Dirty Hockey

[calihockey]

I saw the following article of ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1766119

I wonder if Teemu Salanne is right. Does someone have to die for people to learn? I think this applies well to Roller Hockey too. The attack in the NARCh Pro Division at Winternationals was uncalled for too. What can be done to stop the madness? I understand physical play is a part of the game, but the goons in Calgary and Toronto are going too far. What does everyone think?

[SpeedDemon]

It's funny, because hockey is tame compared to the other sports. It's just singled out because it is a 'weird' sport to the majority of the population. I wish they'd write up articles on ESPN.com every weekend a football player spears or slewfoots another player, or when a baseball pitcher throws at another's head just because he hit a home run, or .. well let's not talk about basketbrawl.

Hockey isn't 'madness,' it's a game which is unfairly judged by ignorance.

[rlrhky13]

Thats well put... I agree with you 100%... I am tired of hearing about how violent hockey is and everything else...

[stormops]

I agree that hockey is a tame sports compared to others, I think that people perceive it as weird because of how high energy, and speed that it is. However, you also have to look at hockey in a different light, probably how others see it, dangerous. You give these guys "weapons" aka hockey sticks and they are out there hacking at each other to get on thing, the puck. In turn, it causes people to get hurt because instead of hitting the puck, they hit a person, whether on purpose or by accident. I think that you do not hear that much about other sports because it is not that often, except baseball maybe, that someone gets hit with something.

Also, I think that people go out on the rink, and other venues, and use it to take out aggression, which that is not the purpose of the sport. It is to have fun and do something you love. That is one thing with hockey, you either love, or hate it, there is really no middle ground. I play hockey and deal with hockey players. I think it is a great sport, because it is fast paced and interesting to watch. I have season tickets for football, which is a great sport also, however it can be boring, because there really is not too much action all the time.

What happend at NARCh in Vegas, is not a part of hockey, however something negative is shown over the positive. Which in life seems like everyday routine. You always hear about the bad in the world on the news FIRST, then they go to what good happened in the news that day. Maybe if people keep highlighting the good parts of hockey, then it will show that it is a great sport and get more people involved.

One more thing, you mostly hear about football and basketball players being arrested for one thing or another. I guess the positive side is that you rarely hear about hockey players doing wrong, but when they do wrong it is very much highlighted. P.S. When you do hear about bad boy hockey players it is mostly an incident that occurs on the floor, or a minor drug offense, not really a shooting, DUI, or stabbing.

That is just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.


Jeana
Director of Operations
Boston Storm, MLRH-AAA<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by stormops on 03/24/04 10:50 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

[Benny_Gulakiw]

How hockey is played, or any sport for that matter, can be controlled by the implementation of effective rules and ENFORCEMENT of those rules. Problems start when referees don't call what's supposed to be called and the league office doesn't mete out an effective enough punishment. When players start getting kicked out for life or when you start hitting them where it really hurts, like their pocketbook, that's when you'll start seeing real change. It's as simple as that in my opinion.

Benny Gulakiw
President
Inline Hockey America

[Falcons77]

What sucks is that the media always shows the fighting and big hits, they dont show as many sweet goals, good passing plays or anything else about the sport. I coach a High School Ice Team and the Washington Post did a story on our league. However, it dealt with fighting in the league and how 1 in every 12 games there is a fight (in the whole league). It didnt say anything positive about the sport at all.

You can just imagine the anger this caused the league and several letters went to the Post. One of the key points that I liked hearing was that Hockey is the only sport where there is actually a penalty for fighting. Many other sports do not have that rule, so they cant "officially" track the amount of fights or altercations, in for example, a basketball game.

Fighting was meant to stop or "police" the dirty players. Now of days, it seems that the "goons" simply go after the skilled players to get them out of the game.

[NLane]

T-boning another vehicle at 185 mph isn't a walk in the park for either driver, but hockey is a violent sport?? For once Barry Melrose and I agree. Other sports are just as violent but seemingly "accidental"things happen, not on purpose. Like someone forced those 42 drivers out on the track to start that race!

[DannyG]

As usual, Benny is exactly correct...for 150 years, the sport of hockey has tolerated, if not outright sanctioned, violent, reactive, negative behavior.

In each and every league, club, neighborhood, whatever, where you don't tolerate such behavior, such behavior goes away. If all the participants refuse to allow the nonsense, the nonsense goes away.

If the National Hockey League chose to ban any fisticuffs. pugilistic fights would disappear. If they chose to suspend players for a very long time for any physical altercation, such behavior would go away.

Incidentally, whenever I have this conversation, I know that if I propose a suspension or banishment as part of the enforcement, and my conversational respondent says, "Nah, that's too harsh, that's too much," then I know that punishment I have suggested will work. That's what it will take, however: a punishment so severe, that no one will dare cross the line.

and to those that believe the myth that stick fouls will become more severe in the absence of allowable fights (the Gospel according to St. Barry), you ban those, too, and they go away...

To those who disagree with me, c'mon, every action that your local program bans, nobody does, right?

What you prohibit, does not happen. The fact that the sport of hockey in general continues to tolerate physical violence is the only thing that allows it to continue...

and the key is not just refs...it's coaches, fans, players, league administrators, all of us.

I hope that, with Wayne Gretzky and Ken Dryden on the NHL Board of Governours, things will soon begin to move in the right direction, with haste...hockey will be better off for it.

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[DannyG]

indeed, quite a lot of "accidental things" happen, as long as a player refuses to take any responsibility for his actions...

...there is an incumbancy to avoid situations that is the responsibility of every player...

the guy that goes into the corner at someone else from behind ("I was just going for the puck") with no regard for his own safety, let alone that of his opponent, is an idiot who is not allowed to claim that "it just happened, it was an accident." That player must judge whether his speed and trajectory are potentially harmful, and decide to avoid such an action.

The guy that over exhuberently slashes the stick of an opponent in an attempt to dispossess must judge the violence of his attempt and not do so in a violent manner.

The guy that is constantly hooking, and putting his stick on opponents where he has no business, cannot hide behind the "I was just going for his stick/the puck."

"I was just going for the play," doesn't count. "I was just doing 'whatever-it-takes' to make the play, going all out," is perhaps the height of stupidity.

By allowing St. Barry to label such happenstances as "accidents" you sanction stupidity, irresponsibility, and violence.

This is not an acceptable position for anyone to take on the subject.

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[NLane]

I guess you didn't hear Barry speak. He was saying that the other sports claim that anything bad that happens to them is accidental and ALL bad things in hockey are on purpose. This is not a trueism. Barry has agreed that the hit was cheap and not necessary and he agrees with the suspension. Now, I think that if the players had just dropped the gloves and duked it out the night the first incident happened then this last incident would not have happened. I am not a fan of fighting but if it looks like a player is going after another player then the player should be warned. Not by a cheap shot but squaring off (like men) and settling it. Then it's over. I do agree with you in that all parties should take an interest in respecting the game, players, coaches, refs and fans, and maybe the cheap stuff will disappear.

[DannyG]

my problem with Sir Barry of Melrose is that he demands that his opinions be treated like hockey royalty (or gospel, in the case of sainthood). I refer to Coach Melrose' treatises on the subject going back now the 7-8 years or so that he has been a media spokesman for the sport. I was not referring to his latest pronouncement.

Barry has been on record for at least a decade as the major proponent of the "fighting keeps things from becoming worse" theory of justification.

This theory is of course not rational, and does not hold up to the light of day, neither in premise nor conclusion.

I repeat, what you tolerate, will continue to happen. What you determine not to tolerate, will cease.

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[zentro]

What exactly happened at NARCh? Any links?

-----------------
Vesterbro Starz, European skater hockey champions 2004
www.vstarz.dk<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by zentro on 04/22/04 11:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

[MDE3]

Do not know if there are any links, but a well known player on the Tour Mudcats Pro team recieved a serious facial injury from what was reported to be a deliberate attempt to injure, through the use of an elbow to the face.

My son plays on the same team with this individual(the injured player, now fully recovered) every weekend, and he does not play the kind of game which would merit that kind of attack....I do not think he even has a penalty yet this season after 8 games, or at most only one.

There was some talk about the fact that this player (the one injured) was &quot;talking smack&quot; and that's what lead to the incident....even if this was true...it was a totally inappropriate and unjustified response, if in fact it was as reported, a deliberate action.

The injury included a broken cheekbone and broken orbital bone, requiring an operation to reset the orbital bone. It was only food fortune that this player did not lose his sight in one eye.