Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fight ends with on-ice seizure


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 beachwing

beachwing

    Reader

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Location:Destin

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:38 PM

http://thebiglead.co...h.fkQfa6Pf.uxfs
Edit....ends with on ice siezure- mods feel free to correct my subject title

Edited by beachwing, 13 October 2013 - 12:40 PM.


#2 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,895 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:51 PM

Yeah that's the kind of things that happen when people fight.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome when Shanahan stands up to Larogue and tells him enough is enough.

But if you allow fighting in your sport, you have to be ready for bad ugly things like this to happen. I'm surprised that this doesn't happen more often.

#3 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:53 PM

But we need fighting to keep the players safe.

#4 sleepwalker

sleepwalker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:59 PM

But we need fighting to keep the players safe.

 

 

I see what you did there.

 

Just to play devils advocate...  One could argue that the only reason injuries like this occur is because players are forced to play on slippery ice and balance on a single blade. 

 

Ban ice and skates and lets play on a rubber surface and wear sneakers.



#5 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:08 PM

 
 
I see what you did there.
 
Just to play devils advocate...  One could argue that the only reason injuries like this occur is because players are forced to play on slippery ice and balance on a single blade. 
 
Ban ice and skates and lets play on a rubber surface and wear sneakers.

Or you could keep those necessary elements while just banning the unnecessary element; fighting. Skating on ice is an integral part of gameplay in ice hockey. Fighting is not.

I get that you're just playing devil's advocate.
But it's only a matter of time before someone says, "people will still get hurt from hits, so you want to ban hitting too?" I hate those arguments because all they do is obscure the point, which should be the minimization of UNNECESSARY risk. Hockey will always be dangerous. I just don't see the benefit of making it more dangerous than it needs to be.

Edited by The Greek, 13 October 2013 - 02:09 PM.


#6 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,859 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 13 October 2013 - 03:58 PM

What an unfortunate event.  I hope the kid doesn't suffer from any long-lasting effects.



#7 ben_usmc

ben_usmc

    Kenny Powers Fan

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts
  • Location:ypsilanti

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:17 PM

Or you could keep those necessary elements while just banning the unnecessary element; fighting. Skating on ice is an integral part of gameplay in ice hockey. Fighting is not.

I get that you're just playing devil's advocate.
But it's only a matter of time before someone says, "people will still get hurt from hits, so you want to ban hitting too?" I hate those arguments because all they do is obscure the point, which should be the minimization of UNNECESSARY risk. Hockey will always be dangerous. I just don't see the benefit of making it more dangerous than it needs to be.

I don't believe in banning fighting, nor do I have a ton of sympathy for people with injuries sustained from years of being a pro athlete.  Most of these sports have been around for almost 100 years, if you do not realize the dangers before receiving a pay check you're already brain damaged.  When a solider has long term knee problems from years of running, or a fire fighter is burned while putting out a fire, nobody is shocked.  These guys are paid an insane amount of money to play a sport. I'm not going to cry for them because they are putting there bodies out there as a result. 


There's no I in team, but there's a U in c***, so don't be little jealous c***s

#8 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:44 PM

I don't believe in banning fighting, nor do I have a ton of sympathy for people with injuries sustained from years of being a pro athlete.  Most of these sports have been around for almost 100 years, if you do not realize the dangers before receiving a pay check you're already brain damaged.  When a solider has long term knee problems from years of running, or a fire fighter is burned while putting out a fire, nobody is shocked.  These guys are paid an insane amount of money to play a sport. I'm not going to cry for them because they are putting there bodies out there as a result. 


Again, the injuries you refer to result from activities that are necessary parts of being a soldier or a firefighter. Fighting is by no means essential to the game of hockey.

Furthermore, junior elligibabity starts at age 16. There are a lot of naive, young players who are pigeonholed into a fighter role because of their size or other factors. If they don't go with the role they're given, their career is pretty much over. A naive person, with little formal education will almost always make the choice that allows them to keep playing. I'm usually all for allowing people to make their own mistakes. But the situation here is coercive, plain and simple. The junior hockey clubs rake in the cash, while players are usually paid nothing except for the chance to be drafted.

#9 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:10 PM

It's funny you've known this for all these years, Ben, because the NFL had denied for years that repetitive hits or concussions could cause long term injury.  Did you happen to watch "League of Denial"?

 

The average NHL career lasts roughly 240 games.  That's if you're one of the lucky few that actually makes it to the NHL.  Who are all these guys "making millions"? 

 

Of course firefighters know that they are risking their lives.  But if they are put into a situation by superiors that they know is inherently dangerous and it costs them their lives, do we just all shrug and say, oh well, its a dangerous job? 



#10 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,505 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:46 PM

Again, the injuries you refer to result from activities that are necessary parts of being a soldier or a firefighter. Fighting is by no means essential to the game of hockey.

Furthermore, junior elligibabity starts at age 16. There are a lot of naive, young players who are pigeonholed into a fighter role because of their size or other factors. If they don't go with the role they're given, their career is pretty much over. A naive person, with little formal education will almost always make the choice that allows them to keep playing. I'm usually all for allowing people to make their own mistakes. But the situation here is coercive, plain and simple. The junior hockey clubs rake in the cash, while players are usually paid nothing except for the chance to be drafted.

I'd like to think that most 16 yr olds who are capable of playing hockey at that level has seen hockey on tv, or live in person, and has a pretty good idea of what is in store for him if he does choose to play that role for the team, and hopefully he has parents who play an active role in his life in order to help with decision making ie - is this something he wishes to pursue...

 

A good example I recall was Aaron Ward; native of Windsor - had some teams from the OHL looking for his services, but his parents (being educators) insisted he go thru the US Collegiate system to both further his hockey career, and get an education while doing so.


Edited by F.Michael, 13 October 2013 - 08:46 PM.


'Evolution' created by Offsides

#11 jollymania

jollymania

    Heavy Hitter

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:14 PM

Or you could keep those necessary elements while just banning the unnecessary element; fighting. Skating on ice is an integral part of gameplay in ice hockey. Fighting is not.

I get that you're just playing devil's advocate.
But it's only a matter of time before someone says, "people will still get hurt from hits, so you want to ban hitting too?" I hate those arguments because all they do is obscure the point, which should be the minimization of UNNECESSARY risk. Hockey will always be dangerous. I just don't see the benefit of making it more dangerous than it needs to be.

then get rid of hitting and the puck because those are the two main sources of injury in hockey and you could easily play without physicality and with a plastic ball.


"I assure you the hits along the boards he(Aaron Downey) constantly threw SEVERAL TIMES EVERY SHIFT were far more damaging hits that what Kronwall throws."
- uk_redwing
HockeyArchive Twitter

#12 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:27 PM

then get rid of hitting and the puck because those are the two main sources of injury in hockey and you could easily play without physicality and with a plastic ball.


Are you trolling me right now? Like I said, when you take away hitting or the puck, you drastically alter the way the game is actually played. When I say how the game is played I'm talking about between the whistles. Taking away fighting takes nothing away from the game. They stop the damn clock during a fight. If you were to only watch footage of hockey games while the clock is running, a game with fighting will look almost identical to a game without fighting. The only difference is you would see the guys drop the gloves before the clock stops.

#13 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:36 PM

I'd like to think that most 16 yr olds who are capable of playing hockey at that level has seen hockey on tv, or live in person, and has a pretty good idea of what is in store for him if he does choose to play that role for the team, and hopefully he has parents who play an active role in his life in order to help with decision making ie - is this something he wishes to pursue...
 
A good example I recall was Aaron Ward; native of Windsor - had some teams from the OHL looking for his services, but his parents (being educators) insisted he go thru the US Collegiate system to both further his hockey career, and get an education while doing so.

When a 16-18 year old is given a choice between fighting or giving up his dream of playing hockey, I posit that he's not able to rationally weigh the consequences of such decision. I highly reccomend that you read the blood on Ice article mentioned in the other fighting thread.

Edited by The Greek, 13 October 2013 - 10:38 PM.


#14 jollymania

jollymania

    Heavy Hitter

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:44 PM

Are you trolling me right now? Like I said, when you take away hitting or the puck, you drastically alter the way the game is actually played. When I say how the game is played I'm talking about between the whistles. Taking away fighting takes nothing away from the game. They stop the damn clock during a fight. If you were to only watch footage of hockey games while the clock is running, a game with fighting will look almost identical to a game without fighting. The only difference is you would see the guys drop the gloves before the clock stops.

Exactly there would be the same amount of injuries, if not more. And it wouldn't be that much different with no hitting and a ball.


"I assure you the hits along the boards he(Aaron Downey) constantly threw SEVERAL TIMES EVERY SHIFT were far more damaging hits that what Kronwall throws."
- uk_redwing
HockeyArchive Twitter

#15 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,505 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:11 PM

When a 16-18 year old is given a choice between fighting or giving up his dream of playing hockey, I posit that he's not able to rationally weigh the consequences of such decision. I highly reccomend that you read the blood on Ice article mentioned in the other fighting thread.

I wouldn't say that all 16 to 18 yr olds aren't capable of rational thought, or decision making process...I will say that many have the "it won't be me that gets hurt" mentality, and may have an abundance of confidence/swagger/bravado, but then again - that is what it takes to play at such a high level.

 

I read the article, and in response  I posted a video featuring Chris Nilan in which he claims that he had no problem with fighting (although he did have substance abuse issues)...Other ex-enforcers such as Probert/Kocur/McSorley/Domi/Byers had no problem dropping the gloves throughout their careers.

 

Look - I get it - you, Kipwinger, Electrophile, and a handful of others don't like fighting in the game of ice hockey just as there's several of us here who do enjoy a heated game with a good fight from time to time, and that's fine that we both have differing opinions...It's just that these threads are getting long winded, and tired.



'Evolution' created by Offsides

#16 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,859 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:33 PM

Look - I get it - you, Kipwinger, Electrophile, and a handful of others don't like fighting in the game of ice hockey just as there's several of us here who do enjoy a heated game with a good fight from time to time, and that's fine that we both have differing opinions...It's just that these threads are getting long winded, and tired.

 

I suspect that before long this debate won't be taking place exclusively in forums, but amongst the league itself.  Commonplace fighting in the NHL, IMO, is on borrowed time.



#17 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,421 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:03 PM

Are you trolling me right now? Like I said, when you take away hitting or the puck, you drastically alter the way the game is actually played. When I say how the game is played I'm talking about between the whistles. Taking away fighting takes nothing away from the game. They stop the damn clock during a fight. If you were to only watch footage of hockey games while the clock is running, a game with fighting will look almost identical to a game without fighting. The only difference is you would see the guys drop the gloves before the clock stops.

This looks like hockey to me....

 

The NHL (and the NFL) needs to decide if they will keep the physicality of the game despite injuries, or if they want to remove much of the physicality to prevent as many injuries as possible. Womens hockey is still hockey (and can be great hockey) despite the lack of checking, and most of the concussion 'problems' in the NHL are from checking.



#18 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,551 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:59 PM

This looks like hockey to me....

 

The NHL (and the NFL) needs to decide if they will keep the physicality of the game despite injuries, or if they want to remove much of the physicality to prevent as many injuries as possible. Womens hockey is still hockey (and can be great hockey) despite the lack of checking, and most of the concussion 'problems' in the NHL are from checking.

 

You must be joking.  I hope you're joking.  You've gotta be joking.  If you think that without illegal hitting, and illegal fighting, the NHL will be comparable to women's hockey then you need a lobotomy.  Are you being intentionally obtuse or just accidentally?

 

If you believe this then you probably see no difference in quality between men's and women's basketball, or softball, or any other sport eh?  The only thing that stops men's sport from being like women's is illegal fighting and illegal hitting?  Staggeringly stupid.


Edited by kipwinger, 14 October 2013 - 01:08 PM.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#19 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,421 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:08 PM

 

You must be joking.  I hope you're joking.  You've gotta be joking.  If you think that without illegal hitting, and illegal fighting, the NHL will be comparable to women's hockey then you need a lobotomy.  Are you being intentionally obtuse or just accidentally?

 

If you believe this then you probably see no difference in quality between men's and women's basketball, or softball, or any other sport eh?  The only thing that stops men's sport from being like women's is illegal fighting and illegal hitting?  Staggeringly stupid.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to infer from my post. I was referring to the removal of all hitting, and I used the clip of women's hockey to show the game can still be exciting and somewhat physical without checking.



#20 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,551 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:45 PM

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to infer from my post. I was referring to the removal of all hitting, and I used the clip of women's hockey to show the game can still be exciting and somewhat physical without checking.

 

My bad, I guess I misunderstood your point.  I thought you were trying to suggest that without fighting the NHL would be like women's hockey.  Lot's of people around here have made that exact analogy. 

 

Fortunately though, nobody is trying to take all hitting out of the game.  Just illegal hitting, and illegal fighting.  So we're good.

 

My bad for jumping to conclusions though.  I was wrong.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users