|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 20, 2004 13:10:23 GMT -5
I was watching the Bruins/Rangers game yesterday with my son when the Lindros-Thornton fight broke out. For the first time I was embarassed for the sport and had no answer for my son when he asked "why are they fighting.?"
I'm not a pacifist, but for too long fighting has been considered a "part of the game" and tolerated for far too long. The fans, especially Bruin fans, love it but it truly is a black mark for the sport even if fighting is way down from its peak in the 1970s.
There's no more a place for it in hockey than there is in other sports. In basketball, fights quickly turn into scrums with players and officials wading in to the fray. You never see two basketball players simply square off and go like they do in hockey with the refs just standing there. It's unacceptable.
Fights should IMMEDIATELY be broken up before they get to the point where two players are just going at it, and if not, there should be an immediate 5 game suspension.
It's a joke, and if I were Mike O'Connell in Boston I would be especially pissed off that my franchise forward Joe Thornton could be injured as a result of his stupidity of getting into a tilt with Eric Lindros.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 20, 2004 13:19:25 GMT -5
Thornton could have just skated away. But think of the abuse he would have had to endure from fans, media and his peers, not to mention Don Cherry.
European rules stipulate that you are given a game misconduct for dropping your gloves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 20, 2004 13:51:48 GMT -5
That's sad. Joe Thornton is as talented a hockey player as there is in the NHL, but he would be labeled as a sissy for backing down in a fight. Now he may be injured at great cost to himself and his team.
Fights just should never get that far. We've allowed it to become a spectacle by having everyone stand aside while the boys go at it. Sure it's a physical game and tempers flare - I'm all for a targeted "cheap shot" behind the play or a not-too subtle crosscheck to send a message, but fights should never progress past the initial pushing and shoving you see after the play stops. If two players start to go, the officials should be right there in an instant to break it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 20, 2004 14:11:07 GMT -5
That's sad. Joe Thornton is as talented a hockey player as there is in the NHL, but he would be labeled as a sissy for backing down in a fight. Now he may be injured at great cost to himself and his team. Thornton is also as dirty a player as there is in the NHL. Every time I see him play he's got his stilck all over the place, be it spearing or high sticking. It's not like he's some innocent victim of a random attack. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 20, 2004 14:19:17 GMT -5
Thornton is also as dirty a player as there is in the NHL. Every time I see him play he's got his stilck all over the place, be it spearing or high sticking. It's not like he's some innocent victim of a random attack. Indeed, which is why I was glad to see him get his features re-arranged in an honest toe-to-toe. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 23, 2004 8:46:30 GMT -5
Why do we let boxers go toe-to-toe for 12 rounds? People will pay to see it. I don't like to see two guys scrap for the simple reason that they felt like it. However, it still serves a purpose. The instigator rule, which isn't called anymore but could be, has curbed fighting somewhat. The role of a fight is varied, but the main role is self policing. Gretz and Yzerman were never hurt as long as they had Semenko and Probert. Sure, intimidation is part of it. Anything to get the other team off their game. Another role is energy. A good tussle can motivate teammates a lot.
I don't think there should be goons per say in the game, and there are fewer and fewer. More often now, the guys that go can play a decent game, given the chance. It's a tough role though. Often they sit on the bench for a good portion of the game, only to be told to get out there and stir things up by the coach. If they don't there will be someone waiting to step in.
I find it confusing Boston_Habs that you'd condone dirty play and discourage an honest fight between willing combatants. A severe cross check, a forearm shiver, a sucker punch, can all do as much or more damage than a fight. You as much as condoned a strategic blow to the head with a stick. So it's okay to hit someone with an object as hard as a stick, when they may not be ready for the shot, but it's not okay for two guys to square off?
In most fights only a few of the punches land. With players hanging off one another, trying to maintain balance it's hard to get in a really hard shot. That said, there still regular tilts where a "KO" occurs. Still, I will always prefer a fight between to people looking to settle a dispute, or stick up for a teammate being bullied, than dirty play.
Injuries are part of the game, but how often is someone badly injured in a fight. Cut yes, but rarely is there a bad injury. Concussions and the like happen from checks etc. Seldom does a fight end where both guys can't easily skate to the penalty box.
I am not in favour of it taking presidence over the game. I recall the fiasco that was the 1992 season when Domi was with the Rangers and going after Probert's "title". That was glorified, and fighting should never be more than the game itself.
Hockey is a unique sport. It has the speed of basketball, the physicality of football, and the "weaponry" of baseball. Tempers will flare, and I will always prefer a dispute be resolved with a scrap than with the stick.
If anything about fighting were to change, I would consider a rule that stipulated that if a player faught more than once in a given game than they were ejected. Other than that, that part of the game is fine.
|
|
