Zetterberg leaves after 2nd Period; "upper body injury"

[kipwinger 8,522]

Yes I do because that has already happened. I am just not on board with the idea that cheapshots and fighting will fall to zero right now. And I do not believe the league needs to take further active steps to decrease these things. I believe the supplemental discipline as it is right now is effective enough

Your position seems to be to drastically increase supplemental discipline right now and eliminate fighting correct?

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 At which point, fighting will be completely and totally unnecessary, outdated, and most importantly...unjustifiable.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.

Edited February 23, 2015 by kipwinger

[cnot19 191]

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 At which point, fighting will be completely and totally unnecessary, outdated, and most importantly...unjustifiable.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 area 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.

Yes I think that sums up thoughts. I know it will never get to zero. Also I do not believe that if cheapshots are drastically reduced I do not think fighting would disappear.

As I said in my edit after you quoted me I think we disagree over the amount of supplemental discipline and the acceptable level of cheapshots we can legislate to in our game. I have a higher tolerance for them than you do. As I said the level the league is at right now is fine with me and you want a further reduction

[Mckinley25 677]

Players say it does have an impact and I'll take their word over yours

The problem with this is, even if it does have an impact in reducing cheap shots, it's clearly not the best solution. Why not try and find a better one that doesn't involve players having to resort to dangerous and idiotic behavior?

It's akin to addressing a dangerous intersection with just a yield sign when a stop light would have better results.

[cnot19 191]

And it's the players, and the union that keeps fighting in the game today.

What will happen in 10 to 20 years? Me thinks it'll be phased out.

You may be right it's just not something I will to make a decision on right now.

And it definitely is the union that keeps it in the game but at the same time the nhl seems to be in no rush to completely eliminate fighting right now

The problem with this is, even if it does have an impact in reducing cheap shots, it's clearly not the best solution. Why not try and find a better one that doesn't involve players having to resort to dangerous and idiotic behavior?

It's akin to addressing a dangerous intersection with just a yield sign when a stop light would have better results.

I agree with supplemental discipline my claim that it has an impact on the game is more concerned with momentum, building adrenaline and such. I was not saying it is the best way to reduce cheapshots. Kip seemed to be saying it has no impact on the game at all and I and most players would disagree. I think it has a minor impact on cheapshots but I think it does more for the offended team and player than a later two game suspension does Edited February 23, 2015 by cnot19

[kipwinger 8,522]

Yes I think that sums up thoughts. I know it will never get to zero. Also I do not believe that if cheapshots are drastically reduced I do not think fighting would disappear.

As I said in my edit after you quoted me I think we disagree over the amount of supplemental discipline and the acceptable level of cheapshots we can legislate to in our game. I have a higher tolerance for them than you do. As I said the level the league is at right now is fine with me and you want a further reduction

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.

[kipwinger 8,522]

Again - the NHLPA has a say in every CBA concerning the fines/suspensions that the NHL may levy upon any player.

It's this very same NHLPA that continues to convince the BOG that fighting needs to be tolerated.

So? Like a union has never been wrong before. Ask...I don't know...pretty much the entire city of Detroit lol.

It's not surprising that the Union would fight hard to keep something in the game that many of the union members are already doing. That doesn't mean it's not stupid and harmful.

The MBLPA continuously fights to make sure snuff isn't banned from ballparks and dugouts. Is that somehow a validation of chewing tobacco?

It's harmful and stupid. No matter who says otherwise.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I do see those as a problem but I understand that hockey will most likely never be able to be concussion free. My question is do you think it still needs to be drastically reduced immediately? Or allow the evolution you mentioned before to continue? I honestly think that the evolution you previously mentioned reduction in fighting and increase in supplemental discipline as created a league that is fine with me as far as concussions go

Do you think hockey at the nhl level on the matter the nhl desires will ever be concussion free?

Further for the lawsuit I do not believe it's a winnig one. I think it will be settled to avoid negative or and legal fees. The nhl never did what the nfl did

Any time there is an opportunity to effectively improve the immediate and long-term health of a population of people I think its a wise decision to capitalize on that opportunity.

I don't think its impossible to get to a point where the game is completely concussion free, although for that to happen I think our society would have to make great strides in equipment technology, healthcare, and various other advances that are presently out of reach. Ten or fifteen years from now might be a different story. As for today, I don't think its possible to completely remove concussions from the game, but I also don't think that's a sufficient reason not to try to reduce the amount of concussions that do occur.

The issue with letting the natural decline of fighting and the rules/fines already in place dictate the control of concussions is that it isn't protecting enough players in a thorough capacity. Zetterberg may have a concussion right now, and Benn was given a two minute penalty for that, and nothing more. Franzen has missed much of last season with a concussion due to a hit to the head, to which nobody was penalized or fined. Same with this year, and this time Franzen has a positive history working against him. Last year Datsyuk suffered a concussion due to an elbow to the head, and again, within the rules currently set in place by the league, no discipline was handed out. And those are just examples of Red Wings within the past year. So clearly there are a lot of players still falling through the cracks. It seems to me based on this conversation that the difference between my stance and yours is that you are fine with these players falling through the cracks, while I am not.

[kipwinger 8,522]

Not to make light of your opinion, and knowing that you're studying medicine.....How can you ensure any reduction in head injuries in a contact sport - even with fighting eliminated?

With the players getting faster/stronger/bigger - it seems as though it'll be challenging - unless of course the league decides to make hockey a non-contact sport.

A couple of things.

First, nobody is talking about reducing "all injuries". We're talking about reducing injuries due to totally avoidable dirty plays, cheapshots, and fights.

Secondly, nobody is saying that hitting should be taken out of the game. As I've already pointed out today, the NFL has the biggest, strongest, fastest players in the world and yet has managed to seriously reduce (all types) of dirty hits and cheapshots. All without allowing guys to fight and all without getting rid of hitting.

Third, even if it is REALLY super duper hard to do. We still need to try everything possible. Because players shouldn't have to chose between playing the sport they love, and facing depression, alcoholism, degenerative brain disease, domestic violence, and suicide later in life.

Edited February 23, 2015 by kipwinger

[number9 3,297]

Injuries are bad and all, but let's be honest, watching two dudes slug it out is pretty friggin awesome

[Echolalia 2,961]

Not to make light of your opinion, and knowing that you're studying medicine.....How can you ensure any reduction in head injuries in a contact sport - even with fighting eliminated?

With the players getting faster/stronger/bigger - it seems as though it'll be challenging - unless of course the league decides to make hockey a non-contact sport.

The speed of the game, the size of the players, the tenacity that these guys play these days is definitely working against us, but I don't think those are reasons to throw in the towel just yet and give up on player safety. Even in today's hockey world where everything is bigger and stronger and faster, many of these hits to the head are entirely preventable. Benn certainly didn't need to punch Zetterberg in the head a couple nights ago. He can still be a very effective pest, and even physical without making contact to the head. Any head injury that results from a fight is preventable, because fights are not a required part of the game, although many people will argue they are part of the culture of the game (and that's another issue entirely that needs to be addressed, but with the steady decline in fights over the past decade or so, we're well on our way to changing the culture of the game as well). If players are stiffly punished for any type of deliberate contact to the head, whether that be a punch in a fight, a suckerpunch from behind a ref, a glancing elbow as a player skates by, driving someone's head into the boards, etc, I strongly believe that headshots will go down, and with them concussions. And by stiff punishment I don't mean a $5,000 fine. That's not a deterrent to someone who makes at minimum $850,000/year. Fine these guys $50-100k per infarction. According to this research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091898/) the median time lost due to concussion is 6 days, so lets make the minimum suspension for a headshot a week. And each additional infarction will be an increased fine and an increased suspension duration. This is just a suggestion for a possible punishment system. My point here is mostly that the punishment needs to be severe enough that players are going to make a conscious effort to not target the head. I think my numbers are a good place to at least start the conversation.

I also think there needs to be more education on brain injuries, both in the NHL and in youth leagues. I firmly believe at a very fundamental level that players respect one another. In a seven game series they may hate each other's guts and want to hurt the other player, but I still think that respect exists. At the end of the day, nobody wants to see someone's career ended or have to watch someone suffer cognitive deficits for the rest of their life, regardless of how much hate is there. I think education is a good starting point to bringing that respect for one another back into the game of hockey, and not just in the lockerroom or press box. I wonder how many hockey players, NHL or otherwise, are familiar with all the potential consequences that come with brain injuries. I wonder how many are familiar with how easy it is to get additional concussions after you've had one. I wonder how many are familiar with how Chris Pronger's life is right now, or Marc Savard, or Franzen for that matter. Bring these guys in and have them share their experience. Those kind of stories carry weight.

edit: sorry all for the wall of text

Edited February 23, 2015 by Echolalia

[Mckinley25 677]

Again - the NHLPA has a say in every CBA concerning the fines/suspensions that the NHL may levy upon any player.

It's this very same NHLPA that continues to convince the BOG that fighting needs to be tolerated.

This of course invalids nothing that I've stated.

[number9 3,297]

It can be is it's an intense game, and both players have had enough of each other, and want to settle matters...Off the top of my head Subban/Marchand scraps were pretty intense.

On the other hand - 2 hvyweights just duking it out for no apparent reason - meh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBYznVnNTI4

Yeah, I remember screaming "MEH! MEH! MEH!" at my TV

Blood sports are awesome dude

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

Yeah, I remember screaming "MEH! MEH! MEH!" at my TV

Blood sports are awesome dude

That video almost sent me down a rabbit hole.

I had to stop myself after I seen probert drop down and punch McGuire on the ice.

Edited February 23, 2015 by jimmyemeryhunter

[number9 3,297]

Are you mocking 'MEH'?

Who? Meh?

That video almost sent me down a rabbit hole.

I had to stop myself after I seen probert drop down and punch McGuire on the ice.

One does not simply watch one probert fight

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

Who? Meh?

One does not simply watch one probert fight

That show needs to come back on soon.

[Internet.Unknown 422]

I don't think you understand what constitutes racism.

Perhaps the clinical word isn't "racist" but the poster certainly had no qualms about accusing an entire nation's citizens of being racist themselves.

By all means, though, continue to defend the guy who made the nasty comment.

[Internet.Unknown 422]

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,f****** people's lives up.

Fighting doesn't have any impact on the sport? March 26, 1997 called to disagree.

"This is a game that brought the Red Wings together," said Vernon, who picked up his 300th career win. "Whether it was the first-period fighting or the overtime goal, a game like this only helps give you confidence to go into the playoffs. When you go to the playoffs, everybody has to be ready to do the job and stay together. Tonight showed the guys were willing to pay the price."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/scores97/97085/97085360.htm

"Certainly, I think that was the turning point as far as the Red Wings' success went. Up until that point, the Red Wings were close, but never tasted victory, and by that I mean Stanley Cup victory."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2012/03/ken_kal_on_wzam_if_claude_lemi.html

"After postseason heartbreaks in 1994, '95 and '96, the Red Wings finally developed a swagger on March 26, 1997, one that would carry them to three championships in six seasons."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neumann/070326

Edited February 24, 2015 by Internet.Unknown

[kliq 3,755]

The guys now a days are just so much bigger and stronger, its scary what they are capable of. Here is a perfect example of how ugly it can get.

If his helmet wasn't on and he hit head first, that could have been really really bad.

Edited February 24, 2015 by kliq

[kipwinger 8,522]

Fighting doesn't have any impact on the sport? March 26, 1997 called to disagree.

"This is a game that brought the Red Wings together," said Vernon, who picked up his 300th career win. "Whether it was the first-period fighting or the overtime goal, a game like this only helps give you confidence to go into the playoffs. When you go to the playoffs, everybody has to be ready to do the job and stay together. Tonight showed the guys were willing to pay the price."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/scores97/97085/97085360.htm

"Certainly, I think that was the turning point as far as the Red Wings' success went. Up until that point, the Red Wings were close, but never tasted victory, and by that I mean Stanley Cup victory."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2012/03/ken_kal_on_wzam_if_claude_lemi.html

"After postseason heartbreaks in 1994, '95 and '96, the Red Wings finally developed a swagger on March 26, 1997, one that would carry them to three championships in six seasons."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neumann/070326

Well as interesting as a bunch of anecdotal evidence is, actual scientific research suggests that fighting has no positive effect on the outcome of the game. The ol' eyeball test is good for finding a date on a Friday night, but if you want to find the truth about real world phenomena...you have to use science. Bummer.

https://georgetownsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/the-true-impact-of-a-hockey-fight/

"We can see in all four of these data sets that there is no evidence that winning a fight leads to better results in the immediate aftermath of the fight. In fact, it appears that the team winning the fight will score slightly less goals in the game than they did previously. In all four groups, the percentage of goals scored by the winning team is within 1.96 standard deviations of the percentage of its total goals scored, indicating that the results are negligible. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that winning a fight has no impact on a team’s momentum and goal differential."

http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2012/01/do-hockey-fights-lift-teams-performance.html

So, I guess, our overall conclusion from this study isn't completely certain. We wind up with a summary like:

1. The effect doesn't seem to exist for run-of-the-mill fights.

2. When a goon fighter on a goon team fights when his team is down, it seems to benefit that team by 1/8 of a goal, or a bit less than a normal power play.

3. But, that effect isn't statistically significant, so we have some doubts that it's real.

4. And, with only 364 such datapoints qualifying out of around 5,000, only a small percentage of fights match the criterion for that kind of boost.

If you had to reduce that to one line, it might be: At best, there might be a small effect in certain specific circumstances ... but much, much less than sportscasters make it out to be.

Edited February 24, 2015 by kipwinger

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Well as interesting as a bunch of anecdotal evidence is, actual scientific research suggests that fighting has no positive effect on the outcome of the game. The ol' eyeball test is good for finding a date on a Friday night, but if you want to find the truth about real world phenomena...you have to use science. Bummer.

https://georgetownsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/the-true-impact-of-a-hockey-fight/

"We can see in all four of these data sets that there is no evidence that winning a fight leads to better results in the immediate aftermath of the fight. In fact, it appears that the team winning the fight will score slightly less goals in the game than they did previously. In all four groups, the percentage of goals scored by the winning team is within 1.96 standard deviations of the percentage of its total goals scored, indicating that the results are negligible. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that winning a fight has no impact on a team’s momentum and goal differential."

http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2012/01/do-hockey-fights-lift-teams-performance.html

So, I guess, our overall conclusion from this study isn't completely certain. We wind up with a summary like:

1. The effect doesn't seem to exist for run-of-the-mill fights.

2. When a goon fighter on a goon team fights when his team is down, it seems to benefit that team by 1/8 of a goal, or a bit less than a normal power play.

3. But, that effect isn't statistically significant, so we have some doubts that it's real.

4. And, with only 364 such datapoints qualifying out of around 5,000, only a small percentage of fights match the criterion for that kind of boost.

If you had to reduce that to one line, it might be: At best, there might be a small effect in certain specific circumstances ... but much, much less than sportscasters make it out to be.

Ok we get it. You don't like fighting. Ad nauseum.

[number9 3,297]

Ok we get it. You don't like fighting. Ad nauseum.

I think he's made it clear that it's the arguments people use to justify fighting that bothers him. It bothers me too, and I love fighting. I don't like it because I think it protects stars (those days are longggggg gone). I like it because it's fun to watch. The same reason why I like big hits. I wanna see my boys pound on inferior teams players.

But go on, keep lying to yourselves that their is some deep unmeasurable impact that fighting has on the game that isn't just more injuries.

[BottleOfSmoke 5,965]

Not that kip needs defending, because he doesn't. But I feel like sometimes people lose the bigger point he's trying to make in all of his *insert tenacious breed of dog here*-with-a-bone...ness, and I think it's an important one. He's not telling people they can't have an opinion, he's invalidating the faulty logic people use to *justify* these opinions. Is it ok to have an opinion that other people disagree with? Absolutely! Is it ok to misinterpret facts and create statistics and deny research/science and use logical fallacies to support said opinion? Nope, and someone who appears to be as familiar with logic as kip is is going to call you out on it every time. Cognitive dissonance exists as a concept for a reason--we all do it. I'm intimately familiar with traumatic brain injuries and how they affect the lives of those who suffer from them. I'm also an emotionally reactive person who enjoys when someone who pisses me off gets their ass beat (um...on the ice). Difference is I don't try to justify this enjoyment with anything other than nostalgia and personal warm fuzzies because the reality is no argument otherwise holds water in the face of fact.

I think he's made it clear that it's the arguments people use to justify fighting that bothers him. It bothers me too, and I love fighting. I don't like it because I think it protects stars (those days are longggggg gone). I like it because it's fun to watch. The same reason why I like big hits. I wanna see my boys pound on inferior teams players.

But go on, keep lying to yourselves that their is some deep unmeasurable impact that fighting has on the game that isn't just more injuries.

Seriously? I just posted a novel saying the same thing and you cut in line with TL;DR.

[kipwinger 8,522]

I'm just happy that at least two people on LGW don't completely hate me. Look who's burning bridges now, Grandma...ya jerk!

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I think he's made it clear that it's the arguments people use to justify fighting that bothers him. It bothers me too, and I love fighting. I don't like it because I think it protects stars (those days are longggggg gone). I like it because it's fun to watch. The same reason why I like big hits. I wanna see my boys pound on inferior teams players.

But go on, keep lying to yourselves that their is some deep unmeasurable impact that fighting has on the game that isn't just more injuries.

Answer me this. If fighting is pointless and is only for fun, why have enforcers ever existed in NHL history? Did coaches and GM's dress these players just to sell tickets and get their rocks off? Or did they believe that these players were necessary to protect the stars or necessary for some other purpose?

[number9 3,297]

Answer me this. If fighting is pointless and is only for fun, why have enforcers ever existed in NHL history? Did coaches and GM's dress these players just to sell tickets and get their rocks off? Or did they believe that these players were necessary to protect the stars or necessary for some other purpose?

I guess you missed the part where I said: (those days are longggg gone)

Nowadays they put butts in seats