PIHA Fighting Suspensions [Archive] - Inline Hockey Central

SWAMPDONKEYS29

01-17-2007, 12:48 PM

I just wanted to throw my opinion into the mix on this one.

When Charley met with us here in the Northeast regarding expansion, one of the first things he stressed was that if we were interested in fighting, we were joining the wrong league. In addition, isn't it generally known and accepted that PIHA is a league in which fighting and checking are not allowed? This being said, I'm really not sure how the league's policy and eventual disciplinary action can be questioned and/or debated.

Before I get crucified on this, I want people to know that I think that checking and fighting do indeed have their place in hockey. However, I do not think that they belong in this league. PIHA has become the premier inline hockey league in the United States for a multitude of reasons and one of them is the fact that players can show up to the rink, give 100%, and not have to worry about the 300 lb. gorilla on the other team taking a cheap shot at them or be more interested in dropping the gloves than playing hockey at it's highest level. We've all heard the "I have to get up on Monday morning and go to work" rationale for these rules so I won't go into that but I do happen to agree with it.

Will checking and fighting ever be a part of this league? Who knows? I'm sure that the future develpement of the league and the overall state of inline hockey at that time will dictate the way that this league will evolve. Until then, we ALL signed up for a league in which checking and fighting are not allowed, so there should be no surprises when the league reinforces it's original policy and takes the necessary steps further insure that we all adhere to it.

Ruppy Hailey

Dave Garland

01-17-2007, 12:51 PM

I agree with Ruppy. Everyone knows the rules of the league and fighting is strictly prohibited. Now, if you look at some of the box scores from last weekend up east, I noticed there were a few fights. Of course, I wasn't there and I have no idea what happened, but my guess is the rule is in place to avoid that kind of situation hopefully.

patb16

01-17-2007, 01:02 PM

I completely agree with this type of enforcement of the rules. For me its the "work in the morning factor" if PIHA was my full time job... I'd be all for fighting.

There was a pretty onsided fight in the second game of the Bandit vs. Gladiators game, however it was worse than it should have been bc the referees did not immediately try to break it up as soon as they players fell to the floor.

NLane

01-17-2007, 01:44 PM

In looking at the stats that I could get to it seems there were quite a lot of game expulsions, misconducts, etc. Might as well fight and get it over with! I know with some rules if you call it fighting the ref has to write it up but if you call it something else no one has to do "homework". The game has evolved to a rougher type of game-no more "you can't touch me" like sissy stick ball hockey used to be. If it's PRO and it's men tempers will find a way in.

SPORTSPLEXJEFF

01-17-2007, 01:50 PM

It's sad that the league has to come to this so early in a season. If all teams could just follow the words of Charley Yoder. Look Professional, Act Professional, Be Professional we would never even be at this point. I say this and include my team in that statement. We all need to be adults and put on a good show and play some hockey. The fans want good hockey and if we don't play it they won't come. Our major fanbase should be the little kids at these rinks. What parent wants to bring their 8-year old to see a guy who may be coaching or giving lessons to their child in a fight. We would instantly lose that fan base because we will be teaching kids fighting is okay. The league setting down a very distinct warning makes it easy for us to inform our players that fighting will not be tolerated. If you want to fight then MLRH is right there for you. This league is not about fighting and never has been. Instead of putting on a rant an onslaught at the league and questioning this decision I am choosing to praise them. Not only are they trying to make it safer for players it eliminates the "Gorillas" as Ruppy said. I for one know I will not tolerate my players fighting and already had my team under full awareness that if you drop the gloves they might as well not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. Thankfuly I have not had that problem with my players. Next time somebody ask you to drop the gloves ask them if they would like to play a game of checkers. It would probably get a laugh and avoid a controversy. Instead of all of us complaining lets praise this league. Look at the league and the scores of these games. Any team can win on any given day. Most games have been one or 2 goals. So I say praise the efforts of the teams in creating such an exciting league.

Jeff Haze
President Feasterville Fury

kicksave60

01-17-2007, 02:05 PM

I do not believe fighting should be in inline hockey at all. I just believe it's too easy to make a rule with zero tolerance. Granted, there has been quite a few more fighting and game misconducts this year, but to make a zero tolerance rule, I feel might induce more rougher play. You take a run at a superstar, there will be recourse. And if fighting is out of the question, then big hits might not be such a bad 2 minute choice. Or a hard slash? So let some wannabe tough guy drop his gloves throw some girly punches, get 4 games, and then maybe if the next time he wants to be tough, boot his ass out the door. But the more I think about it, I think fighting should be done after the game, so the little tough guy doesn't have a cage :)

Center_ice

01-17-2007, 03:28 PM

I have to agree with kicksave60, this will only bring out the worst.

I say that the league just need to deal with problem players and not hang this over everyone's head, there is nothing stopping someone from making you a target and or trying to take you out of the game/league, regardless of what type of player you are or the situation.

Do you get the feeling the ref-n-roll gets a lot of pleasure coming on here posting this type stuff. Maybe it's that picture he seems pretty proud.

alex

01-17-2007, 03:43 PM

I'm all for cracking down on fighting too but suspension for an entire season?

SPORTSPLEXJEFF

01-17-2007, 03:55 PM

Ref N Roll is the referee in Chief for the Mason Dixon division and he posts this stuff just in case management from the teams did not make the players aware. These rulle changes came from the ref in chief from our league. Hhe decided to notify people that the league is taking a serious action if a fight occurs. Wouldn't you rather know then find out after the fact.

treytai

01-17-2007, 04:33 PM

So if a player gets jumped from behind and starts getting hit, is he supposed to just turtle and hope he does not get the snot kicked out of him? If he defends himself then he is done for the season too for fighting which is just rediculuous. And as far as the comment of bringing your 8 year old child to a game with fighting, that is going to depend on each individual. Both of my kids love watching the fights in the NHL and they are 9 and 5. I do agree I think someone is going to get hurt worse because of this rule. All they have to do now is have well timed hit to take the person out or a hard slash. So what happens to the players that got into fights before this rule change? Does it effect them also?

Puckdropper

01-17-2007, 08:42 PM

It's apparent that everyone has a different opion on what is taking place with this new ruling in PIHA. As many have said that PIHA has always been a non-checking non-fighting league which has allowed for some outstanding games.

As Jeff indicated, if the fighting is allowed then he has a good chance of lossing his fan base, but most of all his business as a rink manager/director.

Then you take Treytai's comments, about the player getting jumped from behind, is it fair to him. I would have to agree and say no. The official needs to differentiate between the obvious degrees of responsibility of the participants either for starting the fight, or persisting in continuing the fight.
The official can assest a minor or a double minor penalty to a player who, having been struck, retaliates with a puch or an attempted punch. However the official still has the discretion to assess a major if the player continues the altercation.

Bottom line the league has placed this rule in place and the players need to disciplined themself to avoid such altercations.

SpiderRat

01-18-2007, 02:28 PM

So what else warrants a year suspension? Does saying you want to fight warrant a suspension? Does a potential fight warrant a year suspension? If guys square up, yet no punches are thrown, well does that too warrant a years suspension? I understand the rule, and think it's there for a reason, blah blah blah, join MLRH if you want to fight, i get it already. But if I tell a player, ref, or anyone else in ear shot, that I want to fight, does that warrant a years suspension? I'm certainly not saying that I condone or would do any of the above actions, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the rules parameters. Got your back "T".

ref'n'roll

01-18-2007, 03:37 PM

Do you get the feeling the ref-n-roll gets a lot of pleasure coming on here posting this type stuff. Maybe it's that picture he seems pretty proud.

My avatar is me poking fun at myself---middle-aged, overweight guy, always trying do the right thing (you'd understand if you saw the movie). Anyways, it was my wife who gave me the nickname---Mr. Incredible! (LOL)

And, yes, I am proud. I am proud to work for inline hockey and the betterment of the game. I am proud that my reputation is one of someone who works hard for the sport and is fair---on and off the floor. I am also very proud to be part of PIHA.

I am just a messenger here. I have the time to post for the League and its Referee-In-Chief and only do so when they ask me to.

You may have noticed that I have not responded to any of the posts here, because I have been requested not to---but I did feel the need to respond to a personal shot.

And BTW---I applaud PIHA for finally doing something that no organization in the hockey world has ever had the stones to do---ban fighting!

TheSnake22

01-18-2007, 05:10 PM

the only problem with that statement is that the league already had already banned fighting. any fighting penalty came with a game misconduct and an automatic suspension and that apparently wasnt enough of a message. but it was already banned, they just upped the penalty. major league baseball had already "banned" steroids before last year, they just upped the penalty to 50 games or more after it got out of control...why not make it a life-time ban for fighting while you're at it? that would really send a message, and i'm only half kidding... and what if its the last game of the season and your team isn't going to make the playoffs? Does he miss the next season? Does he miss 32 games? Needs clarification...

kicksave60

01-18-2007, 05:20 PM

Isn't there a players organization in place for PIHA? This might be something for both the players and the league officials to discuss. I don't think any of us condone fighting, but an explanation I believe is in order. Not just some "no discussion" comment from the leagues' ref rep.

BkHdTpShlf

01-19-2007, 01:30 AM

I think this is totally out of control. I don't see a need to change the previous rules stated by the league of a minimum of 4 games for a first offense and more drastic measures if another offense occured. If you don't enjoy playing in this league and don't learn from your first suspension...then you should be suspended for the entire season but to give a guy an entire season for one fight....well I personally don't agree with it. Fights happen, its hockey, emotions run high and we have an extremely high level of talent in this league. I know some guys are going to say.."If you want to fight play MLRH" I'm not trying to say fighting should be allowed...by no means but an entire season for one altercation seems very steep. Many guys in this league play NARCH & TORHS Pro and we see the occasional fight there too...does that mean the tournaments are goon hockey? And should you be thrown out of all tourneys for the year if you have a fight? Absolutely not. We have way to many class guys throughout this league on all of our teams, many I know very good. We all respect this league & game enough for this to even come up. Once again don't get me wrong here, I can see why Charlie might be doing this, he doesn't want our league to get a bad reputation and I can totally understand that but I'd really like to see each incident handled individually by the severity of it. Just my opinion. Good luck to everyone playing this weekend.

01-19-2007, 10:01 AM

wow, this goes in the same category as agreeing with flynn, but very well put 'D'. fights occasionally happen and what one referee calls a fight the next might call a roughing penalty so your whole season hinges on the "opinion" of the official. that's kind of hard to swallow. if it happens a second time then you know that person is an issue and has no respect for the game and they should be removed from this league. as big as this league is getting, a players association may not be a bad idea also.

GROWL

01-19-2007, 10:19 AM

I was told just yesterday that this was not how the rule was supposed to read. Apparently it is supposed to be that you are suspended indefinetely, until the league reviews the situation. Which means you could be suspended for the minimum amount or possibly up to a full season. So I think that means that once your suspended for fighting it is an indefinete suspension and you have a apply for reinstatement to the league and there for go through an investigation of the incident.

Center_ice

01-19-2007, 10:45 AM

A players Association is a great idea, it can be the driving force behind protecting players and making sure that everyone gets a fair shake from owners to leagues discpline decisions.

Not sure if this already exist, but it would not hurt to have an owners group as well, they are the ones that should work with the league on all of these decisions. The league should have full support of the owners on rule changes and league operations. They have it in the NHL, AHL, ECHL and all other professional sports so why not here if it doesn't already exist. There is nothing better than checks and balances. This keeps everyone honest an ensures that things are being done for the right reasons, the betterment of the league.

MDE3

01-29-2007, 12:35 PM

I suspect any change in regulations may have more to do with insurance coverage for league and team owners than image, although I do not dissagree with that position either.....(what many hockey players view as "manly behaviour", many parents simply see as "goonish")

Just suppsose there is one serious unjury as a result of a fight...the player is handicapped for a significant period..or worse....

If the league and the team owners were not viewed by courts of law as having made the strongest possible effort to prevent the causal situation from occurring, read, the harshest position possible against this eventuality (meaning immediate season suspension with only a review, not actual re-instatement guaranteed for the subsequent season), they could well end up losing insurance protection when the final descision was made in a court of law....and end up being held personally liable for the damages of an ensuing lawsuit.....

Any upswing in fighting activity over a few games might well have to be reported by the precepts of the insurance contract to the insurance company involved in coverage...resulting in some policy revisions, and what you are seeing here.

Who should take all this risk to run what is basically a non profit organization..with only dreams of some possible future financial reward so that some egos can be salved.

Remember that any private contracual waiver you may sign cannot supercede any individual rights guaranted by either state or federal laws....a little known legal fact in many cases.

kicksave60

01-29-2007, 12:53 PM

seen some fighting majors on score sheets this weekend. Here we will see how the rule plays out......

NLane

01-29-2007, 03:39 PM

I just came from the website & I didn't see any fightings listed on what is posted now.

TheSnake22

01-29-2007, 04:01 PM

as far as i can tell there is a huge misconception of the new fighting rule. i keep hearing people say that any fighting major will result in a suspension for the rest of the year. this is incorrect. you will be suspended indefinitely until a hearing, with the possibility of a fine. nowhere does it say anything about a year suspension. its on the league website.

i dont know why don wrote it up that way when he started this thread but it's not accurate...

http://www.thepiha.com/pps-medias/5503.pdf

kicksave60

01-29-2007, 05:08 PM

Nlane check out the growl/grizz 930 game 2 fighting calls

born2runPROgm

01-29-2007, 07:49 PM

Snake is correct. I've heard from the league that this is true as well.

ref'n'roll

01-30-2007, 07:21 PM

i dont know why don wrote it up that way when he started this thread but it's not accurate...

To clarify---I posted what I was instructed to, but there was miscommunication between the Referee Staff and the League Office. I spoke to PIHA owner Charley Yoder this afternoon to clear this issue up.

The rule should read that any player assessed a Major penalty for fighting is suspended indefinitely. Said player will have to apply for reinstatement into the League. Each case will be heard on an individual basis after consultation with the Game Officials, Divisional RIC, National RIC and League Disciplinary Committee. Players will be prohibited from participating in ANY League activities (including practices and call-up/play down situations) until the case is settled.

I am sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Don Frank, PIHA Head Referee, Mason Dixon Division

irsh31

12-11-2007, 09:23 AM

I find this pretty interesting. I have asked so many players why they don't play or support MLRH because they allow this type of activity. Their response is they don't want to get injured and have jobs and families to support. All of you guys need to remember that. Until the owners start paying you guys, you cannot argue on the side of fighting. It doesn't make sense.

CoachClipboard

12-11-2007, 11:44 AM

;)umm, irsh31? this post has been dead and dormant since January 2007 nearly a full year. No one is arguing much of anything. but thanks for participating!

Puckdropper1

12-11-2007, 05:16 PM

You need to excuse irsh31, he was hit to the head with a few pucks in his day....

quick_dry

12-11-2007, 06:34 PM

how did the rule play out over the season?

is there a clear guideline on timing for events to happen once the player has applied to be reinstated with the league and ensure due process? i.e. once application received, there is a 2 week period for a hearing to be convened and length of suspension to be determined. This is common in legal settings, where certain levels of offence are given 6 months to have a court date set otherwise it lapses.

ref'n'roll

12-11-2007, 09:54 PM

The rule for fighting for 2008 has been changed to minimum 3 games and indefinite supension until a hearing for a second (subsequent) fighting suspension. Rule 71(c)3.

Interviews with referees involved and review of incident reports are completed by Tuesday of the week following the weekend of games. Suspensions are usually issued by Tuesday night or Wednesday. Appeals are heard immediately by the appeals board, with investigations and final rulings usually done by Thursday or Friday (to help teams making travel plans). Officials have 24 hours to file their report and teams/players have 24 hours to file an appeal after a ruling is issued.

It should be noted that players cannot participate in ANY (minor or pro) games until a hearing is held. That is why we try to accelerate the process whenever possible.

Don Frank, PIHA Director of Rules and Discipline

GR8SK8r06

12-12-2007, 02:16 PM

Ref-n-roll... I think you need to figure out what rule you are going to use for the long term. Watch making bold statements like there is a "no tolerance" policy in effect for anyone who fights and then later back down. If you represent this professional league you need to be professional as well in what you say and do. In this ruling you need to be careful what you say, because now there are a bunch of people who now think there is a "no tolerance" rule still in effect when there really isn't. All the refs need to communicate this to the players and coaches. Personally I liked it better when there was a "no tolerance" rule in effect. No matter what decision you make you will still have unhappy people. Keep the goons out of the league, we are trying to grow the sport in a positive way, not give it a bad reputation .

Doug Jones

12-12-2007, 04:37 PM

I normally won't come on here, but now feel the need to respond to this field of discussion. Fighting is a part of hockey. I respect PIHA's decision to enforce a no fighting policy and the effort to make the game about skill.

However, fighting keeps the game honest. I don't expect a 6 '2 225 pound player to beat up a 5'6 150 pound player, but I do expect heavyweights to carry the energy and team feud. Let the two heavyweights settle it. In respect to the rules, in PIHA that isn't allowed. So, players who wear cages and think they are invincible are on the floor running their mouths and taunting.

Not everyone behaves this way, but a new generation of smack talk and player who feels he can taunt an opponent without repercussion is a sad sight to see. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with a skilled player talking to another and having a little fun with it... I am talking of the ones who use the words habitually like "bitch", "fag" and other words...

The game should be decided by skill and hard work, not some players who feel the need to run their mouths. Kudos to Mike Starrett. A skilled player who gets it done and knows that the game isn't about smack talk but performance. Starrett is a gamer, would love to see the Mission Syndicate pick him up.

I am NOT singleing anyone out here, so before the defensive posts begin, I am just talking about my PIHA experiences on floor and the listening I have had to do so far. I respect a player who takes a bump and rather than run his mouth, lights the lamp. The ones who hide behind a cage and say things about my mother don't belong at the pro level, but rather at the minor one.

Superstar9

12-12-2007, 05:18 PM

ok, I told myself I wasn't going to comment but I want to clear the air a little bit because I feel like there's some hard feelings on this matter. When a physically bigger team uses its size to their advantage to send messages, that is a "Strategy" isn't it? Well, in my experience when you are the smaller team and you can't use that strategy, the best way to counter it is to aggrivate the bully team by talking smack. Nothing makes a big guy more mad than a guy half his size running his mouth at him. So what is the end result? The big guy gets more and more mad and keeps on taking shots at the little guys and keeps himself in the box and the other team constantly on the powerplay. Why is one strategy accepted and the other being publicly shunned? Not ONE player on our pro team wears a cage and not one player was trying to start a fight. They were all instructed to run their mouths after being hit with cheap shots. It was a strategy and it worked. Mike Starrett is a good player but, that isn't his game and he wasn't one of the guys that were being targeted with rough hits, he's 6'3'' so nobody wanted to pick on him. It was a counter strategy and it worked, plain and simple. We don't play the goon game, we aren't built for that and no team that wants to win in PIHA should be either.

Phantom305

12-12-2007, 05:31 PM

this is only going to get worse before it gets better, but should make for some good hockey.

thats my opinion.

GO ASSAULT!!!:D

joisyan

12-12-2007, 05:57 PM

i've seen the cage ripped off a kid's head before haha, so you can talk trash behind it, but you'd better keep it on tight!

Doug Jones

12-12-2007, 05:58 PM

that being said, January 6th will be here soon enough...

Wingman

12-12-2007, 06:23 PM

Superstar9

12-12-2007, 06:36 PM

awww man, here we go. That's why I didn't want to reply. I'm not going to get into a public debate over how the game should be played. It's bad for the image of the league as are game stories on the same subject. I'm not going to comment on this topic any further. Good luck this weekend everyone.

growl89

12-12-2007, 06:53 PM

Street, you seem like you are a smarter guy then that man,"trash talking was our game plan"?

For the record, that is an AWFUL game plan. Do you guys have a real coach? because no coach in the HOCKEY WORLD was ever told to make that a game plan.

If you were indeed getting cheap shots, which i'm sure were not all one sided, but if they were, then you should have been on the PP all game and it wouldn't have mattered what they were doing, so why talk trash? If they were not being penalized then the officials either need a meeting to go over what should be called, or you guys have to toughen up a little if it's not that bad.

Announcing publicly how that was your game plan is an embarrassment to your team and the league. How many parents want their kid to grow up and "talk trash"?

There is a spot in the game for it, but only if you have the skill and the balls to back it up. Some players do it very well, and then score to shove it down your throat, but it's time and placement, it's not all game long. It sounds on this board like a circus was going on in your games.

To respond to Doug, i know what you mean about fighting in the game. There is a place for it, as long as it is done with respect like it is supposed to be. One of the reasons im sure PIHA has not fighting is b/c of MLRH's history of people getting jumped from behind, or a monster dropping the gloves and punching little guys, it happened all the time with the lesser skilled teams. I wish there was fighting in the league, it would shut the yappers up real quick, or at least full contact if there is not fighting. It's funny to watch how fast the mouths shut when there is something you can do back to them.

I hope to read about something a little more positive next time around when both of you teams meet. Let's hear about the skill, not the 15 year old stuff. Look at the Growl/Demolition series. There was tons of physical play, cheap shots, trash talk both ways, look at what everyone said and wrote and said about the game. I haven't heard a negative thing either way except about the skills of both teams.

Doug Jones

12-12-2007, 07:02 PM

your post is refreshing and great to hear.

I have no issues with fighting or checking, but respect the fact that PIHA doesn't allow it. We won't fall for it twice, I promise. Time for a new strategy....

Wingman

12-12-2007, 07:12 PM

I prefer PIHA being a non checking/fighting league, so it's at least still about the skill. Players trash talking can easiley be ignored, but when the other team is just out there to seiriously hurt your guys it skews the game pretty bad.

Superstar9

12-12-2007, 07:38 PM

Hey guys,

trash talking was not our strategy going into the game, it was our way to fight back beings we don't match up for fighting or checking. We have 2 coaches and neither told us to do that. I do not beleive it is something the kids need to see but then again they didn't hear it either, the only way it became public knowledge was by a story that was released. Now having said that, is it any more classy to run guys? I am not the instigator, if anyone looks at myself or my teams, we're usually on the mild easy going side until someone tries to hurt our players. I'm not looking to do anything to hurt the league but, we're not going to sit around and take a beating either just because the other team isn't fast enough to keep up and resort to aggression. You can't tell me that no one talks trash in this league? It just isn't taken public and shouldn't be as is the same case here. What exactly is going to come out of this topic anyway? "The Assault talk trash"? I mean what are we trying to accomplish here other than put some black eyes on the league that are a lot worse than trash talking on the floor. I look forward to the next games with SC, It'll be interesting to see if things change or if they get worse. Both teams have skill, I'll be the 1st to acknowledge that. Let's try and stay positive about games and teams from here on out, even if it's only in the public view.

nyrhatric

12-13-2007, 01:00 PM

Well, I don't speak to much, but I have played both MLRH and PIHA now. I have fought. And I think that until players understand that Fighting isn't a part of hockey to take your anger out on someone, but realize it needs to be a mutual decision,(as much as that may sound rediculous or even possible?) between two players to try and turn the energy around for a team. PIHA should be as strict as possible on fighting. I never considered myself a goon in MLRH because I am 5'10, 170lbs, never wear a mask, but never fought a fight I could win. I might have gotten lucky once in Winchester. ;~) But I think fighting is a part of hockey, but there are too many players who don't understand how it is a part of hockey. The NHL hasn't banned fighting because they know it is still something the fans want to see. But they've cleaned it up, and now it doesn't happen as often. So now fans enjoy it more when it happens. The guys who've played with me, know I never went out looking for a fight, but stood up for my goalie and teammates when needed. I think PIHA has made the correct decision for now, in being strict on fighting. Otherwise immature players who loose their temper will go after someone, and seriously hurt them.

Other then that, I've told myself that if Interbartolo ever wants to go, I might take test my chances there! :~) Just kidding buddy.

Good luck to everyone this weekend, and enjoy the upcoming holidays!

Bobby Henry
Potomac Mavericks #2

joisyan

12-13-2007, 03:29 PM

if you think fighting doesnt happen much, you must have missed the philly-pitt game on the other night haha. penguins suck (flyers fan here)

irsh31

12-18-2007, 08:03 AM

I guess not since people have decided to revisit it with me. But thanks for your concern.

GROWL

12-18-2007, 02:23 PM

Yeah let's all move on to another topic shall we.

MDE3

12-18-2007, 06:55 PM

I know this topic wants to be closed..but I cannot resist.

I have played and watched hockey since the early 1950's..in Canada. The fighting as we know it today is considerably different from what we saw before the late 60's and forward. In the 50's and into the early sixties, there were fights, but not too many, and they were memorable.

In those times there were no real enforcers, until John Ferguson, Lou Fotanado and Eddy Shack showed up. The concept of the "enforcer" started to become popular only in the early 60's(Frank Mahovilich didn't like to defend himself). Prior to this the majority of the "superstars"...Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita...all took care of their own business. These guys would never have let someone else settle a score on their behalf. This was the true history of fighting....you had a beef..you settled it mano a mano, nobody did it for you.

PS then there were no masks..because nobody had helmets either.

At the same time financially struggling Junior B hockey teams found out that if they made the games a "grudge match" between neighbouring towns...the game attendance went from 200 - 300 to 2000 - 3000 high school kids..to watch "our gang" beat "their gang". These games were so bloody that when I first saw the movie "slapshot" I saw no real humour...because the reality was even worse....so much so that the movie wasn't a "parody" for me..just a weak reflection of reality. The managers and coaches from these leagues moved up the feed chain and brought the same mentality with them..all the way to the NHL.

Then you had a fixed percentage of your players who were seriously selected for their ability to throw as least as much as their ability to play...Guys in the ranks of the Junior B divisions got even worse...because their only chance to make it to "the show" was as a fighter, not a skill player...so a whole new class of players came out of the 60's along with a "road map" for hockey success.

Personally I lost interest in hockey at that time..except for playing some university hockey where the anti-fighting rules were much more severe. An avid fan and a player all my young life...I even stopped watching the sport on TV, except for the Stanley Cup finals and the World Cup international games, and found even those tarnished by the play of the Philadelphia Flyers...an embarrassment to hockey purists.

The true "good old days" were when players stood up for themselves...but didn't get selected for their fists..just their play. There were no prima donnas back then, because there was no one to protect them..just very real guys.

Phelan96

12-19-2007, 08:35 AM

[quote=MDE3;41265]and found even those tarnished by the play of the Philadelphia Flyers...an embarrassment to hockey purists.
[quote]

Could you explain the reasoning behind this statement??????

MDE3

12-19-2007, 02:18 PM

In a game between the Red Army team and the
Flyers..in the days of the "Broad Street Bullies"...the Flyers decided that they would "rough up" the Soviets, rather than try to compete with them using actual hockey skills. The game got so bad that the Soviet Coach pulled their team from the ice.

While I am sure there are lot's of vintage Flyer fans who regarded that Red Army team as "p______s" for their action, I can assure you that as a fan of pure hockey who recognised the talents of the Russian teams, I was embarrassed that an example of our "best" NHL hockey teams, had to stoop to these antics to compete.

Trust me when I say that I was not alone in having this impression. As a Canadian who is old enough to remember when we could still win the World Championships by sending our best amateur team to compete, I lived for years with the humiliation of watching the Russians beat our best pro players as well. However, I always wanted to see our very best skill players play the Russians and return the crown of World Championship to it's "rightfull owners"....not send a goon squad to destroy them.

I can also tell you right from someone who trained with the Red Army team..or at least in the same complex, a former fiance of one of the well known Red Army/NHL alumni, ...that the Red Army players wanted the same thing..they wanted to play the best team that Canada had to offer..not a weak substitute like Canada sent so often to the Olympics or the World Championships. They knew that until they beat the very best Canadian team that could be assembled..their accomplishments in hockey would be tarnished.

For so many of us in Canada, we kept the illusion, that if we really could send our best to play them, it would be a different story. Hence the tremendous interest in the NHL versus the Soviet Red Army and "Domino" teams back in the early seventies. So for we Canadians...who felt that hockey was our "identity" in many ways, it was important to prove we could hang with or beat the Russians...from a pure hockey skill point of view. That was why the Flyers debacle was so embarrassing.

RichardGraham

12-19-2007, 02:50 PM

Hey Mike,

Great posts, very interesting to read, very informative.

I like a good occasional heavyweight fight in hockey in a tight, tense game. Maybe some goon is taking liberties with your smallest forward. A quick toe-to-toe fight, maybe a few bruises or a bloody nose, and it's all over. Back to the game, the stickwork is cut down a bit, and some of the tension is let out of the building. I don't go to ice hockey games to see fights, but if a fair match-up occurs, I certainly don't have a problem with it.

MDE3

12-19-2007, 03:46 PM

Hey Rich..nice to see ya

I never had a problem where the beef occurred between regular players and they settled it between themselves. However the use of the "goon" or a player who has been chosen for their developed pugalistic skills, to battle with a non combatant oriented player, has no place.

One of the differences in the "old school" hockey and today, is that pretty much everyone that played was prepared to drop 'em, unlike today. That being an accepted fact, the cheap stuff was less blatant, and the fights less frequent. The biggest exception to this might have been Gordie Howe who got away with a lot of it, because after he broke Fontanado's jaw with one punch...most thought twice about getting too feisty with "Mr. Hockey".

But even then...it was common to give an opponent a "heads up" if your were coming in hard on him from behind to the boards...even in the NHL.

When we played, if you drilled someone head first into the boards..even your own teamates would shun you. There was respect shown, but in a real sense...not the "I am established" and "who do you think you are?" type of thing that is so much more common now...basic "bravado".

Most of these players from the "old school era", grew up working on farms, or in the logging/mining/fishing industries, so they were used to a lot of rough and tumble and settling of scores "right now", while working in those hard nosed industries...It is not surprising that they were prepared to defend themselves on the ice too.

Now kids grow up afraid to fight because someone will probably pull a "gat" or a knife. Essentially the difference is back when, that fighting to settle a score between two guys was still considered the "honorable" thing to do..unfortunately it was replaced by a mentality that said it was better to let a hired thug defend you, than stand up for yourself...honor be damned.

RichardGraham

12-20-2007, 03:53 PM

Hi Mike,

You know your hockey history and it shows.

All very well said! I'm no fan of trash talking, and I think that too many of today's young inline hockey players indulge in it. Sportsmanship doesn't have to go the way of the passenger pigeon, and I think the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way. I hope so, anyway.

Doug Jones

12-20-2007, 05:51 PM

Rich:

Thank you very much, well said....

Doug

joisyan

12-20-2007, 06:13 PM

good points MDE, the only thing is; if it came down to skill vs. goon. the goon would still need some sort of skill to win, correct? (i'm not trying to play pile on for philly fans) all i'm sayin is they were brutal, yes. but it was obviously somewhat within the rules of hockey as far as physical play or else the game/s wouldnt have counted. now i'm not condoning rough or foul play. all i'm saying is that in a rough sport, it should be expected. but again i'd agree that today's version of "let's settle this" is far different from the past. as for canadien players not being rough, what about scott stevens? now i'm not going to slander him and say he was looking for people with their heads down, but he certainly found his share of hits. now granted they were clean, but not exactly something i'd slap him a high five for if i were his teammate. but that's the way it was. it used to be rough. really rough. if you were a goalie they used to consider you a pansy to wear a mask! helmets didnt really become a league wide thing until the late 80's/early 90's. but i do agree that there's no need to beat the hell out of somebody if you cant keep up with them. but all the same you have to take your licks to win the game. you cant go in expecting to parade around the rink and not have shots taken at you. again, i wouldnt agree with taking a shot at anyone, i've always believed that hitting is to take someone off of the puck or out of the play not out of the game.

Drexel63

12-21-2007, 01:02 PM

but that's the way it was. it used to be rough. really rough. if you were a goalie they used to consider you a pansy to wear a mask! helmets didnt really become a league wide thing until the late 80's/early 90's.

Brings up an interesting question... Today, I hear all too often, "why don't you take off the cage" Actually, when I was 18 and played in MLRH (season I broke my arm over Rob "The Hammer" Harmer of the NJ Scorpions, I only bring that up because some of you may remember him hitting me, good lord I was green back then...) I actually felt pressured enough to take mine off for the first time. I was cut three times that year by "errant" sticks.... Side note, I blame myself considering I don't use it now and haven't put my face into that situation in a long time, again, green...

Anyway, enough sidetracking, the interesting question is, did the NHL peer pressure guys say the same things to George Owen in Boston (1929, first player to wear a helmet in a regular season game), or the entire Boston Bruins team in 1934, when Eddie Shore fractured someone's skull in a standard hit? Do you think people tried to persuade them into taking the helmet off?

stksave27

12-21-2007, 02:01 PM

]In a game between the Red Army team and the
Flyers..in the days of the "Broad Street Bullies"...the Flyers decided that they would "rough up" the Soviets, rather than try to compete with them using actual hockey skills. The game got so bad that the Soviet Coach pulled their team from the ice.

I was embarrassed that an example of our "best" NHL hockey teams, had to stoop to these antics to compete.

not send a goon squad to destroy them.

. That was why the Flyers debacle was so embarrassing.[/quote]

MDE,

You have actually watched the Flyers Red Army game right? Ed Van Impe checked the Russians best player with a clean hit. Only the Russians contend it was dirty. Watch it again.

All the Flyers did was refuse to play the Russians style of play, IE they didnt send multiple forwards into the zone to chase the puck. They sent one man in and had the other four in the neutral zone... you may have seen this idea before. The Flyers played the body, finished their checks, and did nothing to earn the embarrassment claim.

The most embarrassing thing done was when the Russians left the ice. They were being outplayed and couldnt get the Flyers where they wanted them. Only after being threatened with not being paid did they retake the ice. And they argued against having a delay of game penalty for leaving the ice and delaying the game.

Just because the extremely talented Russian goalie V.T. had an off game and got pulled and his replacement didnt do much better isnt cause to label the Flyers the bad guys. Any NHL game of the 90's had 3x the clutching grabbing and slow down play then the Flyers Russians.

The Flyers of the mid 70's were extremely talanted. Backed by perhaps the best goalie of the 70's (with Dryden and Espo) and lead by an extremely gifted passing play making center named Bob Clarke (Had 89 assists in 75) the Flyers lead the league in defense in their cup years. They managed to play some hockey and were not quite the national embarressment to Canadian Hockey you call them.

Check out the game again and see if the "antics" were in the actual game itself or just the media hype leading up to it.

imasieve30

12-21-2007, 03:31 PM

I would have to agree with stksave27 on this. One would have to look back as far as last season to say the Flyers were an embarassment to hockey. Or at least their record in the last 10 games this season. ;)

You're being a little harsh on them there, MDE...

imasieve30

12-21-2007, 03:43 PM

Brings up an interesting question... Today, I hear all too often, "why don't you take off the cage" Actually, when I was 18 and played in MLRH (season I broke my arm over Rob "The Hammer" Harmer of the NJ Scorpions, I only bring that up because some of you may remember him hitting me, good lord I was green back then...)

Bill, I was actually one of the goalies on that Scorpions team. I remember that game. Rob was a house and played to his strength, killing people he got close enough to along the boards. I still talk to him from time to time. He's a athletic director at a local high school by me. I once saw him choke slam a kid for running in the hallway. Kidding...

GROWL

12-21-2007, 03:44 PM

Zinger! Good one there D'Aloisio, all five of the other devils fans enjoyed that one.

Wanna talk about embarrassing, how about when your executives decide to move a hockey team into the center of Newark. BRILLIANT! I'm sure the Red Army would have loved that one. The Flyers would have seemed like a cake walk in comparison to the walk from their parked bus to the entrance of the rink.

growl89

12-21-2007, 04:51 PM

Who's leading the division, AGAIN? just like every other year?

huh flynn?

exactly

I'd take my chances walking in Newark to watch the Devils win.... As a Flyers fan it must be tough going to games to watch the Devils win in your barn:D

imasieve30

12-21-2007, 05:26 PM

Apparently, they have lost 8 out of their last 10 at home soooo...

As much as we'd like to claim the Devils own them, looks like most of the rest of the league does too...

Ahhh, at least you have Mike Richards. For life. :p

-Joe

William Bourque

12-21-2007, 05:43 PM

Ahhh, at least you have Mike Richards. For life. :p

-Joe

And i could not be more excited about it.

joisyan

12-21-2007, 05:52 PM

what is the worst record for an NHL team in a season? i know when the Capitals came into the league in, i think 75? they were about 7-64-11. i could be wrong but i think i remember seeing that stat in one of the Caps games.

imasieve30

12-21-2007, 06:01 PM

And i could not be more excited about it.

Sigh. Flyers fans...and two weeks into the season you though Biron was the second coming of Bernie Parent. When will you guys learn. :D

GoRangrHky

12-21-2007, 11:56 PM

William Bourque

12-22-2007, 01:16 AM

Sigh. Flyers fans...and two weeks into the season you though Biron was the second coming of Bernie Parent. When will you guys learn. :D

Never did i think that. Biron is average goalie at best, and the Flyers organization is trying to pass him off as a #1 goaltender. The Flyers won't compete until they have a dominating goaltender in net.

The Mike Richards deal at this point will look like a questionable call, but what he brings to the table, in the long run (hence 12 years) it will be well worth it. Richards has shown his ability to lead in all levels of hockey, and over the years he will do just that to the Flyers organization that has lacked a true face for quite some time now.

imasieve30

12-22-2007, 11:11 AM

Never did i think that. Biron is average goalie at best, and the Flyers organization is trying to pass him off as a #1 goaltender. The Flyers won't compete until they have a dominating goaltender in net.

The Mike Richards deal at this point will look like a questionable call, but what he brings to the table, in the long run (hence 12 years) it will be well worth it. Richards has shown his ability to lead in all levels of hockey, and over the years he will do just that to the Flyers organization that has lacked a true face for quite some time now.

you're right...and I'm just trying to stir the pot :p
I love getting Flyers fans fired up. Hell, 70% of my team are Flyers fans. Don't worry there is always the Eagles to fall back on...whoops. ;)

Happy holidays!
-Joe