Colorado fans & Canucks

[The_Admiral]

The violence (and the NHL's promotion of it) is a turn off for me.

Yeah that b.s. instigator rule is a real promotion of violence

tool

They could suspend everyone for fighting like...Oh every other team sport. It's what they do in college hockey and guess what. Almost no fights.

Pro hockey leagues have been promoting the violence and fighting for decades. The NHL used to do it more than they do now--they seem to understand the problem with showing fight clips in their promo videos (though the ECHL did a few years ago when I lived in an ECHL town).

Does hockey violence happen because fans want it? Probably. But either way, they could essentially eliminate it if they wanted to. They don't.

It's been a part of the NHL game, and that is what it is. I don't think hockey fights are this disgusting plague upon the sport. It's just as much a part of the appeal as a breakaway. I think that legalized fighting belongs in hockey; it keeps you honest. You'd be less apt to take cheap shots on Steve Yzerman if Bob Probert is there. It's not a perfect system, but sometimes you just gotta beat the crap out of someone.

[JQK]

Eliminating fights in hockey would be the dumbest thing the NHL ever did. The shame of it is that the NHL doesn't promote the fighting more. THe fighting isn't the problem, it's the cheapshots. I agree, get rid of cheapshots, but fighting? That's a selling point.

[IronChefShark]

I forget which NHL broadcaster said it, but hardly anyone if ever gets seriously hurt in a good hockey fight.

I echo what Johnny is saying. cheapshots are the problem. Face it, if fighting is taken completely out of the NHL, then cheapshots and blatent attempts to injure will increase. Not only is a fight more entertaining, but like it is said above, hardly anyone gets seriously injured in a fight.

hurt maybe, but not injured.

[See Red]

Yep -- good points by ICS and JQK.

If anything, eliminating fighting would only add to the cheap shots as currently, fighting is used as a controlled form of letting teams get payback. The reason Steve Moore was a target wasn't because of a fight, it was because of a check -- and a legal one, at that. A fight was originally the means by which Vancouver tried to get payback -- but Moore kicked Brad May's (currently an Av, by the way) ass in the fight. So really, I don't see where fighting comes in, here.

[StPatty33]

So penalties should fit the injury, not the crime? If I throw a 5-minute elbow but it causes the guy to retire due to his 11th concussion, I should be forced to retire too? No. He got a penalty and suspension. He served it. To draw it out based on how long the other person is out is ridiculous.

Answer this simple question. Where do you draw the line?

Somewhere between what he got and what most of these people think he should get.

Involuntary man-slaughter?

Negligence?

These are criminal acts. They become criminal acts based on the result of the action, not the action itself. The punishment should absolutely fit the result of the action.

As for the sport as a whole--I've been a hockey fanatic for just over ten years, and I'd have enjoyed the sport every bit as much if I'd never seen a hockey fight--but for different reasons:

The speed, skill, and grace of hockey is what initially appealed to me, and what I think is the bigger appeal to the world in general. I'd rather watch Joe Sakic knock a one-timer out of mid air past a sliding goalie than see two grunts drop the gloves and grapple each other until the refs break it up.

On the other hand--I think the base brutality of the Roman Colisseaums should still exist today. I'm as blood-thirsty as the next guy. It's animal, primal, human. We all like fights. We all like revenge. We all slow down at car wrecks.

The problem is that the NHL sucks ass at being able to mesh these two aspects of the sport. I read about minor league games in the 50's where whole teams were carted off to jail after games because of bench-clearing brawls. If the NHL wants to allow fighting and other intent-to-injure acts, then the players should know what kind of a situation they're coming into when they step on the ice. If they want a Charlestown Chiefs kind of game that's fine, but there should be repercussions for the results of said actions.

Plus that'd be kind of cool struggling with the fact that if your enforcer does his stuff this game, he may still be in jail when you take on your next team.

[OnWis97]

So penalties should fit the injury, not the crime? If I throw a 5-minute elbow but it causes the guy to retire due to his 11th concussion, I should be forced to retire too? No. He got a penalty and suspension. He served it. To draw it out based on how long the other person is out is ridiculous.

Answer this simple question. Where do you draw the line?

That WOULD be a tough line to draw, I have to admit. There are 5 minute majors that do not fall under the same category of dirty/cowardly/dangerous as this. If a guy throws an elbow (which would be cheap, but not AS cheap) and something freak leads to a hospitalization, do they suspend indefinately?

I guess you would have to have the league disciplinarians determine quickly that a cheap shot was of the "double-secret dangerous" variety (we'll work on the name latter) and therefore the offending player would be suspended until his victim was medically able to return. And this would lead to the obvious problem of subjectivity, so appeals would be part of the process.

As it stands, he got 17 games and a playoff series. Admittedly, the work stoppage throws a monkey wrench in things. But as far as I can tell that's the precedence. 17 (or maybe 24) games is the maximum for any goonery that does not result in death.

Bus as for "So penalties should fit the injury, not the crime?" I think the answer is an absolute YES for the most vicious cheap shots. If you are going to be cavalier with an opponents safety, know that you will be sitting out as long as he will.

[OnWis97]

The violence (and the NHL's promotion of it) is a turn off for me.

Yeah that b.s. instigator rule is a real promotion of violence

tool

They could suspend everyone for fighting like...Oh every other team sport. It's what they do in college hockey and guess what. Almost no fights.

Pro hockey leagues have been promoting the violence and fighting for decades. The NHL used to do it more than they do now--they seem to understand the problem with showing fight clips in their promo videos (though the ECHL did a few years ago when I lived in an ECHL town).

Does hockey violence happen because fans want it? Probably. But either way, they could essentially eliminate it if they wanted to. They don't.

It's been a part of the NHL game, and that is what it is. I don't think hockey fights are this disgusting plague upon the sport. It's just as much a part of the appeal as a breakaway. I think that legalized fighting belongs in hockey; it keeps you honest. You'd be less apt to take cheap shots on Steve Yzerman if Bob Probert is there. It's not a perfect system, but sometimes you just gotta beat the crap out of someone.

So we agree on the following two points:

1. the NHL COULD reduce fighting

2. the NHL chooses not to do so

But we disagree in that I think they should and you do not.

I admit that I am not someone that has ever played hockey and I am not an "insider" like Barry Melrose or someone (but I have better hair). So I come from a weaker knowledge base when I think that it is ridiculous that people think fighting is a "good" and "important" part of the game. There is probably some part of the history that I just don't know about or grasp.

I also admit that fighting is not nearly as dangerous as blind side cheap shots. I don't think very many people go on the IR because of what happens in a fight. And if Bertuzzi had faced Moore and dropped the gloves that would have been a lot more "manly" and less dangerous.

However, I think that alot of people are bothered by it. The NHL wants to increase scoring/scoring chances en route to increasing its following. The question is, what would eliminating fights do? I think it would help. I think that, right or wrong, in the US, people see it as goons dropping the gloves far too often. Either way, I don't think it is a good part of the game.

It is an interesting point some of you make that eliminating fighting would increase cheap shots. Having played some pick-up hockey, I have some understanding of the frustration with the clutching and grabbing and getting hit all over the place by sticks. And sometimes it leads to fights. Your reasoning is that if they cannot fight, they'll just start spearing, hitting each other in the heads with sticks and other dirty things. I agree that it would be the natural response. The way to combat it would be that anyone who gets a game misconduct misses an automatic 2 more games ($$$).

Think of it this way. College hockey has eliminated fighting, essentially. And cheap shots...less frequent than in the NHL from what I can tell. Why? Because a 5-minute major gets you kicked out of the game and a dirtier play (a game DQ?) gets you kicked out of the game and you miss the next one. Too harsh for the pros? Maybe, but those punishments could be relaxed at that level.

At any rate, I think the college game is better because of the reduced violence. I think the game flows better. Though I admit the shorter regular season contributes to a better regular season game.

[OnWis97]

Yep -- good points by ICS and JQK.

If anything, eliminating fighting would only add to the cheap shots as currently, fighting is used as a controlled form of letting teams get payback. The reason Steve Moore was a target wasn't because of a fight, it was because of a check -- and a legal one, at that. A fight was originally the means by which Vancouver tried to get payback -- but Moore kicked Brad May's (currently an Av, by the way) ass in the fight. So really, I don't see where fighting comes in, here.

I do not remember the circumstances of that game before the play in question, so I am opening myself up here, but let's see if I follow you.

1. A VAN player hit a COL with a hard, but legal check.

2. Moore got in a fight with Brad May and beat his a$$.

3. Bertuzzi got revenge on Moore.

It seems to me that fighting is the big problem here. A fight broke out over a LEGAL play. And if there was no fight, Bertuzzi would never have gone after him.*

Am I incorrect? I very well may be.

*(which takes none of the responsibility off of Bertuzzi)

[See Red]

Yep -- good points by ICS and JQK.

If anything, eliminating fighting would only add to the cheap shots as currently, fighting is used as a controlled form of letting teams get payback.  The reason Steve Moore was a target wasn't because of a fight, it was because of a check -- and a legal one, at that.  A fight was originally the means by which Vancouver tried to get payback -- but Moore kicked Brad May's (currently an Av, by the way) ass in the fight.  So really, I don't see where fighting comes in, here.

I do not remember the circumstances of that game before the play in question, so I am opening myself up here, but let's see if I follow you.

1. A VAN player hit a COL with a hard, but legal check.

2. Moore got in a fight with Brad May and beat his a$$.

3. Bertuzzi got revenge on Moore.

It seems to me that fighting is the big problem here. A fight broke out over a LEGAL play. And if there was no fight, Bertuzzi would never have gone after him.*

Am I incorrect? I very well may be.

*(which takes none of the responsibility off of Bertuzzi)

No, that's not how it happened.

The event took part over the course of two games between the teams.

Marcus Naslund was skating accross the middle, looking down, and Steve Moore leveled him. It was a legal hit, but it injured Marcus Naslund.

The next time they played in Vancouver, Brad May had made a comment that Moore had a bounty or something to that effect -- and in that game, Brad May got into a fight with Moore, which I'd imagine was supposed to be the retaliation. Moore won the fight.

Later on in the game, gthe Bertuzzi incident happened.

[OMMF]

So penalties should fit the injury, not the crime? If I throw a 5-minute elbow but it causes the guy to retire due to his 11th concussion, I should be forced to retire too? No. He got a penalty and suspension. He served it. To draw it out based on how long the other person is out is ridiculous.

Answer this simple question. Where do you draw the line?

As it stands, he got 17 games and a playoff series.

...and the World Cup of Hockey and any international play he might have had a chance of playing as the IIHF recognized the NHL's suspension.

Remember, the NHL isn't the only hockey in the world.

As far as having the penalty fit the injury not the crime, what if Moore had been able to come back (or any other injury in this instance?) Would you feel justice to be served if his neck hadn't been broken and he was skating the next game? Is it still as cheap a shot?

If you're going to apply something, it has to be across the board or not at all.

[pcgd]

Answer this simple question. Where do you draw the line?

A baseball swing to the head with a hockey stick is one line you could establish.

[Andy]

However, I think that alot of people are bothered by it. The NHL wants to increase scoring/scoring chances en route to increasing its following. The question is, what would eliminating fights do? I think it would help. I think that, right or wrong, in the US, people see it as goons dropping the gloves far too often. Either way, I don't think it is a good part of the game.

Eliminating fighting would be a middle-finger to many of the NHL's hardcore fans. The NHL is already toeing a line with many traditionalists with the current rule changes, taking fighting away is just another step toward making the sport something it isn't. I think the league has done a great job and the rules in effect right now are exactly as they should be. They are attracting new fans while retaining the old fanbase.

You mention college hockey, the stiff penalties for cheap shots and the essential elimination of fighting. How popular is college hockey?

[StPatty33]

You mention college hockey, the stiff penalties for cheap shots and the essential elimination of fighting. How popular is college hockey?

How popular is NHL hockey?

I'm a hardcore fan, but we all know in the states NHL hockey takes a back seat waaaay behind the other 3 major sports.

College hockey's more popular than minor league hockey, that's for sure. That might just be me though, since DU (Denver)'s won the title two years in a row and several times recently before that as well.

You say there are people (traditionalists) who watch hockey for the fights? 95% of the time if there IS a "fight" there aren't even any blows landed, just a bunch of squirming and grappling and then refs breaking it up. If you want to watch an F'n fight, watch boxing or ultimate fighting. If you want to see the fastest-paced, flowing exhibition of skill in sport, watch the NEW NHL. Still with a spackling of retarded, intent-to-injure ass-hats, unfortunately.

[Andy]

You say there are people (traditionalists) who watch hockey for the fights? 95% of the time if there IS a "fight" there aren't even any blows landed, just a bunch of squirming and grappling and then refs breaking it up. If you want to watch an F'n fight, watch boxing or ultimate fighting. If you want to see the fastest-paced, flowing exhibition of skill in sport, watch the NEW NHL. Still with a spackling of retarded, intent-to-injure ass-hats, unfortunately.

That's part of the point, though. Of course these fights aren't bloody, violent fistfights. If they were, no one would approve of them. But there's a certain type of justice enforced when a guy lays a dirty hit on another player and realizes he might have to defend himself against a few punches from the other team's enforcer, poorly executed as the punches may be.

Also, nowhere in my post did I say traditionalists watch hockey for the fights. I certainly don't, I would much rather see an exhibition of skill and scoring over a brawl, but I still enjoy fighting as part of the game.

[OnWis97]

You mention college hockey, the stiff penalties for cheap shots and the essential elimination of fighting. How popular is college hockey?

The NHL has fighting and is MUCH less popular than NFL, College football, mens golf, women's golf, arena football, women's tennis, NASCAR (though they fight now), IndyCar, WNBA, NBA, Major League Baseball, and televised poker.

But you still like hockey best (at least, that's what I guess). You think it is better--fluff the masses.

And that's how I feel about college hockey. Sure it's even more of a fringe sport than the NHL, but I am just saying that there are those (myself included) that feel that the college game is better in part because of the lack of fighting.

And truth be told, (as you can tell from my North Stars/Wild things) I like the NHL too. But I am just not a "purest." I like eliminating the two-line pass. And I would love it if there had been a true incentive to stop Bertuzzi's act, but I don't think there is.

Anyway, I admit that I should remember that you cannot just mold a good sport to the masses. I AM a baseball purest and I hate things that work toward grabbing fans that feel more scoring is needed. I guess I just hae a hard time seeing what fighting adds to the GAME.

[Andy]

You mention college hockey, the stiff penalties for cheap shots and the essential elimination of fighting. How popular is college hockey?

The NHL has fighting and is MUCH less popular than NFL, College football, mens golf, women's golf, arena football, women's tennis, NASCAR (though they fight now), IndyCar, WNBA, NBA, Major League Baseball, and televised poker.

But you still like hockey best (at least, that's what I guess). You think it is better--fluff the masses.

And that's how I feel about college hockey. Sure it's even more of a fringe sport than the NHL, but I am just saying that there are those (myself included) that feel that the college game is better in part because of the lack of fighting.

Anyway, I admit that I should remember that you cannot just mold a good sport to the masses. I AM a baseball purest and I hate things that work toward grabbing fans that feel more scoring is needed. I guess I just hae a hard time seeing what fighting adds to the GAME.

I'm not disputing that hockey is less popular than other sports, I was just saying that the idea that eliminating fighting will make the NHL more popular in the United States seems like a stretch to me. College hockey is my example, since by that rhetoric college hockey should be popular among Americans. It isn't.

I am totally with you about the elimination of the red line and if there was a way to eliminate cheap shots in every sport in the world, I would be all for that too. There isn't.

And as far as fighting adding something to the game, I would argue that not only does it keep the cheap shots down (in a vigilante sort of way, admittedly, but isn't that what's cool about the NHL?) and it is also part of the game's lore. Like headhunting in baseball. A dark side of the game, perhaps, but still part of the game and part of it's appeal.

[OnWis97]

You mention college hockey, the stiff penalties for cheap shots and the essential elimination of fighting. How popular is college hockey?

The NHL has fighting and is MUCH less popular than NFL, College football, mens golf, women's golf, arena football, women's tennis, NASCAR (though they fight now), IndyCar, WNBA, NBA, Major League Baseball, and televised poker.

But you still like hockey best (at least, that's what I guess). You think it is better--fluff the masses.

And that's how I feel about college hockey. Sure it's even more of a fringe sport than the NHL, but I am just saying that there are those (myself included) that feel that the college game is better in part because of the lack of fighting.

Anyway, I admit that I should remember that you cannot just mold a good sport to the masses. I AM a baseball purest and I hate things that work toward grabbing fans that feel more scoring is needed. I guess I just hae a hard time seeing what fighting adds to the GAME.

I'm not disputing that hockey is less popular than other sports, I was just saying that the idea that eliminating fighting will make the NHL more popular in the United States seems like a stretch to me. College hockey is my example, since by that rhetoric college hockey should be popular among Americans. It isn't.

I am totally with you about the elimination of the red line and if there was a way to eliminate cheap shots in every sport in the world, I would be all for that too. There isn't.

And as far as fighting adding something to the game, I would argue that not only does it keep the cheap shots down (in a vigilante sort of way, admittedly, but isn't that what's cool about the NHL?) and it is also part of the game's lore. Like headhunting in baseball. A dark side of the game, perhaps, but still part of the game and part of it's appeal.

I think throwing at people is part of the game (though not my favorite part), but only below the neck. Headhunting is bad for the game.

[MDesign]

Bertuzzi Political Comic

Thought you guys might enjoy this. It won't let me post the img code.