do this. For example after the Broad Street Bullies won cups via intimidation and dirty play the NHL brass(Ziegler) decided to crack down on that type of play by having the refs call the necessary infractions. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 21:10:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
First of all, you have to go way, way back to when the rules of the game were created and understand what the purpose of a check was. It is to separate the man from the puck. Now when you consider this and then read the boarding rule you can clearly see how the finish your check mentality(along with other things) has eroded the ground(melted the ice?) the refs stand on. A check was never intended to be an avenue to injure another player. Skating full force into another player is not within the rules of the game. But this is what you see players today do with regularity without penalty.
Cha-friggin-ching!! I don't think I could sum up my thoughts any better. The problem is that when a player does hurl himself at top speeds at another player, what happens??
The Crowd goes wild..........
So, for the sake of the game, attendance, and ultimately the all mighty dollar, we get to where we are today. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/16/2010 21:10:56 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 05:33:34
|
We're getting warmer . . . now, let me tell you why things happen in the NHL like
fighting (which is illegal but promoted)
and why they won't get rid of the very hard plastic pads
and why they wouldn't stop waffling on suspension length which sends out mixed messages to the players
and why things like head shots will only get dealt with lightly , and then only after immense public pressure:
$$$ M O N E Y $$$
You know guys, I have gone through a process (and I was going to make a long write-up earlier but things like a wife, a kid and work got in the way) here on pick-up hockey, and some of you have changed my mind on things. Well, Bob McCowan made some strong points on the radio, and guys like you Fat Elvis (and Beans and Willus and Alex116) have also had some input into my change of position.
I am now of the mind that any head shot should be out of the game, and the whole "intent to injure" is a rule that should be employed. After actually reading the rules, it really puts a perspective on things . . . and one realises how little they are actually followed. One realises that the game is an entertainment forum that is offered up to the fan who wants our modern day gladiators to pummel the crap out of each other, skate super fast, be skillful, and damage each other in spectacular crashes. And unfortunately, the bottom line isn't the enjoyment of the fan per se, it's money (although it dovetails with the main reason often as most of the time that is where a lot of the money comes from).
Anyways, I have changed my mind about the Cooke hit - I now think it should be illegal, as called properly, as it is intent to injure. Finishing your check AFTER the person has released the puck is intent to injure, period. In "close" calls the check might happen at the same time as the release, so it may not provide time to ease up . . . but this was clearly not the case, viewing it in real time.
Hockey needs a backbone for discipline - and Campbell is an invertebrate . . . or at the very least, a shapeshifting one. On the Ovechkin call (see: outspoken Russian superstar who has repeatedly rebuffed the NHL on several issues including the upcoming Sochi Olympics), he makes a brave, correct call by suspending him for two games . . . the league's leading scorer and point getter, that's a big frickin' deal! And yet, a player like Mike Richards who is only described as "tough and hard-nosed and gritty" (see: unvocal Canadian Olympic team member) gets nothing for various offences which are just as illegal and just as injurious.
Savard is in a dark room right now, my friends . . . he is in a dark room, literally, because when you have a concussion like he has, you can't take the bright light. It makes you dizzy and nauseous. The thing I realised is, this kind of thing shouldn't be happening at all, and that to make it not happen, there have to be very strict penalties on it.
To answer your question, Obese self-proclaimed King of Rock'n'Roll, the refs cannot call what will get them demoted or fired, and they cannot call what will not be backed up by the backbone of discipline, Colin Campbell. Their hands are tied, and in fact, they are technically doing exactly what they are "supposed to be doing", which is, following the sets of rules and guidelines given to them by their bosses - which is at times wildly divergent from the actual written rules of our beloved sport.
No ref wants to get fired, and on top of that, they would have all - every single one of them - grown up in the same hockey culture. That's the one that promotes finishing your check, injurious open ice hits, allowing dirty play to go uncalled, and allowing fighting to continue unabated. Most of them played at some level, and if they didn't, they were brought up in that culture.
We'd have to change the entire system to get the refs to call a good game.
'nuff said.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 03/17/2010 05:38:25 |
|
|
|
Guest4721
( )
|
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 07:33:09
|
Hockey doesn't have fighting and hitting because of money (although it is a popular aspect, so this is partly to blame). If anyone has played any level of hockey you know that tempers flare up all the time, it gets heated and intense. Hell, there is regular fighting in my Universities intramural league, which doesn't even have body contact.
Fighting is a way to get back at the scumbag who is slashing your ankles and trash-talking your mother. Get rid of all fighting and hitting, and you'd have euro-league hockey, where stickwork happens at 200% the rate of the NHL, and you'll get a bunch of diving too, as guys won't ever be accountable for their actions (this is a problem with the instigator too as Grapes says). I disagree that allowing harder pads/head shots has a monetary purpose, since guys have a chance to get hurt (especially superstars) |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 08:05:26
|
Guest 4721:
Do you think Aussi Rules Football, Rugby, american football are any less physical than hockey? Do you think they have less trash talking, and the players are calmer with no temper?
Then if the answer is no, they are not less physical than hockey (in fact, some could be argued to be more physical), then . . . what the hell are you on about? How do you think those sports keep "fighting" out of their respective playing fields, and yet they have lots of hard physical contact and still have a lot of skillful plays and talent. And who said "get rid of hitting?
These are very, very poor arguments.
Next!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 08:33:16
|
@Slozo:
You make some very good points. We can reasonably expect the driving factor of the league's disciplinary policy to be the almighty dollar.
My question to you is this:
Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the Owners/GMs to take action against the so-called questionable officiating so as to protect their multi-million dollar assets? Seems to me guys like Tambellini should be livid when a guy like Handzus cripples a guy like Hemsky for half the season. |
Edited by - impropriety on 03/17/2010 08:33:53 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 08:52:16
|
impropriety - good question, and one that I knew would come up.
Those "multi-million dollar assets" as you call them - which they are - are interchangeable to somedegree, and there's a fresh crop every year. So (again, to some degree) you can have a situation where many big stars have been taken out via head hits and concussions - a few of them of the "A" variety - and there is just a normal turnover and replacement happening.
Did the league's revenues go down with head hits and concussions to LaFontaine? Lindros? Allison? Palffy? Elias? And more recently . . . Toews? Booth? and now Savard? It's a roll of the dice whether you are still good enough to go or can play again, and in that list we have full-on retirement, dimished abilities, and moving to other leagues with less physicality and a lower skill level . . . but the reult has been the same from the owners:
Not a blink of the eye.
It just rolls right along, because for every Lindros that you lose, there's a Tavares or Stamkos or Duchene around the corner. The merry-go-round has a constant stream of players, and thus, a pretty constant stream of money attached to them.
And, as the Lindros example shows, even guys like Ovechkin and Crosby are somewhat expendable . . . well, maybe not Crosby, but you get the picture.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 09:43:41
|
@ Slozo:
I won't argue with your examples because they're pretty solid. You've done a good job of showing that the GMs (for some reason I don't understand) don't see this as a threat to their financial well-being.
I'll take (Savard + Seguin) over (Seguin replacing Savard) any day of the week, though. Maybe I'm just smarter-than-the-average-GM. |
Edited by - impropriety on 03/17/2010 09:44:54 |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 09:56:05
|
Come to think of it, Tambellini is a great example of a GM that should champion the cause. Iginla's hit on Souray (apparently legal, but obviously reckless) and Handzus' hit on Hemsky (obviously intent to injure) have turned the Edmonton Oilers from a bubble team to a lost-cause. Rexall was packed to the rafters as recently as last year - with a very similar squad on the ice, I might add. Now the season ticket holders are having trouble giving their tickets away.
If there's any team that stands to benefit from what's proposed here, it's the Oilers. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 10:52:07
|
Well, yes and no . . . the Oil will get a #1 pick this year, and a lot of the revenues are derived from merchandise, which has not gone down significantly and which will rise quite a bit with the arrival of Taylor Hall. Also, real bottom line for the owner is not often seat generated, it's how much they can save in salary versus the revenues.
I don't have the figures on all that, but I think that is how most of the franchises operate . . . the thing is, with a competetive team that gets in the playoffs, yes, you do generate a lot more money. But it also costs more because you need to spend at or near the cap to do so, and there is no guarantee of revenue past an extra 4 games and the additional hype for your merchandise it creates. On the other hand, you go millions below the cap and have cheap operating expenses, that's money in your pocket.
Look at the operating revenues for the Oil here for 2007:
http://www.sportscity.com/NHL/Forbes-NHL-Team-Valuations/
20th in the Forbes ranking, but that means jacksh*t to the owner, look at operating revenue - 7th highest in the league. Will 2, 3 or maybe if your lucky 4 playoff games get you a couple million more? perhaps. Will shaving that much off the payroll do the same? Guaranteed.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 10:55:02
|
| By the laws of supply and demand, though, would it not stand to reason that fewer superstars being taken out in a Lindros-esque fashion would increase the number available, lowering the total cap necessary to ice a playoff team? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 12:13:01
|
Well, a few less stars here or there doesn't have that much of an effect really, other than showing the fans that it can sometimes be a brutal game - which is exciting, no denying it.
Lowering the bar of skill ever so slightly doesn't necessarily lower the excitement for the common fan, when that is offset by two goons battling it out in the centre of the ice with the clock stopped. That's what some people enjoy, I guess.
Your supply and demand concept is a bit flawed in regards to how much the top players cost, also. Rank the top NHL players of the last decade, the last 20 years, then match them up with who in each of those ten, twenty years were the top three earners in terms of salary. Yep, talent levels vary among the top stars - no one will argue that Keith Tkachuk was more valuable than Gretzky as a player - and every year, the price always goes up.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 14:20:53
|
Back in 2006 when the Oil made their crazy run, the talked about the revenues they got from a playoff game. They stated at the time that every home playoff game netted a little more than $1 million.
Secondly, for anyone that thinks fighting has a place in the game, is say two words.
International Hockey.
Regardless of the Spengler Cup, Juniors, Olympics, whatever. International hockey is bare none the best hockey to watch. And the fighting in international hockey is where???
|
|
|
|
Guest6840
( )
|
Posted - 03/17/2010 : 22:16:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Back in 2006 when the Oil made their crazy run, the talked about the revenues they got from a playoff game. They stated at the time that every home playoff game netted a little more than $1 million.
Secondly, for anyone that thinks fighting has a place in the game, is say two words.
International Hockey.
Regardless of the Spengler Cup, Juniors, Olympics, whatever. International hockey is bare none the best hockey to watch. And the fighting in international hockey is where???
i prefer NHL hockey. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 05:05:13
|
I'll top that guest 6840 - I prefer NHL playoff hockey.
Still basically no fighting, because the penalty is a game misconduct and the stakes are higher for each game. What a weird thing, really, that the NHL is the only sport that selectively uses the same rule in different ways during the regular and playoff season . . .
. . . but back to the direction we were going in: thanks Beans, I thought it was about that. So, average first round playoff appearance is about +3 million in revenue . . . not a huge deal considering that means just one second line player less (below the cap) for the same amount of money.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 07:06:53
|
not to be a prick I suggest everyone of you to go take a reffing clinic. I guarantee you'll have a whole new appreciation for the rules as you will understand what Hockey Canada wants you to call. (Not exactly the same in the NHL but similar). Then if you really want to understand what reffing is all about ref a couple games even if it is 9-10 year olds playing who are not allowed to hit. I guarantee you will all have a whole new appreciation for the refs and the job they do.
PS: In the NHL the most severe call a ref can make is a 5 min major and game misconduct and then it is up to the league to decide suspensions.
In Minor hockey the ref makes the call as too how long a suspension will be unless it is a repeat offender then it is the ref's call plus games. Ex: I call a match and a 5 min major for slash on player a and he’s already been suspended for the same thing that year he will have received 3 games the first time 5 games the second time and if it were to happen a third time it would be 7 games and a review which could ultimately lead to more games. A fourth time warrants a season long suspension. (Never heard of that happening in minor hockey).
|
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 07:31:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Back in 2006 when the Oil made their crazy run, the talked about the revenues they got from a playoff game. They stated at the time that every home playoff game netted a little more than $1 million.
Secondly, for anyone that thinks fighting has a place in the game, is say two words.
International Hockey.
Regardless of the Spengler Cup, Juniors, Olympics, whatever. International hockey is bare none the best hockey to watch. And the fighting in international hockey is where???
Beans do you know why you don’t like fighting in hockey?
Ill tell you....because you never played the game! Not a cheap shot by any means just a fact, if you were on the ice and a teammate of yours got run dirty your goiong to want to kick his ass. Fighting does have its place in the game. The two types of fights I don’t like are staged fights between the 2-3 minute player’s and the fights that come from good clean hits. The fights I do like are when two players ex: Vinny & Iginla square off in the finals because they want to get they’re teams going that beautiful to watch also when a guy steps up for a teammate when he gets hit dirty.
And a side note, players are not allowed to fight in international hockey but eventually they will get mad and you have a Canada vs. Russia bench brawl with all of Canada watching.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 07:55:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Back in 2006 when the Oil made their crazy run, the talked about the revenues they got from a playoff game. They stated at the time that every home playoff game netted a little more than $1 million.
Secondly, for anyone that thinks fighting has a place in the game, is say two words.
International Hockey.
Regardless of the Spengler Cup, Juniors, Olympics, whatever. International hockey is bare none the best hockey to watch. And the fighting in international hockey is where???
Beans do you know why you don’t like fighting in hockey?
Ill tell you....because you never played the game! Not a cheap shot by any means just a fact, if you were on the ice and a teammate of yours got run dirty your goiong to want to kick his ass. Fighting does have its place in the game. The two types of fights I don’t like are staged fights between the 2-3 minute player’s and the fights that come from good clean hits. The fights I do like are when two players ex: Vinny & Iginla square off in the finals because they want to get they’re teams going that beautiful to watch also when a guy steps up for a teammate when he gets hit dirty.
And a side note, players are not allowed to fight in international hockey but eventually they will get mad and you have a Canada vs. Russia bench brawl with all of Canada watching.
Do you know why I put zero validity into your comment?
Let' me tell you, because it's completely irrelevant!! Regardless of who has played or not played anything has ZERO impact one what on likes or doesn't like about sports. I have played sports. Sports at a very high level and there are times when things do get dirty. When that happens, and your team mate is hurt. Do you know the best way to "get back" at the person who did that to your team mate is??
Win. Humiliate them on the scoreboard. Beat them so effen bad that they will never forget who did it to them and why they got hammered so hard.
Let me tell you a little story. In Regional Finals in Basketball in High School, a player on our team (al beit not a a good player at all) but he was hit with a very dirty elbow which broke his nose but the ref did not kick the other guy out of the game.. Our coach pulls the team together (after getting a technical for yelling at the ref) and simply says, "Hurt'em up there" and pointed to the scoreboard.
We beat that team by 80 points. Some of those guys never played competative basketball again and their last memory will be of a complete humiliation because of a moronic play by their team mate.
The simple fact that so many people miss is that hockey is NOT the most violent sport in the world and it is one of the few(I believe Lacrosse is the other other) non-combat sport that condone fighting. If there was never fighting allowed in the game would you argue that fighting would make the sport better??Does any make comments that Rubgy, Football, Aussie Rules, etc would be better if the players were all of a sudden allowed to fight??It's a weak argument to say the least. And to bring up Russia vs. Canada bench clearing brawl?? That was more than 20 friggin years ago!!
Fights will still happen in hockey(as they do in every single sport), but if there was to be an automatic game misconduct for a fight, they would reduce to the point of near elimination. I can all but promise that the number of fans that would stop watching the game because there was little or no fighting would be so minimal, it would make zero impact. Furthermore, it would make zero negative impact to the quality of the game. To the contrary, it would improve because players like George Parros, Derek Boogaard, and Donald Brashear would no longer be in the game and would be replaced by people would can actually play the game.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/18/2010 09:33:53 |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 08:40:14
|
Good job beans!
I absolutely agree international hockey proves that our game can be entertaining without fighting condoned.
I also agree that the best way to get back is using the scoreboard. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 09:54:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
.....PS: In the NHL the most severe call a ref can make is a 5 min major and game misconduct and then it is up to the league to decide suspensions.........
This is what I was getting at when I asked the question originally, the refs have the ability to make this call, yet, they either choose to not use it when it could send the proper message, ie: the Lapierre hit, the Alfredsson hit, the Cooke hit, the Richards hit, last night, the Wisniewski hit, and so on. Why?
Then, when a ref finally does have the cojones to make the right call, as he did with Ovechkin's hit, the hockey world goes crazy and divides itself debating whether it was too much...
This is insane, the refs have that 5 and a game call available for a mutlitude of situations, giving them the ability to control the game.
It has nothing to do with understanding a ref's duty, no one needs to take a ref's clinic(which I have), to know that a significant call should be made on a dangerous play. It has nothing to 'whether someone has ever played the game', which is getting to be the most overused excuse for intelligent rebuttal.
It has to do with letting the refs make the calls that make the players accountable for their actions. Simple as that. Where it gets convoluted is as some posters have pointed out, money, Campbell, marketing etc.
Time to let the refs ref and the game may have a chance at fixing itself a bit. I most certainly can appreciate the difficulty and professionalism it takes to be a ref at that level, perhaps the poswers that be should let them do their jobs accordingly Even a bit of a fix, is better than what we are watching now. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 09:58:26
|
Ok Beans first off you truly do not understand the game the way people who have played the game do. Just like I don’t understand Basketball the way you do. Simply watching and going over stats and or playing rec hockey is not the same. You have never been in the same situations as a Hockey player.
Going back to my last post....If you and I were line mates and I got crosschecked in the face and you didn't do something about it I would kick your ass next practice! You would want to do the same to me if it were the other way around.
So yes if you had ever played the game you would like maybe appreciate fighting. I am not saying tats the only part of the game you would like....im saying you would realize that it is a more valuable tool then you do now.
At the end of the day if you have or have not played the game is relevant when talking about it!! [ moderator edit - personal attack ]
How is calling basketball "[Mod. Edit -Inappropriate Language]" a personal attack but the first sentence you post following this you state I have my head up my ass but thats not a personal attack. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/18/2010 14:11:11 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 10:34:05
|
T-bar: Not to be a prick, but I suggest you extricate your cranium from your anus and take a look outside of hockey.
Lots and lots of other sports have hard physical play and don't need fighting to "let off steam". In those sports, if a major infraction or fight occurs, there are stiff penalties. It's a direct freaking correlation, which you may not understand if you've taken too many headshots, so I'll put it in plain English:
Stiffer penalties on fighting = LESS FIGHTS, LESS GOONS
Less fights and less goons = MORE SKILLED PLAYERS
more skilled players = BETTER FRICKIN' HOCKEY 
You didn't address my comment about NHL PLAYOFF HOCKEY BEING THE MOST EXCITING HOCKEY IN THE WORLD IMHO, so I guess that means you agree that a lot less fighting and no goons can still be exciting, hunh?
as well:
stiffer penalties (suspensions) on head shots = LESS HEAD SHOTS
less head shots = LESS INJURIES, AND A HEALTHIER FUTURE FOR ALL PLAYERS, ESPECIALLY THE TOP STARS OF THE GAME WHO ARE THE MOST TARGETTED
Hope that makes things clearer. When making your rebuttal, please try to address each point specifically, and try not to avoid any of the major points I have made, thanks!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 10:48:11
|
tbar - that "if I got cross-checked in the face" analogy . . . does it apply to me too? If I didn't join in the melee and start bashing someone's skull in, would that mean you'd try to "kick my ass" too? 
*NOTE: I am 6'2", 258lbs, have worked as a bouncer, am trained in martial arts and wrestling, and in general am a very tough dude
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 10:48:44
|
Excuse me for interjecting here Tbar, but you make some points that I am not sure of. I am in no way attempting to defend any position stated by other posters, but I am wondering if this is truly the state of mind of players that have come through the systems 20 years later than myself.
If you were crosschecked in the face, and the ref caught the infraction, should a teammate go in there and get involved? This is an example of fighting that is, in my opinion, not necessary and gratuitous to satisfy the unfortunate, redneck-like opinion of why fighting is okay.
A blanket statement like the one you use, 'So yes if you had ever played the game you would like maybe appreciate fighting.' is just sort of self-aggrandizing and not true, some of us have played the game, at various levels, and don't agree with that statement.
I ride the fence on the necessity of fighting, I understand the mentality behind it, just not sure of the necessity. To bring things back to the topic at hand, if the refs were allowed to enforce the rules intended, propogators of cheap play, would get penalized accordingly, negating the need for the 'eye for an eye' mentality that, at times, mucks up the game and lowers it to the levels of professional wrestling |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 11:12:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
tbar - that "if I got cross-checked in the face" analogy . . . does it apply to me too? If I didn't join in the melee and start bashing someone's skull in, would that mean you'd try to "kick my ass" too?
*NOTE: I am 6'2", 258lbs, have worked as a bouncer, am trained in martial arts and wrestling, and in general am a very tough dude
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
To answer your question yes I would. What are you going to do drop kick me? Or what the hell does martial arts have to do with it?? FYI I am 5'10 185 pounds and have fought many of guys bigger then your 6'2 frame. Its a hockey fight not a ufc fight! |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 11:26:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
T-bar: Not to be a prick, but I suggest you extricate your cranium from your anus and take a look outside of hockey.
Lots and lots of other sports have hard physical play and don't need fighting to "let off steam". In those sports, if a major infraction or fight occurs, there are stiff penalties. It's a direct freaking correlation, which you may not understand if you've taken too many headshots, so I'll put it in plain English:
Stiffer penalties on fighting = LESS FIGHTS, LESS GOONS
Less fights and less goons = MORE SKILLED PLAYERS
more skilled players = BETTER FRICKIN' HOCKEY
You didn't address my comment about NHL PLAYOFF HOCKEY BEING THE MOST EXCITING HOCKEY IN THE WORLD IMHO, so I guess that means you agree that a lot less fighting and no goons can still be exciting, hunh?
as well:
stiffer penalties (suspensions) on head shots = LESS HEAD SHOTS
less head shots = LESS INJURIES, AND A HEALTHIER FUTURE FOR ALL PLAYERS, ESPECIALLY THE TOP STARS OF THE GAME WHO ARE THE MOST TARGETTED
Hope that makes things clearer. When making your rebuttal, please try to address each point specifically, and try not to avoid any of the major points I have made, thanks!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Here is what I said two or three posts ago "Fighting does have its place in the game. The two types of fights I don’t like are staged fights between the 2-3 minute player’s and the fights that come from good clean hits. The fights I do like are when two players ex: Vinny & Iginla square off in the finals because they want to get they’re teams going that beautiful to watch also when a guy steps up for a teammate when he gets hit dirty."
Does this answer your question?
And im ust curious wtf ever said anything about keeping the 2-3 minute per game guys?? Not me! |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 11:29:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Excuse me for interjecting here Tbar, but you make some points that I am not sure of. I am in no way attempting to defend any position stated by other posters, but I am wondering if this is truly the state of mind of players that have come through the systems 20 years later than myself.
If you were crosschecked in the face, and the ref caught the infraction, should a teammate go in there and get involved? This is an example of fighting that is, in my opinion, not necessary and gratuitous to satisfy the unfortunate, redneck-like opinion of why fighting is okay.
A blanket statement like the one you use, 'So yes if you had ever played the game you would like maybe appreciate fighting.' is just sort of self-aggrandizing and not true, some of us have played the game, at various levels, and don't agree with that statement.
I ride the fence on the necessity of fighting, I understand the mentality behind it, just not sure of the necessity. To bring things back to the topic at hand, if the refs were allowed to enforce the rules intended, propogators of cheap play, would get penalized accordingly, negating the need for the 'eye for an eye' mentality that, at times, mucks up the game and lowers it to the levels of professional wrestling
Elvis this is how its been on everyteam i have ever played for. If somebody cheap shots your team mate you better do something about it. You may not get s*** kicked in practice but you definitly wont be having beers with the boys anytime soon.
And I am just curious if you played in the 70's? I would think it would have been even more extreme then no?? |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 12:30:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
.....PS: In the NHL the most severe call a ref can make is a 5 min major and game misconduct and then it is up to the league to decide suspensions.........
This is what I was getting at when I asked the question originally, the refs have the ability to make this call, yet, they either choose to not use it when it could send the proper message, ie: the Lapierre hit, the Alfredsson hit, the Cooke hit, the Richards hit, last night, the Wisniewski hit, and so on. Why?
Well I think the ref's dont want to look like idiots tbo. The rule book leaves it up to the ref to decide on the ice if its a 5. The rule book says any penalty resulting in an injury is a 5 min major.
This is the tough part Ovechkin hit someone dirty and the player stays down. The ref give a 5 Min Major and that player who was "hurt" goes back on the ice and scores the game winner. Now the ref looks like a tard.
A good examle of this is Burrows and look at where that all ended up.
Its a tough call to make especially on a game changing type of player like OV but I give full credit to the ref's with the danglers to make the call.
Edit: the other thing imo that keeps the refs from calling more 5 minute majors during the game is they know the game is on video and the leauge can review everything anyway so why bother make the call on the ice.
In saying that I have to ask the 40 + guys this....20 years ago did you see more 5 min majors called? Just curious because im sure they didnt have a camera crew at every game back then tp gp pver the replay and decide on the penalty it had to be done on the ice. |
Edited by - tbar on 03/18/2010 12:35:42 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 14:08:58
|
T-Bar, I think you are missing a very valuable point and I will pose this question to you.
Why is Hockey (and Lacrosse) the only competitive activity in the world (other than those which fighting is the competitive activity) where fighting is condoned?Are you actually trying to say that the culture of hockey is so much different than every other activity in the world that it justifies the activity of inflicting physical damage to your opponent??
You did not answer a single question I posed, but I will offer one more anyway.
If fighting was never allowed in hockey, ever, do you honestly think it would be missed???
Now, to answer your question. I have been on various different sports team and had the pleasure of being coached by some of the best coaches around. Let's talk about one of my coaches specifically, who competed in Basketball, Football, and Track at the University of Alberta. I can tell you right now, without a shadow of a doubt, he is the most competitive human being on the face of the earth. I watched him make kids in grade 7 run wind sprints until they puked because he didn't feel like they won as well as they could have.
If he was coaching that hockey team where you were cross checked in the face, not a single one of his players would have retaliated. They would have protected you to ensure that nothing else happened, but not a single one would have done a thing to retaliate. Why?? Firstly, because he demanded discipline from his players and if you did retaliate, you were off the team. More importantly, because retaliating would hurt the team. It means you may lose the advantage gained by the penalty the other team took. It means that you were not in control and thinking independently rather than as a group. It would mean that you put your own need for revenge against the good of the team and that is wrong. NOTHING is more important than the team.
Furthermore, if I was on that team and I didn't go and dance with the guy who cross checked you, those guys you said wouldn't back me up or go for beers with my after the game, that same coach would punt those jerks off the team as fast as you could blink, because they are not good team mates.
Firstly, fighting does nothing positive in the game. Secondly, you will never completely removing fighting from the game. Thirdly, the ability for a player to retaliate in a physical form outside of the rules (like fighting) has now evolved into people going further and seriously injuring other players without retribution and the NHL's have allowed it to happen by taking away the ability for a Ref to manage the game.
|
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 14:40:38
|
Great points about fighting Slozo, Fat Elvis, and Beans, could not have said it any better myself.
By the way, I was taking a course called Formal Systems and Logic in Computing Science, and we learned some rules of inference, which made me notice something in Slozo's comment:
quote:
Stiffer penalties on fighting = LESS FIGHTS, LESS GOONS
Less fights and less goons = MORE SKILLED PLAYERS
more skilled players = BETTER FRICKIN' HOCKEY
Through the rule of inference called a Hypothetical Syllogism (yes, those are actual words), the above can be reduced to:
STIFFER PENALTIES ON FIGHTING = BETTER FRICKIN' HOCKEY
Sorry, as a self-proclaimed nerd, I can't help but notice math in everyday life!
PS: a note to poster TBAR, try not using personal attacks on people, it makes your posts unpleasant to read, and degrades the quality of this website. It only makes you appear immature, and strengthens the position of the other side. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 14:52:27
|
“If fighting was never allowed in hockey, ever, do you honestly think it would be missed???”
Fighting is not allowed in Hockey that is why it is penalized. It is just not a penalty that causes a suspension. I know that’s a smart ass answer so to actually answer your question, ill never know because I don’t know different. When I go watch AAA Midget in Manitoba do I wish they could fight? Yes. Why? Because it would allow player’s to protect themselves when the ref’s can not. Example: In SK they can fight in midget all they get is that game. This rule was brought In for the fact that you get kid a that knows if he cheap shots kid b and can either injure him or get him to lose his cool and attack him he could help his team win. Now with kid b or one of his team mates being allowed to s*** kick kid a it is not as likely he will be cheap to begin with.
The ref can call a 5 minute major on a player for a hit to the head. Does that stop people from throwing hits to the head? No! If player’s were allowed to grab a guy and pound him without getting a suspension do you think that would stop them? Yes and No. You wouldn’t see cowards like Laperier and Cook throwing those dirty hits because they know they would have to answer the bell and no one is saying it has to be a fighter to do it.
“I watched him make kids in grade 7 run wind sprints until they puked because he didn't feel like they won as well as they could have.”
Happens all the time in hockey. 12 year olds play Peewee hockey and are expected to bring it in the higher level teams not sure why you bring this up?
“If he was coaching that hockey team where you were cross checked in the face, not a single one of his players would have retaliated. They would have protected you to ensure that nothing else happened, but not a single one would have done a thing to retaliate. Why?? Firstly, because he demanded discipline from his players and if you did retaliate, you were off the team. More importantly, because retaliating would hurt the team. It means you may lose the advantage gained by the penalty the other team took. It means that you were not in control and thinking independently rather than as a group. It would mean that you put your own need for revenge against the good of the team and that is wrong. NOTHING is more important than the team.”
If your whole team is injured from getting crosschecked in the teeth you have no team!
“Furthermore, if I was on that team and I didn't go and dance with the guy who cross checked you, those guys you said wouldn't back me up or go for beers with my after the game, that same coach would punt those jerks off the team as fast as you could blink, because they are not good team mates.” Those are the best team mates a guy could have. Your honestly telling me the guy who has your back is not a good team mate? But the guy who’s balls got sucked up into his stomach and went to the bench isn’t? Im glad you never played on a team with me.
|
Edited by - tbar on 03/18/2010 14:59:32 |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 14:56:16
|
I have to say I'm with you on this one, Beans. I didn't play hockey as a kid because I had problems with the tendons in my lower legs. As a result, I didn't really learn how to skate properly. I grew up in Edmonton and always wanted to play hockey because I had the opportunity - night in and night out - to go to games with my dad and watch arguably one of the best hockey teams of all time.
By the time I got into highschool, the problems with my tendons mostly cleared up to the point where I could run, so I decided rugby would be the best sport for me.
Rugby refs are the toughest group of SOBs you will ever meet. They have the ability to assess penalties or throw players out of the game for talking to them, or the other team.
I remember in highschool, a player was beaking me before a game about how (being a Catholic school), we prayed before every game. I took the kid out of a scrum with a legal hit that landed my shoulder right in his stomach. He went down really hard. He threw me off and punched me in the chest when he got up, trying to start a scuffle. Being that the ref was right next to us, I took my mouthguard out and said "I'll say a prayer for you", and the ref gave the guy the boot.
Needless to say my team won, and I got a lot more time on the pitch from there on.
There's a lot to be said for self-discipline for the betterment of the team. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
When is a ref a ref? 
