NationStates Jolt Archive

Police say criminal charges could be laid following a weekend bench-clearing hockey brawl between two teams of eight-year-old players.

The Ontario Minor Hockey Association is also investigating the incident, which occurred between the Duffield Devils and Niagara Falls Thunder novice AAA teams, and has so far led to the suspension of three players from each team and their coaches.

The Devils were playing the Thunder at a Guelph Ont., arena last Friday during a tournament when, in the third period, the game got out of hand.

Each team has its own version of what happened but police say what is clear is that a fight broke out between several players at the end of the game.

The Niagara Falls Thunder have a tape of the incident but won't release it.

But police have a copy and allege that one of the Niagara coaches spat on a Duffield coach and that both coaches sent most of their players from the bench on to the ice.

"It doesn't show which team left the bench first but it does show a physical altercation between the two coaches," Sgt. Cate Welsh, a Guelph police spokeswoman, told the Guelph Mercury newspaper on Monday.

Welsh said the footage catches a Duffield coach slipping and falling as he leaves the bench, followed by one of the kids, who also fell. The images then show physical pushing and shoving between the two coaches, she said.

"One of my players was in the middle of it all, and he went after one boy," said Bob Chamberlain, who is with the Niagara Falls Thunder. "The other boy retaliated and then they knocked him down. Then ... two or three guys got in, then all of a sudden it shows the goalie coming in and jumping on top of the pile."

Police had to be called in.

Duffield Devils team president Frank Carbone said he hasn't seen the tape but that he believes his team is not at fault.

"Our organization did a thorough investigation and I'm confident that when all the facts come out, that it'll show that the Duffield coaching staff, the parents and the players involved did not instigate or escalate any of the actions that took place," Carbone said.

Hockey association executive director Richard Ropchan said he has yet to review the game report but there could be more suspensions in addition to the ones handed out by Friday's referee.

"The punishment will fit the crime and the OMHA has the ability to issue a lengthy suspension," he said.

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/26/hockey-brawl.html)

I don't know what to say about it, really- I mean, it should be fairly obvious for hockey fans and non-hockey fans that eight-year-olds simply shouldn't be fighting. However, I think this just may be a case of just how far violence in hockey- as a whole- has gone: considering these eight-year-olds idolize NHLers and considering all those NHL highlight packages display brawls quite prominently, I can't help but think there's got to be *some* connection involved in this. Now, I understand the fact eight-year-olds were brawling is not the *whole* story- parents (again) seem to be involved- but I'm at a loss for an overall explanation towards the most extreme of all the noteworthy brawls this season- and the saddest. Thoughts?

Ahh, youth sports. Good, wholesome, hetero-normative fun.

I say it's about time hockey was outlawed. Yup.

Hahaha, eight year olds fight all the time for goodness sake. That's what little boys do.

Good for them. Unless bets were placed on the fight, then its bad.

I say it's about time hockey was outlawed. Yup.

Nyet. But it should certainly be more carefully monitored when children play. The game itself is fine...it's the violent aspect that often goes lightly punished(where in other sports it would mandate being thrown out of the game and possibly off the team) that needs controlling, and that's in ALL levels of hockey, not just children's.

Nyet. But it should certainly be more carefully monitored when children play. The game itself is fine...it's the violent aspect that often goes lightly punished(where in other sports it would mandate being thrown out of the game and possibly off the team) that needs controlling, and that's in ALL levels of hockey, not just children's.

I agree- but it starts at the top. If the NHL won't clean up its game (considering the paltry suspensions Mattias Ohlund and Randy Jones received, that message is pretty clear), there's no reason for the kids to do it. Those kids look up to the NHLers, and if the NHLers can't behave, I don't see the kids doing it- at least not on the ice, anyway.

Nyet. But it should certainly be more carefully monitored when children play. The game itself is fine...it's the violent aspect that often goes lightly punished(where in other sports it would mandate being thrown out of the game and possibly off the team) that needs controlling, and that's in ALL levels of hockey, not just children's.

Pffft. If anything, they should make it more violent. Add spears and such lying around the hockey rink, and deathtraps and such.

Nyet.

Eh. I wasn't being serious about banning hockey.

In my experience, you can play hockey up to about high school without risking much injury. Things do tend to get nasty about then, though. :D

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/26/hockey-brawl.html)

I don't know what to say about it, really- I mean, it should be fairly obvious for hockey fans and non-hockey fans that eight-year-olds simply shouldn't be fighting. However, I think this just may be a case of just how far violence in hockey- as a whole- has gone: considering these eight-year-olds idolize NHLers and considering all those NHL highlight packages display brawls quite prominently, I can't help but think there's got to be *some* connection involved in this. Now, I understand the fact eight-year-olds were brawling is not the *whole* story- parents (again) seem to be involved- but I'm at a loss for an overall explanation towards the most extreme of all the noteworthy brawls this season- and the saddest. Thoughts?

I thought Scotland was the only country that had riots over sports games...

The Scots must have migrated to Canada and abandoned their soccer for hockey...

Pffft. If anything, they should make it more violent. Add spears and such lying around the hockey rink, and deathtraps and such.

But then they might suffer brain-damage and start repeating themselves, and such.

And such.

I agree- but it starts at the top. If the NHL won't clean up its game (considering the paltry suspensions Mattias Ohlund and Randy Jones received, that message is pretty clear), there's no reason for the kids to do it. Those kids look up to the NHLers, and if the NHLers can't behave, I don't see the kids doing it- at least not on the ice, anyway.
I don't disagree with you at all. It should definitely start at the top.

Pffft. If anything, they should make it more violent. Add spears and such lying around the hockey rink, and deathtraps and such.

I must disagree, but you knew that.

But then they might suffer brain-damage and start repeating themselves, and such.

And such.
Curses!
That's what I get for trying to edit my sentences after writing them! :D

I thought Scotland was the only country that had riots over sports games...

The Scots must have migrated to Canada and abandoned their soccer for hockey...

Probably. In America, we call them "rednecks." They called themselves "Scots-Irish" on their immigration forms to confuse those who don't hail from those parts genetically, but it's just code for redneck. :p

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/26/hockey-brawl.html)

I don't know what to say about it, really- I mean, it should be fairly obvious for hockey fans and non-hockey fans that eight-year-olds simply shouldn't be fighting. However, I think this just may be a case of just how far violence in hockey- as a whole- has gone: considering these eight-year-olds idolize NHLers and considering all those NHL highlight packages display brawls quite prominently, I can't help but think there's got to be *some* connection involved in this. Now, I understand the fact eight-year-olds were brawling is not the *whole* story- parents (again) seem to be involved- but I'm at a loss for an overall explanation towards the most extreme of all the noteworthy brawls this season- and the saddest. Thoughts?
There has been a major cutback in fighting since the strike. The fights that do happen, as a result, are much more brutal and make the news more often. Hockey is a physical sport, and should not be treated as anything that it isn't. Removing fighting from hockey is like removing tackling from American football.
Not to mention, one fight among 8-year-olds is nothing considering the number of youth leagues and teams.

Nyet. But it should certainly be more carefully monitored when children play. The game itself is fine...it's the violent aspect that often goes lightly punished(where in other sports it would mandate being thrown out of the game and possibly off the team) that needs controlling, and that's in ALL levels of hockey, not just children's.
Yes, things like boarding need more harsh penalties...but hockey is a violent sport by nature. There is a huge difference between boarding and checking, and even between boarding and fighting. The two should never be compared for dozens of reasons which I won't go into.
hockey is a physical, violent sport. Treating it like basketball, soccer, et. al. where fights between players is rare is like treating those sports like dance or swimming. It fails.

Monkey see, monkey do

Yes, things like boarding need more harsh penalties...but hockey is a violent sport by nature. There is a huge difference between boarding and checking, and even between boarding and fighting. The two should never be compared for dozens of reasons which I won't go into.
hockey is a physical, violent sport. Treating it like basketball, soccer, et. al. where fights between players is rare is like treating those sports like dance or swimming. It fails.
I thought basketball was a pansy sport like swimming...

Pffft. If anything, they should make it more violent. Add spears and such lying around the hockey rink, and deathtraps and such.They should just build hockey rinks like those robot combat arena things with all the saw blades, giant hammers, and random fire spurts. The puck should also have an explosive in it tied to the game timer causing it to explode at the end of each period (or randomly a few seconds before just to spice things up). "Sudden Death" should really be sudden and deadly. Boarding and hooking, however, are needlessly violent and anyone doing that should be banned from hockey forever.

Yes, things like boarding need more harsh penalties...but hockey is a violent sport by nature. There is a huge difference between boarding and checking, and even between boarding and fighting. The two should never be compared for dozens of reasons which I won't go into.
hockey is a physical, violent sport. Treating it like basketball, soccer, et. al. where fights between players is rare is like treating those sports like dance or swimming. It fails.

Then perhaps the sport needs some reworking.

I thought basketball was a pansy sport like swimming....About as close as you can get.

Then perhaps the sport needs some reworking.
Or, perhaps, it should be treated like the sport that it IS. Hockey IS a violent sport. So is rugby. So is American football. Yet I rarely see calls to change those.
If you don't want your child getting hit, sign them up for soccer. Or basketball. Or golf. Or tennis. Or any of the dozens of sports which are not inherently violent.
On the other side, if you sign your kid up for hockey, expect hits. Expect fights. Expect injuries. Yes, things should be done to prevent these (aside from hits, which are inevitable) in younger leagues, and they are. Kids will be kicked out of games or off teams for these kinda things up through the college level. But they can and do still happen. Don't like it? Don't play.

Or, perhaps, it should be treated like the sport that it IS. Hockey IS a violent sport. So is rugby. So is American football. Yet I rarely see calls to change those.
If you don't want your child getting hit, sign them up for soccer. Or basketball. Or golf. Or tennis. Or any of the dozens of sports which are not inherently violent.
On the other side, if you sign your kid up for hockey, expect hits. Expect fights. Expect injuries. Yes, things should be done to prevent these (aside from hits, which are inevitable) in younger leagues, and they are. Kids will be kicked out of games or off teams for these kinda things up through the college level. But they can and do still happen. Don't like it? Don't play.
Why can't we just rework it so it's not as violent?

Or better yet, why not make a new version? I'm not saying we replace the old version. Perhaps a kid's version that's safer would be a good idea, though.

Just to clarify, contrary to popular belief, fighting *isn't* legal in hockey (not technically, anyway). The only reason why people think it is has to do with the fact that the only thing that happens to fighters is that they're told to sit in the penalty box for five minutes- the game remains with the same amount of players on the ice as there were before the fight happened, the score doesn't change and the face-off placement isn't affected; thus giving the illusion that the game, technically, allows it. Just thought I'd clarify that.

But then they might suffer brain-damage and start repeating themselves, and such.

And such.

Well, after listening to some former players (such as P.J. Stock and Matthew Barnaby) attempt to be analysts, I wonder if hockey already causes brain damage...

There has been a major cutback in fighting since the strike. The fights that do happen, as a result, are much more brutal and make the news more often. Hockey is a physical sport, and should not be treated as anything that it isn't. Removing fighting from hockey is like removing tackling from American football.
Not to mention, one fight among 8-year-olds is nothing considering the number of youth leagues and teams.

No, "removing fighting from hockey" isn't the same thing as "removing tackling from American football"- considering the function of the tackle (to stop the ball carrier from gaining territory on the defence), tackling has a practical, in-game purpose. Fighting in hockey does no such thing- the score doesn't change, the amount of players on the ice doesn't change, and nothing tangibly beneficial comes out of winning a fight- the faceoff occurs closest to where the fight broke out (which could be in the winner's defensive zone). Sure you can talk about momentum swinging and all that jazz- but why not score a goal? So much better, and that's the point to playing hockey, anyway. Besides, if American football- which *is* more physical than hockey is (I don't read about 300 lbs defencemen, do you?) can eject fighters, hockey can do the same thing.

Now, my own personal stance with fighting in the NHL is not to ban it per se just yet- maybe make the result of a fight become "both teams lose an on-ice player for five minutes" (so five-on-five becomes four-on-four, five-on-four becomes four-on-three, four-on-four three-on-three, etc.). I'd rather have the NHL get its act together and remove the causes of these fights first, because that's more prudent- expelling the fighters won't end the cross-checks and such, so we've got to get rid of that stuff first before we can really begin the question of ultimately banning fighting (and before you tell me the fighters are supposed to stop all that stuff, tell me why they're not doing it now?).

Yes, things like boarding need more harsh penalties...but hockey is a violent sport by nature. There is a huge difference between boarding and checking, and even between boarding and fighting. The two should never be compared for dozens of reasons which I won't go into.
hockey is a physical, violent sport. Treating it like basketball, soccer, et. al. where fights between players is rare is like treating those sports like dance or swimming. It fails.

I realize it's a fine line between playing a hard-hitting, "physical" game and getting penalized for roughing, charging, boarding, etc. and any tweak that's too much might threaten to remove that aspect of the game in part (as some believe the NFL have done to their brand of football) or even completely, but the NHL's at the point of no return- something has to be done. What's it going to take for action to happen? Sidney Crosby in a coma?

Second of all, hockey doesn't even have to be a violent sport- it's theoretically possible to win a hockey game without laying a single hit. Now, not that I want to see hitting out of hockey- who didn't like seeing Dion Phaneuf lay out Denis Hamel, for example (well, maybe Hamel didn't but he doesn't get a say in that... :p)?- because it serves a purpose: the goal of hockey defence is to remove the puck from the carrier and laying him out does just that (might also make him think twice about making that little dipsy-doodle move knowing that defenceman's lurking, but that's beside the point- a hit serves a practical purpose). However, the fact that so many hockey people (including the coaches) seem to forget the other facets of hockey- such as stick-handling, passing, shooting, etc.- has led to hitting developing to where it is today- where just about *anything* is allowed, short of actual dismemberment. I have no complaint that hockey allows the defender to literally push his adversary off the puck- that's part of what makes hockey the special sport it is (to me anyway)- but somewhere we seem to have forgotten that hitting isn't "everything" in hockey.

As far as what I'd do:

1) Get the referees to call "everything", not just the hooks and the holds, as what they're doing now- there's a lot of blatant cross-checks and charges that do *not* get called when they should be (Colby Armstrong's hit on Saku Koivu and Chris Pronger's cross-check of Ryan Kesler comes to mind).

2) Split penalties into two different groups- "dangerous" and "non-dangerous". "Dangerous" penalties could cause severe injury, non-dangerous ones simply slow the game down. "Dangerous" penalties would include things like roughing, charging, cross-checking, elbowing, a slash on the body and high-sticking, while the non-dangerous would be the hooks, holds, the slash on the stick, etc.

3) "Dangerous" penalties would result in an automatic 5-on-3. Yeah, severe, but those plays *are* severe, so it's justifiable.

4) Checking from behind, boarding (which is a charge from behind into the boards) and kneeing would be ejectionable offences, because those penalties are extra severe.

5) Get six penalty minutes in a single game (really, who gets 6 PIM in a game nowadays anyway) and you get tossed. Get 24 PIM in a stretch of games and you sit out the next one. Because if you're not at the rink to play hockey, you don't get to play.

Notice those rules are already in the books- I'm just strengthening them. No new rules whatsoever, because hockey already penalizes everything we hold to be objectionable- it's just that the rules don't seem to be strong enough of a deterrance, so they need to be tougher- and called, for that matter.

(I thank everyone who read all this- I know it's long but I have a lot to cover)

I thought basketball was a pansy sport like swimming...

They should just build hockey rinks like those robot combat arena things with all the saw blades, giant hammers, and random fire spurts. The puck should also have an explosive in it tied to the game timer causing it to explode at the end of each period (or randomly a few seconds before just to spice things up). "Sudden Death" should really be sudden and deadly.
Yes! That's the spirit. Maybe toss a few bears or something into the rink, too.

Boarding and hooking, however, are needlessly violent and anyone doing that should be banned from hockey forever.

Indeed. Those heinous crimes should be punishable by banishment to baseball. :D

About as close as you can get.


Or, perhaps, it should be treated like the sport that it IS. Hockey IS a violent sport. So is rugby. So is American football. Yet I rarely see calls to change those.
If you don't want your child getting hit, sign them up for soccer. Or basketball. Or golf. Or tennis. Or any of the dozens of sports which are not inherently violent.
On the other side, if you sign your kid up for hockey, expect hits. Expect fights. Expect injuries. Yes, things should be done to prevent these (aside from hits, which are inevitable) in younger leagues, and they are. Kids will be kicked out of games or off teams for these kinda things up through the college level. But they can and do still happen. Don't like it? Don't play.

Problem is, very few playing American football, rugby, etc. flout the rules quite like hockey players do. Slashing, cross-checking, elbowing, charging, etc. are pretty commonplace yet they're never called- and they should be, since they're against the rules. I won't complain if a player gets a concussion because a defenceman caught him admiring his pass too much or while he tried to deke around the defender because that's a legal hockey hit- my only problem would come if that same defender took off from his goal-line and zeroed in on the attacker, because that's charging, or if that defender decided to place his stick in the attacker's chops (cross-checking) or place his elbow or forearm into the attacker's head (elbowing). If the defender is following the play and lays out the attacker with his shoulder or his hip then he's done no wrong, even if that attacker gets a concussion.

In football, there are rules concerning tackling- you can't hit a guy after the whistle, you can't grab his facemask, you can't take him out at his knees, and- if we're dealing with the quarterback or kicker- you can't hit him after he's released the ball, because after that point the hit goes from simply stopping the ball carrier to an intentionally malicious hit. Rugby rules I don't know very well but I imagine they're quite similar to football's- hitting is allowed provided it's for defensive purposes only. Anyway, those football rules are called- hockey's similar rules, simply, are not- and that's the problem.

"I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out." -Rodney Dangerfield
:)

Best they learn how to fight while they're young.



PS: lulz, Canada

Why can't we just rework it so it's not as violent?

Or better yet, why not make a new version? I'm not saying we replace the old version. Perhaps a kid's version that's safer would be a good idea, though.Youth hockey already has rules against fighting. What, exactly, are you looking for? Hockey is physical. If you don't want your kids doing it, don't sign them up. Even with all fighting 100% removed, it is physical.

Just to clarify, contrary to popular belief, fighting *isn't* legal in hockey (not technically, anyway). The only reason why people think it is has to do with the fact that the only thing that happens to fighters is that they're told to sit in the penalty box for five minutes- the game remains with the same amount of players on the ice as there were before the fight happened, the score doesn't change and the face-off placement isn't affected; thus giving the illusion that the game, technically, allows it. Just thought I'd clarify that.I more meant violence period, rather than fighting. Checking is a necessary part of the sport. Trust me, I know the sport quite well.



Well, after listening to some former players (such as P.J. Stock and Matthew Barnaby) attempt to be analysts, I wonder if hockey already causes brain damage...given the fact that they left Bergeron on the ice for 2 minutes unconscious, wouldn't be surprised. But listen to Bob Beers for Bruins. Great commentary.


No, "removing fighting from hockey" isn't the same thing as "removing tackling from American football"- considering the function of the tackle (to stop the ball carrier from gaining territory on the defence), tackling has a practical, in-game purpose. Fighting in hockey does no such thing- the score doesn't change, the amount of players on the ice doesn't change, and nothing tangibly beneficial comes out of winning a fight- the faceoff occurs closest to where the fight broke out (which could be in the winner's defensive zone). Sure you can talk about momentum swinging and all that jazz- but why not score a goal? So much better, and that's the point to playing hockey, anyway. Besides, if American football- which *is* more physical than hockey is (I don't read about 300 lbs defencemen, do you?) can eject fighters, hockey can do the same thing.
First, I mean more to imply all physical violence in hockey, including checking
Second, football is NOT more physical than hockey. Weight has nothing to do with physicality. Even with the recent division of expertise, all players must be ready to play offence and defence (aside from goalies), as well as be ready to go beyond the whistle. there is a reason why fights go untill someone has clear advantage.
Now, my own personal stance with fighting in the NHL is not to ban it per se just yet- maybe make the result of a fight become "both teams lose an on-ice player for five minutes" (so five-on-five becomes four-on-four, five-on-four becomes four-on-three, four-on-four three-on-three, etc.). I'd rather have the NHL get its act together and remove the causes of these fights first, because that's more prudent- expelling the fighters won't end the cross-checks and such, so we've got to get rid of that stuff first before we can really begin the question of ultimately banning fighting (and before you tell me the fighters are supposed to stop all that stuff, tell me why they're not doing it now?).Honestly, I hate hockey without any fighting (a la Euro hockey). Fighting is an element of the sport. It always has been, always will be. It is the nature of a sport where you have to go after the body, not the ball.
Yes, cut back on cross checks, boarding...things which are truly dangerous. But why ban every single fight? 2 minute minor is all that is needed. Hockey has existed as a pro league with fighting for how long? There may be a reason for that. It is an intensely physical sport. Fighting, while not always desirable, is a part of that.



I realize it's a fine line between playing a hard-hitting, "physical" game and getting penalized for roughing, charging, boarding, etc. and any tweak that's too much might threaten to remove that aspect of the game in part (as some believe the NFL have done to their brand of football) or even completely, but the NHL's at the point of no return- something has to be done. What's it going to take for action to happen? Sidney Crosby in a coma?Okay...I have a few issues here. The NHL is at a point of no return, no question. Ironically, that is due to the current comissioner trying to turn it into every pro sport except hockey. Fighting isn't the failing of hockey. Yes, there are thin lines between some calls. But boarding is pretty clear. This is coming from a guy who watched his favorite current player lay on the ice for atleast a full minute before anyone checked him instead of the fight.
There are things that need to be checked. Basic fighting isnt' one of those. Check boarding. Check slashing. Check anything...fighting isnt that big of a deal.

Second of all, hockey doesn't even have to be a violent sport- it's theoretically possible to win a hockey game without laying a single hit. Now, not that I want to see hitting out of hockey- who didn't like seeing Dion Phaneuf lay out Denis Hamel, for example (well, maybe Hamel didn't but he doesn't get a say in that... :p)?- because it serves a purpose: the goal of hockey defence is to remove the puck from the carrier and laying him out does just that (might also make him think twice about making that little dipsy-doodle move knowing that defenceman's lurking, but that's beside the point- a hit serves a practical purpose). However, the fact that so many hockey people (including the coaches) seem to forget the other facets of hockey- such as stick-handling, passing, shooting, etc.- has led to hitting developing to where it is today- where just about *anything* is allowed, short of actual dismemberment. I have no complaint that hockey allows the defender to literally push his adversary off the puck- that's part of what makes hockey the special sport it is (to me anyway)- but somewhere we seem to have forgotten that hitting isn't "everything" in hockey.
I disagree. Aside from this season, which I would say is a fluke, we have seen the most strict rules regarding fighting since the lockout, what with the instigator penalty. I would argue that fighting has decreased dramatically, which causes a rise in very brutal fights vs. the standard fight.

As far as what I'd do:

1) Get the referees to call "everything", not just the hooks and the holds, as what they're doing now- there's a lot of blatant cross-checks and charges that do *not* get called when they should be (Colby Armstrong's hit on Saku Koivu and Chris Pronger's cross-check of Ryan Kesler comes to mind).Yes.

2) Split penalties into two different groups- "dangerous" and "non-dangerous". "Dangerous" penalties could cause severe injury, non-dangerous ones simply slow the game down. "Dangerous" penalties would include things like roughing, charging, cross-checking, elbowing, a slash on the body and high-sticking, while the non-dangerous would be the hooks, holds, the slash on the stick, etc.I would agree except for the nature of hockey...a hook can become dangerous by one quick turn.

3) "Dangerous" penalties would result in an automatic 5-on-3. Yeah, severe, but those plays *are* severe, so it's justifiable.
I dont disagree, aside from defining "dangerous". We all know the refs are blind anyway ;)
4) Checking from behind, boarding (which is a charge from behind into the boards) and kneeing would be ejectionable offences, because those penalties are extra severe.More than that. I "like" the leagues current system of dealing with boarding, but I don't think it goes far enough. the guy who boarded bergeron (name escapes me right now) only got a 2 game suspension. I think penalties like that should mean that the offender is out as long as the player they attacked is out .

5) Get six penalty minutes in a single game (really, who gets 6 PIM in a game nowadays anyway) and you get tossed. Get 24 PIM in a stretch of games and you sit out the next one. Because if you're not at the rink to play hockey, you don't get to play.I could swing that.

Notice those rules are already in the books- I'm just strengthening them. No new rules whatsoever, because hockey already penalizes everything we hold to be objectionable- it's just that the rules don't seem to be strong enough of a deterrance, so they need to be tougher- and called, for that matter.
yep
(I thank everyone who read all this- I know it's long but I have a lot to cover)*shrug*...I'm a hockey freak. You didn't happen to read the "unhappy anniversary" article on yahoo sports a few months back, did you?

Problem is, very few playing American football, rugby, etc. flout the rules quite like hockey players do. Slashing, cross-*snip*.
I may reply, but I'm exhausted. Sorry :)

Hahaha, eight year olds fight all the time for goodness sake. That's what little boys do.

I agree with Sirmomo1. 8 year old boys are supposed to fight ! I cherish my memories of fighting at that age, and I will raise all of my imaginary future sons to be the strongest and most resilient fighters in their grade, like I did with my younger brother.
Let them fight ! It's just so much fun.

Problem is, very few playing American football, rugby, etc. flout the rules quite like hockey players do. Slashing, cross-checking, elbowing, charging, etc. are pretty commonplace yet they're never called- and they should be, since they're against the rules.
elbowing rarely happens that I see...I can't remember the last time I saw that call being made. I rarely, if ever, see a slashing, cross-checking or charging go uncalled, and only when the ref does not see it. They are hardly commonplace.
I won't complain if a player gets a concussion because a defenceman caught him admiring his pass too much or while he tried to deke around the defender because that's a legal hockey hit- my only problem would come if that same defender took off from his goal-line and zeroed in on the attacker, because that's charging, or if that defender decided to place his stick in the attacker's chops (cross-checking) or place his elbow or forearm into the attacker's head (elbowing). If the defender is following the play and lays out the attacker with his shoulder or his hip then he's done no wrong, even if that attacker gets a concussion.No question that I agree with you...but I still don't see these offences nearly as often as you seem to

In football, there are rules concerning tackling- you can't hit a guy after the whistle, you can't grab his facemask, you can't take him out at his knees, and- if we're dealing with the quarterback or kicker- you can't hit him after he's released the ball, because after that point the hit goes from simply stopping the ball carrier to an intentionally malicious hit. Rugby rules I don't know very well but I imagine they're quite similar to football's- hitting is allowed provided it's for defensive purposes only. Anyway, those football rules are called- hockey's similar rules, simply, are not- and that's the problem.
I find that they generally are. I think the biggest mistake the NHL made was to stop fights before someone gained clear advantage because that just led to more slashings and the like...the problem between the players was there, and remained unresolved. I don't see that these things go uncalled nearly as much as you are saying they are, and I frequently watch games, be it live or on TV.

Hockey tends to be more violent than football because of the fluid nature of the sport: there is no clear deliniation between plays and whistles are much less frequent. Players have roles on the ice, but (aside from goalie) they are hardly concrete. This leads to a unique type of interaction and the ability for tensions between players to raise quickly. Treating the beast as something which it is not (as Bettman loves to do...but that's another rant) only leads to an increase in the problem. The occasional fight gets the issue resolved...stopping the fight leads to increased minor penalties like slashing, and even increased majors like boarding.

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/26/hockey-brawl.html)

I don't know what to say about it, really- I mean, it should be fairly obvious for hockey fans and non-hockey fans that eight-year-olds simply shouldn't be fighting. However, I think this just may be a case of just how far violence in hockey- as a whole- has gone: considering these eight-year-olds idolize NHLers and considering all those NHL highlight packages display brawls quite prominently, I can't help but think there's got to be *some* connection involved in this. Now, I understand the fact eight-year-olds were brawling is not the *whole* story- parents (again) seem to be involved- but I'm at a loss for an overall explanation towards the most extreme of all the noteworthy brawls this season- and the saddest. Thoughts?

It again makes me wonder why 8-year olds are playing hockey at such a competitive level. How is it that they have already graded them to such a degree that some of them are AAA?

I more meant violence period, rather than fighting. Checking is a necessary part of the sport. Trust me, I know the sport quite well.

Oh I know- I just figured I'd post that because it *is* a common misconception about hockey- the fact that fighting isn't penalized. Whether or not it's penalized hard enough is the real debate.

given the fact that they left Bergeron on the ice for 2 minutes unconscious, wouldn't be surprised. But listen to Bob Beers for Bruins. Great commentary.

He the guy on the NESN broadcast with Jack Edwards? That's the only time I've heard Bruin guys on TV (I live in Toronto). My only complaint with them is that they're too much of "homers" but that's expected for a local broadcast.

First, I mean more to imply all physical violence in hockey, including checking.

Second, football is NOT more physical than hockey. Weight has nothing to do with physicality. Even with the recent division of expertise, all players must be ready to play offence and defence (aside from goalies), as well as be ready to go beyond the whistle. there is a reason why fights go untill someone has clear advantage.

Well, aside from the fact football starts and stops, the fact of the matter is football players *are* bigger than hockey players (much bigger) and because defenders are allowed to go full speed into the ball carrier (something hockey players are technically not allowed to do) and because players can get tangled up in a web of bodies, the potential for dangerous injuries is present more in football than in hockey. I'd say at the very least they're comparable- rugby contains virtually the same tackling rules but the play doesn't stop. That I think is the world's toughest sport. Yet neither sport implicitly allows fighting or gratuitous violence as much as the NHL does.

Honestly, I hate hockey without any fighting (a la Euro hockey). Fighting is an element of the sport. It always has been, always will be. It is the nature of a sport where you have to go after the body, not the ball.
Yes, cut back on cross checks, boarding...things which are truly dangerous. But why ban every single fight? 2 minute minor is all that is needed. Hockey has existed as a pro league with fighting for how long? There may be a reason for that. It is an intensely physical sport. Fighting, while not always desirable, is a part of that.

A hard-hitting bodycheck? Yes- because hockey players are to take the body, not the puck. A straight-up fight is not. This isn't boxing. Besides, Europeans developed hockey without fighting, so I don't really see how an on-ice fight is "entrenched" in hockey.

However, I do recognize that fighting is enjoyed by a lot of fans such as yourself, and I don't think you can have a serious discussion about "banning" it until you get rid of the extra-cirriculars first; because you're right- "banning fighting" without "cleaning up" the game won't make it better, since the causes of all those fights are still in the game.

Okay...I have a few issues here. The NHL is at a point of no return, no question. Ironically, that is due to the current comissioner trying to turn it into every pro sport except hockey. Fighting isn't the failing of hockey. Yes, there are thin lines between some calls. But boarding is pretty clear. This is coming from a guy who watched his favorite current player lay on the ice for atleast a full minute before anyone checked him instead of the fight.

That would be Patrice Bergeron, right? I don't know if you read it but Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun once wrote an article that appeared on ESPN saying that Bergeron's positioning got him injured (since he had his back turned to the boards) and not the blindside hit. Yeah, Bergeron might have done that but it still doesn't give Randy Jones the right to piledrive him head-first into the glass. That *was* a dirty play, and Jones should have received more than two games (hey, if Steve Downie can get twenty for a similar hit, why couldn't Jones get the same amount? Did Bobby Clarke whine again or something?).

As far as boarding itself goes- the issue here is more with consistency than anything else. I know referees won't be able to catch "everything" because of how fast the game is but some non-calls are quite atrocious. I've seen a couple of hits similar to Jones' hit on Bergeron that don't get called (Colby Armstrong on Saku Koivu, Alexander Ovechkin on Daniel Briere), making me wonder if there really is a hand at the refereeing tiller.

I disagree. Aside from this season, which I would say is a fluke, we have seen the most strict rules regarding fighting since the lockout, what with the instigator penalty. I would argue that fighting has decreased dramatically, which causes a rise in very brutal fights vs. the standard fight.

Actually, the instigator penalty has been around since 1992. It's not new. It's also very rarely called- TSN's James Duthie said somewhere along the lines of 10% of fights actually have an instigator penalty tagged onto it as well. I've only seen it called once- on Sheldon Souray who went after Armstrong after he decked (illegally in my mind) Koivu- out of the last hundred or so games dating back to last season. So I doubt the instigator penalty has much of an effect.

I also doubt the players' ability to "police themselves": that's how Steve Moore got hurt (Todd Bertuzzi was getting back at him for leaving Markus Naslund in a concussion). Yeah, in the NHL world of vigilante justice the instigator rule is counter-productive, but it's the fact that the NHL world requires vigilante justice in the first place that we see dangerous plays in the first place- if the referees had their hands firmly on the tiller they'd do a lot more in controlling the players than the absence of an instigator penalty would.

I would agree except for the nature of hockey...a hook can become dangerous by one quick turn.

Yeah I know- but I think most of the time a hook isn't dangerous. Charging and elbowing always are.

Nice to know you side with me on most of my suggestions though. :)

I dont disagree, aside from defining "dangerous". We all know the refs are blind anyway ;)
More than that. I "like" the leagues current system of dealing with boarding, but I don't think it goes far enough. the guy who boarded bergeron (name escapes me right now) only got a 2 game suspension. I think penalties like that should mean that the offender is out as long as the player they attacked is out.

I don't know if I'd quite agree with that line of thinking- yes it makes sense but at the same time you don't want a team "witholding" one of their players' returns just to keep another potential adversary out. Certainly if such a rule were to be in place there'd have to be a check put in place to avoid "abuse".

*shrug*...I'm a hockey freak. You didn't happen to read the "unhappy anniversary" article on yahoo sports a few months back, did you?

No I didn't (at least I don't think I did). I would like to read it though. :)

elbowing rarely happens that I see...I can't remember the last time I saw that call being made. I rarely, if ever, see a slashing, cross-checking or charging go uncalled, and only when the ref does not see it. They are hardly commonplace.
No question that I agree with you...but I still don't see these offences nearly as often as you seem to

Well, Chris Pronger's elbow to Dean McAmmond wasn't called by the on-ice officials. Neither (I believe) was Pronger's elbow on Tomas Holmstrom. You're right in saying that elbowing isn't commonplace- but some very obvious calls do get missed and that has to change.

Cross-checking I do see all the time- maybe they're more of a case of "technical infractions" (defencemen cross-check attackers in the back all the time), but I do see it. Charging- well, that's subjective I guess, but (like elbowing) I do know there are quite a few of those kinds of hits that the referees probably should have seen but didn't see (Chris Neil's hit on Andy MacDonald, Armstrong on Koivu, Jones on Bergeron, Jordin Tootoo on Daniel Winnik) do occur. It's again inconsistency- if players know that they even "might" get away with a dirty hit they just might go forward with it, either to "send a message" or to give their team a lift (should the play not be flagged).

Slashing, however, I *do* see all the time- maybe not of the vicious vareity but certainly it does happen. Since hooking is (thankfully) called, players have taken to taking small swings at the puck carrier's body to "pressure" him, and all kinds of hacks and fists fly in the corners or when players are battling for positioning. Besides, there too are grossly missed calls- Mattias Ohlund's two-hander on Mikko Koivu (two games...that should have been ten).

In any case, as it stands now there's not much of a deterrant against those types of plays, because they're just "minor" penalties (in more than just name- as the game plays out they get ultimately treated that way too), so stepping up on those types of plays just might make players think twice about going through on them because they really don't want to put their team down by two men.

Oh I know- I just figured I'd post that because it *is* a common misconception about hockey- the fact that fighting isn't penalized. Whether or not it's penalized hard enough is the real debate.

true

He the guy on the NESN broadcast with Jack Edwards? That's the only time I've heard Bruin guys on TV (I live in Toronto). My only complaint with them is that they're too much of "homers" but that's expected for a local broadcast.
Yep, that's him. I kinda like that they are big "homers"...but then, I'm a New Englander, so they're on my side :)


Well, aside from the fact football starts and stops, the fact of the matter is football players *are* bigger than hockey players (much bigger) and because defenders are allowed to go full speed into the ball carrier (something hockey players are technically not allowed to do) and because players can get tangled up in a web of bodies, the potential for dangerous injuries is present more in football than in hockey. I'd say at the very least they're comparable- rugby contains virtually the same tackling rules but the play doesn't stop. That I think is the world's toughest sport. Yet neither sport implicitly allows fighting or gratuitous violence as much as the NHL does.
I'd definatly put rugby above just about any team sport.
I think the potential for danger is equal between hockey and football...while the players in football are much larger, the players in hockey are moving much faster...Throw in a few inanimate objects, like boards and the like, and you have some pretty decent risk


A hard-hitting bodycheck? Yes- because hockey players are to take the body, not the puck. A straight-up fight is not. This isn't boxing. Besides, Europeans developed hockey without fighting, so I don't really see how an on-ice fight is "entrenched" in hockey.Personally, I find Euro hockey incredibly boring...but I don't think that is just because of the lack of fighting, as I love college hockey.

However, I do recognize that fighting is enjoyed by a lot of fans such as yourself, and I don't think you can have a serious discussion about "banning" it until you get rid of the extra-cirriculars first; because you're right- "banning fighting" without "cleaning up" the game won't make it better, since the causes of all those fights are still in the game.



That would be Patrice Bergeron, right?
Yep. Love the kid. Was pissed that the refs and players were too involved in poking eachother in the chest to notice that someone wasn't moving.
I don't know if you read it but Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun once wrote an article that appeared on ESPN saying that Bergeron's positioning got him injured (since he had his back turned to the boards) and not the blindside hit. Yeah, Bergeron might have done that but it still doesn't give Randy Jones the right to piledrive him head-first into the glass. That *was* a dirty play, and Jones should have received more than two games (hey, if Steve Downie can get twenty for a similar hit, why couldn't Jones get the same amount? Did Bobby Clarke whine again or something?).
I really don't get the penalty they gave. Two games is a joke, especially when you consider that Bergeron is likely out for the season.

As for his positioning, yeah, it may have been what caused him to get injured, but that, as you said, doesn't give Jones the right to hit like that.

As far as boarding itself goes- the issue here is more with consistency than anything else. I know referees won't be able to catch "everything" because of how fast the game is but some non-calls are quite atrocious. I've seen a couple of hits similar to Jones' hit on Bergeron that don't get called (Colby Armstrong on Saku Koivu, Alexander Ovechkin on Daniel Briere), making me wonder if there really is a hand at the refereeing tiller.Of all the penalties, boarding should be the most blatant and easiest to call...I honestly do not see how the refs miss them. But then, they're refs...a very special breed of stupid.



Actually, the instigator penalty has been around since 1992. It's not new. It's also very rarely called- TSN's James Duthie said somewhere along the lines of 10% of fights actually have an instigator penalty tagged onto it as well. I've only seen it called once- on Sheldon Souray who went after Armstrong after he decked (illegally in my mind) Koivu- out of the last hundred or so games dating back to last season. So I doubt the instigator penalty has much of an effect.huh...I thought it was new, or that coming out of the strike they were enforcing it more or something along those lines...my memory is a bit hazy tho.
It seems that many of the rules they had been cracking down on (fast faceoffs, slashing, fighting) have returned to being lax.

I also doubt the players' ability to "police themselves": that's how Steve Moore got hurt (Todd Bertuzzi was getting back at him for leaving Markus Naslund in a concussion). Yeah, in the NHL world of vigilante justice the instigator rule is counter-productive, but it's the fact that the NHL world requires vigilante justice in the first place that we see dangerous plays in the first place- if the referees had their hands firmly on the tiller they'd do a lot more in controlling the players than the absence of an instigator penalty would.
I have no doubt in my mind that, had he not been taked out of the game, Jones would have occupied the bed next to Bergeron in the hospital.


Yeah I know- but I think most of the time a hook isn't dangerous. Charging and elbowing always are.true

Nice to know you side with me on most of my suggestions though. :)
I just dislike the calls to sanitize the sport that tend to come along with any discussion of fighting within it. Most fans, however, agree on most things, it would seem.


I don't know if I'd quite agree with that line of thinking- yes it makes sense but at the same time you don't want a team "witholding" one of their players' returns just to keep another potential adversary out. Certainly if such a rule were to be in place there'd have to be a check put in place to avoid "abuse".
true. I'm mostly just bitter about the lack of sensible punishment, with the most recent being Jones.


No I didn't (at least I don't think I did). I would like to read it though. :)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=dw-bettman012907
One of my favorite pieces of editoral sports writing.

Well, Chris Pronger's elbow to Dean McAmmond wasn't called by the on-ice officials. Neither (I believe) was Pronger's elbow on Tomas Holmstrom. You're right in saying that elbowing isn't commonplace- but some very obvious calls do get missed and that has to change.Huh...I seem to have been under my rock for longer than I thought...I didn't hear a thing about those.

Cross-checking I do see all the time- maybe they're more of a case of "technical infractions" (defencemen cross-check attackers in the back all the time), but I do see it. Charging- well, that's subjective I guess, but (like elbowing) I do know there are quite a few of those kinds of hits that the referees probably should have seen but didn't see (Chris Neil's hit on Andy MacDonald, Armstrong on Koivu, Jones on Bergeron, Jordin Tootoo on Daniel Winnik) do occur. It's again inconsistency- if players know that they even "might" get away with a dirty hit they just might go forward with it, either to "send a message" or to give their team a lift (should the play not be flagged).
True. It's not particularly surprising that I'm pissed that the Bruins got two fighters...I tend to favor the clean players like Bourque and Bergeron.
Slashing, however, I *do* see all the time- maybe not of the vicious vareity but certainly it does happen. Since hooking is (thankfully) called, players have taken to taking small swings at the puck carrier's body to "pressure" him, and all kinds of hacks and fists fly in the corners or when players are battling for positioning. Besides, there too are grossly missed calls- Mattias Ohlund's two-hander on Mikko Koivu (two games...that should have been ten).
As far as I'm concerned, just about anything goes in the corners ;)
But you are right...slashing is fairly common. Personally, those little hacks and pokes don't bother me...Ohlund, however, deserves a good beating.

In any case, as it stands now there's not much of a deterrant against those types of plays, because they're just "minor" penalties (in more than just name- as the game plays out they get ultimately treated that way too), so stepping up on those types of plays just might make players think twice about going through on them because they really don't want to put their team down by two men.
true

CBC's Don Cherry on this brawl:

"Of all the two thousand million games the left-wing media chose this one just to make hockey look bad."

Given all the stuff that's happened this season, I don't think Cherry's remarks truly need a rebuttal, because that's not much of an argument.

Yep, that's him. I kinda like that they are big "homers"...but then, I'm a New Englander, so they're on my side :)

That's why I don't complain about that aspect too much- they're catering to the viewers, so they *have* to be homers on some level. If it were on a "national" broadcast they couldn't, but a local Boston one is fine.

Yep. Love the kid. Was pissed that the refs and players were too involved in poking eachother in the chest to notice that someone wasn't moving.
I really don't get the penalty they gave. Two games is a joke, especially when you consider that Bergeron is likely out for the season.

Is he really? That's a shame. That's too promising a career to cut short on an act so senseless.

As for his positioning, yeah, it may have been what caused him to get injured, but that, as you said, doesn't give Jones the right to hit like that.

Of all the penalties, boarding should be the most blatant and easiest to call...I honestly do not see how the refs miss them. But then, they're refs...a very special breed of stupid.

My opinion is that we get too many Bobby Clarkes and Don Cherry's whining about how "they're taking hitting out of the game" and "turning it into a pansy sport". So referees let almost anything go so no one thinks there's a crusade against hitting. However, I don't think the NHL brain trust seems to realize just how many fans are disgusted with the cheap shots and would love to see them out of the game.

I also believe that a lot of "major hits" get an air of subjectivity to them- since it's a fine line between, say "roughing" and a "legal hit", just about every hit is going to be polarizing. Some are very obviously illegal (Jones on Bergeron, Downie on McAmmond) while others are not (Chris Neil on Chris Drury, Raffi Torres on Justin Williams), so I think referees get lax probably out of a fear of "getting it wrong". I just wonder what it would take for them to get some assertiveness, because that would really help the situation.

huh...I thought it was new, or that coming out of the strike they were enforcing it more or something along those lines...my memory is a bit hazy tho.
It seems that many of the rules they had been cracking down on (fast faceoffs, slashing, fighting) have returned to being lax.

It's probably only gone to the forefront because violence has creeped back into the headlines in the past few years which is why it appears new- but the rule itself has been in the books for a while. Kind of like the dreaded "foot-in-the-crease" rule: that rule was created in 1991, but only gained prominence in 1998 and 1999 when it became an issue. No one complained in the early 1990s about it as they saw no need to complain about it but now they do.

As far as the standards go, I think all they really did was insist on hooking and holding be called more often, that's it. Maybe my own memory is hazy but I don't remember a lot of elbowing/charging/roughing penalties called in 2005-06.

I have no doubt in my mind that, had he not been taked out of the game, Jones would have occupied the bed next to Bergeron in the hospital.

True- but, at the same time, if Jones knew he'd be penalized heavily for the hit, he might not have done it.

I just dislike the calls to sanitize the sport that tend to come along with any discussion of fighting within it. Most fans, however, agree on most things, it would seem.

I believe reducing the issue to that simply of fighting sidesteps the issue- the real issue is the gratutious violence. Brawling is (somewhat) independent of that.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=dw-bettman012907
One of my favorite pieces of editoral sports writing.

Haha- that's an ace piece. I've heard the "Stern got Bettman the job" conspiracy theory before (maybe not before that article though) and while I'm not big on conspiracy theories, this one *does* make a lot of sense.

There is one, minor, error in the article though- Dan Wetzel mentions three franchise shifts under Bettman's tutelage, there actually were four. In addition to the (wrongful) shifts of the Winnipeg Jets (my brother's still smarting on that one), the Quebec Nordiques (one I'm more particularly mad about) and the Hartford Whalers, the Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas to become the Stars in 1993. I think Wetzel just forgot about that because Minnesota got its team back, just about the only positive expansion the NHL has done since Bettman took over.

I picked up hockey in 1993 so I've managed to see firsthand the entire Bettman regime. Makes me wish hockey was a democracy just so I could vote him out...*sigh* Do you have $200 million so I can buy a franchise to join the Board of Governors? :D

On a more serious note though- if the World Hockey Association ever truly came back, it could "defeat" the NHL- I suspect the only reason why the NHL is operational is because it has a monopoly on the hockey market. I doubt the league could survive if it faced serious competition.

Huh...I seem to have been under my rock for longer than I thought...I didn't hear a thing about those.

Pronger's hit on McAmmond (that I referred to) happened in Game 3 of last season's Stanley Cup Finals. The hit on Holmstrom that I referred to was in Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals. Maybe the Canadian media made a bigger deal of the hit on McAmmond because McAmmond is a Senator, but, if you saw the hit (again) I doubt you'd think it was legal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJXgDCbICM (with NBC's audio)

True. It's not particularly surprising that I'm pissed that the Bruins got two fighters...I tend to favor the clean players like Bourque and Bergeron.

So do I. There are very few players who are "dirty" and can still actually play hockey (as in skate, shoot, stickhandle and pass properly) and I think that has something to do with the lack of scoring- there's a distinct lack of quality on rosters (maybe there truly isn't enough "technically sound" hockey players to go around NHL rosters, but it's a fact coaches do go after a lot of guys who are just big, so that has to have an effect on scoring). I have no complaints if a player's a fighter (aside from my own preferences regarding the practice, but that's beside the point)- I just want them to bring something else to the table as well.

As far as I'm concerned, just about anything goes in the corners ;)
But you are right...slashing is fairly common. Personally, those little hacks and pokes don't bother me...Ohlund, however, deserves a good beating.

I personally think players should be told that the only legal placement of the stick is on the ice, in the air or on the puck because that's what the rules state (at least that's how I understand them). I understand the accidental slashes and the like because, let's face it, not every whack at the puck will be successful but I do think it's gone too far. The hacks and the pokes...well, I might let it go since I doubt the referees can see all of them but I do think they've got to do a better job flagging down slashing. If there needs to be a reason, just look at Jesse Boulerice's cross-check to Ryan Kesler's chops- that started because both players were hacking at each other. If the referees stopped it before it went that far I doubt Boulerice would have acted as he did.

About as close as you can get.


Or, perhaps, it should be treated like the sport that it IS. Hockey IS a violent sport. So is rugby. So is American football. Yet I rarely see calls to change those.
If you don't want your child getting hit, sign them up for soccer. Or basketball. Or golf. Or tennis. Or any of the dozens of sports which are not inherently violent.
On the other side, if you sign your kid up for hockey, expect hits. Expect fights. Expect injuries. Yes, things should be done to prevent these (aside from hits, which are inevitable) in younger leagues, and they are. Kids will be kicked out of games or off teams for these kinda things up through the college level. But they can and do still happen. Don't like it? Don't play.
There is a difference between a physical sport and a violent sport. Rugby is obviously a physical support but its not a violent sport. It's physical bcause of the tackling but I would hesitate to call it violent because throwing punches, high tackles and that sort of thing are against the rules and can get you sin bined.
You have to ask what the brawling adds to Ice Hockey. Its obviously a physical game and that can lead to people getting worked up and lead to confrontation. The same happens in rugby, the difference being that rugby referees generally break up and if a serious fight does break out, the player are dealt with harshly.I don't see why the same can't happen with ice hockey.

As I've just noticed that most of what I've said has already been brought up, I'll just mention that the reason that Euro Hocley seems boring is probably because its not as high a standard as American or Canadian hockey, much in the same way most europeans find MLS soccer boring. Compared to the Champions League or the premiership (United fan here), its no where near as exciting.

A few links that show both sides of the arguments for and against fighting in hockey and such...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_in_ice_hockey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_ice_hockey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_%28ice_hockey%29

And as I'm not bothered to read the rest of the thread I'm just gonna give my comments now.
Hockey Is Violent/Physical.
I'm not talking about just ice-hockey either. ALL of hockey as a sport is very hard. I played high school level field hockey for some years and even in a school environment, on a field, with "kids" (well, big kids), hockey is a rather rough and competitive game. It's the way it is.
Like with boxing: if you don't wanna get hurt stay out the ring.
With hockey it's more: if you aren't willing to play and take rough, and aren't a viciously competitive person you shouldn't play.
If you play hockey you are going to get hit, you are going to get run into/over, you are going to be rough. Expecting none of this to happen is like saying you want to swim but you don't want to get wet.
Even at school level field hockey there is an incredible amount of negligence from coaches & refs on calling players out. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.
I say encourage actually following the rules properly, but to change them and expect major aspects of the sport to change is ridiculous... it would kill the game.

A few links that show both sides of the arguments for and against fighting in hockey and such...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_in_ice_hockey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_ice_hockey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_%28ice_hockey%29

And as I'm not bothered to read the rest of the thread I'm just gonna give my comments now.
Hockey Is Violent/Physical.
I'm not talking about just ice-hockey either. ALL of hockey as a sport is very hard. I played high school level field hockey for some years and even in a school environment, on a field, with "kids" (well, big kids), hockey is a rather rough and competitive game. It's the way it is.
Like with boxing: if you don't wanna get hurt stay out the ring.
With hockey it's more: if you aren't willing to play and take rough, and aren't a viciously competitive person you shouldn't play.
If you play hockey you are going to get hit, you are going to get run into/over, you are going to be rough. Expecting none of this to happen is like saying you want to swim but you don't want to get wet.


Fair enough, but I play hockey, and I expect that physical play to be within the confines of the rules: e.g. bodychecking is fine, boarding is not. Stepping on the ice is not a license for every idiot who had a bad day at work to high stick me, butt end me, hit me from behind or try to pick a fight with me.

(hey, if Steve Downie can get twenty for a similar hit, why couldn't Jones get the same amount? Did Bobby Clarke whine again or something?).

Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Burnout took the time to complain.:rolleyes: 22 years and nothing to show for it.

Thank you, Bob Clarke, for almost killing my interest in hockey.

Fair enough, but I play hockey, and I expect that physical play to be within the confines of the rules: e.g. bodychecking is fine, boarding is not. Stepping on the ice is not a license for every idiot who had a bad day at work to high stick me, butt end me, hit me from behind or try to pick a fight with me.

Ah. I get you.
The problem is when the rules of, um, 'engagement' are not paid attention to.
By rules I mean (in this particular instance) both those in the book & the unwritten understanding between players of how things work.

However, I have to say that at least in ice hockey there are unwritten rules... Field hockey the only guidelines you have are your previous experiences with that team. All that tells you is how bad they're gonna hurt you. I played girls hockey, and I came home with bruises after every match. You wear protective gear for a reason. And for some reason your opposition always thinks that just because you play defence that makes it okay to try and break your legs...

Isn't it usually the parents that brawl at pee wee hockey games?

Isn't it usually the parents that brawl at pee wee hockey games?

Indeed. They probably had beaten eachother out cold by the middle of the second period. *nod*

CBC's Don Cherry on this brawl:

"Of all the two thousand million games the left-wing media chose this one just to make hockey look bad."

Given all the stuff that's happened this season, I don't think Cherry's remarks truly need a rebuttal, because that's not much of an argument.
I both agree and disagree with you. It seems strange that they do pick up on this one incident, as fighting is exceedingly rare in peewee hockey...however, I do see your point as well...this season has been uncommonly violent.


That's why I don't complain about that aspect too much- they're catering to the viewers, so they *have* to be homers on some level. If it were on a "national" broadcast they couldn't, but a local Boston one is fine.

True. What I really love is that Boston, despite the current asshole ownership, is bringing in tons of former players...Beers as an announcer (technically unrelated to the team itself, but does carry some power), Bourque as a trainer, Neely as VP...nice to see.

Is he really? That's a shame. That's too promising a career to cut short on an act so senseless.They keep proping him up for interviews, but they can only last about 5 minutes. He does seem to be recovering, and they are predicting a full recovery...just such a shame that he likely won't play this season. And just after I bought his jersey :(



My opinion is that we get too many Bobby Clarkes and Don Cherry's whining about how "they're taking hitting out of the game" and "turning it into a pansy sport". So referees let almost anything go so no one thinks there's a crusade against hitting. However, I don't think the NHL brain trust seems to realize just how many fans are disgusted with the cheap shots and would love to see them out of the game.No question. I hate dirty players. Chris Bourque (Ray's son) played one season for my school, and he was a surprisingly dirty player considering who his father is...talented, but somewhat more dirty than I expected. While it is too bad he didn't ride out the 4 years here, I can't say I was too disappointed with him leaving.
The cheap shots do have to go. While I do enjoy the occasional fight and such, it does get annoying after a while. I paid for hockey, and want hockey. Fights are those things that bring in people who don't really care about the sport. I don't think anyone who truly likes hockey would miss the cheap shots and dirty plays, if not for any other reason than the fact that we lose amazing talent like Neely and Bergeron due to those stupid acts.

I also believe that a lot of "major hits" get an air of subjectivity to them- since it's a fine line between, say "roughing" and a "legal hit", just about every hit is going to be polarizing. Some are very obviously illegal (Jones on Bergeron, Downie on McAmmond) while others are not (Chris Neil on Chris Drury, Raffi Torres on Justin Williams), so I think referees get lax probably out of a fear of "getting it wrong". I just wonder what it would take for them to get some assertiveness, because that would really help the situation.
I think the current crop of refs are some of the worst I've ever seen. They are hugely biased (one game I attended, they called somewhere around 12 penalties on the Bruins, and only one on [i think] the Sabers.) I understand not wanting to get the calls wrong, but really, some are just blatant and need to be called. The refs need much better training. Yes, many plays ride that line, given the fluid nature of the game...but there does need to be a judgement call made, and they are the ones to do it.

On a semi-related tangent, can they PLEASE stop having the refs announce the penalties on ice as if it was football? You can never understand them, and they announce it 30 seconds later anyway.


It's probably only gone to the forefront because violence has creeped back into the headlines in the past few years which is why it appears new- but the rule itself has been in the books for a while. Kind of like the dreaded "foot-in-the-crease" rule: that rule was created in 1991, but only gained prominence in 1998 and 1999 when it became an issue. No one complained in the early 1990s about it as they saw no need to complain about it but now they do.Haha...I remember when I first hated that rule. Bruins in the playoffs, and [I think] Thorton's skate was in the crease...had nothing to do with the play, but that led to their loss, and, in all probability, their most promising shot at the Stanley Cup in decades.

Not that I'm still bitter...

As far as the standards go, I think all they really did was insist on hooking and holding be called more often, that's it. Maybe my own memory is hazy but I don't remember a lot of elbowing/charging/roughing penalties called in 2005-06.
I remember a good amount of roughing for some reason...elbowing, I don't think I've ever really seen tons of...charging, well...yeah. They usually pick a rule or two to focus on every season, call it constantly for a month, then go back to the usual.


True- but, at the same time, if Jones knew he'd be penalized heavily for the hit, he might not have done it.True.



I believe reducing the issue to that simply of fighting sidesteps the issue- the real issue is the gratutious violence. Brawling is (somewhat) independent of that.Again, true.



Haha- that's an ace piece. I've heard the "Stern got Bettman the job" conspiracy theory before (maybe not before that article though) and while I'm not big on conspiracy theories, this one *does* make a lot of sense.
Even ignoring that aspect of the article, as I'm not sure how accurate it is, it makes some amazing points, and some that I clearly agree with. Hockey is a very unique sport...it was even part of their advertising in the 90's..."Basketball would be better....if it was hockey" with a goaltender sitting atop the hoop..."Baseball would be better...if it was hockey" with the pitcher getting checked. They used to understand that it's uniqueness was it's main selling point. Now, they seem think that is its main weakness.
I do kinda miss the glowing puck at times tho ;)

There is one, minor, error in the article though- Dan Wetzel mentions three franchise shifts under Bettman's tutelage, there actually were four. In addition to the (wrongful) shifts of the Winnipeg Jets (my brother's still smarting on that one), the Quebec Nordiques (one I'm more particularly mad about) and the Hartford Whalers, the Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas to become the Stars in 1993. I think Wetzel just forgot about that because Minnesota got its team back, just about the only positive expansion the NHL has done since Bettman took over.
I noticed that too. I still don't get how Minnesota, the second largest hockey center in the US, couldn't hold a team. Losing Hartford made me happy at first, but now I have to deal with people from my home state always asking me "So how are the Whalers doing this season?" or saying "I bleed Blue and Green!"...yeah, if you were as big of a fan as you claim, then why didn't you go see them at the mall? They left due to dwindling fan base and Hartford/Connecticut's unwillingness to build a new stadium as a direct result.
Even worse is that, during playoff season, the Hurricanes make front page news, which the Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Penguins, Sabers, Leafs...teams that actually have a fan base in the area...get a paragraph in the back of the sports section. Interestingly, there are more former Whalers on almost every team than there are on the Hurricanes.
Again, not like I'm bitter.

I picked up hockey in 1993 so I've managed to see firsthand the entire Bettman regime. Makes me wish hockey was a democracy just so I could vote him out...*sigh* Do you have $200 million so I can buy a franchise to join the Board of Governors? :DI was raised on hockey, so I've been watching since 1987...actually start to remember around 1990 or so, but it is hazy untill the mid to late 90's. I remember the first lockout very well.
I'm more against Jeremy Jacobs and his leadership of the Bruins than I am against Bettman, but that doesn't speak well for either. Neither has done anything particularly good for the organizations they control, and neither recognize the strengths of their particular franchises.
And I think a hitman would cost less than buying a franchise ;)

On a more serious note though- if the World Hockey Association ever truly came back, it could "defeat" the NHL- I suspect the only reason why the NHL is operational is because it has a monopoly on the hockey market. I doubt the league could survive if it faced serious competition.I don't see how a new league could start is the only problem. The NHL has every major market, and now, even many of the minor markets. Add to it the diehards like myself (I don't care if there was another team in Boston that actually won...I'd still favor the Bruins), and you have quite a battle to get it done.

I think the NHL would do good to decrease the size of the league...drop a few of the sunbelt teams (I'm looking at you, Carolina and Florida). Possibly open a few new Northern and Canadian franchises. The talent pool is just too thin, particularly with good goalies.



Pronger's hit on McAmmond (that I referred to) happened in Game 3 of last season's Stanley Cup Finals. The hit on Holmstrom that I referred to was in Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals. Maybe the Canadian media made a bigger deal of the hit on McAmmond because McAmmond is a Senator, but, if you saw the hit (again) I doubt you'd think it was legal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJXgDCbICM (with NBC's audio)
Ah...I remember it now. Definatly illegal, and even the commentators reaction is awful


So do I. There are very few players who are "dirty" and can still actually play hockey (as in skate, shoot, stickhandle and pass properly) and I think that has something to do with the lack of scoring- there's a distinct lack of quality on rosters (maybe there truly isn't enough "technically sound" hockey players to go around NHL rosters, but it's a fact coaches do go after a lot of guys who are just big, so that has to have an effect on scoring). I have no complaints if a player's a fighter (aside from my own preferences regarding the practice, but that's beside the point)- I just want them to bring something else to the table as well.
Definatly...I hate the "goon" players who exist only to fight. They are hockey players first...fighting is just a side aspect.


I personally think players should be told that the only legal placement of the stick is on the ice, in the air or on the puck because that's what the rules state (at least that's how I understand them). I understand the accidental slashes and the like because, let's face it, not every whack at the puck will be successful but I do think it's gone too far. The hacks and the pokes...well, I might let it go since I doubt the referees can see all of them but I do think they've got to do a better job flagging down slashing. If there needs to be a reason, just look at Jesse Boulerice's cross-check to Ryan Kesler's chops- that started because both players were hacking at each other. If the referees stopped it before it went that far I doubt Boulerice would have acted as he did.Agreed. Slashes will always happen, especially in corners where they are fighting for position...poking, I think adds something in that it forces the player with the puck to panic somewhat...the "he's within stick length of me". Blatant slashing, hooking, however, need to be called.

There is a difference between a physical sport and a violent sport. Rugby is obviously a physical support but its not a violent sport. It's physical bcause of the tackling but I would hesitate to call it violent because throwing punches, high tackles and that sort of thing are against the rules and can get you sin bined.
You have to ask what the brawling adds to Ice Hockey. Its obviously a physical game and that can lead to people getting worked up and lead to confrontation. The same happens in rugby, the difference being that rugby referees generally break up and if a serious fight does break out, the player are dealt with harshly.I don't see why the same can't happen with ice hockey.Fights continue untill one player has dominance...that is, the other person is no longer on their feet. Following that, there is usually a 2 minute minor and the potential for a 5 minute major.
The dual 2 minute minor is something I don't see as a penalty. 4 on 4 hockey is nothing short of amazing.

As I've just noticed that most of what I've said has already been brought up, I'll just mention that the reason that Euro Hocley seems boring is probably because its not as high a standard as American or Canadian hockey, much in the same way most europeans find MLS soccer boring. Compared to the Champions League or the premiership (United fan here), its no where near as exciting.
Possibly, but I also find Olympic hockey boring. Again, it can't just be the lack of fighting...as I said before, I love college hockey. It could very well be the lack of comparable talent...but there is something else that just isn't there.

Well, we gotta make sure they grow up to be violent in order for them to be REAL MEN(tm) instead of being pansies. :rolleyes:

Su-fucking-perb. That really is heartening.

Well, that and the fact I can't actually cast judgement, having been banned for a match for my cricket team for sledging. I didn't think calling a batsman fat for an hour or so in a variety of ways was particularly bad, but my school teacher had a rather corinthian approach to chirp. Although he did laugh at the mars bar comment, stolen unashamedly from Warney and Healey;

To our spinner; "Mate, bowl a marsbar short and we'll stump him"

Well, we gotta make sure they grow up to be violent in order for them to be REAL MEN(tm) instead of being pansies. :rolleyes:
Oh, please. Go watch a girls hockey game and tell me that great hockey has anything to do with being a "real man", be it the fighting aspect, or the amazing play aspect. I've seen just as many absolutly brutal fights among female non-pro leagues as I have among male non-pro leagues
Su-fucking-perb. That really is heartening.Should that be disheartening?

Well, that and the fact I can't actually cast judgement, having been banned for a match for my cricket team for sledging. I didn't think calling a batsman fat for an hour or so in a variety of ways was particularly bad, but my school teacher had a rather corinthian approach to chirp. Although he did laugh at the mars bar comment, stolen unashamedly from Warney and Healey;

To our spinner; "Mate, bowl a marsbar short and we'll stump him"
back in high school, I used to hate gym and wouldn't really put any effort into any sport besides hockey. Then, I would take all of the agression from the past year of harassment for "sucking at sports" (I really didn't...I just didn't care to participate in mandatory athletics at school) and channeled it into the game...everyone was amazed that I never got into trouble, despite slashing one kids ankle hard enough to break the skin. They never did grasp the "If Coach doesn't see it, it isn't a penalty" concept.

Sarky was a bit of a prick back then.
Nothing has really changed, come to think of it...

That's what little boys do.

Well what else are they supposed to do while the little girls are off somewhere learning how to be housewives?

Oh, please. Go watch a girls hockey game and tell me that great hockey has anything to do with being a "real man", be it the fighting aspect, or the amazing play aspect. I've seen just as many absolutly brutal fights among female non-pro leagues as I have among male non-pro leagues

Hawt! :)

Well what else are they supposed to do while the little girls are off somewhere learning how to be housewives?

That's boring. I want a girl who can fight.

*wonders if that makes it sound like he has a few kinks*

That's boring. I want a girl who can fight.

*wonders if that makes it sound like he has a few kinks*

Pick me! Pick me!
*pauses to think about this*

Hahaha, eight year olds fight all the time for goodness sake. That's what little boys do.
We used to practice fighting when I was that age. All the pros were fighting, so it was only natural to practice throwing down our gloves and sticks and pretend to wallop each other.

Of course, that was before parents seemed to think that they needed to program every minute of every day. We just went door-to-door getting the gang together. Then, we'd play.

Oh, please. Go watch a girls hockey game and tell me that great hockey has anything to do with being a "real man", be it the fighting aspect, or the amazing play aspect. I've seen just as many absolutly brutal fights among female non-pro leagues as I have among male non-pro leagues
Should that be disheartening?


Notice the roll eyes in my post..Now think about it....

I thought Scotland was the only country that had riots over sports games...


Italy anyone?

Hawt! :)
You have NO idea ;)

Notice the roll eyes in my post..Now think about it....

haha...could be read several ways...i took it as disgust rather than sarcasm

I generally go to a boxing match to watch the hockey game that invitably breaks out.

I both agree and disagree with you. It seems strange that they do pick up on this one incident, as fighting is exceedingly rare in peewee hockey...however, I do see your point as well...this season has been uncommonly violent.

I remember watching "Off The Record" (essentially "Pardon The Interruption" only done with a panel of guests) on TSN (the major sports channel up here) and Brian Bellows and John Gardiner (president of the Greater Toronto Hockey League, the organization that Duffield is a part of) stated that fights at peewee games were "regular", if not common. Maybe it's just a Canadian phenomenon, though.

Regardless, Cherry's reduction of the attention to that of some "left-wing media conspiracy" is what bothers me the most. I could live with "well, eight-year-olds do fight" or some actual argument like that (I might not agree but at least he wouldn't look foolish), but to insist there's some sort of "conspiracy" is tantamount to putting your head in the sand and uttering "there's no problem here". There *is* a problem and hiding from it won't make it better- it'll only make it worse.

True. What I really love is that Boston, despite the current asshole ownership, is bringing in tons of former players...Beers as an announcer (technically unrelated to the team itself, but does carry some power), Bourque as a trainer, Neely as VP...nice to see.

That's at least a positive, even if it's minor. Much like "Dollar Bill" Wirtz, Jeremy Jacobs has gutted what should be a proud franchise. It's a shame, really.

They keep proping him up for interviews, but they can only last about 5 minutes. He does seem to be recovering, and they are predicting a full recovery...just such a shame that he likely won't play this season. And just after I bought his jersey :(

....

No question. I hate dirty players. Chris Bourque (Ray's son) played one season for my school, and he was a surprisingly dirty player considering who his father is...talented, but somewhat more dirty than I expected. While it is too bad he didn't ride out the 4 years here, I can't say I was too disappointed with him leaving.
The cheap shots do have to go. While I do enjoy the occasional fight and such, it does get annoying after a while. I paid for hockey, and want hockey. Fights are those things that bring in people who don't really care about the sport. I don't think anyone who truly likes hockey would miss the cheap shots and dirty plays, if not for any other reason than the fact that we lose amazing talent like Neely and Bergeron due to those stupid acts.

:( I just hope his career doesn't turn out like Cam Neely's- that was too tragically short.

I think the current crop of refs are some of the worst I've ever seen. They are hugely biased (one game I attended, they called somewhere around 12 penalties on the Bruins, and only one on [i think] the Sabers.) I understand not wanting to get the calls wrong, but really, some are just blatant and need to be called. The refs need much better training. Yes, many plays ride that line, given the fluid nature of the game...but there does need to be a judgement call made, and they are the ones to do it.

On a semi-related tangent, can they PLEASE stop having the refs announce the penalties on ice as if it was football? You can never understand them, and they announce it 30 seconds later anyway.

Odd. I would have always figured they'd give the home team the benefit of the doubt- in my experiences, the home team always seemed to "win" more penalties than the away side.

Anyway, I do agree there's too many referees who appear "lost" and don't know what they're doing- the hard part is gauging whether or not they're lost because they're terrible or because the league is confusing them (my guess- a little bit of both).

Haha...I remember when I first hated that rule. Bruins in the playoffs, and [I think] Thorton's skate was in the crease...had nothing to do with the play, but that led to their loss, and, in all probability, their most promising shot at the Stanley Cup in decades.

Not that I'm still bitter...

I believe you were referring to Tim Taylor- I remember that play as well. 'Twas a garbage rule, and (I believe) that nullification allowed the Capitals to win that game later in the overtime session. I remember reading Ray Bourque's assessment of the incident, which couldn't be more spot-on:

"I don't blame the referee. I blame the general managers and the league who have got to get together and do something about that rule, because it's ridiculous."

I also understand your bitterness- I may live in Toronto but I'm a Sabres fan (something about those blue-and-gold uniforms they had on in 1993)...and, as you may recall, Brett Hull had his foot in the crease just a year later. I mean, yeah, it was the "proper" call to make- Hull didn't interfere with either Richard Smehlik or Domonik Hasek- but for the league to flag down those goals all season long but not do it in the Cup Final is shameful. I'd laugh if the result wasn't so tragic. :(

(Seven years and it still hurts...oh well, I'll gladly accept the President's Trophy :D).

I remember a good amount of roughing for some reason...elbowing, I don't think I've ever really seen tons of...charging, well...yeah. They usually pick a rule or two to focus on every season, call it constantly for a month, then go back to the usual.

...and that's the problem. The NHL keeps on saying it's calling the game "by the book" when in reality it's just calling "some of the book". Doesn't speak well of the league's status of "the highest hockey league in the world" if they can't call the game properly.

Even ignoring that aspect of the article, as I'm not sure how accurate it is, it makes some amazing points, and some that I clearly agree with. Hockey is a very unique sport...it was even part of their advertising in the 90's..."Basketball would be better....if it was hockey" with a goaltender sitting atop the hoop..."Baseball would be better...if it was hockey" with the pitcher getting checked. They used to understand that it's uniqueness was it's main selling point. Now, they seem think that is its main weakness.

Have you ever read "The Death of Hockey" by Jeff Z. Klein and Karl-Erik Reif? Came out after the 1997-1998 season and made a great read back then- and (sadly) a lot of the points made then (low quality product, too many teams in useless markets and too many period) still ring true today. Anyway, one of the sections also described how the NBA flew past the NHL- didn't make the case of an actual conspiracy but it was close, only to suggest that the NHL did it to themselves (e.g., the lockout- baseball was on strike, they had the upper hand...and they shut down as well, leaving the door open for the NBA).

In any case, the NHL's "marketing connection" seems logical- basketball and baseball have overtaken hockey in popularity so you'd "want" to show fans of those sports how similar hockey is in the hopes that they'll catch on as well. However, that line of thinking misses the mark- hockey *is* different, and to insist it's similar to other sports simply miscategorizes it. Besides, things never catch on unless they're "different" because in an age of "overexposure" things become so similar so quickly- so something that sticks out gets noticed. Hockey positioning itself like basketball or baseball won't get it "noticed"- unless it doesn't want to be noticed, however.

By the way, do you know if the ads you quoted are on YouTube? I'd certainly love to see them. They're early '90s ads too I'm guessing- they seem a little "before my time", unless I just don't remember them...

I do kinda miss the glowing puck at times tho ;)

Heheh- I admit, it was cool. Pretty trippy you have to admit. Still, though, I'm happy it's gone- it made the game feel less natural, plus I could easily follow the black puck on the white ice. It's not like the "first down line" in football- the markers *are* pretty hard to see on TV because of the camera angles. The only time the puck is hard to see if it's along the near boards (because then it's completely covered by the boards), but seeing its presence there isn't vital- at least we can see the play in front of the net, which is what's most important.

I don't know if you ever saw it, but Molson's once ran an ad where someone with a Texan accent tried to sell the "Glow Puck" to NHL executives, explaining that it gets a blue streak when passed and a red streak when shot. The man would be promptly thrown out of the room with a blue streak following him (i.e., "they passed"). I loved it...too bad I can't seem to find it anywhere on the 'Net. :(

I noticed that too. I still don't get how Minnesota, the second largest hockey center in the US, couldn't hold a team. Losing Hartford made me happy at first, but now I have to deal with people from my home state always asking me "So how are the Whalers doing this season?" or saying "I bleed Blue and Green!"...yeah, if you were as big of a fan as you claim, then why didn't you go see them at the mall? They left due to dwindling fan base and Hartford/Connecticut's unwillingness to build a new stadium as a direct result.
Even worse is that, during playoff season, the Hurricanes make front page news, which the Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Penguins, Sabers, Leafs...teams that actually have a fan base in the area...get a paragraph in the back of the sports section. Interestingly, there are more former Whalers on almost every team than there are on the Hurricanes.
Again, not like I'm bitter.

LOL..."the mall"...ah, the memories of the Hartford Civic Center, maybe the oddest place to hold a hockey rink.

I still miss the Whalers though- one reason why the NHL was "cool" when I first started watching was the fact it had teams in such "weird" places as Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford, places I doubt could be placed on many people's maps. Now that quirkiness is gone. Of course, I didn't know the extent of the situation in Hartford (thanks for all that), but I don't blame the fans for not showing up then- the team was awful. It's kind of like the situation with the Vancouver Grizzlies- the team was perrenially bad so it wasn't even given a chance to succeed. That, and I don't quite agree with using public money to build arenas- I don't know if has quite that much of a return on the investment (I don't think millions are flocking to Nashville just because they have the Predators). Still, I blame the league more for the franchise shifts, particularly in Winnipeg- the Jets were (and still are) well-supported and adored, yet the NHL just allowed them to move. Says a lot about how the league views "loyalty to its fans".

Also, as much as you might like the idea of the Whalers moving, admit it- the New England rivalry had to have been fun, right?

I was raised on hockey, so I've been watching since 1987...actually start to remember around 1990 or so, but it is hazy untill the mid to late 90's. I remember the first lockout very well.
I'm more against Jeremy Jacobs and his leadership of the Bruins than I am against Bettman, but that doesn't speak well for either. Neither has done anything particularly good for the organizations they control, and neither recognize the strengths of their particular franchises.
And I think a hitman would cost less than buying a franchise ;)

LOL- although "a hitman" isn't particularly legal...but I guess we can let it go, just in this special case. :p

The 1994 lockout was very much a missed opportunity (and seemed to have an effect on the players as much as the fans- they didn't like it then either), and it's looking like the 2005 one just might be as well. About the only positives are the fact there's economic parity (the Ottawas, Calgarys and Floridas can finally acquire "high-profile" players and keep their own) and the fact "clutching-and-grabbing" is out, but that's it. TV ratings are still so low we might need a metal detector just to find them.

I also have new reasons to fear Jacobs- he's the head of the Board of Governors. How's *that* for a conundrum?

I don't see how a new league could start is the only problem. The NHL has every major market, and now, even many of the minor markets. Add to it the diehards like myself (I don't care if there was another team in Boston that actually won...I'd still favor the Bruins), and you have quite a battle to get it done.

That's the hard part- getting it off the ground. When the WHA tried to start up in 2004, they had a hard time finding arenas- they couldn't even land Toronto's Ricoh Coliseum, which the Maple Leafs stealthy stole to transplat their minor league team from St. John's. I too agree that there's too much tradition behind several teams (including the Leafs) that would make them hard to ignore (although I think a second NHL team in Toronto is worthwhile given how the Leaf brass treats their fans, although I wonder if that team could do better than the Islanders are in New York)

I still wonder, though, if the actual teams could ever be "enticed" to leave the NHL- as much as they've entered a partnership, they're all still seperate entities. Just a thought, though.

I think the NHL would do good to decrease the size of the league...drop a few of the sunbelt teams (I'm looking at you, Carolina and Florida). Possibly open a few new Northern and Canadian franchises. The talent pool is just too thin, particularly with good goalies.

I have a list- Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Anaheim (I know they just won the Cup, but you can't tell me there's enough hockey fans in the Los Angeles area to support *two* teams- that and now that they're not "Mighty" they're just not special anymore :p), Phoenix and Atlanta. Could also throw in New Jersey as well, given the fact the New York area already has three teams (which still includes the Devils, although I might give the Newark experiment a shot first). Two could be shifted to Winnipeg and Hamilton (or Quebec, take your pick) while the rest could be folded. The only problem is the fact there's now 25-26 teams (maybe a bit more than the talent level suggests), but any other selection would be iffy at best.

I'd also start a division in Europe, or at least allow the top European teams to create a division of their own to compete against the NHL. Hockey's thriving in Europe- why not expand there? I think North America is pretty much plumbed for marketplaces, so Europe is the logical next step.

Agreed. Slashes will always happen, especially in corners where they are fighting for position...poking, I think adds something in that it forces the player with the puck to panic somewhat...the "he's within stick length of me". Blatant slashing, hooking, however, need to be called.

Poking...well, it's technically illegal, but I suppose I could live with it. Just as long as there's a clear distinction between "a poke" (a tap), "a slash" (a hack) and "a hook" (actually placing the stick on the body). It's a borderline proposition, but there are worse things to call (like hooking and slashing, which are more pressing).

As I've just noticed that most of what I've said has already been brought up, I'll just mention that the reason that Euro Hocley seems boring is probably because its not as high a standard as American or Canadian hockey, much in the same way most europeans find MLS soccer boring. Compared to the Champions League or the premiership (United fan here), its no where near as exciting.

As a fan of both hockey and soccer I'd agree with that sentiment, although I find- as a product- there's a clear superiority of the Champions' League product over the MLS or Football League Championship product (and even a lot of first division product- I mean, you can't tell me that Fulham and Reggina are quite in the same league as Arsenal and Milan). The division between "minor hockey" and "NHL hockey" is prominent but not quite as pronounced- I find Champions' League soccer to be considerably less sloppy than how sloppy the NHL game gets, even among the very best teams. That's the main difference between the NHL and CL- in the CL you can get a high quality game on a regular basis, the NHL regularly leaves you wanting more, and not in the good sense. Says something about the league if it purports to be "high-quality" but then misses that mark horribly.

I remember watching "Off The Record" (essentially "Pardon The Interruption" only done with a panel of guests) on TSN (the major sports channel up here) and Brian Bellows and John Gardiner (president of the Greater Toronto Hockey League, the organization that Duffield is a part of) stated that fights at peewee games were "regular", if not common. Maybe it's just a Canadian phenomenon, though.Really? that is strange to me...Up through the high school levels around here, I've seen it very harshly punished...both for fighters and other teammates (if a fight breaks out, players are to skate to the bench and remain there untill the fight is over...not doing so can result in a penalty)

Regardless, Cherry's reduction of the attention to that of some "left-wing media conspiracy" is what bothers me the most. I could live with "well, eight-year-olds do fight" or some actual argument like that (I might not agree but at least he wouldn't look foolish), but to insist there's some sort of "conspiracy" is tantamount to putting your head in the sand and uttering "there's no problem here". There *is* a problem and hiding from it won't make it better- it'll only make it worse.the left-wing part made me giggle a little.



That's at least a positive, even if it's minor. Much like "Dollar Bill" Wirtz, Jeremy Jacobs has gutted what should be a proud franchise. It's a shame, really.MA might authorize the construction of 3 casinos, one likely to be built in Boston...on the old Gardens site. Jacobs has offered to run it. The joke has been "If he does for it what he did for the Bruins, somehow Foxwoods [2 hours away in Connecticut] will manage to have their best years ever while the shiny new casino will quickly sink from the public eye"



:( I just hope his career doesn't turn out like Cam Neely's- that was too tragically short.Hopefully.



Odd. I would have always figured they'd give the home team the benefit of the doubt- in my experiences, the home team always seemed to "win" more penalties than the away side.Generally, it seems pretty fair in Boston...tho, I am clearly biased. Jersey was amazingly biased towards the Devils, and I was there when they played the Penguins, so more or less unbiased in my view.

Anyway, I do agree there's too many referees who appear "lost" and don't know what they're doing- the hard part is gauging whether or not they're lost because they're terrible or because the league is confusing them (my guess- a little bit of both).The rules do need to be clarified and made more concrete...and the refs do need better training.



I believe you were referring to Tim Taylor- I remember that play as well. 'Twas a garbage rule, and (I believe) that nullification allowed the Capitals to win that game later in the overtime session. I remember reading Ray Bourque's assessment of the incident, which couldn't be more spot-on:

"I don't blame the referee. I blame the general managers and the league who have got to get together and do something about that rule, because it's ridiculous."AH! That's who it was! I kept coming up with Tim Thomas, and knew that the current goalie couldn't have done it
And Good ol' Bubba...always classy.

I also understand your bitterness- I may live in Toronto but I'm a Sabres fan
My condolences ;)
(something about those blue-and-gold uniforms they had on in 1993)...and, as you may recall, Brett Hull had his foot in the crease just a year later. I mean, yeah, it was the "proper" call to make- Hull didn't interfere with either Richard Smehlik or Domonik Hasek- but for the league to flag down those goals all season long but not do it in the Cup Final is shameful. I'd laugh if the result wasn't so tragic. :(Definatly.

(Seven years and it still hurts...oh well, I'll gladly accept the President's Trophy :D).I was born in 1986, the year of the "Too many men on the ice" call against Toronto. I wasn't even alive when the call was made, but I still lick my wounds every time it's mentioned.



...and that's the problem. The NHL keeps on saying it's calling the game "by the book" when in reality it's just calling "some of the book". Doesn't speak well of the league's status of "the highest hockey league in the world" if they can't call the game properly.
Especially when there are fans who can do a better job. Even when it's my guys, I know when it is and isn't a penalty


Have you ever read "The Death of Hockey" by Jeff Z. Klein and Karl-Erik Reif? Came out after the 1997-1998 season and made a great read back then- and (sadly) a lot of the points made then (low quality product, too many teams in useless markets and too many period) still ring true today. Anyway, one of the sections also described how the NBA flew past the NHL- didn't make the case of an actual conspiracy but it was close, only to suggest that the NHL did it to themselves (e.g., the lockout- baseball was on strike, they had the upper hand...and they shut down as well, leaving the door open for the NBA).I remember hearing about it...I still have to pick it up.

In any case, the NHL's "marketing connection" seems logical- basketball and baseball have overtaken hockey in popularity so you'd "want" to show fans of those sports how similar hockey is in the hopes that they'll catch on as well. However, that line of thinking misses the mark- hockey *is* different, and to insist it's similar to other sports simply miscategorizes it. Besides, things never catch on unless they're "different" because in an age of "overexposure" things become so similar so quickly- so something that sticks out gets noticed. Hockey positioning itself like basketball or baseball won't get it "noticed"- unless it doesn't want to be noticed, however.Exactly. Hence my reaction earlier in the thread, saying "Let's treat hockey as the sport that it IS". It comes off as me defending every fight and cheap shot, but really, that isn't quite the truth. Just that hockey is quite a different beast. It is more fluid than even basketball, but is low-scoring...faster paced than soccer due to physically moving faster, but still without having more goals. More action than baseball, but doesn't suck ;)
Sure, we can increase scoring a hundred different ways...but really, is that all we can do to make the sport "exciting" to fans who aren't as diehard?

By the way, do you know if the ads you quoted are on YouTube? I'd certainly love to see them. They're early '90s ads too I'm guessing- they seem a little "before my time", unless I just don't remember them...
Let me see if I can find them...I forget when exactly they are from...
Only one I can find is the bowling one, but it gives a good idea of the concept that was used
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSfCqFUS7k



Heheh- I admit, it was cool. Pretty trippy you have to admit. Still, though, I'm happy it's gone- it made the game feel less natural, plus I could easily follow the black puck on the white ice. It's not like the "first down line" in football- the markers *are* pretty hard to see on TV because of the camera angles. The only time the puck is hard to see if it's along the near boards (because then it's completely covered by the boards), but seeing its presence there isn't vital- at least we can see the play in front of the net, which is what's most important.Exactly...it's one of those cases where you really can follow the action just as well live as on TV. I could never figure out why they used red sometimes, but blue others...

I don't know if you ever saw it, but Molson's once ran an ad where someone with a Texan accent tried to sell the "Glow Puck" to NHL executives, explaining that it gets a blue streak when passed and a red streak when shot. The man would be promptly thrown out of the room with a blue streak following him (i.e., "they passed"). I loved it...too bad I can't seem to find it anywhere on the 'Net. :(
...okay...strange, and I'm not going to go back and delete what I just typed, but is that really what the colors meant? I was too young to really pay that much attention to what color occured when, but that commercial does sound hysterical.



LOL..."the mall"...ah, the memories of the Hartford Civic Center, maybe the oddest place to hold a hockey rink.That is where I saw my first hockey game. And first basketball game. And first concert. Ahh, the mall. I was there recently too. The mall is gone, but the center still stands in all it's depressing glory.They do still play brass bonanza all the time.

I still miss the Whalers though- one reason why the NHL was "cool" when I first started watching was the fact it had teams in such "weird" places as Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford, places I doubt could be placed on many people's maps. Now that quirkiness is gone. Of course, I didn't know the extent of the situation in Hartford (thanks for all that), but I don't blame the fans for not showing up then- the team was awful. It's kind of like the situation with the Vancouver Grizzlies- the team was perrenially bad so it wasn't even given a chance to succeed. That, and I don't quite agree with using public money to build arenas- I don't know if has quite that much of a return on the investment (I don't think millions are flocking to Nashville just because they have the Predators). Still, I blame the league more for the franchise shifts, particularly in Winnipeg- the Jets were (and still are) well-supported and adored, yet the NHL just allowed them to move. Says a lot about how the league views "loyalty to its fans".The thing that bugs me is that these people who claim to love the whalers refuse to watch a hockey game...even if the hurricanes are playing

Also, as much as you might like the idea of the Whalers moving, admit it- the New England rivalry had to have been fun, right?

Oh, it was great. I loved it. As much as I hate the whalers and everything they stand for, I do still love me the Brass Bonanza

LOL- although "a hitman" isn't particularly legal...but I guess we can let it go, just in this special case. :p
It's like in hockey...If the ref doesn't see it, it isn't illegal ;)

The 1994 lockout was very much a missed opportunity (and seemed to have an effect on the players as much as the fans- they didn't like it then either), and it's looking like the 2005 one just might be as well. About the only positives are the fact there's economic parity (the Ottawas, Calgarys and Floridas can finally acquire "high-profile" players and keep their own) and the fact "clutching-and-grabbing" is out, but that's it. TV ratings are still so low we might need a metal detector just to find them.See, while I thought the cap was going to be great and keep ticket costs down, the cap is now back to pre-strike levels...it's insane. Fewer teams would do alot to remedy some of these issues.
Actually, interestingly, the weak US dollar may help Canadian teams...previously, most of the players demanded pay in US dollars, but the teams were only taking in Canadian dollars, resulting in less money available. It seems that now, they may have a better shot at top names.

I also have new reasons to fear Jacobs- he's the head of the Board of Governors. How's *that* for a conundrum?At this point, nothing shocks me about that man. I'm sure he enjoys watching the Bruins from his estate in Florida and sending his son up here to pretend he cares.



That's the hard part- getting it off the ground. When the WHA tried to start up in 2004, they had a hard time finding arenas- they couldn't even land Toronto's Ricoh Coliseum, which the Maple Leafs stealthy stole to transplat their minor league team from St. John's. I too agree that there's too much tradition behind several teams (including the Leafs) that would make them hard to ignore (although I think a second NHL team in Toronto is worthwhile given how the Leaf brass treats their fans, although I wonder if that team could do better than the Islanders are in New York)
definatly. I'd be nice to maybe have cheaper tickets too...

I still wonder, though, if the actual teams could ever be "enticed" to leave the NHL- as much as they've entered a partnership, they're all still seperate entities. Just a thought, though.I could see it happening. That was the birth of the Whalers, after all...



I have a list- Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Anaheim (I know they just won the Cup, but you can't tell me there's enough hockey fans in the Los Angeles area to support *two* teams- that and now that they're not "Mighty" they're just not special anymore :p), Phoenix and Atlanta. Could also throw in New Jersey as well, given the fact the New York area already has three teams (which still includes the Devils, although I might give the Newark experiment a shot first). Two could be shifted to Winnipeg and Hamilton (or Quebec, take your pick) while the rest could be folded. The only problem is the fact there's now 25-26 teams (maybe a bit more than the talent level suggests), but any other selection would be iffy at best.Sounds fair to me. And I refuse to respect any team that, at any point in their history, was refered to as "cast members" rather than "hockey players", as was the case under Disney ownership.

I'd also start a division in Europe, or at least allow the top European teams to create a division of their own to compete against the NHL. Hockey's thriving in Europe- why not expand there? I think North America is pretty much plumbed for marketplaces, so Europe is the logical next step.I only dislike that because of the difficulty of interleague play...would be interesting, tho.



Poking...well, it's technically illegal, but I suppose I could live with it. Just as long as there's a clear distinction between "a poke" (a tap), "a slash" (a hack) and "a hook" (actually placing the stick on the body). It's a borderline proposition, but there are worse things to call (like hooking and slashing, which are more pressing).
true


As a fan of both hockey and soccer I'd agree with that sentiment, although I find- as a product- there's a clear superiority of the Champions' League product over the MLS or Football League Championship product (and even a lot of first division product- I mean, you can't tell me that Fulham and Reggina are quite in the same league as Arsenal and Milan). The division between "minor hockey" and "NHL hockey" is prominent but not quite as pronounced- I find Champions' League soccer to be considerably less sloppy than how sloppy the NHL game gets, even among the very best teams. That's the main difference between the NHL and CL- in the CL you can get a high quality game on a regular basis, the NHL regularly leaves you wanting more, and not in the good sense. Says something about the league if it purports to be "high-quality" but then misses that mark horribly.
Again, I think that is an issue of too many teams, not enough players.

Let's just cut back to the original 6, eh? :p

Really? that is strange to me...Up through the high school levels around here, I've seen it very harshly punished...both for fighters and other teammates (if a fight breaks out, players are to skate to the bench and remain there untill the fight is over...not doing so can result in a penalty)

The Canadian Hockey League has a similar rule to fighting that the NHL does. Don't know if the Canadian Hockey Association does as well, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I do know that at eight years old checking is introduced into the game- the CHA has been lobbying to get it up to 11, but as it stands it's at eight years old. Might provide an explanation for this latest brawl, but then the question goes to "should eight year olds check"? It's a difficult question, but I think the CHA might do well to raise it to 11- if only because it might give the kids more badly-needed time to hone their other skills (which I think too few hockey players ultimately develop).

the left-wing part made me giggle a little.

Yeah I know...especially considering hockey *clearly* isn't a "left-wing" or "right-wing" sport...I mean, Stephen Harper's a huge fan, does that say anything?

MA might authorize the construction of 3 casinos, one likely to be built in Boston...on the old Gardens site. Jacobs has offered to run it. The joke has been "If he does for it what he did for the Bruins, somehow Foxwoods [2 hours away in Connecticut] will manage to have their best years ever while the shiny new casino will quickly sink from the public eye"

Hahaha...oh how I miss the Gardens, the Memorial Auditorium, the Montreal Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens, the Spectrum, St. Louis Arena, etc....these new arenas just don't hold a candle to the old ones.

Generally, it seems pretty fair in Boston...tho, I am clearly biased. Jersey was amazingly biased towards the Devils, and I was there when they played the Penguins, so more or less unbiased in my view.

The rules do need to be clarified and made more concrete...and the refs do need better training.

Yes. I got one idea (picked up from "The Death of Hockey")- "holding" and "holding the stick" shouldn't be seperate penalties, because they're the same action.

AH! That's who it was! I kept coming up with Tim Thomas, and knew that the current goalie couldn't have done it
And Good ol' Bubba...always classy.

Man, if Tiny Tim managed to get THAT far out of his crease I'd think he was crazy. :p

I was born in 1986, the year of the "Too many men on the ice" call against Toronto. I wasn't even alive when the call was made, but I still lick my wounds every time it's mentioned.

Don't recall this one- unless I missed it somewhere. This the "too many men on the ice" ploy Mr. Cherry used against Montreal in 1979? That's the one I remember.

Especially when there are fans who can do a better job. Even when it's my guys, I know when it is and isn't a penalty

One of my favourite quotes is from the CBC's Jim Hughson: "the fans call a penalty the refs don't." Those whistles must be tasty, because they keep swallowing them.

I remember hearing about it...I still have to pick it up.

You should. A little dated but a lot of it is still relevant.

Just to warn you though, they're Sabres fans...:D

Exactly. Hence my reaction earlier in the thread, saying "Let's treat hockey as the sport that it IS". It comes off as me defending every fight and cheap shot, but really, that isn't quite the truth. Just that hockey is quite a different beast. It is more fluid than even basketball, but is low-scoring...faster paced than soccer due to physically moving faster, but still without having more goals. More action than baseball, but doesn't suck ;)
Sure, we can increase scoring a hundred different ways...but really, is that all we can do to make the sport "exciting" to fans who aren't as diehard?

Well, soccer games average around two goals per game, hockey five, but that's a minor quibble- the scores are essentially the same.

I remember reading Bob McKenzie's foreward to the 1998 Hockey Almanac where he said "it's not important to increase goals but scoring chances", because the 1950s were low-scoring but exciting- and he's right. I do think a lot of the "scoring problems" have to do with uncreative coaches- the trap only works because every team plays the exact same way (two defencemen, two wingers and one centre). It's not going to kill them to mix up the positioning every now and then (soccer has one pre-set formation- 4-4-2 (four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers)- but coaches do mix it up every now and then. Hockey coaches don't). I also don't think the current version of the trap- which is more of a wall- isn't hard to penetrate. I'll go back to my History classes: when an invading army surrounded a city wall, did they attack the whole thing or target one area that looked like it might be the weakest? Coaches keep on sending a single attacker to break through two or three defenders and wonder why no one's getting through- well, gee, could it be he's outnumbered?

That's another thing too- big hits are exciting too and that's part of what makes hockey unique. However, they don't happen all that often because players don't seem to be moving- I mean, you can't have a big hit if no one's going at full speed (might get some dinky ones that whet the appetite but still leave a big taste in the mouth). Get the teams moving end-to-end and the hits will come back- I hope anyway.

Let me see if I can find them...I forget when exactly they are from...
Only one I can find is the bowling one, but it gives a good idea of the concept that was used
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSfCqFUS7k

Haha- I love the last line "Well, she couldn't get away the shot she'd like". Priceless.

Exactly...it's one of those cases where you really can follow the action just as well live as on TV. I could never figure out why they used red sometimes, but blue others...

...

...okay...strange, and I'm not going to go back and delete what I just typed, but is that really what the colors meant? I was too young to really pay that much attention to what color occured when, but that commercial does sound hysterical.

The colour changed if the puck went above 70 mph, and, since most passes aren't (or at least shouldn't) be 70 mph, passes were blue and shots were red. Probably a spectrum thing- the blue end of the spectrum is cold while the red end is hot; but that's just speculation- I do know the colour of the tail is affected by the speed of the puck.

If you can find the commercial do it- you won't regret it, it's hilarious. :D

That is where I saw my first hockey game. And first basketball game. And first concert. Ahh, the mall. I was there recently too. The mall is gone, but the center still stands in all it's depressing glory.They do still play brass bonanza all the time.

The thing that bugs me is that these people who claim to love the whalers refuse to watch a hockey game...even if the hurricanes are playing

Well, I wouldn't blame them for not watching the Hurricanes- my brother doesn't watch the Coyotes despite the fact they were the Jets and I don't watch the Avalanche despite the fact they were the Nordiques (they were a second favourite team but that's beside the point)- yeah they're the same franchise but it's still not "the same". You associated with a team certain qualities and one of them is its identity- I mean, I fell in love with the "Quebec Nordiques", not the "Colorado Avalanche", so I don't blame them for not being Hurricanes fans- might be the same franchise but it's not the same team.

So the Wolfpack are not well supported in Hartford then? That's interesting, since the Manitoba Moose are well supported in Winnipeg. Hopefully they're all just biding their time for their beloved Whale to come back, and, at the very least, it's heartening to know the memory of the Whalers is still alive (the Nordiques can't really say the same thing...sadly). I do wonder how many of those "fans" know who Andrew Cassels, Pat Verbeek, Sean Burke, Mike Luit et all are though- that'll test their "fandom".

Oh, it was great. I loved it. As much as I hate the whalers and everything they stand for, I do still love me the Brass Bonanza

Good music's supposed to be able to cross boundaries... :cool: Ah, the "Brass Bonanza"...I'm trying to find the whole thing but the clips that do work do bring back memories.

It's like in hockey...If the ref doesn't see it, it isn't illegal ;)

LOL. Noted. Let's get on it then. :p

See, while I thought the cap was going to be great and keep ticket costs down, the cap is now back to pre-strike levels...it's insane. Fewer teams would do alot to remedy some of these issues.
Actually, interestingly, the weak US dollar may help Canadian teams...previously, most of the players demanded pay in US dollars, but the teams were only taking in Canadian dollars, resulting in less money available. It seems that now, they may have a better shot at top names.

I'm surprised the cap keeps going up- I was under the impression that the cap would be set year-by-year because it was set by revenues, which should NOT go up every year (some years it'd go down, others up), so it does sound fishy. I've heard that about the Canadian dollar, which may have been the real reason why the Canadian teams struggled in the 1990s- the dollar was low then.

Still, though, I'm not hearing of any teams dumping players just because of money, which is a good sign.

At this point, nothing shocks me about that man. I'm sure he enjoys watching the Bruins from his estate in Florida and sending his son up here to pretend he cares.

Sounds a lot like Steinbrenner nowadays...hmmnnn....

definatly. I'd be nice to maybe have cheaper tickets too...

That would be nice. That's one disappointment from the lockout- prices are still too high. I believe the cheapest Leaf ticket is around $55 or something like that. How bad are the Boston tickets?

Sounds fair to me. And I refuse to respect any team that, at any point in their history, was refered to as "cast members" rather than "hockey players", as was the case under Disney ownership.

Eh, I know...teams shouldn't be a "promotional stunt"...they should be serious outfits. Still, I think it gave Anaheim character...now they're just one team in the bloated landscape of the NHL. I remember a Canadian news outlet went down to Anaheim to see if the Ducks' run made any buzz and it didn't...what does that say about how *good* the franchise is?

I only dislike that because of the difficulty of interleague play...would be interesting, tho.

Yeah I know- they'd make Western Conference travel look like a piece of cake :p.

Still, though, it's an intriguing option- and maybe the only one the NHL has left.

Again, I think that is an issue of too many teams, not enough players.

Let's just cut back to the original 6, eh? :p

The Champions' League is actually 32 teams, but soccer's numbers are considerably higher than hockey's, so they could support (easily) 50-60 teams of good talent at the very least. I don't think hockey can reach 20.

My ideal is 12...six and the schedule would repeat itself every week. At least 12 would spread the games out a little bit. Though, mind you 6 (I'll vouch for seven just so I can have Buffalo :p) would allow only the truly elite to play...the thought of that is salivating.

The Canadian Hockey League has a similar rule to fighting that the NHL does. Don't know if the Canadian Hockey Association does as well, but it wouldn't surprise me.strange.

I do know that at eight years old checking is introduced into the game- the CHA has been lobbying to get it up to 11, but as it stands it's at eight years old. Might provide an explanation for this latest brawl, but then the question goes to "should eight year olds check"? It's a difficult question, but I think the CHA might do well to raise it to 11- if only because it might give the kids more badly-needed time to hone their other skills (which I think too few hockey players ultimately develop).
I think 8 is around when it comes in around here too...which is sad, since half the kids can't even stand on their own half the time.


Yeah I know...especially considering hockey *clearly* isn't a "left-wing" or "right-wing" sport...I mean, Stephen Harper's a huge fan, does that say anything? I wasn't aware that any sports had political leanings...



Hahaha...oh how I miss the Gardens, the Memorial Auditorium, the Montreal Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens, the Spectrum, St. Louis Arena, etc....these new arenas just don't hold a candle to the old ones.
Palaces of sports, they were. As much as I enjoy the amenities of the Fleet Center (No, I will not call it the TD BankNorth Boston Garden. Ever.), it just isn't the same as having the players have to skate around on the ice to get the fog to break


Yes. I got one idea (picked up from "The Death of Hockey")- "holding" and "holding the stick" shouldn't be seperate penalties, because they're the same action.good point



Man, if Tiny Tim managed to get THAT far out of his crease I'd think he was crazy. :p
He does what he wants. And it seems that he's gotten much better at staying in net when he needs to be there. We're still working on flopping in the right direction.


Don't recall this one- unless I missed it somewhere. This the "too many men on the ice" ploy Mr. Cherry used against Montreal in 1979? That's the one I remember.
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=eac2e840-b13d-47a5-9caa-8f247b4547e9

Painful to read. And I wasn't even alive yet.


One of my favourite quotes is from the CBC's Jim Hughson: "the fans call a penalty the refs don't." Those whistles must be tasty, because they keep swallowing them.I have a few favorite cheers...
"Hey ref, get off your knees, you're blowing the game"
*to the tune of if you're happy and you know it*
"If you can't score a goal, kill the ref! If you can't score a goal, kill the ref! If you can't score a goal, and you're really in the hole, if you can't score a goal, kill the ref!"



You should. A little dated but a lot of it is still relevant.
It's now on my list. Granted, it's a very long list. But it's there, atleast.

Just to warn you though, they're Sabres fans...:D
Atleast they aren't Rangers fans....


I remember reading Bob McKenzie's foreward to the 1998 Hockey Almanac where he said "it's not important to increase goals but scoring chances", because the 1950s were low-scoring but exciting- and he's right. I do think a lot of the "scoring problems" have to do with uncreative coaches- the trap only works because every team plays the exact same way (two defencemen, two wingers and one centre). It's not going to kill them to mix up the positioning every now and then (soccer has one pre-set formation- 4-4-2 (four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers)- but coaches do mix it up every now and then. Hockey coaches don't). I also don't think the current version of the trap- which is more of a wall- isn't hard to penetrate. I'll go back to my History classes: when an invading army surrounded a city wall, did they attack the whole thing or target one area that looked like it might be the weakest? Coaches keep on sending a single attacker to break through two or three defenders and wonder why no one's getting through- well, gee, could it be he's outnumbered?I'd agree with that entire analysis. The number of shots on goal is pathetic. The number of those shots that are actually GOOD is downright depressing.

That's another thing too- big hits are exciting too and that's part of what makes hockey unique. However, they don't happen all that often because players don't seem to be moving- I mean, you can't have a big hit if no one's going at full speed (might get some dinky ones that whet the appetite but still leave a big taste in the mouth). Get the teams moving end-to-end and the hits will come back- I hope anyway.Getting the game moving would also help to get rid of this recent phenomenon of specializaion. I miss defenders who could score, and forwards who could hit.



Haha- I love the last line "Well, she couldn't get away the shot she'd like". Priceless.The basketball one ended with "Oh! You hate to see that happen to a rookie."



The colour changed if the puck went above 70 mph, and, since most passes aren't (or at least shouldn't) be 70 mph, passes were blue and shots were red. Probably a spectrum thing- the blue end of the spectrum is cold while the red end is hot; but that's just speculation- I do know the colour of the tail is affected by the speed of the puck.

If you can find the commercial do it- you won't regret it, it's hilarious. :D
It all makes sense all of a sudden. I think at that age, I was just kinda taken by the whole "oooh! Blue streak! Red streak! YAY!"


Well, I wouldn't blame them for not watching the Hurricanes- my brother doesn't watch the Coyotes despite the fact they were the Jets and I don't watch the Avalanche despite the fact they were the Nordiques (they were a second favourite team but that's beside the point)- yeah they're the same franchise but it's still not "the same". You associated with a team certain qualities and one of them is its identity- I mean, I fell in love with the "Quebec Nordiques", not the "Colorado Avalanche", so I don't blame them for not being Hurricanes fans- might be the same franchise but it's not the same team.It's more that they just abandoned hockey. Well, actually, to be more accurate, they never cared about hockey...they only claim to now. As for the Avs, they became my second favorite team pretty quickly back when Bourque played for them.

So the Wolfpack are not well supported in Hartford then? That's interesting, since the Manitoba Moose are well supported in Winnipeg. Hopefully they're all just biding their time for their beloved Whale to come back, and, at the very least, it's heartening to know the memory of the Whalers is still alive (the Nordiques can't really say the same thing...sadly). I do wonder how many of those "fans" know who Andrew Cassels, Pat Verbeek, Sean Burke, Mike Luit et all are though- that'll test their "fandom".
Wolfpack has some following...nothing major, but solid fans.
As for testing their fandom, you'd be better to start with the basics..."How many periods are there?" "What is icing?"...things like that.


Good music's supposed to be able to cross boundaries... :cool: Ah, the "Brass Bonanza"...I'm trying to find the whole thing but the clips that do work do bring back memories.one of those anthems that just sticks forever.



LOL. Noted. Let's get on it then. :p

deal

I'm surprised the cap keeps going up- I was under the impression that the cap would be set year-by-year because it was set by revenues, which should NOT go up every year (some years it'd go down, others up), so it does sound fishy. I've heard that about the Canadian dollar, which may have been the real reason why the Canadian teams struggled in the 1990s- the dollar was low then.

Still, though, I'm not hearing of any teams dumping players just because of money, which is a good sign.
I thought the same thing...appearently, despite low ticket sales and record low season ticket holders, revenue is up?

*shrug*


Sounds a lot like Steinbrenner nowadays...hmmnnn....

Not too far off...

That would be nice. That's one disappointment from the lockout- prices are still too high. I believe the cheapest Leaf ticket is around $55 or something like that. How bad are the Boston tickets?
The last row behind the goals are $10 (that may be 20 by now). On tuesdays and thursdays, I can get student tickets for half price (which becomes 23 and 36). Otherwise, the cheapest seats are 46.



Eh, I know...teams shouldn't be a "promotional stunt"...they should be serious outfits. Still, I think it gave Anaheim character...now they're just one team in the bloated landscape of the NHL. I remember a Canadian news outlet went down to Anaheim to see if the Ducks' run made any buzz and it didn't...what does that say about how *good* the franchise is?
It gave them character...but I still wouldn't respect them ;)

Yeah I know- they'd make Western Conference travel look like a piece of cake :p.

Still, though, it's an intriguing option- and maybe the only one the NHL has left.It would be interesting, to say the least. Maybe setting up continental satelite leagues? Something like the NL and AL for Baseball?



The Champions' League is actually 32 teams, but soccer's numbers are considerably higher than hockey's, so they could support (easily) 50-60 teams of good talent at the very least. I don't think hockey can reach 20.I'd say 15 max.

My ideal is 12...six and the schedule would repeat itself every week. At least 12 would spread the games out a little bit. Though, mind you 6 (I'll vouch for seven just so I can have Buffalo :p) would allow only the truly elite to play...the thought of that is salivating.I can deal with hockey not being the biggest or most profitable sport...I'd actually prefer it...if there were six teams with all the amazing names...the word "orgasm" comes to mind.
12 would be pretty clutch...

Actually, even with the expansion teams, I support creating a division of "Original 6". Those are the best rivalries in the sport, and the most exciting games to attend.

strange.

I think 8 is around when it comes in around here too...which is sad, since half the kids can't even stand on their own half the time.


I wasn't aware that any sports had political leanings...

Heheh...well, Harper's just a fan (and a pretty educated one- he once broke down what the Edmonton Oilers had to do to keep a lead during an interview with TSN's James Duthie. Wasn't "mind-blowing" but it did show that he watches), but as The Soccer War (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Soccer War) attests, politics and sports do mix from time to time.

Palaces of sports, they were. As much as I enjoy the amenities of the Fleet Center (No, I will not call it the TD BankNorth Boston Garden. Ever.), it just isn't the same as having the players have to skate around on the ice to get the fog to break

...but "TD BankNorth Boston Garden" just screams "hockey", doesn't it? </sarcasm> Man, what a name...

He does what he wants. And it seems that he's gotten much better at staying in net when he needs to be there. We're still working on flopping in the right direction.

LOL...although I think he can play- whenever I've seen him he didn't take the Bruins out of the game, although I never thought of him as an uneqviocal starter- plus he would be nothing more than a stopgap (he's what, 32, 33, 34?). At least there's Tukka Rask...

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=eac2e840-b13d-47a5-9caa-8f247b4547e9

Painful to read. And I wasn't even alive yet.

Eh...who knows, that 1979 Montreal team just might have won it anyway...you have to admit, it was a great team.

(I should clarify I wasn't alive then myself- I do remember reading about that incident)

I have a few favorite cheers...
"Hey ref, get off your knees, you're blowing the game"
*to the tune of if you're happy and you know it*
"If you can't score a goal, kill the ref! If you can't score a goal, kill the ref! If you can't score a goal, and you're really in the hole, if you can't score a goal, kill the ref!"

Do they get sung at the games? Those are cool.

It's now on my list. Granted, it's a very long list. But it's there, atleast.

Good. :)

Atleast they aren't Rangers fans....

Or Leaf fans.

I'd agree with that entire analysis. The number of shots on goal is pathetic. The number of those shots that are actually GOOD is downright depressing.

Getting the game moving would also help to get rid of this recent phenomenon of specializaion. I miss defenders who could score, and forwards who could hit.

That's the unfortunate reality of having too little talent- specialization is "required", since you don't have a lot of players who can do "a lot of things" well. There probably are hundreds- if not thousands- of two-way players (the kind I like the most) but they don't get to the NHL because no part of their game is at NHL level, so coaches would rather have a guy who can score (but maybe not defend) and a defenceman who can hit (but maybe not score) because that's better than an all-around player who, ultimately, can't do anything.

I also think that since the mid-1990s- when "clutch-and-grab" became commonplace- coaches favoured defensive-minded, "big" players over skill players for two reasons. One, there's just not enough "skill" guys to go around; and two, a marginal defensive player is better than a marginal skill player because it's easier to teach positioning than stickhandling. It's probably a carryover from dealing with the high-scoring 1980s (which I wish I could have seen :( ), and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. I thought that the imposition of the standard (what really are "the new rules") might change coaching mindsets but ever since emergence of The Defensive Wall formation, that line of thinking may still be around. So now I'm just waiting for that one "creative" coach to see that he can get the upper hand if he can consistently break down that wall, because at some point someone's got to realize that you still have to score yourself to win a hockey game.

The basketball one ended with "Oh! You hate to see that happen to a rookie."

Nice! What about the baseball one?

It all makes sense all of a sudden. I think at that age, I was just kinda taken by the whole "oooh! Blue streak! Red streak! YAY!"

LOL- you were, what, nine or something then? Don't blame you for that reaction. I was just entering high school so I have a better recollection of how it works- I still have memories of James Brown (the current "NFL on FOX" studio host, not the singer) explaning the Glow Puck and how it worked. Predictably, at that time, I *too* thought it was "cool", but now that I'm older I see the other side- and side with it more actually.

It's more that they just abandoned hockey. Well, actually, to be more accurate, they never cared about hockey...they only claim to now. As for the Avs, they became my second favorite team pretty quickly back when Bourque played for them.

Ah, I see. Hmmmnnn...that does dull the "bring back the Whalers" movement somewhat.

As for Ray Bourque- I had tears in my eyes when I saw him lift the Cup...I still think it would have been better if he had won it in Boston, however.

Wolfpack has some following...nothing major, but solid fans.
As for testing their fandom, you'd be better to start with the basics..."How many periods are there?" "What is icing?"...things like that.

Eeee...from the sounds of that, asking about Wayne Gretzky would be tantamount to asking a question on quantum mechanics...

one of those anthems that just sticks forever.

Finally found it! Yeah, it's a great tune...might use it for NHL 2K8...I'll see...

I thought the same thing...appearently, despite low ticket sales and record low season ticket holders, revenue is up?

*shrug*

What was it...Enron who used "creative accounting"? Sounds like the same thing here.

Not too far off...

True. The only thing that seperates them is that Steinbrenner can say that he won while Jacobs can't...although you have to wonder if the Evil Emperor has stopped caring himself given how the Yankees are doing now...

The last row behind the goals are $10 (that may be 20 by now). On tuesdays and thursdays, I can get student tickets for half price (which becomes 23 and 36). Otherwise, the cheapest seats are 46.

So for $10 you get to sit in the rafters (essentially)? It's still better than Toronto- I don't believe the Leafs ever do "student night" or anything like that: they just charge the same high prices every night. The result is an unatmospheric Maple Leaf Gar- I mean, Air Canada Centre- filled with suits instead of Leaf jerseys. If there ever was an organization to hate, it's the Leafs because it's disgusting how they treat their fans (although one could argue Leaf fans share part of the blame- if there weren't enough "fanatics" willing to eat up whatever Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment feeds them MLSE wouldn't get away with their crap).

It gave them character...but I still wouldn't respect them ;)

True...but you had to admit, 2003 was a fun run at least.

It would be interesting, to say the least. Maybe setting up continental satelite leagues? Something like the NL and AL for Baseball?

Yeah- and have the European teams have the first crack at drafting European players and the North American teams the North American players. I can't believe how easy it is that we're breaking this down- maybe that's why the NHL isn't doing it...only 'cause it's easy...

I'd say 15 max.

Might need a 16th to have an easier-to-create schedule but I'd agree, that's the cutoff. I wonder if the NHL could have a "first division" and "second division" like in soccer...that way the franchises could stay but we'd guarantee a certain talent level (because the top players won't want to play second-division hockey).

I can deal with hockey not being the biggest or most profitable sport...I'd actually prefer it...

How come? I don't mind profits- as long as the game itself isn't sacrificed, which, sadly, has happened the last few years.

if there were six teams with all the amazing names...the word "orgasm" comes to mind.
12 would be pretty clutch...

Actually, even with the expansion teams, I support creating a division of "Original 6". Those are the best rivalries in the sport, and the most exciting games to attend.

Agreed. It even makes sense geographically- yeah, Toronto's picked up a rivalry with Ottawa but it pales in comparison to the rivalry with Montreal (Sens fans may hate the Leafs with an unbridled passion but Leaf fans' vitriol is more heavily aimed at the Canadiens than the Senators), plus I don't know if Rangers-Islanders even qualifies as a rivalry at this point. Besides, the NFL didn't break up its rivalries when it reorganzied its divisions several years ago- the Dallas Cowboys make more geographic sense to be in the NFC South but you can't break up "Cowboys-Redskins" or "Cowboys-Giants". I don't know why the NHL couldn't do the same thing with the Original Six.

Monkey see, monkey do

Sums up my thoughts perfectly. The kids see this happening and they'll think it's ok to fight. Bad start to their sports careers, if they choose to stick with it. We may have some future Claude Lemieux's on our hands. :p

Sums up my thoughts perfectly. The kids see this happening and they'll think it's ok to fight. Bad start to their sports careers, if they choose to stick with it. We may have some future Claude Lemieux's on our hands. :p
Then why wasn't this an issue untill recently? Pro hockey has always had fighting (look to the Big Bad Bruins)...why are there only now fights?
That is the same as saying that the soccer moms and dads fight eachother because they see soccer hooligans. Or that a kid shoots up a school because of video games. It misplaces the blame. 8 year olds fighting isn't the fault of the NHL. It is the fault of the parents, coaches, refs, the individual league, and, most importantly, the kids.

Heheh...well, Harper's just a fan (and a pretty educated one- he once broke down what the Edmonton Oilers had to do to keep a lead during an interview with TSN's James Duthie. Wasn't "mind-blowing" but it did show that he watches), but as The Soccer War (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Soccer War) attests, politics and sports do mix from time to time.touche.



...but "TD BankNorth Boston Garden" just screams "hockey", doesn't it? </sarcasm> Man, what a name...Ugh. And it just flows off the tongue so nicely...and evokes such wonderful memories of the past...
Sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.-Fight Club.



LOL...although I think he can play- whenever I've seen him he didn't take the Bruins out of the game, although I never thought of him as an uneqviocal starter- plus he would be nothing more than a stopgap (he's what, 32, 33, 34?). At least there's Tukka Rask...He has really stepped up his game this season...Last year, he was decent. This year, he's top of the league.



Eh...who knows, that 1979 Montreal team just might have won it anyway...you have to admit, it was a great team.

(I should clarify I wasn't alive then myself- I do remember reading about that incident)
I'll never admit anything positive about that team ;)


Do they get sung at the games? Those are cool.Those are mostly used at BU games that I go to.


Or Leaf fans.
Or fans of a team that can't understand that the city name goes first, then the icon, and just because you name a city after an animal doesn't mean that it is your icon, and get oddly proud of themselves for realizing that "Way to go" rhymes with their city name...

<.<
>.>

..what?

;)



That's the unfortunate reality of having too little talent- specialization is "required", since you don't have a lot of players who can do "a lot of things" well. There probably are hundreds- if not thousands- of two-way players (the kind I like the most) but they don't get to the NHL because no part of their game is at NHL level, so coaches would rather have a guy who can score (but maybe not defend) and a defenceman who can hit (but maybe not score) because that's better than an all-around player who, ultimately, can't do anything.Definatly true. And while I understand why a specialized player is more valuable, I can't understand why we suddenly have no versatile players. We've had them since hockey started...so why the sudden drought?

I also think that since the mid-1990s- when "clutch-and-grab" became commonplace- coaches favoured defensive-minded, "big" players over skill players for two reasons. One, there's just not enough "skill" guys to go around; and two, a marginal defensive player is better than a marginal skill player because it's easier to teach positioning than stickhandling. It's probably a carryover from dealing with the high-scoring 1980s (which I wish I could have seen :( ), and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. I thought that the imposition of the standard (what really are "the new rules") might change coaching mindsets but ever since emergence of The Defensive Wall formation, that line of thinking may still be around. So now I'm just waiting for that one "creative" coach to see that he can get the upper hand if he can consistently break down that wall, because at some point someone's got to realize that you still have to score yourself to win a hockey game.What is interesting is watching the new Devils play...The team that started the trap is now playing with their forwards much farther up, resulting in higher scoring, but more goals against. It seems that perhaps one team (which has a history of being somewhat inventive) may be atleast trying something kinda new...even if it isn't a big break.



Nice! What about the baseball one?
sadly, can't remember.


LOL- you were, what, nine or something then? Don't blame you for that reaction. I was just entering high school so I have a better recollection of how it works- I still have memories of James Brown (the current "NFL on FOX" studio host, not the singer) explaning the Glow Puck and how it worked. Predictably, at that time, I *too* thought it was "cool", but now that I'm older I see the other side- and side with it more actually.
haha...yeah, I really just remember pretty colors. I was an easily entertained child.



Ah, I see. Hmmmnnn...that does dull the "bring back the Whalers" movement somewhat.

As for Ray Bourque- I had tears in my eyes when I saw him lift the Cup...I still think it would have been better if he had won it in Boston, however.

If he won in Boston, I would have killed myself. Nothing in my life could have possibly have topped that. I still watch my video of him raising the cup every now and then.

Eeee...from the sounds of that, asking about Wayne Gretzky would be tantamount to asking a question on quantum mechanics...
Pretty much. One of my friends graduated last year, and had dinner at Ray Bourque's resauraunt...he came over, congratulated her, and took a picture with her. I asked her "what did he play"...her response was "I think maybe hockey, but I wasn't sure if it was Basketball."

It is the first time I ever almost had to hit a woman.



True. The only thing that seperates them is that Steinbrenner can say that he won while Jacobs can't...although you have to wonder if the Evil Emperor has stopped caring himself given how the Yankees are doing now...
I won't complain about them sucking. Shuts up my uncle atleast.


So for $10 you get to sit in the rafters (essentially)? It's still better than Toronto- I don't believe the Leafs ever do "student night" or anything like that: they just charge the same high prices every night. The result is an unatmospheric Maple Leaf Gar- I mean, Air Canada Centre- filled with suits instead of Leaf jerseys. If there ever was an organization to hate, it's the Leafs because it's disgusting how they treat their fans (although one could argue Leaf fans share part of the blame- if there weren't enough "fanatics" willing to eat up whatever Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment feeds them MLSE wouldn't get away with their crap).
Pretty much. Those tickets sell out fast tho.
The student tickets make sense around here, given a) the number of high school kids and b) the massive number of college students. College students are really the only ones who take advantage of it, as we are the only ones willing to get plastered on a tuesday or thursday and go watch a hockey game.



True...but you had to admit, 2003 was a fun run at least.
that it was.


Yeah- and have the European teams have the first crack at drafting European players and the North American teams the North American players. I can't believe how easy it is that we're breaking this down- maybe that's why the NHL isn't doing it...only 'cause it's easy...
I'd see that working...leaves the question of any African, Asian, and Australian players, but it isnt like there are many hockey games in those parts...I'm more just curious about how Russia would go...

And since Bettman came into the picture, why would we ever do something easy and sensible?



Might need a 16th to have an easier-to-create schedule but I'd agree, that's the cutoff. I wonder if the NHL could have a "first division" and "second division" like in soccer...that way the franchises could stay but we'd guarantee a certain talent level (because the top players won't want to play second-division hockey).I'm not sure I would like that system...it would be like having the NHL play the AHL, and kinda defeat the purpose of the lower leagues...



How come? I don't mind profits- as long as the game itself isn't sacrificed, which, sadly, has happened the last few years.
It isn't an issue with profits, so much...it's what has been done to get those profits, much as you say.



Agreed. It even makes sense geographically- yeah, Toronto's picked up a rivalry with Ottawa but it pales in comparison to the rivalry with Montreal (Sens fans may hate the Leafs with an unbridled passion but Leaf fans' vitriol is more heavily aimed at the Canadiens than the Senators), plus I don't know if Rangers-Islanders even qualifies as a rivalry at this point. Besides, the NFL didn't break up its rivalries when it reorganzied its divisions several years ago- the Dallas Cowboys make more geographic sense to be in the NFC South but you can't break up "Cowboys-Redskins" or "Cowboys-Giants". I don't know why the NHL couldn't do the same thing with the Original Six.It just makes sense to me...the teams have brutal hatred towards eachother.
Plus, it would foster new rivalries between the newer teams rather than trying to create them between old teams with lots of rage already established and new teams who just want to pick on someone

Then why wasn't this an issue untill recently? Pro hockey has always had fighting (look to the Big Bad Bruins)...why are there only now fights?
That is the same as saying that the soccer moms and dads fight eachother because they see soccer hooligans. Or that a kid shoots up a school because of video games. It misplaces the blame. 8 year olds fighting isn't the fault of the NHL. It is the fault of the parents, coaches, refs, the individual league, and, most importantly, the kids.

Normally I'd take a similar view- I too, don't think a violent video game makes a kid violent- but I do think the NHL deserves some of the blame. These are hockey players, remember, and they see brawls recapped daily on highlight shows (at least in Canada- I don't believe I've ever seen a brawl recapped on ESPN). Now, there are other factors- the coaches, the parents, Hockey Canada's insistence on having checking at eight-years-old- but I can't help but think the NHL's implicit approval of violence played a role in this brawl. I mean, the kids want to make the NHL, and since some of them know that they might have to play rough just to do it, some kids are going to go this route. As long as dirty players can continue to operate with a wink and a nudge by the NHL, then there will be many kids hoping to one day emulate them. Get rid of the dirty players and the kids don't brawl.

Ugh. And it just flows off the tongue so nicely...and evokes such wonderful memories of the past...
Sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.-Fight Club.

"High five!"[/Borat]

Nicely done. I'd like to see *any* poet rhyme "TD BankNorth Boston Garden", especially in song. At least "Boston Garden" is kept in the name, but it still doesn't make it "THE Garden".

He has really stepped up his game this season...Last year, he was decent. This year, he's top of the league.

Oh, my bad. I don't think I saw him once this year so I didn't want to make too rash a judgement. I have always liked him though.

I'll never admit anything positive about that team ;)

Well, at least say that you didn't lose to the Ducks. Or the Flyers. That has to count for something.

Those are mostly used at BU games that I go to.

Nice! I gotta get me to Boston one of these days. :)

Or fans of a team that can't understand that the city name goes first, then the icon, and just because you name a city after an animal doesn't mean that it is your icon, and get oddly proud of themselves for realizing that "Way to go" rhymes with their city name...

<.<
>.>

..what?

;)

Oh yeah? Well teams shouldn't use archaic words for nicknames! Get with the times! It's "BROWN BEARS" now! :p

Definatly true. And while I understand why a specialized player is more valuable, I can't understand why we suddenly have no versatile players. We've had them since hockey started...so why the sudden drought?

Well, Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin are vastly underrated defensively, and guys like Yanic Perreault and Michael Peca combined a deft scoring touch with great defensive work. Other than that, I can't think of a "pure" two-way player nowadays. Maybe John Madden (who happens to be from Alliston, my hometown)? Maybe?

What is interesting is watching the new Devils play...The team that started the trap is now playing with their forwards much farther up, resulting in higher scoring, but more goals against. It seems that perhaps one team (which has a history of being somewhat inventive) may be atleast trying something kinda new...even if it isn't a big break.

I've always felt the Devils were more offensive than people gave them credit for- they were just so good defensively that their counter-attacking punch went unnoticed. I mean, how long have they had Scott Gomez, Patrik Elias, Brian Rafalski, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Gionta, Jamie Langenbrunner, etc.? You're right though- New Jersey always seems to be ahead of the curve: it's a shame they're not better supported.

Still, though, until a team with a reputation for scoring wins the Cup no one's going to play anything except The Wall on defence. It'll come sooner rather than later though- if coaches could figure out quickly how to defend in the "new NHL" then coaches are going to figure out quickly how to (literally) break down The Wall. In fact, it might already be happening- I just saw the end of Pittsburgh's amazing come-from-behind win over Edmonton (four third period goals to erase a 2-0 deficit for a 4-2 win) where quick passing and speed did just that. Yeah, it's the Oilers but it still provided a template on how it could be done. The Nashville Predators also generated a lot of chances against Toronto's Wall (just couldn't convert on all but Shea Weber's chance), and Buffalo can do the same thing (they also can't finish- boy do we miss Briere...). Only the Penguins seem to be Cup contenders out of that group at the moment though, and I'm not sure if I can see them lifting the Cup- they have too many problems mentally.

sadly, can't remember.

Dang. :(

haha...yeah, I really just remember pretty colors. I was an easily entertained child.

LOL

If he won in Boston, I would have killed myself. Nothing in my life could have possibly have topped that. I still watch my video of him raising the cup every now and then.

Maybe I'm happy he didn't because then I couldn't have this conversation with you. :p

So are you one of those that bought a No. 77 combined Boston-Colorado sweater? They looked pretty nice.

Pretty much. One of my friends graduated last year, and had dinner at Ray Bourque's resauraunt...he came over, congratulated her, and took a picture with her. I asked her "what did he play"...her response was "I think maybe hockey, but I wasn't sure if it was Basketball."

It is the first time I ever almost had to hit a woman.

"...and Bourque is called for goaltending...and he's incredulous with the call."
"You know, I just don't think Ray's adjusted to the game of basketball...somehow I just think he's still playing hockey out there."

;)

I won't complain about them sucking. Shuts up my uncle atleast.

Haha- silver lining in everything, I guess. :D

Ah, Sox-Yanks...the rivalries the Original Six would be having now if the NHL didn't take it away from them.

Pretty much. Those tickets sell out fast tho.
The student tickets make sense around here, given a) the number of high school kids and b) the massive number of college students. College students are really the only ones who take advantage of it, as we are the only ones willing to get plastered on a tuesday or thursday and go watch a hockey game.

Hmmnnn...I'll keep that on the backburner. I went on a completely random road trip at the end of October because my friends and I mistakenly bought tickets for a Pittsburgh-Toronto game in Pittsburgh (we thought it'd be in Toronto) and loved the experience so I'm thinking I want to do it again. Seems like an American thing though to have "student prices"- Pittsburgh did the same thing.

I'd see that working...leaves the question of any African, Asian, and Australian players, but it isnt like there are many hockey games in those parts...I'm more just curious about how Russia would go...

Well, we'll just have to worry about that when the next Rumun Ndur, Richard Park or Tommy Dunderdale shows up. :p

And since Bettman came into the picture, why would we ever do something easy and sensible?

There was...no wait...I got nothing.

I'm not sure I would like that system...it would be like having the NHL play the AHL, and kinda defeat the purpose of the lower leagues...

Well, I've always thought the Stanley Cup should be an "open" tournament available for competition between not just the NHL but the AHL, ECHL, UHL, Europe and any other professional/semi-professional organization you could name. Besides, if the AHL, ECHL, UHL, etc. could be organized into some kind of "pyramid" with the NHL (kind of like the first, second, third, fourth, etc. divisions in European soccer) there'd be a way to make it work. It's a Gordian task these days for sure (we can't trust Gary Bettman with a schedule, do you think he could organize this?) but it may be the only way we can have the "right" amount of talent in the NHL.

It isn't an issue with profits, so much...it's what has been done to get those profits, much as you say.

Ah okay. Full agreement here.

It just makes sense to me...the teams have brutal hatred towards eachother.
Plus, it would foster new rivalries between the newer teams rather than trying to create them between old teams with lots of rage already established and new teams who just want to pick on someone

Exactly. Besides, newer teams gravitate towards each other anyway. Pittsburgh hates Philadelphia and New Jersey more than the Rangers. Ottawa and Buffalo have a stronger connection than either does with Toronto. Detroit and Chicago care more about each other than those silly gnats in Nashville, Columbus and St. Louis; and Washington and Atlanta have a pretty nice rivalry going. Yeah, it might be nice to reorganize things and hope teams develop rivalries, but the reality is you can't ask two people who have never met to hate each other.

Normally I'd take a similar view- I too, don't think a violent video game makes a kid violent- but I do think the NHL deserves some of the blame. These are hockey players, remember, and they see brawls recapped daily on highlight shows (at least in Canada- I don't believe I've ever seen a brawl recapped on ESPN). Now, there are other factors- the coaches, the parents, Hockey Canada's insistence on having checking at eight-years-old- but I can't help but think the NHL's implicit approval of violence played a role in this brawl. I mean, the kids want to make the NHL, and since some of them know that they might have to play rough just to do it, some kids are going to go this route. As long as dirty players can continue to operate with a wink and a nudge by the NHL, then there will be many kids hoping to one day emulate them. Get rid of the dirty players and the kids don't brawl.No question that the NHL is not blameless. But to say "monkey see, monkey do" essentially ignores every other part of the problem...the coaching, the parenting, the kids...there are dozens of issues at play...to place the blame on only one source is to bury your head in the sand, but to keep a straw to breathe through.



Oh, my bad. I don't think I saw him once this year so I didn't want to make too rash a judgement. I have always liked him though.
tho, given last nights performance, I may take back my praise.



Well, at least say that you didn't lose to the Ducks. Or the Flyers. That has to count for something.
True.


Nice! I gotta get me to Boston one of these days. :)
BU has been in trouble this year, and it looks like it may be getting worse...four of our players (the team captain, two other seniors, and a junior) have been suspended indefinatly for breaching team rules. Wonder what impact it will have on an already dismal season



Oh yeah? Well teams shouldn't use archaic words for nicknames! Get with the times! It's "BROWN BEARS" now! :p
Oh, like "sabre" isn't archaic. And what the hell kind of symbol is a big sword?! :p


Well, Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin are vastly underrated defensively, and guys like Yanic Perreault and Michael Peca combined a deft scoring touch with great defensive work. Other than that, I can't think of a "pure" two-way player nowadays. Maybe John Madden (who happens to be from Alliston, my hometown)? Maybe?No question, there are those players who are nothing short of stellar in every role...they seem to be a decreasing minority tho.



I've always felt the Devils were more offensive than people gave them credit for- they were just so good defensively that their counter-attacking punch went unnoticed. I mean, how long have they had Scott Gomez, Patrik Elias, Brian Rafalski, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Gionta, Jamie Langenbrunner, etc.? You're right though- New Jersey always seems to be ahead of the curve: it's a shame they're not better supported.they are getting a new stadium atleast...the place they play now is awful
As for the team...they went from being my second-least-favorite team to one of my favorites, thanks to my best friend. The fucker.

Still, though, until a team with a reputation for scoring wins the Cup no one's going to play anything except The Wall on defence. It'll come sooner rather than later though- if coaches could figure out quickly how to defend in the "new NHL" then coaches are going to figure out quickly how to (literally) break down The Wall. In fact, it might already be happening- I just saw the end of Pittsburgh's amazing come-from-behind win over Edmonton (four third period goals to erase a 2-0 deficit for a 4-2 win) where quick passing and speed did just that. Yeah, it's the Oilers but it still provided a template on how it could be done. The Nashville Predators also generated a lot of chances against Toronto's Wall (just couldn't convert on all but Shea Weber's chance), and Buffalo can do the same thing (they also can't finish- boy do we miss Briere...). Only the Penguins seem to be Cup contenders out of that group at the moment though, and I'm not sure if I can see them lifting the Cup- they have too many problems mentally.

true. I know there are ways to beat the current defence style, but unfortunatly, the ways I know all cost too much in terms of defence ability. It'll take one amazing goalie for any major change to happen, along with a coach that understands how to use a great goalie.

LOL
Still am easily amused, come to think of it...



Maybe I'm happy he didn't because then I couldn't have this conversation with you. :pHaha...gotta admit, it is great to finally be able to discuss hockey with someone besides my one friend...we've fought it out far too many times for it to be healthy :p

So are you one of those that bought a No. 77 combined Boston-Colorado sweater? They looked pretty nice.Sadly, I didn't. At that age, I still fit into my Bourque jersey (autographed...my prized posession)



"...and Bourque is called for goaltending...and he's incredulous with the call."
"You know, I just don't think Ray's adjusted to the game of basketball...somehow I just think he's still playing hockey out there."

;)
I'm hoping to have my grad dinner there in a few months. He loves BU grads :)


Haha- silver lining in everything, I guess. :D

Ah, Sox-Yanks...the rivalries the Original Six would be having now if the NHL didn't take it away from them.
I think it would be among the top in all sports. The feeling is there...just not the games to demonstrate it.


Hmmnnn...I'll keep that on the backburner. I went on a completely random road trip at the end of October because my friends and I mistakenly bought tickets for a Pittsburgh-Toronto game in Pittsburgh (we thought it'd be in Toronto) and loved the experience so I'm thinking I want to do it again. Seems like an American thing though to have "student prices"- Pittsburgh did the same thing.Sounds like a great road trip.
As for student prices, you can get it with a student ID...BU doesn't date theirs, so as long as I don't go bald, I'm good.



Well, we'll just have to worry about that when the next Rumun Ndur, Richard Park or Tommy Dunderdale shows up. :p

haha

There was...no wait...I got nothing.

that hitman is looking better and better.

Well, I've always thought the Stanley Cup should be an "open" tournament available for competition between not just the NHL but the AHL, ECHL, UHL, Europe and any other professional/semi-professional organization you could name. Besides, if the AHL, ECHL, UHL, etc. could be organized into some kind of "pyramid" with the NHL (kind of like the first, second, third, fourth, etc. divisions in European soccer) there'd be a way to make it work. It's a Gordian task these days for sure (we can't trust Gary Bettman with a schedule, do you think he could organize this?) but it may be the only way we can have the "right" amount of talent in the NHL.

I'd like to see the stanley cup stay NHL, and perhaps start a secondary international/open competition. Then again, I'd do almost anything to extend hockey season as much as possible.


Exactly. Besides, newer teams gravitate towards each other anyway. Pittsburgh hates Philadelphia and New Jersey more than the Rangers. Ottawa and Buffalo have a stronger connection than either does with Toronto. Detroit and Chicago care more about each other than those silly gnats in Nashville, Columbus and St. Louis; and Washington and Atlanta have a pretty nice rivalry going. Yeah, it might be nice to reorganize things and hope teams develop rivalries, but the reality is you can't ask two people who have never met to hate each other.
Exactly...The only exception I can really think of is Hartford, who was surrounded by older teams. While I'm not against new rivalries, and really encourage them, I prefer the decades old ones