Oilers,multumesc mult pentru explicatzii. Nici nu banuiam unele chestii despre care tu ai vorbit.
Ar fi marfa daca te-ai inregistra si tu pe forum. Vad ca esti un mare cunoscator al hockey-ului......si probabil fan al celor din Edmonton.
Oilers,multumesc mult pentru explicatzii. Nici nu banuiam unele chestii despre care tu ai vorbit.
Ar fi marfa daca te-ai inregistra si tu pe forum. Vad ca esti un mare cunoscator al hockey-ului......si probabil fan al celor din Edmonton.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Enforcers? Cred ca "goons" e termenul mai potrivit.
Btw. nu prea-s multi "enforcers" din europa pe linga Oliwa (care idiot l-a draftuit pe Oliwa????), as zice ca-s un element al jocului nord american, unde publicul apreceaza distractii de genul asta. Am fost pina acum la vreo 10 meicuri live in europa si am vazut poate 2 bataii simbolice, in ambele cazuri participantii au primit 10 min. misconduct + 2min. minor pt. roughing, nu un 5 min major ca in NHL.
Oricum, daca se mentine chestia cu penalizarile pt. obstructions de anul asta si daca poate se elimina linia rosie pentru pase (si daca poate in sfirsit cineva are curajul sa joace torpedo in loc de neutral zone trap, can you hear me Detroit??) aceasta generatie de jucatori (low skill players) va disparea de pe gheata.
Eu n-o sa pling dupa ei
Pai in NHL pedeapsa e mai dura. La five minute major...echipa joaca in 4 oameni timp de 5 minute. Pe cand la noi,in Europa..se dau 10 minute pentru duritatzi +2 pt. altceva...si echipa joaca doar 2 minute in inferioritate.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
not really. pedepsele pentru bataii sunt coincidentale de regula. numai in cazul in care unul din ei e vazut de arbitru ca instigator, el capata game misconduct si echipa e penalizata cu 2 minute.
Am intrat pt. prima oara pe site si am observat ca mai sint si oameni care sint interesati de unul din cele mai frumoase si mai tari sporturi.
Pot sa zic ca sint un specialist in batai si violenta in hochei(NHL) din moment ce este principalul meu hobby
Nu stiu cu ce sa incep am atitea de spus. Cel mai bine a explicat motivul batailor din hochei Oilers.
In NHL zilelor noastre 'enforcer-i' sint cei care se ocupa cu bataile,in general.Mai sint si alti jucatori care din cind in cind mai recurg la metoda asta,ori pt. asi face dreptate ori pt. a proteja un coechipier sau pt. a mobiliza echipa.
In NHL primele batai sint sint inregistrate inca din anii '20.
Bataile fac parte din joc,hocheiul este un sport de contact,nu este doar un lucru comercial sau box pe gheata.
Bataile in hochei,la inceput, au fost un fel de politie a jucatorilor,un mod de asi face singuri dreptate.Ex. un jucator este lovit cu crosa peste fata;el sau un coechipier poate raspunde acestui act in mod barbateste,cu pumnii goi, nu folosindu-se de crosa.
A avea abilitatea de a te bate(libertatea),reduce mult din aspectele negative ale hocheiului(lovirea cu crosa,cu cotul,jocul nespotiv,etc.)
Pentru noi europenii este ceva ciudat,dar adevaratul hochei s-a nascut si se joaca in America de Nord
Poate am fost confuz,dar o sa mai revin.Am stat toata noaptea pe net sa urmeresc un game din NHL in care se anuntau evenimente(fights,brawls)
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
Itzi multumesc si tie,sickboy pentru frumosul post pe care l-ai facut.
Potzi urmari meciuri din NHL pe internet ? Sau le urmaresti doar in mod text ?
Poate ne spui catziva dintre cei mai batausi jucatori din NHL.
Am vazut si eu cateva faze de bataie..si am observat ca cei din NHL isi scot manusile inainte de a isi cara pumni. Le desfac cu dintzi si le arunca cat colo...si abia dupa aia incep sa se bata.
Din pacate in campionatul Romaniei nu am vazut aceste gesturi. Jucatorii nu renuntza la manusi in cazul unei batai.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Urmaresc doar in mod text,din pacate.Urmaresc si un forum despre hockey-fights,unde sint si eu membru www.hockey-fights.com.
Nu,bataile nu se fac la intimplare,exista chiar un cod al onoarei intre combatantzi:fara manushi(ceea ce mi se pare extraordinar),fara tras de par,lovire cu piciorul,tragerea tricoului peste capul adversarului sau bataie doi contra unu.
Bataile din NHL s-au scimbat mult (in rau) fata de ultimii 10-20 ani,asta din cauza celor care conduc liga,cate nu au habar de hocheiul nord-american,incercind sa copieze stilul de joc european.In Europa daca te bati,automat esti eliminat din joc;in schimb in N-America se sanctioneazacu 5 min. de penalizare.Cum spuneam conducatorii actuali ai NHL au introdus multe reguli care impiedica jucatori sa-si faci singuri dreptate(fights),de unde si audienta scazuta a NHL in America in ultimii ani.
Sa recunoastem ce atrage cel mai mult la hochei este IMO:
-BODYCHECK-urile
-BATAILE
-VIREZA SI MINUIREA PUCULUI
Peroada de aur a NHL A FOST intre anii 1970-1990 OLD TIME HOCKEY
La ora actuala printre cei mai 'tari' batausi(enforcers)sint:
D.Brashear(Philadelphia Flyers)-actualul nr. 1,dar urit pt. stilul sau si pt.individualismul sau (se lupa pt. el nu pentru echipa)
G.Laraque(Edmonton Oilers)-1.90m;115kg printre cei mai temuti
P.Worrell(Florida Panthers)
E.Cairns(New York Islanders)
S.Parker(Colorado Avalanche)
Cei mai spectaculosi si cei mai iubiti:
PJ.Stock(Boston Bruins)1.75m;185kg dar a batut adversati mult mai puternici
Bob "The King" Probert(Chicago Blackhawks)-considerat nr.1 din toate timpurile
Cea mai buna perioada pt. hockey-fights a fost intre nii 1970-1990 cind se realizau faimoasele "bench clearing brawls", adica fiecare jucator din lotul a doua echipe se bateau laolalta
Links:
www.broadstreetbully.com(clipuri)
www.hockeyenforcers.com
http://www.wayney.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/hockeyfights.htm
www.hockeyfights.com
[/url]
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
Motivul audientei scazute (in ultimii ani) este imho, mai putin lipsa bataiilor pe gheata si mai mult talentul diluat ce a aparut in liga.
1992, cred, liga avea 24 de echipe. acum are 30. ceea ce a facut ca, o galeata intreaga de jucatori care nu sunt de calibru NHL au ajuns sa joace in liga. Neputind face fata jucatoriilor elita (mai ales in cazul celor ce joca D ) a aparut fenomenul "clutching and grabbing" din ultimii ani, de cind, la ordinele lui Gary Biteme, errr... Bettman, care vrea sa aduca hockey si in sierra leone daca cresc vinzariile la merchandising, a inceput sa se tolereze obstructiile in zona neutra. Fenomenul s-a simiti prima oara puternic in 96 cind Florida (muahahaha) a ajuns tocmai prin tipul de joc descris mai sus pina in finala (unde a pierdut 4-0).
Numarul golurilor a scazut de asemenea, tocmai din motivele de mai sus. Daca la inceputul aniilor 90 era o rusine ca o echipa sa nu inscrie cel putin 300 de goluri/ sezon, acum cele mai bune echipe nici ca se mai apropie de 300.
Nivelul arbitrajului a tot scazut si liga n-a intervenit, culminind cu finala din 99 Dallas vs. Buffalo (4-2). Toata planeta a vazut ca patina lui Hull era in crease, dar arbitrii, sub presiunea publicului, n-au avut curaj sa anuleza golul. Apoi in saptaminile urmatoare Bettman a incercat sa convinga lumea ca decizia a fost corecta. Citez din comentariul lui Jim Iovino (lcshockey) "After further review: It's Still a Garage League" :
"Brett Hull scored the game-winning goal in triple overtime of Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. The goal, a rebound shot past a sprawled Dominik Hasek, brought the Cup to Dallas for the first time in team history.
Or did it? After further review by ESPN, a replay clearly showed that Hull's left skate was in the crease before he poked home the rebound. But did the league do anything about it? No. The NHL let the biggest goal of the year stand without a second look.
In other words, after an entire season of goals being disallowed by a punk-ass goal crease rule, the league decided the last goal of the season was above the rules. With the Stanley Cup on the line, the league looked the other way.
So much for being unbiased. So much for sticking to their guns. So much for standing up for a "black-and-white" issue.
Sure, the league will say they reviewed the play. Here's a token quote from the league's director of officiating, Bryan Lewis.
"Every such goal has been reviewed by the NHL since the start of the season, including this one," Lewis said. "If you notice - and I can't tell you how long it took - the officials stood at the penalty bench. They don't leave that area until they have been given a signal by us. How long did that take, I apologize. I can't answer that."
And sure, the league will say it sent out a memo to NHL teams on March 25 stating the new "rule change", despite the fact that it didn't tell the fans or, apparently, the referees who continued to call the rule in the same, idiotic way. Perhaps this is what really happened. The game was close to being the longest in playoff history, and for the sake of national television rights, people in high places wanted it to end so SportsCenter could air. For the sake of Czar Bettman's plan for world domination in terms of southern expansion of the NHL, it would be perfect for a team from Dallas to win the Cup. And for the sake of trying not to look like asses, the league refused to let the same punk-ass goal crease rule that frustrated fans the entire season interfere with the outcome of the Stanley Cup winner.
But instead of trying not to look like asses, the league did the opposite. It made itself look like complete and total asses.
By not sticking to the original rules from the beginning of the season, the league went back on everything it stood for the last three years. Despite all of the bitching and complaining from fans and, well, LCS Hockey, the league had stood firm on the goal-crease rule. But now, after much agony and torture, the league decided not to play by the same rules it had the previous three seasons.
For the first time ever, Lewis pulled out of his magical hat the following explanation as to why the rule wasn't enforced:
"The debate here seems to be did he or did he not have possession and control. Our words from upstairs and our view was that, yes, he did. He played the puck from his foot to his stick, shot and scored. ...A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post, an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession and therefore Hull would be in possession ... even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck."
So why, if this is the case, has this part of the rule never been enforced before? Perhaps some of you might remember a goal Pierre Turgeon thought he scored a few years back. Turgeon had the puck behind the opponent's net, he circled around one side and used a wrap-around to score a goal. But the goal was called back because Turgeon's own skate was in the crease before the puck was. Under the "new" interpretation of the rules, that goal should have counted.
And another thing. Under this interpretation, we'd have to suppose that if Sergei Zubov takes a shot from the point, he is still in possession of the puck after the shot is deflected off the goalie and the rebound goes into the corner. As the puck enters the corner, Zubov would technically still have control of the puck. Does that sound right? No, because it isn't.
...
Adding insult to injury, just two days after the phantom goal, the league decided to do away with video replay of goals altogether. Bettman said the rule change had nothing to do with Hull's goal. He said the league was more concerned that the game would lose some of its spontaneity when play is stopped for video reviews.
Spontaneity? How about losing its credibility as a major professional sport in North America?
We're relying too much on replays," Bettman said and smiled, knowing he has spiked another dagger through the heart of a once pure and proud game. "The rule (on Hull's goal) was absolutely, correctly applied. Everyone understands it was the right call."
Everyone except the millions of hockey fans around the world who have be force-fed a black-and-white in the crease rule for the past three seasons, only to see it not used in the most important game of all. That includes Ruff, who is probably still replaying the goal over and over in his sleep."
Si daca tot suntem la subiectul scadera audientei, trebuie sa-i facem responsabili in primul rind pe NYR, care, ca si Detroit, incearca sa cumpere cupa stanley, dar o fac intr-un mod infinit de idiot. Lucru care ar fi OK de principiu daca Glen Sather/Bryan Trottier n-ar avea un buget de 60 mil. Poate sa-mi explice cineva de cind valoreaza Bobby Holik 9 Mil/an??? sau Kaspariaitis 5 mil.?????? lucrurile astea duc la cresterea exorbitanta a salariilor, echipe low budget ca si pittsburgh, calgary, ottawa etc. neputind face fata cheltuielilor (btw. si Washington incepe sa aiba aceleasi simptome). Toate aceste chestii au dus in plus si la o crestere simtitoare a preturilor la bilete, lucru care determina pe relativ multi sa stea acasa si sa se uite la meci la televizor. Ca rezultat mai mult decit probabil, in 2004 vom avea din nou un lockout, care va inrautatii imaginea hockey-ului printre fani.
e clar ca bataiile au devenit o parte a jocului si vor ramine. ceea ce sper eu e ca enforcerii traditionali sa dispara, ei sa fie inlocuiti cu jucatori care mai acumuleaza si puncte, in afara de PIM.
nu prea pot fi de accord ca s-ar copia jocul european, din simplul motiv ca suprafata de gheata in europa e mai lata, si nu poate fi acoperita asa de bine defensiv (de aceea suedezii au invetat left-wing lock-ul)
in plus influxul de jucatori europeni a dat calitate jocului si ligii. ce-ar fi NHL fara jucatori ca Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne, Sundin, Mogilny, Kovalev, Fedorov, Straka, Kozlov ca sa-i numesc numai pe citiva.
la lista ce atrage cel mai mult la hockey ai uitat un element esential: GOLURILE. si de goluri se duce lipsa rau de tot.
ooops...inca ceva... meciuri pot fi ascultate prin internet radio zilnic pe www.nhl.com (pe care-l tine stomacul sa stea noptile ascultind). eu rezist de ani de zile, si nu-mi pare rau
Ai dreptate cu talentul diluat din cauza noilor echipe admise in NHL,incepind din sezonul 1991-92,si cu salariile mari din liga dar lucrurile aste se inimpla din cauza ca marile sporturi au devenit o industrie(vezi fotbalul)Alta cauza a fost si Buttman,care nu are habar de hochei de traditia din NHL si de regulile de arbitraj.
Nu am nimic cu jucatorii europeni de valoare dar "galeata de jucatori" de care zici este formata in majoritate de catre europeni de valoare mediocra.
Prin copierea stilului european inteleg introducerea noilor reglementari introduse in acest sezon(penalizarea anapoda a infractiunilor,grabirea timpului de setare a liniilor,introducerea a doi arbitrii de centru care mai mult se incurca(au fost intodusi si pt. a ajuta la stoparea batailor),orice "tampon" mai barbatesc este penalizat etc.)
Bine inteles ca golurile sint foarte importante,dar cu noile reguli in majoritatea timpului se joaca cu echipele speciale(in superioritate sau in inferioritate)nu exista cursivitate in joc si jocul fizic dispare cu desavirsire.
Bataile nu au devenit o parte din joc ,ci au fost todeauna in hocheiul Nord-American.
Cel mai bine ar fii ca toti jucatori sa raspunda pt. actiunile lor,nu sa se apere in spatele unui enforcer.
Am uitat de radio...
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
pai sa vedem
daca am numarat bine ...
la inceputul sezonului:
North America 476 jucatori
Europa 238 jucatori (3 mai putini ca sezonul trecut)
(cifrele pot sa nu mai fie exacte acum, deoarece in timpul sezonului au loc miscari catre si dinspre minor leagues)
oricum, europenii reprezinta 1/3 din totalul jucatorilor.
acu sa ne uitam la productie:
in Top 50 total PTS:
North America 28 jucatori (56%)
Europa 22 jucatori (44%)
Top 50 goluri:
NA 30 jucatori (60%)
EUR 20 jucatori (40%)
Top 50 assists:
NA 27 jucatori (54%)
EUR 23 jucatori (46%)
si acum sa vedem Top 50 PIM:
NA 45 jucatori (90%)
EUR 5 jucatori (10%)
btw in Top 20 nu-i nici un singur european, primul ce apare in lista fiind Andrei Nazarov (Phoenix), pe locul 22.
statisticile nu-ti sprijina afirmatia.
agree la penalizari anapoda. lipsa de consistenta in arbitraj impiedica jucatorii sa joace la 100%. dar avind in vedere ca in afara de speed-up faceoffs nu se aplica decit regulamentul vechi (obstructia era obstructie si inainte dar se ignora, si asta de prin 95 de-abia).
Hai sa n uitam la finalele cupei stanley din 90 incoace si la participantele de-atunci:
90/91: Pittsburgh Penguins (4-2 cu Minnesota North Stars) (342 goluri in timpul sezonului)
91/92: Pittsburgh Penguins (4-0 cu Chicago Blackhawks) (343g)
92/93: Montreal Canadiens (4-1 cu Los Angeles Kings) (326g)
93/94: NY Rangers (4-3 cu Vancouver Canucks) (299g)
94/95 (lockout): NJ Devils (4-0 cu Detroid Red Wings) (136g) s-au jucat numai 48 de meciuri in timpul sezonului
95/96: Colorado Avalanche (4-0 cu Florida Panthers) (326g) (adversarul Florida a marcat numai 254)
96/97: Detroit Red Wings (4-0 cu Philadelphia Flyers) (253g)
97/98: Detroit Red Wings (4-0 cu Washington Capitals) (250g)
98/99: Dallas Stars (4-2 cu Buffalo Sabres) (236g)
99/00: NJ Devils (4-2 cu Dallas Stars) (251g)
00/01: Colorado Avalanche (4-3 cu NJ Devils) (270g)
01/02: Detroit Red Wings (4-1 cu Carolina Hurricanes) (251g) (Carolina a marcat numai 217 in timpul sezonului)
dupa cum se vede, ultimul sezon in care o echipa a trecut de 300 goluri pe sezon a fost 95/96. cam de-atunci se ignora obstructiile. in urmatorii ani numarul golurilor a scazut vertiginos ajungind 2001/2002 la un all-time low.
anul asta nu se fluiera obstructiile ci se fluiera prostii. asta din cauza ca in ultimii ani nu s-a aplicat regulamentul si arbitrii s-au dezobisnuit. in plus de anul asta-s amenintati cu demotion in ligile minore daca nu aplica regulamentul, ergo fluiera orice rahat, mai ales in primele 10-15 meciuri.
in alta ordine de idei:
grabirea faceoff-ului e o regula buna, meciul normal nu mai dureaza 3 ore jumate ci 2.5 -2.75 ore. iar cind jucatorii si arbitrii se vor obisnui cu aplicarea regulamentului la obstructii nivelul penalizarilor se va intoarce la normal.
ceea ca mai lipseste la accelerarea jocului este desfintarea pasei peste 2 linii, lucru care va determina mai multe breakawayuri, mai multe goluri si va descuraja echipe defensive care joaca neutral zone trap sau chiar 4+1, facind inutila tactica de-a juca pe meciuri de 1-0 sau 2-1.
checkul la jucatorul fara puc e roughing si trebuie penalizat. ce se fluiera excesiv acum nu sunt numai bodycheckurile, ci hooking, slashing si tripping care sunt armele jucatorului defensiv lipsit de talent.
Bineinteles ca europenii sint in topurile clasamentelor realizatorilor,daca reprezinta o treime din totalul jucatorilor.
Ma refeream la faptul ca jucatorii din Europa au adus cu ei stilul european,diferit de cel nord-american,in forta(pe care il prefer si il consider adevaratul hochei).
Vorbeam despre violenta in hochei.In Europa(exceptie SuperLiga din Marea Britanie) bataile nefiind tolerate,violenta consta in general din"high sticking","cheap shots".Tolerarea batailor ar aducemai putine accidentari din cauza croselor.
In favoarea batailor s-au exprimat si jucatori care nu au avut nici o treaba cu "indeletnicirea" asta:Wayne Gretzky,Paul Kariya.
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
da. dar, desi reprezinta numai 33% din numarul total de jucatori sunt de gasit in proportie de 40+ % in statisticile de puncte.
In Top 100 la puncte
NA 53 (53%)
EUR 47 (47%)
In Top 150 la puncte
NA 86 (58.4%)
EUR 64 (42.6%)
n-as putea zice ca sta in picioare chestia cu jucatorii mediocrii.
EUROTRASH!!!
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
GoPens...spune-mi si mie te rog unde ai gasit statisticile pe care le mentionezi. As vrea sa vad care e procentul pe tari. De exemplu in primii 25 (atat am avut rabdare sa numar):
11 Europeans
13 Canadian
1 American (Mike Modano)
As vrea sa vad care-i raportul (#of players) vs. (points) pentru Europeni si Canadieni.
Btw...ce fac Pinguinii tai? Acum si Morozov e IR!!!
Go Oilers!!!!! Kill Avs tonight!!!!
www.nhl.com
www.espn.com
www.lcshockey.com
sau cauta in google
Un foarte bun articol despre bataile din hochei si despre 'enforcers' :
'To Protect and Serve
Is vigilante justice necessary in hockey?
by Michael Morrison
We've all heard the stereotypes commonly associated with hockey: "barbaric", "boxing on ice", "long on blood, short on teeth." And of course there's the always-po****r saying, "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out."
Anaheim enforcer Stu Grimson (L) has played a significant role in his team's success in 1998-99. Here he dances with Colorado's heavyweight up-and-comer Scott Parker.
Are these slights legitimate? Well, maybe. But the fact is, unlike newspaper betting lines, NCAA office pools, and professional wrestling, fighting in hockey is not for entertainment purposes only. Many casual fans and anti-fighting activists don't understand that there is a method to the madness.
Why Drop the Gloves?
For the most part, fighters are in the league to "protect the skill players" — pugilists serve to keep the peace. For the league to thrive, smaller but talented stars like Anaheim's Paul Kariya and the Florida Panthers' Pavel Bure must be allowed the freedom to skate, pass, and shoot without the fear of being blindsided or slashed by a 6'4", 220 pound defenseman. With an "enforcer" keeping watch, players tend to think twice before taking liberties with these stars.
Kariya missed most of the 1997-98 season after suffering a concussion, thanks to a vicious cross-check to the face following a goal. Teammate and fellow star Teemu Selanne also missed time that season due to injury, and the team missed the playoffs.
To prevent this from happening again, Anaheim bulked up by signing long-time and well-respected fighter Stu Grimson, a.k.a "The Grim Reaper." In 1998-99, Selanne and Kariya ranked No. 2 and 3 in the scoring race, Grimson was in the top 25 in penalty minutes, and their team finished above .500 and earned a playoff berth.
Selanne recently told The Hockey News, "Just having him in the lineup, the other team knows they can't do any dirty things. Opponents can play hard, they can play tough, but they have to play clean."
In a perfect world, referees would catch all the cheap shots and flagrant fouls, and vigilante justice wouldn't be necessary. The stark reality is that they can't possibly catch everything. Even if they did, it might not completely put a halt to foul play.
Right or wrong, most coaches would risk having one of their less-talented players take a penalty and a game misconduct to take a run at the other team's star, if it meant knocking the star from the game.
A Brief History of Hockey Fighting
Fighting on the whole, however, has been in decline since its peak in the mid-eighties, when games averaged over one fight per game. Currently, just over .61 fights occur per game, the lowest total since the 1976-77 season.
In the 1950s and '60s fighting was actually pretty rare, but seemed to be more brutal than today, complete with stick-swinging and bench-clearing. It was also a time when stars did their own fighting without the luxury of calling on protection.
In the late 1960s expansion added six additional teams to the NHL. This lowered the level of talent across the board, and allowed for players with toughness and just a touch of skill to enter the league. In the 1970s, Boston's "Big Bad Bruins" and the "Broad Street Bullies" of Philadelphia won four championships between them, largely because of their ability to outmuscle their opponents.
In 1977, the "Third Man In" rule was enacted to do away with the bench-clearing brawl. The rule gave an automatic ejection to the first player to join a fight already in progress.
In the 1980s the Gretzky Era hit its stride, and so did fisticuffs. We all know "The Great One" was immensely talented, but at 6'0" and 185 pounds, was also an easy target for bigger, stronger players. His gaudy numbers with Edmonton in the 1980s would have been unlikely if not for the protection of less-heralded tough guys like Dave Semenko and Marty McSorley.
Today, fighting has diminished partly because of the newly implemented instigator rule, which awards an additional two-minute penalty to any player who starts a fight. Two in one game is grounds for ejection. Players are less likely to drop the gloves if it will cause their team to play shorthanded, especially in the all-important playoffs.
Some believe the allowance of fighting in the NHL is strictly financial, and that if fighting were abolished, fans would find the sport less interesting, and ratings would decrease. Well, they're right.
Not because fans necessarily love to watch fighting, but because without it, more stars like Kariya, Selanne and Peter Forsberg would be on the sidelines and scoring would fall to soccer-like levels. And that really would be less interesting.'
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
[source : Pittsburgh Post Gazette]It's imperative that the NHL ban fighting and other forms of violence
By Shelly Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Years ago, there was a big flap in Edmonton when Mark Messier, then a part of the Oilers' dynasty, was portrayed as a Cro-Magnon man in an editorial cartoon. How do you like him now?
Messier, 43 and probably finishing his final season in the NHL with the New York Rangers, is a sure Hall of Famer, and deservedly so. In an NHL career that began in 1979-80, he has accumulated 693 goals and 1,886 points, has played on six Stanley Cup champions and has won two Hart and one Conn Smythe trophies.
This week, though, thoughts of Messier in Pittsburgh -- what could be the lasting image of him in this town -- are tied to his ugly spearing of Penguins defenseman Martin Strbak in a game Sunday at Mellon Arena.
That incident not only brought Messier's career total of penalty minutes to 1,910 and earned him a two-game suspension, but it also was an embarrassment to the league coming on the heels of the Todd Bertuzzi incident.
And it wasn't the only suspension the league handed down this week.
Calgary's Chris Simon got two games for kneeing Sergei Zubov of Dallas. Calgary coach Darryl Sutter drew two games and Flames forward Krzystof Oliwa three for a ridiculous incident in a loss at Nashville when Sutter sent Oliwa onto the ice in the final seconds. Oliwa repeatedly tried to fight several Predators and received a penalty for physical abuse of officials. Toronto's Wade Belak was suspended for eight games for a two-handed chop to the face of Colorado's Ossi Vaananen.
What other major pro sport has anything approaching that kind of list in its transactions in the span of a few days?
Sad to say, the NHL is on the verge of losing its "major sport" status, if it hasn't already. A lockout next season over a labor dispute won't help matters.
It was just a couple of weeks ago that outrage poured from every NHL city, and places where hockey isn't as well known, over Bertuzzi's hit and tackle from behind that left Colorado's Steve Moore with a broken neck. Bertuzzi, of Vancouver, was suspended for the balance of this season and must apply for reinstatement to the league. There also is a police investigation of the incident.
For a lot of former and non-fans, this is the face of the NHL today, and it's a face not a lot of mothers could love. Not a lot of sports fans in general love it, either, judging from attendance figures and TV ratings. Because the furor and attention raised by the Bertuzzi incident seem to have died down some, let's say it again:
The NHL needs to do something to curb the violence in its game.
Let's keep saying it until the league listens or dies a slow death.
That does not mean the sport has to become baseball. Contact and checking are an integral part of hockey and always should be. But there's a big difference between a well-timed hip check that takes out an opponent on the blue line and an out-and-out mugging, sometimes with the use of a raised hockey stick. We all know where it has to start. It has to start where fighting stops.
Don't give me that tired line about fighting being part of hockey's fabric. Change isn't always bad. Witness spitballs, basketball without a 3-point shot and the single-wing offense.
And don't dredge up that nonsense about players needing an outlet for their frustration or an avenue to defend their manhood according to some hockey code. Athletes in other sports have tempers and egos, too, and they don't regularly resort to fighting. When they do fight, they get an ejection, not just a penalty. Nor do other sports employ enforcers.
There used to be a theory that as long as hockey players are allowed to fight, it helps cut down on other violent acts, particularly illegal stickwork, and therefore reduces injuries. That doesn't stand up anymore.
I looked the other way for years myself when it came to fighting in the NHL. I bought the boys-will-be-boys nonsense. But fighting and all other blatant violence is bringing the game down, and I don't want to see that.
Any hockey purist wants a game without fighting, or at least respects the game enough to live without the fisticuffs.
If you can't appreciate the skating, stickhandling, passing, checking and goaltending, please take your bloodthirst and beer and retire to the alley. It's not as if there are enough of you self-proclaimed diehards who crave fighting to keep the sport thriving.
Supporting violence in hockey is like saying you're an auto racing fan when you only watch in hopes of seeing a fiery crash.
Those who vehemently defend and advocate fighting in hockey are doing harm to a league they supposedly love. For the sake of the NHL, it's got to stop.
Parerea lui Teemu Selanne:
http://www.canoe.ca/Slam040322/col_strachan-sun.html
Opinia funasului lui NY Islanders,Adrian Aucoin:
http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2232474
O parte a unui articol scris de Barry Melrose(fost jucator,antrenor in NHL,acum comentator la ESPN):
"[...]This situation isn't necessarily a black eye for hockey, though, because anyone who doesn't like the physical nature of the sport is going to bash it anyway. It's amazing that Major League Baseball cannot get its players to submit to drug testing and has pitchers who throw at guy's heads, yet people zero in on one unfortunate incident in hockey and point to it as an example of what's wrong with the game.
Those who know hockey understand that a line was crossed and that what Bertuzzi did is should never be part of the game. They are likely the same group that will use this as another argument for abolishing the instigator rule -- which gives an extra minor penalty to the player who starts a fight -- and letting the players police themselves by exacting retribution before situations like this arise.
Others will be calling for an end to fighting and a move to European rules, but they likely don't watch a lot of overseas hockey. If they did, they'd see that the European game is the dirtiest in the world. Players over there engage in all kinds of stickwork -- slashing, spearing, high-sticking -- and the physical play involves kicking and the like. There is no accountability or retribution, so a dirty player can run rampant all game long without having to face justice.
And the faction that says the NHL should adopt international rules forgets that the Olympics feature the eight best teams in the world, each featuring the 20 best players from their countries. The skill level across the board is totally different and the product will be better no matter what rules they play under.
Many people who don't truly understand the game are talking right now, but they are exactly the group who should not be saying anything. The NHL is dealing with one terrible incident and will survive. Let's just hope Steve Moore's career survives."
Last edited by sickboy; 31st March 2004 at 19:42.
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"
asta zic si eu.Those who know hockey understand that a line was crossed and that what Bertuzzi did is should never be part of the game.
aici se vede ca baiatu n-are habar de hockey-ul european si nu prea s-a uitat nici el atent. majoritatea jucatoriilor (in Germania unde am ocazia sa vad) sunt canadieni de mina a treia care nu prea au loc nici in AHL. coincidental aia sunt cei care joaca un hockey murdar. am vazut pina acu vreo 30-40 de meciuri in europa (live si la TV) dar n-am vazut inca nici un rus, suedez sau finnlandez penalizat pentru spearing sau slashing. high-sticking am vazut dar in fata portii cind incercau sa bage rebound-ul la care puckul era in aer. se intimpla relativ des. dar n-am vazut inca sa-i dea cu crosa in cap la unul (as i said, rus, suedez, finnlandez , canadieni am vazut)Others will be calling for an end to fighting and a move to European rules, but they likely don't watch a lot of overseas hockey. If they did, they'd see that the European game is the dirtiest in the world. Players over there engage in all kinds of stickwork -- slashing, spearing, high-sticking -- and the physical play involves kicking and the like. There is no accountability or retribution, so a dirty player can run rampant all game long without having to face justice.
si daca ar juca mai toti europenii din NHL in europa (vedem in toamna cind vine lockoutul) n-ai mai vedea toate caricaturile astea de pseudo-enforceri care populeaza checking-linurile cluburilor europene.
dupa mine hokeyul este intr-un impas ca sport , este innecat de comercial si multe alte nereguli.
Se tot da exemplu romanilor societatea americana uitandu-se ca aici se intampla lucruri inacceptabile.
1.Nu a spus nimeni de aici ca aparatorul de la Vancouver l-a lovit pe cel de la Colorado ca revansa pentru ce s-a intamplat la precedentul meci de la Colorado cand vedeta celor de la Vancouver,Naslund a fost urmarit tot meciul si accidentat intentionat de chiar vicitma agresiunii celebre.El a platit pentru ca arbitrii si liga n-au fost in stare sa-l pedepseasca.Cand se permite urmarirea jucatorilor buni de la echipele adverese pentru a fi scosi intentionat din joc te poti astepta la orice
2.Cand toti jucatorii se dopeaza si majorotatea joaca sub influenta drogurilor te poti astepta la ce e mai rau.Despre dopind si droguri se stie foarte bine.A fost un intreg scandal pe tema asta in acest an si nimeni n-a facut nimic in final.
3.Cand indisciplina este la rang de lege, vorbind de Montreal Candiens sa spunem ca au fost jucatori care au refuzat sa urce in avion pe motive puerile, batai serioase intre coechipeiri la antrenamente,Koicvu si Ribeiro,apoi familia unei vedete locale,Theodore, urmarita in justitie pentru trafic de droguri, antrenori demisi pentru ca au participat la o petrecere a unei echipe adverese,cei din Toronto, petarde aruncate in patinoar cum s-a intamplat anii trecuti si o gramada de nereguli.
Echipe care cumpara titulul NHL cazul lui Detroit Red Wings anul trecut sau interventia politicului in viata echipei , cazul lui Montreal Canadiens.
Sistemul de disputare al ligii este determinat de interese pur comerciale , totul este o uriasa afacere in care neregulile de tot felul sint chiar mai grave ect cele care se petrec in fotbalul romanesc. Daca ar fi stiu Neaga ca in NHL nu exista practic jucator care nu se dopeaza...
Bataile au loc de multe ori tocami datorita influentei drogurilor, sint multi care joaca drogati. Asta este adevarul.
Iar cand liga tolereaza scoaterea intentionata din joc a unor jucatori din echipa adversa inseamna ca totul trebuie regandit din radacina daca se vrea salvarea moralitatii din NHL. Daca nu, va deveni unitatea de masura a lipsei de sportivitate si fair-play.
Sa nu mai vorbim de multimea blaturilor care apar in ultimele meciuri inainte play-off-lui cand echipele deja calificate mimeaza de cele mai multe ori in fata echipelor care nu s-au calificat inca dar au sperante.
NHL este in mare pericol!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote