I'd like for Joe Canadian and/or rexallllll or others to discuss this a little further. I'm a CASUAL fan (watch a few games a year and maybe the Stanley Cup if I know it is on) but am curious why the PLAYERS are the ones who have to have the responsibility of delivering consequences? I can't think of another sport (I'm sure you guys will come up with tons) where the players and not the officials or the league are responsible for doling out punishment. Why does the threat of getting beat up have to be the deterrent?

In baseball, if a guy hits a towering home run and the next batter takes the first pitch in the ribs, what happens? The other pitcher knows he has to respond in the next inning.

If Terrell Owens scores a touchdown and spikes the ball in Roy Williams face, what's going to happen the next time TO goes over the middle? Williams is going to be looking to light him up.

This sort of thing goes on in sports all the time. It may be more pronounced in hockey, but it's certainly not unique.

Yes, and if the pitcher hits the batter intentionally, the pitcher can get tossed from the game.

And if Roy Williams hits him late, or leads with his helmet, Williams will draw a penalty for his team.

The fear of retribution from the other team doesn't keep them from hitting a homerun, or spiking the ball. According to some, it is the fear of retribution that keeps the game clean. What I'd like to know is why that retribution can't be an official doling out a punishment such as putting them in the penalty box or kicking them out of the game. Why does getting beat up by the other teams goon have to be the consequence for a dirty hit?

EDIT: heh...see Bee's comments!

I have a two-part answer:

1. Since you're up against a guy numerous times in a game, it's really easy to get after him. It's a really, really intense sport. You're right up on someone all game, and I've been in the same position as Bertuzzi before. I didn't hurt the guy as bad, but I've cheap-shotted a few people, and been the victim of it as well...I don't condone Bertuzzi's actions, but I can understand what happened. Sometimes you just lose it on the ice...it's an intense sport.

As far as the officials, I think one of the keys to getting back to an exciting, open-ice brand of hockey (see 80's and early-90's) is the officials. They must call the interference away from the puck. The clutching,grabbing, etc. is out of control.

Really? Bertuzzi didn't get suspended? Legal hits are condoned. Fighting is condoned (take two to Tango!). Illegal hits and cheap shots are not.

Valid points, but it still doesn't answer the question. Yes, you go up against a guy repeatedly over the course of the game. That happens in basketball and football as well. However, it doesn't explain why players need to be the enforcers rather than the officials.

Because the officials don't/won't call everything. Because you're sending a message.

Honestly...it just feels natural when you're out on the ice...

So a possible resolution would be to have officials call cheap shots, hooking, high sticking, slashing, etc. and dole out an appropriate penalty. Wouldn't that send a message? I'm not sure what, if any penalty Moore got, but if he had been put in the penalty box, or thrown out of the game, would Bertuzzi have felt as much need to give Moore some payback? I wouldn't think so.

Oh and just because it feels natural is hardly justification for allowing revenge. :p

Hockey is very fast. When you watch it on TV, it doesn't convey how fast the game really is. When I went to a game a few years ago, it was the first time I sat close (row 11, I think it was). I've sat in the upper section before at a hockey game, but when you're down there...those guys move FAST. And there's 10 of them.

There are only 3 officials. The game is simply too fast for 3 people to see everything. I would bet that they don't even see, collectively, more than half of what happens.

You can't put more officials out there...they'd get in the way. They already do! Putting more out there will clutter up the ice and the game will become "let's see who can accidently hit the official with the puck the most" contest.

The only way to keep players from not taking cheap shots when the official isn't looking is the fear that you will get your clock cleaned.

At the before-mentioned game where I sat in the 11th row, there was a player on the opposing team who kept hacking at LeClair. He was doing it all game long. Never got a call from the official. In most cases, that'd be the end. He would just keep hacking because no one could come up and stop him. Except in this case, he hacked at Primeau halfway through the 3rd...and got his ass sufficiantly kicked. Had he not hacked at Primeau, Primeau wouldn't have been able to do anything...no Flyer would have. So you have this guy hacking away everytime the officials are not looking.

You need this because in hockey, the officials just can not see everything, and you can't add more. The game is just too fast.

dola,

And what Bertuzzi did had nothing to do with using fighting as a payback. The payback fight had already happened. It was just a cheap shot, plain and simple. And if it didn't cause major injuries, I would expect to see a Colorado player throw down with Bertuzzi in that game or a later rematch as retaliation.

Yes, I realize that adding more officials on the ice isn't really a good solution. Would it be possible to add off-ice officials? Perhaps one on each end of the rink, specifically looking at action away from the puck?

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but just tossing it out as a possibility.

So far, this response seems to be the best explanation offered as to why fighting needs to be in the game.

The officials usually do call cheap shots. It would be nice if they called everything else...

As far as Bertuzzi, I don't think anyone is really defending his actions.

As far as what "feels natural"...I was referring to fighting someone on the ice...I wouldn't call what Bertuzzi did a "fight"...

as someone who actually plays hockey.. lets bring up some points

how many NHL fights have people been hurt? I am talking clean, one on one fights. nothing cheap about them. a few cuts, thats it. never have i seen a guy (besides steve kariya, and he shouldn't be fighting as it is) get really hurt in a fight.

what do fights accomplish? they motivate your team for one. if you're playing with no heart, what better to pick up the squad then with a fight. i play, i know. if you don't play then DO NOT tell me otherwise.

if you have a guy get ko'ed, whos a star player, clean or not. you fight. you have one guy fight and tell them you're not taking giving in and thats it.

Fighting is in the NHL for a reason, but excessive fighting is another thing.

Fact of the matter is, fighting isn't even that common in hockey. Well, as much as you people who don't watch it would believe.

If you see one game a year and theres a fight in it, you're not qualified to really share an opinion that its' ruining the game.

I just don't like all the naysayers who really don't know what they're talking about because they don't pay much attention to the game as it is.

and on bertuzzi. he got what he deserved. that isn't fighting. that's assault.

Actually Moore is one of the goonish types of players. He fought a much smaller guy in his first bout. But, when someone who was known as a tough guy wanted to fight him he wanted know part of it. Thats called being a wuss.

Many olympians now, play in the NHL

Ask Nick Kypreos what can happen. I once saw Dave Brown destroy Stu Grimson, shattering his cheek bone among other things. Jarome Iginla took almost a year to rediscover his scoring game after breaking his hand in a fight. Players get hurt all the time. It's lunacy to think otherwise and it cannot seriously be used as a reason to have fighting included in the game.

Guys, there is a sport called "BOXING" if you take fighting out of hockey because its violent, then you should make boxing illegal, karate illegal, Ultimate Fighting Illegal etc....

Here is the thing, You aren't going to make tradional hockey fans happy by taking fighting out of the sport. If anything you will loose hockey fans. Most of you paying lip service to the fact you would watch hockey if there was no fighting are full of crap. You just spout that nonsense off because you want to bash hockey.

There isn't even an average of 1 fight per game in hockey. So if they goto fight just close your eyes like a chick at a horror movie.

Imagine playing 82 games a year. You get annoyed, you get antsy. Would you rather guys not fight and just beat the hell out of each other with sticks? I am upset, lets bash this guy in the skull with a piece of wood.

The results of injuries w/o fighting could be much, much worse.

Ask Nick Kypreos what he would be doing if there wasn't fighting in the NHL...because he wouldn't be in the league. Same goes for Stu Grimson...

Nope. People say it is, but it is clearly not the case. Both Collegiate and Olympic hockey exist without it. I mean if it is part of the game show me where it is mentioned in the rules, other than the penalty section.


I am not a big time hockey fan, but I really do enjoy playoff hockey. Fighting only detracts from an otherwise very entertaining sport. I am also reluctant to bring my daughter to local hockey(semi-pro) games because of the extraneous violence inherant to that level of play.

Throwing a punch is not part of any sport that doesn't take place in a ring.

And relatively few people in the U.S. give a flying #%@% about either.

One is a primarily regional, not national, activity.
The other is an event that only generates significant interest from a nationalist perspective.

College hockey and pro hockey are two different sports, plain & simple AFAIC.

OK then... fighting is a big part of the North American game. You think Euro style hockey is better, I think it sucks. Can we not agree to differ?

If something has to be in the rulebook to be part of the game, why is nailing a reciever in football when a pass is over his head applauded as such a good play? Why is a brush back in baseball (which sometimes leads to worse injuries than you see in hockey fights) applauded as a necessary way to get one over on a batter? Neither of those things are explicitly in the rulebook and potentially lead to very serious injuries.

The comment about punching people only belonging in a ring IMHO is hypocritical to say the least - either you are against violence as a sport or you aren't

And if a hockey player sucker punches another guy, he can be suspended for the season, cost his team a chance at a Stanley Cup, and be fined a half million dollars.

The lesson: actions have consequences. In all sports.

Nailing a receiver when the ball is thrown over his head is a good play when the receiver has a play on the ball. Meaning he touches the ball. Meaning the hit is a good play because the catch is prevented. There are how many rules about bean balls in baseball? The league has implemented them because it has an interest to protect the players.

Also that hypocritical comment is a joke right? Cause I never said I was against violence in sports. I love violence in football and hockey for that matter. My position is that fighting shouldn't be tolerated in any sport that doesn't take place in a ring.

And is that another argument for including fighting?

I'm on your side, in that I don't think fighting should be banned from the sport, mainly cause I am fearful of the stickwork and cheapshots that would increase. But when arguments for keeping fighting in the game include "People don't get hurt" and "It gives Grimson a roster spot", I start leaning to the other side.

'Cause I'd like the NHL to survive. I enjoy rooting for my team, and I'd like to see them play a beautiful style of game (though it may be detrimental for my team). I'd like to see the game prosper in the US and not fade away. Hell, the reason my team still exists is because they won a Stanley Cup when there was talk of moving them. Teams in the Southern US aren't doing so well, mostly because of the reputation hockey has for 'anything goes'.

But they still happen. All the time. Should we make every hit batter an automatic 20 game suspension? Or do you accept that it happens, and let the punishment fit the crime?

The NHL has rules against fighting. There are automatic majors, roughing minors, instigator penalties, automatic game misconducts in certain cases, automatic suspensions under certain circumstances. Fighting isn't allowed in hockey any more than clipping is allowed in football. Yes, the penalties could be more severe, but let's not pretend that there aren't any rules about fighting.

Dude, no offense but the game doesn't do well in the South because you weren't exposed to it growing up. Its not part of the southern culture.

For hockey to survive they need a salary cap period. Hockey thrives in the North East and Central parts of the US. It does well in Canada. The only problem with Canada is their dollar and taxes. Teams can't afford to keep good players. Salary Cap and Revenue Sharing = Hockey's success. I would also advise the NHL to drop about 2 to 4 teams.

The south, especially here in Texas is all about anything goes. I mean the damn rodeo is the biggest event of the year. I mean guys promote the sport of hockey on the radio by some redneck going "they carry sticks and every once and while someone gets a whoppen."

Most of the people here I talk to just don't understand the game, my friends that I did get to watch some playoff games were like wow this is great.

I don't really think that is it. If a game needs to be a part of a region's 'culture' then it'll never survive in the Southern US (which isn't just 'The South', but also the 'Southwest'). Hell, I'm from Jersey and we weren't really exposed to it too much growing up, but it does fairly well there.

See, I just don't buy this. No doubt the NHL is failing in the US, especially in the southern US. But I think the list of problems is a long one. Primarily the low-scoring, clutchy, just plain boring style. The lack of a decent TV contract, the fact that the sport just doesn't work well on TV, the fact that so many players have unpronouncable names and barely speak english, the general lack of history... let's face it, you could eliminate fighting tomorrow, and TV ratings in the US probably won't budge at all. We can argue right and wrong until we fall over, but from a practical marketing point of view, fighting isn't the issue.

Besides, NASCAR, football and pro wrestling have big followings in the US, especially down south. Tell me again how violence can't sell there?

No, teams in the Southern US aren't doing well because 1) There is no ice hockey in the south. It hardly ever snows down there so I doubt kids are growing up dreaming of being great ice hockey players and 2) There is no history to the teams there.

If hockey has a reputation for "anythign goes", I've yet to heard it. And anyone spreading that around is a total moron who obviously have never seen a pro hockey game.

What makes you so sure that if they changed the game to be more liek college, that would make the league more popular? How many people out there who say they would watch hockey if it weren't for the fighting do you think actually mean it?

If college hockey is so much more appelaing to pro hockey, why doesn't it get shown on TV more? Why doesn't it get better than NHL ratings when it is on?

And FWIW, I grew up in Jersey and was exposed to hockey a lot.

I grew up in Jersey too long time flyer fan here.

Holy crap, how could you not be exposed to it. South Jersey is one of the only places that have street hockey leagues. The flyers are such a part of Philly's identity its amazing.

In face its probably Eagles, Flyers, Phillies and 76ers in terms of fan popularity. But all 4 sports do well philly is a sports town.

A lot, IMO. Plenty of people have told me they like the game, but all the fighting is something they really don't want their kids exposed to... and they'd like to go to games as a family.


Because it is a college sport played in a very limited geographic area. Who am I gonna root for? My alma mater (Rutgers) has a team, but aren't really that great. I mean is someone from Duke going to have anyone he can really root for? College sports have fans from the people who went there.

On the shore, I never saw a street hockey league. Soccer was really, really, really big in my area.

And the hockey fans in the area are divided between the Rangers, Flyers and Devils. The Devs have most fans down where I'm from.

[quote=ISiddiqui]A lot, IMO. Plenty of people have told me they like the game, but all the fighting is something they really don't want their kids exposed to... and they'd like to go to games as a family.

I don't buy that. I mean do these people go see a football game? Football is just as violent if not more so.

Yes, but it is the flow of the game. The guys are being hit, so they don't gain another yard. Fighting in hockey is a side show. At best it is a deterrant... don't hit my guy so hard. It doesn't serve any other purpose. And the cheering and hype on it smacks of bloodlust.

Hits in hockey aren't problematic to them either... because it is to prevent the player from scoring or recieving a pass which would put him in a good position. Fighting is apart from that.

Ice Hockey was huge in the shore towns. Bricktown used to host a league that drew people from all over. The collesium is where the flyers practice in voorhees.

Ocean City, Sea Isle City and Brigantine all had street hockey leagues btw. You must be from up north to central Jersey.

But hockey is huge up there. The rangers, islanders and devils are all from the same 100 mile radius. Thats 3 teams.

Flyers are only 1 and half hours from the devils stadium.

No, I was from Toms River... and never heard of the Brick league. Like I said, soccer was huge and so was baseball (League League sucess and all that). Never heard of all this hockey hubbub... well except when the Devs won the cup and Dowd was from Brick. That's about it.

What is the average fights per game I wonder. Probably like 1 out of every 3 games "Maybe?" if not less there is a fight.

It's still there. It can still happen at any game. That ain't the case for football, where it is banned and severely punished, so it is extremely rare to see a fight.

Parent's don't want their kids to see people fight, but it's ok to let them see people getting checked or blocked from the blind side? Ok to see them get repeatedly knocked on their ass? It's ok for kids to see that..but heaven forbid they actually see a fight.

No, I don't think most of those parents would be taking their kids to a hockey game either way. Especially after they see all of the cheap shot tactics that will be used if you ban fighting from hockey. Can't have people fight 1 on 1, but perfectly fine for someone to take their stick and hack at someone's knees when the ref isn't looking...


Ever been in the stands at a football game? They'll see a fight or two at a football game, but it probably won't be on the field. :D

Stats from www.hockeyfights.com:

Regular Season Stats	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	Projected 2003-04
Games	1230	1230	1043	1230
Fights*	803	668	705	831
Fights Per Game	0.65	0.54	0.68	0.68
Games With Fights	519	464	448	528
Percentage of Games with Fights	42.20%	37.72%	42.95%	42.95%
Games With More Than One Fight	172	139	155	183
Number of players who fought**	348	321	328	-

* A fight is counted when at least one player involved receives a fighting major.

** This is the number of players who have been involved in a fight during the course of the listed season, and does not always exactly match the number of players who have received a fighting major.

Its not that punished, worst thing that happens is you get kicked out of the game.

Good stuff man. So 4 out of 10 games about....


major.

Well yes... checked or blocked from the 'blind side' is within the flow of the game. Fighting is a seperate act of pugilism, which has nothing to do with the flow of the game. Take it to the boxing ring.


And another game or so. Kicked out of a football game with a 16 game season is far greater a punishment than leaving the ice for 5 minutes of a 82 game season.


Indeed... In almost half of all hockey games there is a fight.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If kids can understand the reasons for checking, they can understand the reasons for fighting. Unless, of course, these parents are total idiots (which wouldn't surprise me)

Just because something isn't involved "in the flow o fthe game" doesn't mean it should be taken out. That's just nonsense.

Why is it nonsense... it destroys the 'part of the game' argument.

This is a very interesting point. I hadn't thought of that before.

I wonder, though, if there aren't workarounds. What about adding officials off ice? Add one in each corner and a couple at center ice. Front row. With a light, buzzer, whistle, whatever, to stop play. Too expensive, I suppose.

Alternatively, I don't think the idea would be to see and call everything. The goal would be to catch enough infractions that committing the foul (the hack, the slash, etc.) is not a good percentage play. One the average punishment for the infraction outweighs the average benefit, the total number of infractions should decrease, reducing the problem as well.

The other thought is that I don't have a problem with the NHL fining players after the fact for egregious cheap shots, regardless of whether a penalty was called in game. Use the film and find the culprits. The NFL does it this way, and it seems to keep the violence under control.

And to add to Rexall's point, I've played a few contact sports, but found hockey to be the fastest, most intense sport I've ever played. I would agree that there is something in the nature of the game (the sticks, the speed, the cheap shots) that makes you want to pummel the guy you're playing against. Interestingly enough, I've been in four fights in my whole life, and two of them were while playing hockey. When you're going full speed, pumped up on adrenaline, and someone smashes you over the back of the head with a six-foot stick, I found it takes a hell of a lot of willpower not to turn around and smash the guy right back. So many times I did something to get revenge before my brain even registered me doing it. It's hard to explain if you haven't been there, but I do think there is some validity to the argument that hockey induces such violence. I have wondered, though, if it's not the message the pro game gives that leads to this tendency to want to use violence at all levels of the game. Kind of a chicken and egg argument. In other words, if fighting was tacitly condoned in pro football like it is in hockey, would I have reacted more violently to cheap shots while playing high school football?

Having said all that, I think that it is definitely feasible to get the "fight mentality" out of the pro game. College hockey doesn't have it. In college, if someone leveled one of our guys, we'd do our best to run the guy through the boards, but we'd do it within the rules, simply because fighting was not an option if you wanted to continue playing hockey. Ref missed the call? Tough shit. Score a goal to get revenge. In that regard I really enjoyed college hockey: the total focus of the game was on scoring goals and winning the game. You didn't have to worry about getting your ass kicked if you couldn't fight.

But doesn't trying to run someone through the boards pose a higher risk to serious injury than fighting?

It's not nonsense. If the consequences of fighting in hockey were such that they were a deterant, the game of hockey would suffer nothing. Let them bang and hit each other in the course of the game. A good solid hit is something to cheer for. Watching a couple of guys drop gloves and throw hooks at each other just doesn't cut it for entertainment. And honestly I don't take my daughter to hockey games because of the fighting garbage...Well that and honestly the "blood lust"(I'll borrow Isiddiqui's term) of the fans who cheer for it. And before you say that the fact that some low brows enjoy the fighting, you really do need to realize that those aren't the fans that hockey needs. Hockey needs to go mainstream, and to do it they have to clean up their act.

Why?

Except there would be more holding, more cheap shots, more players hacking at the knees of their opponents with their stick...eliminate fighting, and instead of two people having at it, you'll get one who takes their stick and gives a good cross-check in the back as retaliation for something (which only carries a 2 minute penalty) instead of fighting.


For you.


Oh, I'm low brow now? Because I find something entertaining that you don't? Fuck off.

Anyone who has ever seen Euro league teams play, or played against them will vouch for this. Dudes are NASTY with those things.

Come on you know you aren't a low brow. You actually enjoy the sport, you actually know the ins and the outs of it. The guys I'm talking about go to the games for the fights. Nice job of feigning indignation though. Not a tactic to be admired in a debate though, let alone a casual discourse like this.

Well said, Fidatelo. This is a good example on a smaller scale of why the instigator rule must be removed. I'd even go further and argue the unpopular opinion that fighting MUST be part of the game.

Maybe there is a flaw in hockey in that the referees simply cannot see everything. The game is too fast with too much motion that consistency in calls also becomes a problem. I've always thought with technology, maybe an off-ice official could help but that's another debate.

The league has always been a gate league and should abandon pandering for TV ratings. So a bunch of Americans dislike fighting and won't take their children to a game because of it. Fine. Not every sport is for everyone. Children and families are part of every game north of the border and we don't all grow up being thugs. ;)

There's the problem right there. If you're FOR violence but AGAINST fighting, you're just asking for problems in hockey.

You can slash the back of someone's kneecap all you want just don't drop the gloves...

Exactly. Several players are notorious for their willingness and ability to use the stick for infractions but unwilling to fight.

But the argument was that in all sports, players can take revenge on other players to control the game. In hockey, the tolerance is much greater than in other sports.

The Bertuzzi example is in the extreme. We've now found that breaking someone's jaw, smashing them over the head with a stick, and breaking someone's neck in hockey will get you suspended for a long time, amongst other things. Beating someone to a pulp will only get you 5 minutes of feeling shame.

Glengoyne - I don't understand your argument. You love violence in hockey and football but don't think fighting has a place outside the ring. WTF?

Anyone who goes to a hockey match to watch a fight is a lowbrow? Do you watch boxing? Wrestling? I bet your daughter will see way more violence watching those sports on TV than she ever would at a hockey match...

Here is a pretty interesting story on ESPN about the whole hockey culture. I found it interesting that he seems to prefer off-field violence by players as opposed to on-field violence (see his comments on NBA/NFL players).

Interesting article, and he makes some decent points.

However... his whole "blame Canada" attitude is a joke. He rhymes off several prominent Canadian players who've been suspended, but conveniently shrugs off any American or European players. What about Derian Hatcher, arguably the dirtiest player in the league today? How about Ul Samuelsson ending Cam Neely's great career with a series of cheap shots? Gary Suter's vicious cross-check to Paul Kariya's head (not to mention his hit from behind on Gretzky in the World Cup)? Havlat's recent two-hander to Rechhi's head? Bure's elbow on Churla? The list goes on and on...

Of course there have been more Canadian suspensions than other countries. There are many, many more Canadian players.

By the writer's same logic, the Top 5 leaders in career points scored -- Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Gordie Howe, Ron Francis, and Marcel Dionne -- are all products of the Canadian system as well, and are the only players to actually get points in the NHL. :rolleyes:

Excellent point and I'm an American. Americans are just as willing to scrap as our northern friends. Its the Europeans that play a bit dirtier with the stick work, but won't square up.

Quick, someone check to see which nationality has committed the most fouls in the NBA. We better check to see if there's a cultural epidemic here.

Howe and Messier were some tough SOB's btw.

Because after the strike/lockout knocks out next season, the NHL is going to GREATLY struggle with breaking even.


Or you'll have players who'll try to show up cheat shot artists by scoring goals or making legal hits. How come in football, when someone makes a cheap shot, you don't see nearly as much 'retaliation'? Why is hockey so different? Why are cheap shots, basically, part of the game? Is it because the refs are unwilling to call things like obstruction and slashing?

In football, you don't have a stick and the players don't skate around and collide with each other at 80mph.

Plus, have you ever tried to fight in a football helmet and shoulderpads?

There are many other issues to consider, for example 30*82 hockey games a year compared to 32*16 football games, and lets not kid ourselves that cheap shots don't happen in other sports, they just don't manifest themselves in the same way. Plenty of NFL safeties have made their name as "hard-hitting", which basically means they cheap shot opposing recievers whenever given half the chance. This is applauded as a good play and you hear things like "well you won't see him looking to come over the middle again" Case in point - Brian Dawkins breaking Ike Hilliards jaw.

There are a ton of cheap shots that go on in football. Do you have any idea what goes on in the "pile". Or during a play? Late hits, facemasking, blow to the head etc...

But it takes two to fight. They're both willing participants.

That doesn't mean they have to go mainstream. They're already having trouble breaking even since they'd gone "mainstream"...

Is it anywhere NEAR the same level as hockey? Of course not.


If they want to be successful, they do. Yes, yes, I know some of you want to return to having 6 teams, but that ain't the mark of a league's success.

Define success. In the 80's there were less teams, the hockey being played was better and the league wasn't going bust. Since the league has tried to go mainstream and expand into mainstream markets the product has become diluted and the vast majority of teams are going bust because of the big market teams forcing wages and overheads up.

That's like saying for a business to be successful, they have to be in the Fortune 500.

This league could've done fine w/0 expansion, yet they increased the size of the league by 1/3 over the last 15 years. This has diluted talent, and helped bring to fruiting the locks and traps that we see today (less talent -> more grinders -> systems for these grinders to minimize the talent gap).

The league need to get it's salaries in check, and give up the dream of being a top sport like Football, BBall, or Baseball. It's just not going to happen.

dola:

I don't know actually - would be an interesting study. The number of big incidents in hockey the last couple of years has maybe got people thinking that there are more incidents than there actually are.

Plus as I said before there are 8 times the number of hockey games than football games a year.

Think about it... the last couple of years you have Sapp on Clifton, Dawkins on Hilliard, Romanowski on his teammates and opposing players alike, must be many many more. I'd say there's not a world of difference if you are honest. But it's sacrilege to say that football is anything other than a good ol' US pastime, where as hockey is a thugs game played by those wierdos from north of the border. Right?

Sorry I took what you said totaly wrong. I thought you meant that anyone who likes the fights are low brow. But as soon as I look up what 'indignation' means, I'll tell you I wasn't feigning it. ;)


Whenever I see a cheap shot happen in football, I see the players on the other team looking to "get back him". When I played football, we had a saying. "Take his number". Which meant if you had a chance to get a shot on the guy (when you saw his number), take it. Example, in one game, the RB grabed a lineman's facemask and dragged him to the ground on a QB run to the other side. Ref totally missed it. They get up and a little scuffle occurs between several guys on both sides. Refs break it up and play continues. Us, as a team, "took the RB's number".

Later in the game, the RB went on out on a pass route...and our middle linebacker completely LEVELED him as he went up to catch the pass. They got their pass interference call, but we got our retaliation. That RB would not grab at the facemask of one of us again unless he liked getting destroyed like he did.

Retaliation happens in EVERY sport. Basketball, you get hacked when you take a shot, you hack him the next time. In baseball, a pitcher will bean a batter in retaliation. In football, an ILB will level an RB going for a pass as retaliation.

The reason hockey gets more attention for it's retaliation is because they accept it and talk about it being part of the culture. The other sports just whisper about it behind closed doors.


And that hit by Dawkins was definatly an illigal shot. He put his head down and dove with his helmet. Clearly more dangers than a sucker punch from behind. But I didn't see Dawkins missing any games.

(Note: I am NOT saying that Bertuzzi should not be suspended for the rest of the season. Just to get that out of the way before someone took that the wrong way. :) )

Bottom line, for me, is that comparing hockey to football, baseball, basketball, etc. is comparing apples and organges. I just don't see how someone can say "It doesn't happen in sport A, why does it have to happen in sport B? Why are they different?" Because they ARE different. Hockey is a completely different game from football or baseball. They have different rules, different ways of dealing with thigs, etc. They are VERY different games, and require different solutions.

The more I think about it, the more I think you just captured the heart of this whole issue.