|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: Campbell: Time to examine fighting's place in hockey |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The man charged with keeping National Hockey League players in check thinks it's time to consider whether fighting still has a role in hockey.
"There are arguments both ways but the bottom line is the question has to be asked," NHL senior vice-president and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell said yesterday, a day after Todd Fedoruk of the Philadelphia Flyers became the latest player injured in a fight. Fedoruk was knocked out by New York Rangers tough guy Colton Orr and was taken from the ice on a stretcher.
Fedoruk, who had facial reconstruction when he was injured in a fight earlier this season, was feeling better yesterday. But the vision of him falling to the ice just moments after Wednesday night's opening faceoff between the Flyers and Rangers has reignited the oldest debate in hockey.
"I think it's incumbent on the competition committee and the general managers to ask the question: Where does fighting stand in the game of hockey?" Campbell said.
"I think it's time to ask the question regardless of what's happened this year. Things change. . . . Fighting has been around as long as anything. I think it had a place and a reason for being there and the critics will say the finesse players get run and slashing will go up [without fighting]. I think we have to ask whether there are other aspects that can control that."
Fighting in the NHL has increased by about 4 per cent this season following a sharp decline during the first year of hockey after the lockout, as many enforcers found their ice time and roles limited. A year ago, many believed enforcers would disappear with the game's evolution favouring speed and skill. But last month, the NHL had its highest monthly fight total since the lockout ended (96) amid plenty of old-style payback delivered on the ice with fists.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest hockey is nowhere near ready to ban fighting, such as general managers last month voting to recommend raising the number of instigator penalties a player must receive before being suspended to five from three.
"It's one thing to take fighting out but I think you can discuss where it stands in the game," Campbell said. "We've looked at a lot of different aspects in the game. No one thought we'd take out the red line. But anything that causes injuries, we should look at just like we look at touch or no-touch icing every year."
Campbell's suggestion is likely to divide opinions sharply in the days and weeks ahead.
"I don't think [Wednesday] night was a fair example [of the dangers of fighting]," Hockey Night in Canada commentator Kelly Hrudey said. "You've got two big guys and one is predisposed to a problem. It's like having two football players meeting head to head and one guy has a concussion problem. That's just part of the game."
Also sure to be on the minds of players and league executives is what a ban on fighting might do to hockey's bottom line in terms of fan interest. In many U.S. markets, hockey is mostly recognized when violence occurs, although it is debatable whether that is a good or bad thing for the NHL.
"In my opinion, you take fighting out of the game, you're going to lose a good portion of fans who do come because there's a chance a fight might break out," said Phoenix Coyotes veteran Jeremy Roenick. "There will be a large group of people who won't watch if the fights are gone."
Roenick also suggests the NHL needs fighting because there is so little respectamong players. Campbell, however, said the often-repeate in today's game d notion is a myth.
"I played in the 70s and 80s," Campbell said. "There's things that happened then. . . . You talk about a lack of respect. There was a lack of respect then. You went into Philly and they didn't respect you. When you went to Boston and played the Big Bad Bruins they didn't respect you." |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070322.wsptcampbell22/BNStory/Front/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070322.wsptcampbell22
I am 100% in favor of hockey having fighting. It is part of the sport, and part of the culture of hockey. And given the diluted nature of the NHL, it is also often the most exciting part of a game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember once during my high school days, watching an exhibition game between a Czech team and a local hockey team. The Czech team were masters at passing the puck and outmanuvering the Canadians, all without bodychecking or fighting.
I think there should be a squad of local police officers at every NHL game. If a fight breaks out, the cops should either tazer or pepper spray the a**holes and drag them feet first off the ice. Fighting is for goons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watching them get tasered live on TV would also be a lot more fun.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've played at a reasonably level of competitiveness, most recently while doing my MA. My personal style of play is similar to Fleury(same height), without the PIMS or the substance abuse problems. I rarely take penalties, but play very physically.
I've been on the ice for fights, on the bench for fights and gotten in a few jersey tugging matches. Fighting isn't necessary, and if rules were enforced and the level of play raised, then you'd see a lot less of it.
That doesn't mean it should be taken out of the game, and a KO in a fight isn't reason enough to ban in. I think the game could be greatly elevated with other rule changes than removing fighting. That said, if less fighting means more money for the teams and more people through the gates, than hockey/NHL has a choice to make as a business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never considered hockey to be much of a game, let alone professional, because they allowed brawling to be part of it.
Professional Australian Rules footy was synonymous with brawling from the hey day of "Captain Blood" through to the 70s. It meant that the game was dominated by thugs, when the focus was more on being able to batter an opponent, and withstand whatever the other team could dish out.
There was a change in attitude and the "rules" were actually enforced, with goon behaviour being punished instead of rewarded. Now the game is one of the greatest to watch for skill and athleticism, instead of idiots, who can't play, beat each other up.
Hockey would be much improved by enforcing rules, and getting the thuggery out of the game. Thankfully there's K-1 and WWF for those who haven't developed beyond wanting to see boofheads beat each other up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
I've never considered hockey to be much of a game, let alone professional, because they allowed brawling to be part of it.
Professional Australian Rules footy was synonymous with brawling from the hey day of "Captain Blood" through to the 70s. It meant that the game was dominated by thugs, when the focus was more on being able to batter an opponent, and withstand whatever the other team could dish out.
There was a change in attitude and the "rules" were actually enforced, with goon behaviour being punished instead of rewarded. Now the game is one of the greatest to watch for skill and athleticism, instead of idiots, who can't play, beat each other up.
Hockey would be much improved by enforcing rules, and getting the thuggery out of the game. Thankfully there's K-1 and WWF for those who haven't developed beyond wanting to see boofheads beat each other up. |
bingo! I couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuck Teacher
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
what hockey are you watching?
| happeningthang wrote: |
| I've never considered hockey to be much of a game, let alone professional, because they allowed brawling to be part of it. |
wrong. bralwing is not part of the game. a "brawl" happens maybe once/twice a season now throughout the entire league.
| happeningthang wrote: |
Professional Australian Rules footy was synonymous with brawling from the hey day of "Captain Blood" through to the 70s. It meant that the game was dominated by thugs, when the focus was more on being able to batter an opponent, and withstand whatever the other team could dish out. |
this has no relation or relevance to hockey since the 1970s. "thugs" do not dominate the game. They, at most, have a side show. Half the teams in the NHL today do not have an "enforcer" in the lineup on most nights.
lets stop with the brutal exagerations and call hockey what it really is. a fast past, very aggressive contact sport in which the odd fight breaks out, MUCH TO THE DELIGHT OF MOST FANS OF THE SPORT. if you dont' get it, watch european hockey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
You might have guessed that being an Australian, I don't get to see a lot of ice hockey.
CT, you'll know more about ice hockey than I ever will, but living on the other side of the world I can only have a general impression, and that is that ice hockey has spectacular brawls, body checking, and fights that are, seemingly, considered to be de riguer. Blame ice hockey movies, and TV coverage that show nothing but brawls, but I don't think it's an uncommon perception. The OP shows some people who are involved in the NHL at high levels would agree.
It's interesting that you say that ...
| Quote: |
Half the teams in the NHL today do not have an "enforcer" in the lineup on most nights.
|
So the other half of the teams DO have someone on the ice whose role it is to take out opponents? Fifty percent was a failing grade when I went to school.
Just a quick google came up with this article...
http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/hockey/canadiensstory.html?id=70fb8dc2-d29f-4133-9737-d41deb597a55&k=85909
Brawls, fights, injuries and concussion all within two months. They should rename the league "thugs on ice". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They should rename the league "thugs on ice". |
No matter what the named it, it would still be the most spectacular professional team sport on earth.
But, I've been out of Korea for almost a year now. I miss the bar-room arguments about rugby vs. NFL, soccer vs baseball and hockey vs them all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuck Teacher
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
It's interesting that you say that ...
| Quote: |
Half the teams in the NHL today do not have an "enforcer" in the lineup on most nights.
|
So the other half of the teams DO have someone on the ice whose role it is to take out opponents? Fifty percent was a failing grade when I went to school. |
what is it called when someone has their argument refuted and so they dive for the cover of semantics and then introduce a new erroneous idea to the subject?
I'm bored and I'll play your word game. yes, roughly half the teams have "enforcers," as i obviously inferred when i suggested half the teams don�t have enforcers. (your skill in deduction and math are impressive.) That is not in doubt. But why do you then take the large, and laughable leap to suggest enforcers are there to "take out opponents?" is this more of your hollywood research? You are right, u don�t know the game at all.
Enforcers are in the line-up to protect star players from getting abused through cheap shots by players whom are not fighters. In this regard, there is a strong code among fighters that serves (according to every player interview I�ve ever seen/read) to actually lower the incidence of dangerous stick use and cheap/illegal checks. Most, if not all, professional players in the NHL think that fighting actually makes the game less dangerous, especially for the star players we want to see each night. Does an enforcer ever go to far sometimes? yes. As I said before, there are a couple of incidences each year, which are extreme. Compared to the thousands of games played each year, and in the context of an incredibly fast, hard-hitting, full contact sport, its minor and certainly not indicative of what hockey is about.
As for your article on recent fights and injuries, it represent a flash in time, not a trend. In fact, a recent article quoted the commissioner of the NHL as suggesting its ridiculous to evaluate the game and level of fighting based on isolated incidences that happened to fall within a shot span. He went on to say fighting has always been an element of the game and has a place. (see my arugument above). It does not, howver, define hockey. Skill, speed, toughness make it a unique sport. The days of the goon is over, but hockey remains a tough man's sport.
for those of you who got hit with the murder ball too many times, or picked on as a boy, and are emotionaly scared for life, im sorry. watch rythmic gymnastics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough CT, as I said, I don't know much about ice hockey. I was only trying to point out the Australian experience where violence was taken out of a game, which vastly improved it.
I was mistaken in assuming the term "enforcer" in ice hockey is used in the same way as in Australian Football, where the enforcer is the guy who runs around behind the play looking for an opportunity to take people out. Still if 50% of the teams field 'bodyguards' for star players it show there's an expectation of players, in an National League using deliberate and malicious tactics in the game.
What suprises me more is the mentality of those who oppose taking violence out of the game. If people can appreciate the game for being fast paced, and hard hitting, a game for tough men, then why do you need, or want players fighting and injuring each other?
I don't doubt ice hockey is a great game, I just don't see why the league tolerates violence in a sport. Don't get me wrong, rugby, grid-iron, aussie rules are similar to ice hockey in that they are 'tough guy' games that require, as you put it, skill, speed and toughness. They don't have anywhere near the violence that seems to be tolerated in ice hockey. So where's the problem in getting rid of it?
Last edited by happeningthang on Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
bah Hockey is so boring. So is soccer and football.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slep
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting take.
| Quote: |
OPINION:
RIGHT TO FIGHT SHOULD BE EARNED
by Mike Brophy
EMAIL FEEDBACK PRINT
I think I have the solution that will satisfy those who think fighting should continue to be a part of the game and those who are disturbed by the number of players whose only job is to fight: Keep fighting in the game, but eject any player that fights if he plays less than an average of 10 minutes a game.
Make players earn the right to fight. It would be a huge step toward ridding the game of fighting specialists � players who cannot play and are only there to beat up players on the other team. Teams can continue to carry players of that ilk, but do so knowing if they don�t get their ice time up to 10 minutes a game, they will be ejected each time they fight. And if the NHL wants to take it a step further, make the suspension longer with each ensuing fight. Players are subject to suspension for repeat ejections.
New players entering the NHL have three games grace where their average ice time is set at 10 minutes. In Game 4, however, their actual average ice time through the first three games is used. So if a kid like David Koci is called up by Chicago, he can fight all he wants in his first three games, but in Game 4, he had better have averaged 10 minutes playing time in the first three games or he�ll be ejected if he fights. In six games Koci had six fights and averaged 3:36 playing time.
�I think there is validity to your idea,� says Colin Campbell, the NHL�s vice-president of hockey operations. �I don�t mind the tough guys who go out and play. What I hate is bullies; guys that just go out to intimidate.�
I don�t think it is fighting itself that has people up in arms. Nobody used to care when players such as John Ferguson, Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard dropped the gloves, because they could play the game, too. Players hit for themselves and fought their own battles. Even Dave Keon, who was the Mr. Clean of his era, dropped his gloves to fight once. But fighting has evolved to the point where most teams carry a player or two whose only purpose is to fight.
Nobody had a problem when Jarome Iginla and Vinny Lecavalier dropped the mitts for a lively bout during the 2004 Stanley Cup final. Iginla and Lecavalier are star players whose fight was spontaneous combustion, not staged. But when Georges Laraque, wearing a microphone for TV, leans over at a faceoff and asks L.A.�s Raitis Ivanans, �wanna go?� for absolutely no reason other than to justify his existence and then says, �good luck,� that is what gives fighting in hockey a bad name.
What seems to trouble people the most is when a 6-foot-7, 250-pound Derek Boogaard or a 6-foot-3, 225-pound Colton Orr � neither of whom can play a lick � lays a horrific beating on an opponent. These guys, and many others, are fighting machines so we should not be shocked on any level when they crush Todd Fedoruk in a fight and he is carried off the ice on a stretcher.
That is not to suggest there isn�t room in the NHL for the big man who can play and occasionally fight. Boston defenseman Zdeno Chara at 6-foot-9 and 260 pounds is both a great player and great fighter.
Ottawa�s Chris Neil is the perfect example of a player who fights, but can also take a shift when the game is on the line. And unlike many of the goons that only fight, he will play in the playoffs. In 76 games this season, Neil had 12 goals and 27 points with 157 penalty minutes. He had eight fights, but also netted three power play goals and three game-winning goals.
Consider: George Parros, Brian McGrattan, Andrew Peters, Jody Shelley, Derek Boogaard and Colton Orr had just four goals and nine points between them in a combined 292 games. Of that group of skilled and finesse players, only Orr, at 5:05, was averaging more than five minutes playing time per game.
If coaches want to carry players who have no value other than their ability to fight, so be it. But they had better find a way to get them 10 minutes of playing time per game because if they can�t, then those players will be taking up valuable cap space and will be suspended more often than not.
�There is no doubt we need to target one-dimensional players,� says one NHL GM. �If you can�t play a regular shift and you�re just around to scare the crap out of guys who know how to play hockey, I think our society and sport have gone beyond that.�
There is a place in the game for fighting, but no place for players who only fight.
One of THN�s senior writers, Mike Brophy gives you insight and opinion on the world of hockey like no one else. Subscribe to The Hockey News to get Mike's expertise delivered to you every issue.
|
http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/fan-corner/news.asp?idNews=24091
It does have some problems (ie it would limit fighting to the 3rd period), I quite agree with the sentiment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hockey is part of the game. If people don't like it... good. Fukc'em. Enough people love the game, with fighting, and that is good enough. Fighting isn't even very common anymore. In 12 NHL games today, only 3 games even had fights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
Fair enough CT, as I said, I don't know much about ice hockey. I was only trying to point out the Australian experience where violence was taken out of a game, which vastly improved it.
I was mistaken in assuming the term "enforcer" in ice hockey is used in the same way as in Australian Football, where the enforcer is the guy who runs around behind the play looking for an opportunity to take people out. Still if 50% of the teams field 'bodyguards' for star players it show there's an expectation of players, in an National League using deliberate and malicious tactics in the game.
What suprises me more is the mentality of those who oppose taking violence out of the game. If people can appreciate the game for being fast paced, and hard hitting, a game for tough men, then why do you need, or want players fighting and injuring each other?
I don't doubt ice hockey is a great game, I just don't see why the league tolerates violence in a sport. Don't get me wrong, rugby, grid-iron, aussie rules are similar to ice hockey in that they are 'tough guy' games that require, as you put it, skill, speed and toughness. They don't have anywhere near the violence that seems to be tolerated in ice hockey. So where's the problem in getting rid of it? |
I think one problem you have here is your definition of violence. Hitting people is violent. Therefore, the game is violent, with or with-out fighting. The problem with hockey is that it is probably played at twice the speed of every other sport which can easily result in people getting injured because of carelessness. This carelessness doesn't result in bruises, the results are often career ending because of the combination between speed and nature of the game. Fighting, to some degree, takes care of that carelessness. Fighting ensures that other idiots don't go around injuring the better players.
Honestly, if you don't know much about the game, you don't understand, and no matter how much explaining happens here, you still won't understand. It's like a Canadian telling Australians how to play AFL. You just don't understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
