dude, he's been to 3 lacrosse games...that counts for something...

sigh, I made a statement there are alot of fights in Lacrosse in indoor and outdoor lacrosse. Well its been proven there are alot in indoor its part of the sport and outdoor is up for debate. It depends on what you deam as alot.

Yep you know so much don't you. I read all your reviews and love them, wait you didn't write any.

The discussion about fighting in hockey is valid and worthwhile, but the connection to the Bertuzzi incident is pretty tenuous. Yes, he used his fist. That doesn't make it a fight, any more than a vicious highstick is a slap shot.

For whatever it's worth, I'm one of those strange people who does believe in a "code" in hockey. I realize some people find that idea unthinkable, but there it is. And according to the code, Moore did the right thing. He dropped his gloves earlier in the game. That should have been it. He's not obligated to fight every guy on the other team in a 9-2 game.

Bertuzzi broke the code, not Moore.

So, you have "PROVEN" that fights happen "ALOT" because you have been to 3 games and a fight, some wrestling around, and some pushing occurred. (By the way, you are being made fun of because the proper terminology is a lot - two separate words.)

You have also "PROVEN" that Subby doesn't know much because he didn't write a game review. :rolleyes:

Face it, you made a statement and someone who is more knowledgeable than you on the subject called you on it. Admit you were wrong and move on. Also, based on your statement, writing game reviews instantly qualifies someone as knowing a lot. (See, I said "a lot" instead of "alot" to give you a good example)

{Edit: Hmmm. I was soooo silly. All that time in school wasted. All I had to do was write a game review. Stupid me. Well, off to play Asteroids so I can be smart.}

This thread is making my boring afternoon much better, oh wait, "ALOT" better.

the grammar nazis are out in force today.

It appears a grammar flogging has been "deamed" necessary.

(don't forget "its", either)

you are being a dick

{Beavis voice}Are you threatening me?{/Beavis voice}

I'll accept that.

We need something else to do on Tuesdays....

(edit: because by Wednesday, we're bouncing off the walls)

I rarely do...

I see

Speaking of bouncing, where is NM with our hookers and blow?

What's funny is I DID read your reviews :)

I did ALOT or A LOT or Alota research on the subject to see if I was talking out of my ass.

http://198.93.127.18/default.asp

Anyway, there are quite a few fights at the major league level. You only receive an ejection from the current game if you receive one at all. Based on the comments by the fans there are usually a couple of fights a week.

Go read and thanks and have a nice day. You figure a coach would know more about this stuff then me.

BTW its a no brainer that it would be illegal in NCAA rules, just like NCAA hockey.

Well it would writing game reviews does mean I'm reviewing the products and the other people are not. The fact I played every version he produced, I suppose would give me some credibility. The fact I'm a beta tester for various different games might give me some credibility. The fact that I work in a software development group for my real job might help also.

Its pretty easy to critizise when you aren't doing the reviews yourself. Not sure why you would have a problem with my review of FOF football, I gave it one of its highest ratings and I told everyone to go buy it. But whatever.

A lot of people seem to bring up the fact that the instigator rule prevents people from getting even.

If the referees called the game properly and punished the people who did the cheap shots, dirty hits, etc. then there wouldn't be a need to get even. Maybe that's what we should be looking at?

The reason the game has degraded to clutching, grabbing, dirty hits, etc. is because they're allowed to do it. It gives the low skill players that advantage over the skilled players, so if that's their way to make it in the NHL, of course they're going to do it.

You would think. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, does it?


I never criticized your review, and I don't have a problem with your review of FOF. You can put THAT card back in your deck.

I disagree that sound is something that is a desirable addition, but that is a matter of opinion, and a horse we've already beaten.

Yes, you are right. That puts it in a different light for me. I didn't think about the score at the time.

Question regarding the injury:

Does anyone know, or have reliable information about, exactly when Steve Moore's neck was broken? Was it a result of Bertuzzi hitting him in the head, or was it a result of hitting the ice?

Freak accident?!

This was no accident.

He hit the ice because Bertuzzi hit him in the head. So the root cause is the cheap shot hit, no matter how you look at it.

That being said, I'm pretty sure there would be no way to tell when exactly it happened.

More than likely happened when he hit the ice, but in large part is probably due to the fact that Bertuzzi was riding him down and (while debateable) appears to be trying to drive Moore's head into the ice on the way.

Sorry...got stuck in Polish customs with them, and the nice young lady soldier refused to take a kilo to "look the other way." Luckily a member of our entourage threw a solid lacrosse check her way and now I'm back where I began, shaking my head at the sorry lack of writing ability possessed by a 'published (online) game reviewer'.

Thread homicide anyone?

This thread jumped the shark.

It limboed the elephant too.

Yes, yes, I'm tired of defending hockey violence.

Growing up with the sport, I completely understand the "code", right or wrong.

I remember in grade 6 we were playing ball hockey during recess on school grounds. A friend of mine made the mistake of slashing the class "jock" (if you can be considered a jock at 12 years old) who then proceeded to pummel him. After consoling my friend we decided to approach the teacher who was "supervising"; the teacher also happened to be a former NHL goalie. His response was not surprising: "That's hockey."

Having grown up with the Battle of Alberta during the glory years, I've watched the code in full effect, and some of those playoffs series were sensational. Violent, yes, but sensational nonetheless.

On the other hand the Canada Cups, World Cups and Olympics (with professionals) are also among the best games I've ever seen and had the added benefit of highlighting the game to NON-hockey fans. This is probably what the NHL should strive to emulate on a league-wide basis.

The answers aren't easy but with the impending CBA negotiations, now is the time to address them.

dola,

For those who have yet to seen the incident in question...

hxxp://members.shaw.ca/dmc/BertuzziSuckerPunch.wmv

Is there any video that shows them jawing before bertuzzi went after him.

Actually he did have it coming, I guess last month he got in a cheap shot in a game. Of course that doesn't make what Bertuzzi did alright. He should be arrested for that shit

Top ten most violent hockey acts:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/top...lights.html#10

Globe & Mail article on how it will be difficult to eliminate the "code":
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...BNStory/Sports

I think the old schoolers are gonna have to come to Jesus on this one. The Thuggery has got to go. NCAA and Olympic Hockey is a better product than the NHL, and the intolerance of fighting is the reason why. Yes the enforcers will lose their jobs, but guys who can play hockey will replace them.

My unfortunate fact of the day is:
Although the NHL should take a stand to stop the fighting, and MLB should stand up to the union regarding drug testing, neither of them will. Both leagues will suffer as a result.

Both of those statements are completely subjective to your opinion.

Lots of people don't think NCAA and Olympic Hockey are better products than the NHL, and of the people who do think it is a better product many would say it's because of the larger rink sizes and more attacking rules and mindset rather than the lack of fighting.

Btw, Bertuzzi got suspended for the rest of the season (including playoffs) and Vancouver was assessed a $250,000 fine.

He put a hit on Naslund that may or may not have been dirty. Vancouver took exception, but rather than do something about it the next time they played Colorado, in a close game in Colorado, they waited until they were getting blown out by the Avalanche in Vancouver.

While Moore may have had something coming to answer for the hit on Naslund, I think most of us would agree that it wasn't a sucker punch from Bertuzzi, and certainly not an outright blindside assault.

Also getting overlooked in the whole "eye for an eye" discussion is that Moore did get in a fight earlier in the game. Maybe the problem was that by all accounts, he won the fight. :rolleyes:

Olympic hockey is better than the NHL because it features the very best players in the world.

I can't imagine how anyone could watch NCAA hockey and even compare it to the quality of the NHL game, but of course we all have the right to our opinion.

A good punishment, IMO.

The thuggery has left since the 80's.

The NHL should spend more time deal with malicious hits and head-hunting rather than get rid of fighting all together. Fighting is part of the game...period.

I would like to see a tougher stance on premeditated attacks, especially if they are of the completely gutless variety employed by Bertuzzi in this incident. I don't think this punishment is enough, it's reduced based on the fact that Bertuzzi did not kill the man but that does not help prevent the next similar incident from resulting in a death. There is some consolation in the fact most people's opinions of Bertuzzi will change for the negative, and those that were not already convinced Marc Crawford was a total slimebag are certainly having more difficulty defending him.

Bertuzzi tried to get Moore to fight him. So actually Moore was the gutless one. Granted Bertuzzi shouldn't of suckered punched him from behind, but Bertuzzi was more then willing to fight Moore straight up.

I still like watching my video of him freaking out at scotty bowman during the 97 playoffs.

It doesn't have to be.

Moore already was in one fight with a Canuck in the game... does he have to fight every Canuck who feels he wants to be a macho man?

The 'code' factor has already been completed, Moore already faced off with someone else. There was nothing wrong with Moore's hit on Naslund, Nazy even admitted the hit was clean and perfectly acceptable... so we shouldn't even be talking about this. But obviously the Canucks felt someone took liberties with their star... and the 'code' came into play. Bert crossed the line, he should be punished AND forgiven, but he's the one who did something wrong NOT Moore.

I'm in with the same crowd that says they'll never be a hockey fan as long as there is fighting (as a part of the game. All sports have idiots.) .

I'm in the crowd that say they'll never be a fan of hockey if they take fighting out of the game. :)

Hockey is a violent sport by nature, and when you are that competitive, moving that fast, and another guy is trying to take you out, sometimes you get caught up and need to fight...

It has to be. Most who have played the game would agree.

That's right. So that is why regular fighting is a part of every level of hockey. (What? They don't fight as often in Olympic hockey? Well, they must not be as good then. They need rexallsc to come and show them how to play.).

Yes it does, and it's because of the stupid instigating rule that this kind of stuff happens. People become more and more careless with their play, and frustration boils over to the extremes because players can no longer police themselves.

Hockey is different than any other sport, it's MUCH faster and can't be left to the refs or league officials to police the game alone. It's not a matter of having 50 fights a game, it's the fact that allowing fights makes players more responsible for their actions... because of the fear factor.

The game has gone down hill ever since they institued the insigating rule to make the game more appealing to the US market. Now we have a league where obstruction is a huge problem, players use their sticks in careless ways, and frustrations boil over. Take the rule out and you WON'T see a huge increase in fighting, but the game will improve... and the skilled players will shine. Want proof, see Gretzky & Lemieux, and who those guys played with.

Well Gretz wants to ban fighting in hockey, for what it's worth.

Does he? Unless he's radically changed his position recently, I don't think you have that right.

I seem to recall Gretzky dropping the gloves 2 or 3 times himself. It wasn't pretty, but obviously he felt it was needed.

I'll say it again: the Bertuzzi sucker punch has nothing to do with fighting in hockey.

Read his autobiography. It's from back when he was a King. If he radically changed his position, then he'd be for fighting in the game.


When in Rome...

If thats true I hope the guy realizes he would never have been the player he was without the guy he played with that protected him.

I believe that there does have to be fighting. It has been around the league even before any of us were born. I don't feel we should go back to the 70s and 80s but it's a part of the game, and has been for decades. This wasn't a fighting incident with Bertuzzi...it was malicious head hunting. If it was a fight, and moore got hurt, that would be something else...BUT, I haven't seen too many fights in the last 20 years that have ever done this much damage to a player.

Fights are safer that headhunting.

It has to do with the whole attitute that fighting brings to the game. A kind of legalized lawlessness, that's only a hop, skip, and a jump from a sucker punch.

Yeah, but it gives everyone the opportunity to argue it should be thrown out. You generally see this from people who have little to no exposure to the game, and who've never played it...

And if you knew anything about the history of the game, and the role fighting actually plays in the game you'd understand that anti-fighting rules (instigating rule) has made things like the Bert Incident, obstruction, and careless stick use dramacticly go up.

Well you can also look on this thread to see people who say they aren't going to be fans of the NHL (and watch international or amateur) hockey until fighting is gone. Keep fighting won't do anything to the popularity of the sport in Canada, but will continue to marginalize hockey in the US, until it gets eclipsed by soccer and falls into 5th place.

Yes, it's a part of almost ever level of hockey. The only ones that don't really fight are the lower divisions that don't have much contact (and don't allow checking).

As far as the Olympics, there are a few reasons. One, a lot of the teams are European, and those players are traditionally soft (but they love to use their sticks)...and since the teams can pick their best, they often pick the most skilled players, since there is no talent dilution like there is in the NHL (where you need grinders).

That's fine with me. Hockey shouldn't change the game for ratings that it's not going to get anyways. Some people won't watch hockey because of fighting, some won't watch baseball because they find it boring. Some won't watch basketball because of the perceived lack of team play...not ever sport is for everyone.

I'd argue the opposite. Fighting brings a sense of accountability. Things like the instigator rule, face shields and (especially) referees who won't call the rulebook -- those bring the legalized lawlessness.

I disagree.

Yup! :)

I like your last 2 comments Joe Canadian, but I am a bit confused as to what side of the fence you are sitting on.

It seems that you would prefer fighting to be left in rather that have the bert incident and other "non-hockey" acts on the ice continue or become more frequent.

Just checking.

I agree with you on everything except the shield issue, if I was in the NHL I'd wear a shield.

The last time I checked, fighting didn't have anything to do with the game. They don't give you points for "fights won". Fighting also doesn't happen during the play (it does, but it stops the play).

It's just one of those "accepted" side things.

Yes. Taking the instigator rule out (which is an anti-fighting rule, basiclly) and you won't see a huge increase in fighting over the long haul. The Moore hit on Nazy could have been dealt with in that game, where someone could of squared off with Moore, fairly. Instead it boiled over and the frustrations grew over a number of weeks... then we see idiotic moves like what Bert did. The rule has also been the contributing factor, IMO, for the players being completly careless with their sticks... leading to serious eye injuries.

Fighting is part of the game, it's much more than the players being allowed to police themselves. It's an anti-dumbass measure :), so that people play the game thinking that there is consequences for their actions.

Don't patronize me. If you take out ALL fighting, you'd have a cleaner game. If fighting is so much a 'part of hockey', then why don't you see international leagues fall apart without it?

You also see an insane amount of stickwork in international leagues.

European hockey, and hockey are two different animals. But again if you knew more about hockey you'd know that :p :D.

Late to the discussion, but I would have to say that although I agree that the quality of the NHL player is a level above that of a the college player, I would much rather watch a college game than a pro game because I think college has a much more entertaining product.

The college game is more wide open. Fights and roughing delays don't slow the game down. There is the whole "college atmosphere" that brings the game to life. The quality of play is of course a level below the pro game but the structure of the game makes it so the game flows better. I can't stand the NHL regular season, but enjoy the college season. And while I like pro hockey playoffs, I love the college hockey tournament.

Part of it also has to do with becoming a father. Becoming a parent makes you so much more aware of how much violence and cruelty there is in our society--in games, in sports, in our speech. I wouldn't want to take my son to a pro hockey game for a long while because of the likelihood that a fight will break out. I would happily take him to a college game.

Regarding the hit...

(This is coming from someone who thinks the NHL should clean up their act regarding violence in the game). I just saw the punch for the first time. After reading this discussion, I have to admit that I was surprised at how "light" the hit appeared to be. Yes, it was a sucker punch from behind, but it almost seemed to me that Bertuzzi rode Moore's head into the ice more because Moore fell passively to the ground rather than an intentional wish by Bertuzzi to drive him down. I couldn't help thinking that this would be a non-story if Moore's neck had not broken. Obviously Bertuzzi must have really connected with the punch and the appearance of the violence doesn't diminish the cruelty of the action, but I have to admit I was surprised at how visually mundane the hit appeared to be.

I'm glad to see that Bertuzzi got a relatively severe suspension. Maybe this is a start. Hockey's a great game without the fights and extracurricular violence.

Well, if you take out everything that you don't get points for, then there goes hitting, passing, backchecking... basically everything other than shooting. As far as the play stopping, that happens for every penalty.

There are good arguments against fighting in hockey, but I've never though that "it's not part of the game" was one of them.

But shouldn't be is what I'm saying. Especially with the influx of European/Russian stars.

I guess I have to point out that I've never played hockey. That apparently disqualifies my opinion, so I wanted to get that out there.

If the league wanted to, they could eliminate fighting. I know that they never will, but they could.

I just don't see why the accountibility has to be left up to the players. The officials should control that, and if they can't, then isn't that an inherant flaw in the game? I just don't see why there HAS to be fighting.

I had essentially the same first reaction to the hit. I still don't think Bertuzzi "drove Moore's head into the ice", and I'm frustrated that the media keeps portraying it that way. I guess it sells more papers, much like saying Bertuzzi is 60 lbs heavier than Moore (he's not) and towers over him (well, I guess if one inch is towering).

I can tell you that the punch was a big story in Canada before the news came out about Moore's neck (nobody knew he'd broken it until Tuesday). But you're right, no broken neck = no discussion of it on Regis and Kathy Lee.

It's not that it disqualifies your opinion. But compare it to an 'outsider' who's never played or understand the minute details of football or baseball coming in trying to change those particular games.

The two sides are never going to agree on this - but it does appear the majority of people who are big hockey fans think fighting is part of the game and the majority who aren't use fighting as an excuse as to why they aren't.

Make of that what you will.

Oh and I'm in Europe and European hockey is unwatchable... and very dirty when it comes to stickwork and cheapshots. Definitely not a good argument to take fighting out of the game.

Ok then on thats we'll have to agree to disagree.

Uhhhhh...ok. Let's get used a league with even more hooking, slashing, etc.

Thank you!

Like College Hockey?

It isn't the fighting that is lowering ratings for the NHL. It is diluted talent, excessive interference that isn't called tightly and goalies that are too good and have too many pads on to allow for more scoring. Fighting helps police the game and probably brings in as many fairweather fans as it turns off.

How many college hockey games you been to lately? At the UMass games, there is more clutching/grabbing/hooking than any pro game. And there have still been 2 fights this year.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, it does not get any more gutless than sucker punching a guy like this - it was a pathetic indefensible act. I'm more a Canuck fan than a Avs fan so I'm not joining in the anti-Bertuzzi pile on for any homer rationale either, this event hurts all hockey fans.

Well, somthing has to be done, because this can't ever happen again. It's not like hockey can afford anymore bad publicity.

Like a year with no NHL?

Like the other three big sports are having an influx of good publicity? :D

Pretty good article here (hxxp://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040310.wduha10/BNStory/Sports) calling for NHL seriously penalizing any blow to the head - including Moore's original hit on Naslund. I'm a Devils fan and I have to admit my past enjoyment of Scott Stevens checks are partially due to blood lust on my part, and when I stand back and think rationally (basically every time one of his checks resulted in injury) I am ashamed of that side of me. Many other NHL players aim for the head as well, trying to go for a concussion - it's so common that the EA NHL series tends to have players leaving the ice (going for the head) on many checks.

Just saw the Michigan/Mich State game. Better than any NHL game I've seen all year.

Let me respond to this with a personal story that somewhat relates to the Bertuzzi story (but on a way smaller scale).

I played a couple seasons in a very competitive floor hockey league. It sounds lame, but the talent level on the better teams (not mine, but the good ones) was very high. Anyways, being a relatively small league (8-10 teams I think), we played the same teams up to 4 or 5 times over a couple months. Naturally, every team has their a-hole, and familiarity breeds contempt, and well, near the end of the season play got pretty rough. The league, however, had a no fighting policy. Getting in a fight cost the player $25 and risked suspension or ejection from the league.

So anyways, in a close game near the end of the season the other teams a-hole elbows me in the face. No call. I look to the ref and complained, he claimed he didn't see it. Same shift, not even near the play, and DIRECTLY in front of the ref the guy elbows me HARD in the face again. No call. Now I'm pissed, but I can't drop 'em or else I'm done and paying money. So in a rage, I chase him into the corner (he's heading to the puck) and cross check him from behind into the boards. He went head-first, but was luckily uninjured. I got a 2 minute minor. I also didn't get elbowed in the face again.

After the game, I was completely horrified by what I'd done. We don't wear helmets, and I'd just hammered a guy from behind into the boards! But at the time, it seemed like the only way to let this guy know that I wasn't going to tolerate his crap. The ref certainly wasn't going to stop him.

Now, had fighting been merely a 5 minute major, I likely would have dropped them and tried to handle it that way. I don't know if I would have won the fight or not, but at least I would have sent my message in a way that at worst causes a bloody nose or a black eye.

Removing fighting from hockey will never solve incidents like what Bertuzzi did. And I will stand by my opinion that I think it would only cause them, or stick infractions or whatever, to increase.

Agreed. I just don't think banning fighting would fix anything. As I said elsewhere, a sucker punch has as much to do with fighting as a high stick has to do with a slapshot. Banning fighting might be good PR right now, but it doesn't address the problem.

And I'll go even further... as much as hockey desperately needs to avoid bad PR, I don't think you can prevent this sort of thing from happening. From time to time, in any sport, someone will go too far. When they do, by all means come down on them like a ton of bricks. But no matter how hard you hit the offenders, someone else will come along in a year or two and do it again. I don't think it's fair to judge the success or failure of this suspension based on whether anything similar ever happens again. The idea of "sending a message" only goes so far.

Already factored in, Bishop! :D

Yes! Bring back the 80s/early-90s!!!

Good for you. You prefer college, I prefer NHL. Why can't we leave it at that? You have the game you like, I have the game I like. Why must the game I like be changed to be more like the game you like?

There are people who prefer college football to pro football. I don't hear anyone screaming to change the NFL rules to be more like college. Same thing here. People have their own, personal flavors. Let everyone have their flavor.

It's happened before, it'll happen again.Matt Johnson ended Jeff Beukeboom's career (he still has headaches, too) with a punch as bad, if not worse. Tony Granato (coach of the Avalanche) chopped Neil Wilkinson with his stick, tomahawk style (two hands)...the game survived.

It will happen again, and hockey will go on.