| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2010 : 15:09:58
|
impropriety. Good for you to take a punch and get the advantage...I dont know what happens in rugby in this situation but im sure it helped the team. This also seems to me that you were in no way injured and needed the aid of a team mate.
I have a question for you thow. If your good buddy to your right got kicked in the face and was in no position to defend himself would you a) watch and hope everything turns out alright for your buddy. or b) grab the prick even if he's Slozo'z size lol and do something about it.
Or better yet pretend your younger brother is the player on the team that just got kicked in the face. |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 15:13:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
“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.
Obviously, you completely missed the statement I made that said you make sure to protect your team mate, but retaliation is not needed.
Frankly I am glad I have never played on a team with you either. Without knowing anything else about you, these comments tell me that you are not the kind of team mate I want on my team. Reason being is that retaliation(or lack there of) has zero to do with 'ball's got sucked up into his stomach' or what ever other childish analogy one can produce to say how much of a man someone is or is not.
I have NEVER retalited towards any offense towards me or any of my team mates in any sport I have ever played in my life. I have also been commended on countless occasions on my leadership(as I captain most any team I am on) as well as my ability to be a team mate.
The 'manlyness' of a person is rarely in their ability or willingness to fight. Me protecting my team and managing my emotions makes me a good team mate. Me going and beating the crap out of someone because he cross checked my player makes me just as bad as the cross checker. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 20:24:18
|
Okay, where to start. 
To us 40+ plus guys, who played hockey in the late 70s and early 80s(tbar makes it sound like games were still broadcast in black and white, on 1 channel, unless you didn't mind the french station..), yes, there was still a fair amount of violence in the game, always has been, and most likely always will be. The thing I think is different now, is the respect level of the players towards each other.
Waaay back then, you didn't have to toss down your mitts if you caught someone with a good hard bodycheck, and more often than not, you got a whack on the shinpads, and a 'good hit' nod, from the hitee, sometime later in the game.
You didn't have to fight every time there was a stoppage in play and 2 players bumped each other.
You didn't have to fight if your teammate got caught with his down and got crushed, he had to learn the heads up thing quicker that way.
I don't remember there being near the cheap hits, the hits from behind, the headshots, and hitting guys in vulnerable positions.
I never saw the need to go chase anyone who did do these sort of things and challenge them to fight either, because the few that actually were that type of player, lacked the skill to compete at the level they were in, and had to make up for it with overdone aggression and underone maturity. The good thing about these types of players were that they almost always could be caught with their head down due to their limited skill, and I always found a good snot clearing shoulder to the chest, and their subsequent stagger off the ice to have their legs pumped to try and reinflate their lungs, much more gratifying, and legal, than lowering myself to the cheap level they played at.
My dad had the best reason, why would you let a player on the other team who isn't near as good as you, take you out of the game for 5 minutes or more?
Ahhh the good old days
The last 15 years or so, seems to have generated this mentality of a good team player being the guy who fights, the guy who does whatever the coach says, even if it's questionable. The guy who goes out and looks to hurt someone because that's what he is being told is the way the game is and it shows his 'intesity' and 'passion'.....yawn.
Fighting, although allowed in hockey, is, and always has been, a sideshow, to cover the fact that these players, for the most part, just don't have the skills to play the game at the level they are usually in.
Take any bonafide fighter, in the NHL, the CHL and tell me, with a few exceptions, would be playing in these leagues if they didn't fight? I'm thinking the answer has to be a resounding no, doesn't that answer the question of the usefulness of fighting? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 20:56:45
|
Sorry to add more, but Tbar, here is a partial quote I pulled from Bob Mackenzie's article on the TSN site, that adds to my meandering recollections of hockey 20 years ago;
"In the old days, probably pre-new millennium and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, the over the top stuff was pretty damn easy to identify. Crosschecks to the head, major league slashes or stick swinging, sucker punches…all of that stuff was so far outside the bounds of the game that suspensions were a piece of cake. It was all so obvious."
A different game then indeed. Now the over the top stuff is being called 'intense physical hockey', or 'finishing checks' etc..
At least the fighting is now more defined, each team has a player or two that dress 40-50 games, play 3-4 minutes in these games, and get into an almost scripted fight with their counterpart on the other team. Must be a great feeling to be a hard working 20-30 goal scorer in the AHL, watching the Boogaards, Orrs, and Janssens of the world get to make the show....
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 21:41:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Sorry to add more, but Tbar, here is a partial quote I pulled from Bob Mackenzie's article on the TSN site, that adds to my meandering recollections of hockey 20 years ago;
"In the old days, probably pre-new millennium and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, the over the top stuff was pretty damn easy to identify. Crosschecks to the head, major league slashes or stick swinging, sucker punches…all of that stuff was so far outside the bounds of the game that suspensions were a piece of cake. It was all so obvious."
A different game then indeed. Now the over the top stuff is being called 'intense physical hockey', or 'finishing checks' etc..
At least the fighting is now more defined, each team has a player or two that dress 40-50 games, play 3-4 minutes in these games, and get into an almost scripted fight with their counterpart on the other team. Must be a great feeling to be a hard working 20-30 goal scorer in the AHL, watching the Boogaards, Orrs, and Janssens of the world get to make the show....
I've mentioned it before and I'm sure people think I'm an idiot for it but...
As you have mentioned the 4th line guys are essentially guys who don't belong in the NHL. "Energy" guys. Reduce the roster size back to 3 forward lines as it once was and you would see a whole host of the issues people are mentioning here disappear. It will never happen of course but it is a simple solution to so many problems.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 21:45:00
|
Why is it that the old guys alway make so much sense??
Well said to both Willus and Fat Elvis.
Now, if they would just find a way to go back to some kind padding that is not made of bullet prook Kevlar, we might actually recreate what hockey was supposed to always be............
|
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2010 : 22:27:12
|
Compared to you guys, I'm probably a young gun, and what Willus, Beans, elvis have been saying is interesting and makes perfect sense.
I always have the most fun playing hockey with friends, with only "friendly" checking. Maybe it isn't as competitive, so it doesn't have the edge most people like, but it is sure fun to just enjoy trying to make the best play (not always the prettiest) whether on defense or offense.
With the Oilers long out of playoff contention, I only watch games that are interesting and fun to watch from a neutral fan's perspective. I have no doubt that the changes to a more old style game would make it much more entertaining.
I've noticed in soccer, the games of old (my dad taped a lot of old World Cup matches) were the best: sportsmanship, skill, intensity, less diving(a big issue nowadays in soccer-makes Burrows look like understudy). Its sounds like hockey would do good trying to delve back to its roots, as would soccer. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 06:31:17
|
This is for T-bar, and for you other young guns out there who might not realise that levels of respect, player to player - can be easily cultivated, you just have to penalise properly.
Australians have a very similar attitude and personality as Canadians, and they have a sport, like hockey, that is very violent at times, and has big men competing in a skillful game - Aussie Rules Football.
I will take a snippet from the Wiki page for Barry Hall, one the their games most feared, and at one time, most skillful players. He was a former boxing champ who was involved in many incidents where his temper got the best of him, and - well, just read it, ok?
quote:
Controversies
Sam McFarlane incident
Hall cut short the career of the budding young midfielder Sam McFarlane, in an off the ball incident in 1997. Whilst playing in a reserves game for St Kilda against North Melbourne, Hall struck Sam Mcfarlane, a slightly built wingman, in the jaw breaking it in three places. McFarlane spent the next three days in hospital getting the jaw wired back together and was sidelined for ten weeks. Although McFarlane returned for the final two games of the year, he never returned to play league football again.[7]
Adam Simpson incident
In 2000, Hall was suspended for one match for headbutting Kangaroos tagger Adam Simpson.
Joel Corey incident
In 2001, his last year at St Kilda, he was suspended for three matches for striking Geelong onballer Joel Corey. One of the reasons why Hall left St Kilda was, according to then coach Grant Thomas, that he wanted to get out of an environment where onfield incidents were too frequent for him and, otherwise, his career might have been over.[citation needed]
Matt Maguire incident
After an incident involving a punch to the stomach of St Kilda's Matt Maguire in a 2005 preliminary final match, Hall was reported for a level two striking and offered a one week suspension for a guilty plea. This suspension would have meant missing the next week's grand final. Hall's representation successfully argued that the incident was 'in play' despite the ball being 50 metres away. As a result the charge was reduced to a level one offence which reduced the penalty to a reprimand and he went on to captain the Swans to their first premiership in 72 years, defeating the West Coast Eagles in the grand final by four points.
Brent Staker incident
In an incident which shocked Sydney and West Coast fans alike, in Round 4, 2008, Hall was reported for striking West Coast Eagles defender Brent Staker.[9]. Video footage from the incident indicated that contact was made with a punch to the jaw, knocking out Staker. Staker took no further part in the game, remaining off the field for the duration of the game. Later in the same game, Hall broke his wrist on the metal railing behind a soft cardboard advertising board. After the game the Match Review Panel ranked the incident as intentional, severe impact and high contact, therefore the offence was directly referred to the AFL Tribunal. He was subsequently suspended for seven games, one of most severe punishments ever by the AFL Tribunal.[10] Video footage of the incident was shown on television as far abroad as Denmark and the United States on the ESPN network.[11]
Shane Wakelin incident
Hall was handed a one match suspension for an attempted strike on Collingwood's Shane Wakelin.[12] Sydney later announced the team would not play Hall indefinitely.[13][14] Sydney co-captain Brett Kirk later claimed that Hall's habit of hitting opposition players off the ball is a "bad habit".[15] Shane Wakelin later on admitted he had "played for a free kick".
Triple 50m penalties
In the 2009 match against Hawthorn, Hall gave away three consecutive 50m penalties. Jarryd Roughead who marked inside his defensive 50m ended up taking the free kick directly in front of his own goal. Hall was then benched by his coach.
Ben Rutten incident
On the three-quarter time siren of Sydney's Round 13 clash against Adelaide, Hall was reported for striking Adelaide defender Ben Rutten, placing his future with the Swans in doubt. Footage has shown that contact was made by a punch to the face and he was suspended for two matches.
Resignation
On 7 July 2009, Hall announced his resignation as a Sydney player and acknowledged that his behaviour needed to change.
I take the equivalent of this in hockey as Todd Bertuzzi retiring with an apology after the Moore incident. Please note the actions of the league in each incident, and the coaches and the club he played for.
Hockey has much to learn.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 08:24:46
|
Slozo what does that have to do with anything?
Did I say anywhere I dont respect my opponents is that what your saying?
You always say read what im saying . Your doing what you always complain about you'r reading between the lines and going with it.
Simply put Fighting has its place in the game. It is a tool that can be used effectivly.
So now to get back on topic here is an actual convo about what elvis had in mind when starting this thread.
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. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 08:57:08
|
I see what you are getting at Tbar, but is it not better for a ref to err on the side of caution and make the call if there appears to be an injury, or better yet make the call, standard, so it takes judgement out of the result of the infraction, and puts the onus on the player to not repeat.
example;
The Alfredsson hit from behind, and the Ovechkin hit from behind. One results in a season-ending injury, the other in an angry, unscathed defencman.
If the call for either was a standard 'hitting from behind', 'intent to injure', 'boarding', 'unsprotsmanlike' (take your pick, all relevant), major. This then takes the difficulty off the ref, for having to make any judgement call on severity. The suspension to follow would then be based on frequency of the offender, 1st time, automatic 2 game suspension, 2nd time, 5 game...etc.
Finally the NHL wouldn't have to spin their 'Wheel of Discipline', and could let the players through their own ability, or inability, to adjust, determine their own fates to a degree.
The player who can't adjust and racks up enough automatic suspensions that he has essentially banned himself from play, then has no recourse, nor would the team, NHLPA or whoever now seems to have a say in these matters.
This to me, anyways, makes the players respect the fact that they will get suspended for a bad hit/cheap shot, reagrdless of whether they hurt anyone, and if they can't change, it eliminates this type of player, and more importantly, this type of play, from the game. |
|
|
|
Guest5858
( )
|
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 09:06:57
|
The suspension levels thing makes a lot of sense fat_elvis. Except there should always be some sort of recourse for the player to appeal the automatic suspensions so they wouldn't progress to the next level.
This might avoid some errors, for example, if a ref would make a really bad call, like calling a player who was a repeat offender on "intent to injure boarding conduct unsportmanlike". Upon tv review, it would be clear that the supposed offender had indeed only been in close proximity to the supposed victim, who had fallen into the boards after losing an edge.
Then, a player would avoid a suspension due to ref error, as calls on the ice always stand.
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 10:34:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5858
The suspension levels thing makes a lot of sense fat_elvis. Except there should always be some sort of recourse for the player to appeal the automatic suspensions so they wouldn't progress to the next level.
This might avoid some errors, for example, if a ref would make a really bad call, like calling a player who was a repeat offender on "intent to injure boarding conduct unsportmanlike". Upon tv review, it would be clear that the supposed offender had indeed only been in close proximity to the supposed victim, who had fallen into the boards after losing an edge.
Then, a player would avoid a suspension due to ref error, as calls on the ice always stand.
i agree wholeheartedly, each instance would have to include an exhaustive review before the additional discipline is given. I still think the automatic 5 and a game, would go a long ways towards eliminating the questionable plays in and of itself, but I agree that if video replay can be utilized for contested goals, it could also be used at game time for major penalty review, then the process after that can run it's course.
The whole point, would be to get players to not consciously get into these sort of questionable situations.
It would look a whole lot more professional, than having to put the stop signs on the backs of their jerseys,(I love the concept and idea at the learning levels), as they are supposed to be pros and already know that's wrong. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 10:40:20
|
FE, i too absolutely love the stop signs on the jerseys of kids. Not sure what age they have that till but i think it's a great reminder for those learning the game. Not sure who came up with the idea, but it's brilliant.
It's a shame that it seems some NHLers would benefit from these as well. I agree that the adults/NHLers ought to have learned this by now, but clearly some of them haven't!
Maybe Campbell can include a new thing in suspesions for those who hit from behind? On your second offense in the same season, you have to wear a little stop sign that would hang from the top of your helmut, down to the front of your face  ! Those with visors, they could make a semi transparent stop sign sticker to paste in front of the guys eyes as a reminder! Hey, nothing else seems to have worked so far?  |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 10:51:16
|
Wow, I really have to explain things point by point, don't I?
quote:
Slozo what does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with hockey, and your stated opinion that fighting needs to remain in the game to police dirty plays, infractions and missed calls.
I gave an example of a sport - Aussie Rules Football - that is the national sport for a kindred country, a sport that is violent at times, fast-paced, played by very large athletic men. There are differences, of course - namely, one is played on ice with equipment and protection, and the other is played on land with no equipment and basically no protection save for a jockstrap or maybe a mouthguard and headgear. But the analogy holds up as we are talking about infractions and fighting in very physical sports, and Aussi Rules is at times has even more physical contact than hockey.
The example I gave of that certain player's career was supposed to point out that disciplinary action can curb and keep out fighting, especially when it is contained in a culture where it is not condoned. The example I gave had key points along the player's career where the coach either did not condone the action or sat him; fellow players did not condone his actions and spoke out against it; and the league gave very big suspensions (for their season length) just for fighting.
The most telling thing was that this culture bred respect for all players, and in the end the player was not pushed out by suspension, rather, he quit in shame - because he knew he had lost the respect of fellow players and coaching staff. He had become a liability, and he knew it.
I gave that example to show you what hockey COULD be like.
quote:
Did I say anywhere I dont respect my opponents is that what your saying?
T-bar: Where did I accuse you of not respecting YOUR opponents? I said that you might not REALISE that respect can be CULTIVATED (see: encouraged) in the NHL.
quote:
You always say read what im saying . Your doing what you always complain about you'r reading between the lines and going with it.
That's . . . quite . . . ironic.
quote:
Simply put Fighting has its place in the game. It is a tool that can be used effectivly.
I have tried to show you that fighting not only has no place in the game (it's like saying high sticking has a place in the game), but that it is NOT an effective tool. I have broken this down point by point in many threads, including this one, and given many examples of how fighting is not effective at all. And yet the best I have gotten back is remarks like you give here, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
If fighting is an effective tool, we can be assured that Downie and Cooke will now see the error of their ways, and that Ovechkin and Wisniewski will continue to make dirty plays because no one has fought them yet.
If you use any kind of logic whatsoever, every fighting argument goes in the s***ter.
ADDENDUM:
Fighting is very much related to head hits and the refs calling what is in the rule book . . . as it is again one of those infractions that has different sets of imaginary rules for the situation, players involved, and time it took place. And, supposedly it is an "effective tool" at keeping out the dirty plays, meanwhile we are having multiple threads every week on the dirty play and subsequent serious injury that happened in every third game.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 11:03:14
|
@ Slozo:
I'm not so sure Aussie Rules uses a jock strap. Having played rugby I can tell you that rugby players don't use it. Equipment consists of steel-point cleats, a canvas jersey and shorts, and a mouthguard. I also used to wear bike shorts to keep the furniture in the basement from shifting around. Some guys who have to stick their heads in tight places wear those knit caps to prevent their ears from cauliflowering or getting torn off. Really has nothing to do with your argument, but it's interesting to note. :)
I love the idea of the stop signs on the jerseys, too. To me it signifies that major changes in the game are bred from the ground up. It's always the younger players that bring in equipment changes - the most obvious ones to mention are visors on helmets and neck-guards for goalies.
My point is that players don't suddenly become dirty or 'edgy' once they get their first pro contract. That kind of attitude is instilled at an early age.. In some cases, where the players aren't necessarily skilled or fast enough to reach the next level, they're told that if they don't play like Boogaard, MacIntyre, or Laraque that they'll never get a shot at the big show.
As much as I can't stand to listen to Grapes, that stop sign thing is one thing he's doing right. He's putting a lot of his own money into producing the stickers and promoting the program. |
Edited by - impropriety on 03/19/2010 11:12:05 |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 11:26:58
|
One question I would like to bring to the attention of Fat_Elvis specifically, though anyone can answer of course.
You have stated (and to some degree, I do agree) that automatic 5 minute majors be handed out, with specific infractions (mainly those of hitting from behind, head shots and the likes.)
My question is this...
We currently already see diving and embelishment happen. Now, this solely for the purpose of a 2 minute powerplay.
So, if a player can gain his team a '5' minute powerplay, who is to say we do not see more guys embelish a play (simply flop) when a player is near them, to try and make it seem as though they were hit from behind?
It's sad to say, but I can see this happening an awful lot. Guys, taking advantage of a rule set in place to PROTECT them, but using it to their teams advantage for a 5 minute power play.
What can be set in place, to keep that out of the mix? Since, the 5 minutes will be automatic now and not at the refs discretion?
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 11:32:57
|
I think what people fail to remember about fighting in the old days is that it was a deterrent.
People didn’t mess with Gretzky. Not because they would get in a fight, it was because most likely Semenko would hurt you pretty badly. I’d love to see the stats on fights per game today compared to 10, 20, and 30 years ago. I think the numbers would absolutely shock people.
Today, this fight is not a deterrent, it's a side show. And because it's allowed and it no longer effectively polices the game, the players start taking more and more liberties. Without the refs and NHL doing something about that, it gets to where it is today.
I completely agree with the graduated suspension and I completely agree with the refs to error on the side of safety and caution and give out more majors and more game ejections.
Bottom line is this, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." I liken it to people who complain that the speed limit is to low and b*&ch when they get a ticket for going 10 km/h over the speed limit. You don't get a ticket if you don't speed!! Players won’t get penalties or suspensions if they just play the friggin game and leave this stupid, disrespectful garbage off the ice. You wanna fight and take someone’s head off, go and be a UFC fighter.
The pendulum has swung so far to one side that they push back had to be swift, strong, and aggressive. It's the only way to bring the balance back.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 11:33:07
|
If proper penalties were assessed and appropriate suspensions levied, no "stop signs" would be necessary.
Do football players wear stop signs on their helmets? Do rugby players wear stop signs on their backs? Ridiculous, guys, come on . . . .ig Grapes spent more of that time and money and grassroots effort on calling the rules properly, no one would need a stop sign on their back.
I find the stop sign idea utterly childish and ridiculous, but that's just MHO.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
impropriety
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 11:36:28
|
@ Slozo:
I think it's a great idea to be proactive about it and teach kids that hitting from behind is -not- okay despite the fact that they might see it on TV. The coaches at lower levels need to stress that to the kids, and they're obviously not if the kids are growing up into today's disrespectful NHLers.
Remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 12:09:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
If proper penalties were assessed and appropriate suspensions levied, no "stop signs" would be necessary.
Do football players wear stop signs on their helmets? Do rugby players wear stop signs on their backs? Ridiculous, guys, come on . . . .ig Grapes spent more of that time and money and grassroots effort on calling the rules properly, no one would need a stop sign on their back.
I find the stop sign idea utterly childish and ridiculous, but that's just MHO.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
So just to makesure I got this right your saying that I am now part of the problem because I ref minor hockey at the grass roots?? Just so you know when I watch the NHL I see at least a handful of hits every game that would be sending kids to the showers earlie. Minor hockey players do not hit the way NHL players do period. The problem is the rope gets longer the higher the level its not the grass roots of hackey officiating that is the problem.
Ex: Alfie hit happens so regularly in the NHL that its the norm. Most the time it doesn't look as bad because the player just ends up getting smeard into the glass instead of falling head first to the boards. That hit is a gaurenteed 2 and a game in any minor hockey game I have ever watched. Now if the player is injured then it would get a 5 Min Major.
Honestly if you want dramatic changes the NHL just needs to start calling the game like its 14 year old kids out theyre playing minor hockey. Hit from behind your out, fight automatic 3 games so on and so on.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 12:19:07
|
Holy Crap!! Well said T-Bar, agree completely.
However, as a player and ref for the future of tomorrow's NHL, what is your opinion on the coaching at the minor level. More specifically, as the kids are getting up into bantam and above.
Has it not become and expectation that these players are to hit anything that moves, hit it hard, and leave the right or wrong stuff to the refs??
I also work with a fellow who does some pretty elite level officiating in Alberta. Him and I had a talk about this today and I asked him what his thoughts were and he said coaching is a big part and that he finds himself calling more severe penalties today than he has in the past.
What do you think??? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 12:56:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
One question I would like to bring to the attention of Fat_Elvis specifically, though anyone can answer of course.
You have stated (and to some degree, I do agree) that automatic 5 minute majors be handed out, with specific infractions (mainly those of hitting from behind, head shots and the likes.)
My question is this...
We currently already see diving and embelishment happen. Now, this solely for the purpose of a 2 minute powerplay.
So, if a player can gain his team a '5' minute powerplay, who is to say we do not see more guys embelish a play (simply flop) when a player is near them, to try and make it seem as though they were hit from behind?
It's sad to say, but I can see this happening an awful lot. Guys, taking advantage of a rule set in place to PROTECT them, but using it to their teams advantage for a 5 minute power play.
What can be set in place, to keep that out of the mix? Since, the 5 minutes will be automatic now and not at the refs discretion?
Irvine/prez.
I think the use of video replay needs to be incorporated into the game, not only for the contested goals, but for contested penalties. Not every call, a 2 minute minor, is for the most part expected and understood. I think if the refs start to use the 'option', of a 5 minute major, game misconduct and following review, this is an important enough call that a video review would be acceptable, much like the contested goal calls.
If a video review shows that the infraction is called correctly, the automatic 5, game, and review apply. If the video review shows there was embellishment, either non-call and diving penalty or minor penalty if applicable.
In my little fantasy world, keep in mind, this sort of call would only be made on the types of hits that are fairly obvious. I would use Alfredsson's example as my minimum guideline, didn't hit Beauchemin hard enough to drive him viiolenty into the boards, but still, and obvious hit from behind, would that fact alone not constitute an automatic 5? Dangerous play, regardless of result.
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 13:02:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
If proper penalties were assessed and appropriate suspensions levied, no "stop signs" would be necessary.
Do football players wear stop signs on their helmets? Do rugby players wear stop signs on their backs? Ridiculous, guys, come on . . . .ig Grapes spent more of that time and money and grassroots effort on calling the rules properly, no one would need a stop sign on their back.
I find the stop sign idea utterly childish and ridiculous, but that's just MHO.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Odd that you find it childish, as that is most often where the STOP sign patch, is being used I think, on children, while learning the game.
Far from ridiculous, anything that makes a positive difference that helps alleviate injuries, is anything but ridiculous....
I am very surprised you took that stance.
You've now dragged 3 separate contact sports into the mix to support your arguments, hockey is it's own beast, it has boards, it has sticks, it's on ice, etc.
Can we please leave the oranges out of the applecart? |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 14:32:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Holy Crap!! Well said T-Bar, agree completely.
However, as a player and ref for the future of tomorrow's NHL, what is your opinion on the coaching at the minor level. More specifically, as the kids are getting up into bantam and above.
Has it not become and expectation that these players are to hit anything that moves, hit it hard, and leave the right or wrong stuff to the refs??
I also work with a fellow who does some pretty elite level officiating in Alberta. Him and I had a talk about this today and I asked him what his thoughts were and he said coaching is a big part and that he finds himself calling more severe penalties today than he has in the past.
What do you think???
Well Beans for the last 4 years I have been coaching Minor Hockey myself. I coached Midget three years (15, 16, & 17 year old kids) and this year I coached a AAA Bantam team mostly 14 year olds and (3) 13 year olds.
As a coach I want my team to be very clean and do not condole fighting (keep in mind its not allowed at this level) i have often benched players for takng selfish penalties.
Note: even thow I dont want my players to fight if a player on my team is cheap shoted and someone does something about it I wont get my panties tied up in a bunch.
As a ref yah I have encountered that coach that thinks winning in minor hockey is going to get them to the NHL (the coach himself) and will ask his players to go to the extreme but those coaches are usually not respected by the players and therfore they dont do what they are asked to do anyway. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 15:18:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
If proper penalties were assessed and appropriate suspensions levied, no "stop signs" would be necessary.
Do football players wear stop signs on their helmets? Do rugby players wear stop signs on their backs? Ridiculous, guys, come on . . . .ig Grapes spent more of that time and money and grassroots effort on calling the rules properly, no one would need a stop sign on their back.
I find the stop sign idea utterly childish and ridiculous, but that's just MHO.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Odd that you find it childish, as that is most often where the STOP sign patch, is being used I think, on children, while learning the game.
Far from ridiculous, anything that makes a positive difference that helps alleviate injuries, is anything but ridiculous....
I am very surprised you took that stance.
You've now dragged 3 separate contact sports into the mix to support your arguments, hockey is it's own beast, it has boards, it has sticks, it's on ice, etc.
Can we please leave the oranges out of the applecart?
Slozo, i too am surprised at your stance. I hope you know i was kidding about an NHLer having to ever wear a stop sign but to imply it's not usefull at the grassroots level is surprising to me!
BTW, to answer your question about other sports wearing stop signs, no, i don't think they do. BUT, taking football as an example, def, no they do not have stop signs on their helmuts, but don't try to tell me they still don't have helmut to helmut hits! Football's not perfect either as they still have dangerous plays such as the helmut to helmut contact, horsecollars, etc which are against the rules. These things do still happen and therefore to use the phrase "Ridiculous, guys, come on...." doesn't sit well here. Again, from reading your post, i interpret it to mean that the stop sign thing in your opinion is uselss / stupid or maybe evern "ridiculous"? I disagree completely.... |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 16:14:11
|
@ Fat_Elvis
I can certainly see video review helping to correctly call the 5 minute major (and misconduct), but I defintley do not see the NHL ever using video review for penalties/infractions.
This would slow down the game (albeit, hopefully we are getting to the point of having very little infractions of this sort) but most fans, GM's, players, etc... aren't going to want to wait for video reviews for such things.
If it were the only way to help eliminate these terrible hits, along with the penalties you have imposed, then perhaps it may be needed. But, I just can't see any one going along with video review for such a thing.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 16:18:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
BTW, to answer your question about other sports wearing stop signs, no, i don't think they do. BUT, taking football as an example, def, no they do not have stop signs on their helmuts, but don't try to tell me they still don't have helmut to helmut hits! Football's not perfect either as they still have dangerous plays such as the helmut to helmut contact, horsecollars, etc which are against the rules. These things do still happen and therefore to use the phrase "Ridiculous, guys, come on...." doesn't sit well here. Again, from reading your post, i interpret it to mean that the stop sign thing in your opinion is uselss / stupid or maybe evern "ridiculous"? I disagree completely....
Firsly, I completely agree that putting stop signs on the back of a professional athlete's jersey is a complete joke. Kids might need something when they are being taught, but we are talking about adult men who should know what is right or wrong.
Secondly, quickly on the Helmet to Helmet or horsecollars in the NFL. They still do happen yes, but they are all penalized, even the unintentional ones. Many resulting in an automatic ejection. And to the refs take heat for it. NEVER. It's all about protecting their players.
Most importantly, the NFL makes their own rules, they don't nee d to ask the players for their OK.
Another thing that needs to change is this Competition Committee stuff. Waste of time.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/19/2010 16:22:20 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 17:48:28
|
Beans, can't tell if you're getting what i meant? The fact that there're no stop signs in the NFL and there are rules against such hits, they do still happen. Same goes with the NHL. There will always be some bad hits regardless of what the rules change to but the rules def need to be adjusted to at least cut down on these vicious hits!
I was simply stating to Slozo that because the NFL doesn't have "stop signs" doesn't mean illegal hits don't happen. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 19:22:32
|
Wow...Is there really some of you out there who are reading these posts and implying that anyone is suggesting the pros put the stop signs on their jerseys? Really?
Please reread;
"It would look a whole lot more professional, than having to put the stop signs on the backs of their jerseys,(I love the concept and idea at the learning levels), as they are supposed to be pros and already know that's wrong."
Please tell me that isn't the case Beans, Slozo. It would have both of your numerous references to read what is posted verbatim, instead of with bias, seem moot if that is the case.
There isn't even any need to continue with that vein of discussion as there never was an implication to have it done at the professional level.
--
I agree Irvine, using video replay for any more than it is already used, would cause more of an uproar than the intent would justify, or at least that's what they would want yo to believe. It sure sounded like a simple solution to me when I went on and on about it, but I guess that is part of the problem. Too simple.
If this trend of bad hits continues though, they may wish they tried simple. As it is, the game gets plenty of slowing down, as players are laying in heaps on the ice, requiring assistance more frequently than any of us like to see. Hmmm....30 seconds to review a video, or 10 minutes to have a player stretchered off the ice....seems like a no-brainer to me. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 21:55:11
|
I know everyone here has been predisposed to agree with this stop sign idea, and I realise that Grapes is well loved among many of you well meaning people . . . but have you lost your minds? Seriously . . . just because I find it childish, does that mean I wish harm on others? Come on now, let's actually talk about the psychology of it.
Does everyone here really think all kids need bright red signs to know respect for their fellow players, and the rules of the game? If this is the case, where are the neon yellow flags on every kneecap? Far more injuries occur in this area, and many more careers have been ended at the knees . . . should we make the sticks red? Print "DANGER" on them? Make the helmets glow in the dark . . . all to teach our kids not to hit those areas?!?
It borders on the ludicrous, as making a stop sign on the back is as arbitrary to enforcing rules and respect as a neon flag on the knees is. Please people, stop and think.
We should be teaching our kids teamwork, respect, and solid values . . . things which clearly are lacking, as we see. They are not lacking as a result of not enough stop signs on backs, really.
Alex116 - You have to stop the straw men attacks - look it up. The NFL still has head shots, yes . . . but they are penalised severely, have been for some time. And that football helmet is better protection, and on the ice the speed of impact is greater . . . you do the math.
So glad you ignored every other argument other than one which you thought you had something on me . . . sadly, it's a false argument. If you are just arguing for argument's sake, please - stop it. We are talking about real things here, put aside your preconceived notions and ego and chip on the shoulder about being a tough young hockey player who clearly knows more than this armchair hockey player . . . and seriously, please, think about these long arguments I have put forth. Address more than one tiny point.
Tbar - I will stop conversation with you, as you clearly only want to twist any potential phrase you can against yourself so that you have something to argue about. You have twice now turned a harmless point into an attack against yourself - so I now will not address you further. As the Mennonites say, you have been shunned.
Will no one talk about the points I made? Was all the research and typing in vain? Please, someone actually read and think here . . . and Fat Elvis: you are questioning how a bright red stop sign on a kid's sports jersey that is supposed to make other kids not hit from behind to injure - you are asking how this isn't . . . childish? immature? RIDICULOUS? It IS ridiculous, my friend . . . totally and utterly inane. Why don't we wear red lightbulbs on our heads that go off when a sensor is hit in our back? What garbage, seriously.
Did kids in the 50s, 60s, 70s, need these red stop signs? Why not? Were they just smarter than kids today, more aware? Is anyone arguing that adults don't need stop signs on their backs, but that 14 year old kids are so much more stupid that they do need the visual stimulus to make them remember the rules of the game, and to respect others?!? You want to teach respect with colours?
btw - I have a 14 month old girl, and I don't need to put a big red stop sign on the fireplace so that she doesn't burn herself . . . she's a smart enough toddler to know the danger from daddy showing her a few times.
I may be a bit tipsy on a Friday night, but I think you have all lost your power of logical thought here, guys . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2010 : 22:49:23
|
And here all I thought I said was that if stopped ANY kid from hitting another from behind, it was worth the effort to put a simple little patch on a jersey. It has nothing to do with red light bulbs, or may get burned signs, I just thought it was a clever reminder to kids. Of course it's childish, it's to help remind children that this is clearly a wrong and dangerous place to hit another player AND the refs, according to Tbat, are stringent in calling it. Sounds like all the bases are trying to be covered to stop this play at the learning stage. But, according to your rant, the stop sign, as a visual reminder, means that anyone who thinks it's not a ridiculous gesture because you, apparently know it's not being taught properly, has lost their minds?...huh? ....apparently you own a few scarecrows as well.
I never said you wished harm on anyone, anywhere, I simply thought you may have went a wee bit overboard with something as simple as a reminder on the back of a sweater, for some kids who are learning the game. What does it possibly hurt, other than your apparent sense of .... what?
Our kids, if they played hockey, would obviously know that a hit from behind is wrong, not only because we are conscientious parents, and would teach our kids this, but also because, as you said, yours, and mine are smart enough to know once shown. I just would like to think that if all it takes is a little red stop sign on the back of our kid's jersey's, to stop some other kid, who doesn't have the same structures of learning, from driving my kid, face first into the boards, it's very worthwhile.
It's not ridiculous, it's not ludicrous, and it has f*ck all to do with Don Cherry, I for one make my opinions from my own thoughts, not those of some old blowhard......or Don CHerry either.
I may have to blame the booze, because you are way off on this one...careful how much you imbibe....it would appear to be a long fall off that soapbox you're standing on. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 00:59:01
|
Wow, i haven't even gotten to the "Kesler" thread and i have to respond to this one? Slozo, first off, DITTO what Fat Elvis said, pretty much agree with it completely.
I'm not gonna go back and read all the posts, but where is it that someone implied you wished harm on anyone? As FE said, if it saves even ONE kid from being crushed into the boards from behind, it's worth it! No one said anything (except in jest) about pro's wearing stop signs! How you can possibly feel they're "ridiculous" for children to wear is beyond me! Oh, and btw, i had no idea Grapes was anything to do with the stop sign thing so don't start claiming it's anything to do with people being fans of him! That one will get you no where......
As for your 14 month old child, congrats. I"m very happy she has the ability to determine that fire is not just hot, but it hurts if you get too near! Tell me something though, as she grows older and you're driving her to school or where ever, will you alter the "child safe" windows that only go down part way, cuz surely she'll know it hurts to jump out of a moving vehicle? These are pretty useless too i suppose? Just one example, i won't bother with others for now.....
As for the accusation of the "straw man" attack, please explain. Perhaps i wasn't clear on what i was saying? All i was getting at was that there's still illegal hits in other sports regardless of the rules. Yes, some other sports are better at calling the penalties and doling out punishment but there will always be these hits regardless of the rules. Please feel free to explain where the "straw man" comes into my reply? You asked if they had stop signs on their helmuts? So, me saying "but don't try to tell me they still don't have helmut to helmut hits!" qualifies as a straw man attack? Really? Is that not what you implied? Maybe you ought to learn the meaning cuz unless i'm missing it somewhere else (if so, please do point it out), i wouldn't think that qualifies.
Now as for the rest of your rant towards me....
quote:
Originally posted by Slozo
So glad you ignored every other argument other than one which you thought you had something on me . . . sadly, it's a false argument. If you are just arguing for argument's sake, please - stop it. We are talking about real things here, put aside your preconceived notions and ego and chip on the shoulder about being a tough young hockey player who clearly knows more than this armchair hockey player . . . and seriously, please, think about these long arguments I have put forth. Address more than one tiny point.
WTF? What other arguments were we having? The only thing i disagreed with openly was your opinion that the stop signs on kids jersey's were "ridiculous". I think maybe you ought to sober up, reread this entire thread, and then maybe you'll come to the conclusion you're mixing me up with someone else. I've barely even posted on this topic and the ONLY issue i had with you was with the stop signs. So, before you go getting liquored up and accusing me of " preconceived notions and ego and chip on the shoulder about being a tough young hockey player who clearly knows more than this armchair hockey player" maybe you ought to know who or what you're talking about! As for "addressing more than one tiny point." you made, i feel i need not participate in any debate/argument you were having with other posters. It clearly wasn't an issue with us until you just tried to make it so......
Seriously, i hope the hangover's not too bad in the morning. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 07:01:40
|
Maybe I did misinterpret what was being said above. I thought it read that putting the stops signs on the pro's would be a good thing.
I admit I was wrong.
Now, I personally don't have a problem with the stop signs on the kids back, but the more relevant question is why do they have to be there in the first place? If the coaching and reffing and parents were doing their jobs correctly, there would not be a need for a stop sign. Kids would learn and understand very early on that hitting from behind is not allowed, period.
For anyone who missed it, take a read through this. It's coming from a guy known to be one mean SOB and if a guy like Wendel Clark is saying it, it's puts a really interesting perspective on things:
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=314687 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 09:49:53
|
Beans, i assumed you had read it or interpretted it wrong, whew......
I read the link you posted and it mentioned something that i can see being a major factor in the brutal hitting we've seen. Not just what Clark said about the equipment, which we've all discussed here before, but actually what Colin Campbell, of all people, said regarding the speed of the game:
League disciplinarian Colin Campbell believes the rule changes to crack down on hooking and holding after the 2004-05 lockout have indirectly led to some of the current problems. As a result, the game was sped up at a time when players are bigger than ever before.
This makes sense to me. It's reasonable to suggest that with guys moving quicker and quicker that more vicious hits could occur. We've sort of covered this before with the debate about how quickly a guy can react after he's already "committed" to a hit. I know that even before the lockout guys were moving fast and again, this could be why back in Clarks days, there were less of these hits? Guys weren't as quick back then.
I do agree that it has a lot to do with respect though. That's the number one thing that seems to be lacking in the NHL today. Respect between players.....
|
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 16:44:34
|
I think you are all misunderstanding what the actual STOP sign is intended for.
It's not ONLY a reminder to kids, that hitting from behind is wrong. But it actually allows a kid a visual, of when NOT to hit.
If the the person placing the hit can visually SEE the STOP SIGN, they know NOT to hit.
These kids are just learning, of course they are told not to hit from behind and they understand, but the stop sign shows exactly when not to hit. So that in the heat of the moment, quick (young) judgement isn't needed. As they can visually see the sign, and know it's from what is considered behind.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 21:15:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
I think you are all misunderstanding what the actual STOP sign is intended for.
It's not ONLY a reminder to kids, that hitting from behind is wrong. But it actually allows a kid a visual, of when NOT to hit.
If the the person placing the hit can visually SEE the STOP SIGN, they know NOT to hit.
These kids are just learning, of course they are told not to hit from behind and they understand, but the stop sign shows exactly when not to hit. So that in the heat of the moment, quick (young) judgement isn't needed. As they can visually see the sign, and know it's from what is considered behind.
Irvine/prez.
Thanks for that Irvine, nicely explained and appreciated.
note:
"All", doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room there...honestly we aren't "All" misunderstanding the intent of the STOP sign, some of us just seem to be more vocal in our lack of it... |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 21:30:56
|
Sorry Elvis,
I didn't mean to include everyone as misunderstanding.
I just wanted those who do not know what it is actually used for, to know.
It's not solely as a reminder of not to hit from behind, but used to allow the kids a visual of when not to hit a player. As if you can see the actual sign, when going to check an opposing player, you know it must be a bad hit. Since the 'STOP' logo can only be seen from an angel, that is at least partially from behind your target. If it may seem like it's not completely a check from behind.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 13:24:52
|
Ok, ok guys . . . I knew no one would agree with me about the stop signs, so I'll leave it - fair enough, Irvine, I really do understand the concept, thanks for the explanation anyways. Just because I have a different opinion on it, does not mean that I don't understand your reasoning for it.
Alex - I agree, a lot of it is respect . . . but in today's game, the stakes are higher than in the past, and the huge salaries are the stakes which drive players to not care as much about their fellow player - that and the culture of repeating "it's a job" and "hockey is a business".
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
When is a ref a ref? 
