kipwinger

I think that cheapshots can, and should, be reduced to levels consistent with other contact sports. I also don't think this is unreasonable or unrealistic. If a guy gets a concussion by hitting his head on the boards, or ice, after a LEGAL check...it's unavoidable. If a guy gets hit in the head by an opposing players elbow, because the league does not seriously discipline that kind of recklessness...it's a problem.

Not at all, you're totally misunderstanding me. My position: Drastically increase supplemental discipline for cheapshots (charging, boarding, headshots, hitting defenseless players) in an effort to get serious injuries reduced to the lowest possible level (nobody realistically thinks that they'll fall to zero). At which point, fighting will be completely and totally unnecessary, outdated, and most importantly...unjustifiable. I would also like to point out a few things we agree on. 1) We both agree that cheapshots, dirty hits, and the resulting injuries are a problem that should be addressed. 2) Apparently you and I both think supplemental discipline works to reduce cheapshots and dirty plays. 3) We agree that injures can't be completely reduced to zero. 4) AND, most importantly we agree that allowing guys to punch each other after dirty hits is not a solution to the problem. Apparently the only thing we disagree on is how much supplemental discipline to apply.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You agree that the health risks posed by repeated head trauma are a big problem, and that they need to be addressed. You just think that the league has already done so effectively by increasing supplemental discipline? And that, as a result of this supplemental discipline, cheap shots and the concussions they cause should fall over time AND fighting will happen less and less?

So what if it came out first? You said the NFL has "more" of these issues. The fact that they were sued earlier, and addressed the problem first doesn't suggest that they have MORE of a problem. If anything, it suggests that they're more responsible in how they've addressed it however. Which makes sense, I highly doubt there's anybody over at the NFL league office saying "Wait a minute, maybe if we let these guys punch each other after illegal hits to the head, they'll stop getting hurt". You guys all keep "selling" the notion that fighting has some integral part of the actual game. And yet, time after time research suggests otherwise. So then you all move on to some new reason why fighting is absolutely vital to the game. It isn't. I think you're a reasonable guy. I've talked to you before and have no reason to think you're a fool. I do, however, think that you (and other pro-fighting types) keep struggling to find reasons to validate fighting because if you don't find one sooner or later, you'll be forced to come to terms with the fact that something you find really enjoyable A) doesn't have any impact on the sport whatsoever, and B) is really, REALLY, ******* people's lives up.

Well there's your explanation. There is no problem. Don't fix what ain't broken. Ugh.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Provide one single shred of evidence to support the fact that the NFL has more head trauma issues than the NHL. I'll wait. It's funny because another pro-fighting guy said the exact opposite earlier. That the NHL has way more head trauma because of the speed of the game. Again, I just don't see why you guys don't just say "I like fighting because its fun". Which is fine. As long as you realize, and don't care, that what you find entertaining is also really screwing people up. But you keep trying to sell this notion that the best way to end head injuries is to allow players to punch each other in the head. Which is, of course, idiotic.

Sooooo...I take it you're conceding this "NFL has a bad hit epidemic" point eh? I thought so. Because it's not true. Fines and suspensions work. You're welcome to continue to enjoy fighting. I honestly don't care. It's clear you like it because you find it entertaining and you don't care about the associated health risks. That's fine. What I have a problem with, is the endless string of bulls*** argument you guys keep coming up with to justify fighting in hockey. "It deters dirty hits". "There's not a better system". "It gives your team momentum". It doesn't. At all. Just say, "I like it because I like watching guys I don't like getting punched by guys I do". At least then you wouldn't be totally full of it.

And you can't "ram your opponent into the boards as hard as you can" a minute later in hockey? Another trash argument.

Again, the fact that it's not PERFECT doesn't mean it's not BETTER. I'm not sure why you think that one counter example completely invalidates a demonstrably more effective form of deterring illegal activity. It doesn't.

There you go, making stuff up to support a point that's indefensible. There are an average of 5.38 "Unnecessary Roughness" penalties PER TEAM (per season) in the NFL. That includes chop blocking, spearing, hitting a player out of bounds, hitting a defenseless player, hitting a kicker or quarterback, hitting in the knees, etc. 5. Per team. Per year. And that includes ALL types of illegal hits. There is no illegal hit epidemic in the NFL. None. Zero. Illegal hits do happen, but have been minimized as much as is humanly possible. Without fighting. http://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/unnecessary-roughness?year=2014

This is exactly the problem with this debate. The fighting people ways respond with "well fines won't get rid of cheap shots 100%". Of course they won't. But it'll work better than enforcers have. Every single contact sport has fewer malicious hits and cheapshots than the NHL has because they have stiffer fines. Don't believe me? What was the big dirty hit epidemic the NFL used to have? Spearing. You almost never see it in NFL games anymore. Why? What got rid of it? Definitely not a bunch of goons beating the s*** out of each other. It was fines. BIG fines. You guys act like if another method of punishment won't completely eradicate dirty hits, that it's not worth doing. That's false logic. The fact that it's not a PERFECT deterrent doesn't mean it's not a BETTER deterrent.

Continue to increase the economic consequences, for both the player AND the team, until the behavior stops. I don't know the exact number it will take to make these jackasses stop, but that doesn't mean the number doesn't exist. Continue to increase the fines and suspensions (lost wages on top of fines) until you see a noticeable decrease in dirty hits. It works for every single other sport. I don't know why people think hockey's so much different that it needs special extrajudicial violence to make it safe.

Translation: The KHL siphons quite a few players away from the SHL.

Get the wheelz back on the bus!

Lol. Doesn't everybody in this country? It's the American way.

Is that what I said?

For everybody except those who formerly felt entitled to degrade and undermine those they found "lesser". They long for the days when they could say whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and nobody would object. Because heaven forbid people universally condemn these idiots. That's "overly PC". Not that we have any of those folks around here.

Yuck. Thanks for your disturbingly inaccurate take on evolutionary biology. I'm seriously regretting opening this can of worms lol. Soooo anyway, that Getzlaf is a dick huh?

There are a whole lot of bad arguments too. One of them, which seems to be a common refrain around here, is that "fighting is good because otherwise hockey is homosexual" or it's "sissy", or "like soccer", "lady like", or some other thinly veiled innuendo. That's a problem; for LGW in particular, and the hockey community in general. Which is why I can appreciate someone with a little more sense than that, regardless of whether or not I agree with you.

How do you know I'm not? And that your precious little McGrattan cannot save you? What is it like to be so helpless muahahahahaahahahaha? But seriously, Roman Reigns won the Royal Rumble. Roman. Reigns. Now that's a travesty.

If I get banned for arguing this point, the moderators of this forum should be ashamed. I'm arguing with two guys who have consistently used homophobia as a way of defending a point of view that is hardly defensible in the first place. I don't know how else to describe that type of thinking other than to say it's stupid, insensible, archaic, and disgusting. I guess maybe I'd call it "fundamentally sickening and inhuman". That's pretty accurate. Nevertheless, I actually appreciate (even though I don't agree) your view on fighting. Because at least the logical basis for it rest on nostalgia, and not the denigration of other groups of people.

I don't think anybody's calling for Reilly's head. It's pretty much universally acknowledged that he's a young kid who made a mistake and said something stupid that you shouldn't say anymore. I thought, however, that it was also universally acknowledged that you shouldn't use large groups of people (women, homosexuals, black people, Irish, etc.) as a pejorative. And that when you do, people will be offended. Not "easily" offended, mind you. But justifiably offended. I mean, that's reasonable right? To expect that your gender, skin color, religious preferences, etc. won't be consistently used as an insult by people in public.

I don't feel qualified to say whether one sport is worse than the other with regards to causing brain injuries. They both demonstrably have a serious issue with it. I do, however, feel that ANY sports league should absolutely prioritize the health and safety of their players. One easy way to do that, in hockey, is to take unnecessary (and avoidable) hits to the head out of the game. And one very easy way to do that is to remove fighting by removing the "so called" need for it...increase penalties for serious infractions to the point where players err on the side of caution. Caution. The operable word. Heaven forbid human beings in the 21st Century learn how to enjoy sports where players must be cautious of one another.

Not as happy as this post just made me. Because if you, and this drivel, are the opposition then I know I'm going to win. I know that eventually my point of view will carry the day because the people arguing against me say things like this ^^^^^^^. If I had my way, you'd be the face of the pro-fighting crowd. I'd put you on TV and let you write opinion pieces on TSN. Then I'd follow your silly arguments with the brain trauma experts, and the analytics guys, and the former players with behavior issues, and the coaches who don't use enforcers. I'd let you say exactly what you (and Frank) always say, and then I'd let the sensible people say what they've got to say, and all the undecided people would laugh at how silly you sound. How crazy your position is. And you'd lose. Because you're on the wrong side of history and your position isn't clever enough to overcome that deficiency. So keep saying what you say. I mean it. Keep trying to convince people with crap like this. And I'll win and you'll lose in no time at all.

I don't want to say anything about fighting, because it seems like you guys have got that covered. However, I do want to explain what Andersson's role it. Andersson's role is to be good enough defensively, that he (and the two other fourth line guys who are also good defensively) can be matched up against higher opposing lines, so that our scoring lines can take advantage of the mismatch. Which is exactly how Babs uses Andersson (and t he fourth line in general). Traditionally people though of the fourth line as an energy line. Our fourth line is a match up line. And so Andersson's job is to be good enough, defensively, to play on a higher line (to use your phrase). My 2 Cents.