Sunday, December 11, 2011
Origins of violence in hockey
Interesting account.
Buy The Book from Amazon
Interesting account.
Right, the NHL playoffs is the best argument against fighting. You don’t see increased stick play, you don’t see senseless violence. Basically, everyone is on their best behaviour, because no one wants to be the guy that puts his team down 0-1, in a best 4 of 7.
But, the 82-game NHL season offers alot of margin of error for players to take a bigger risk.
As for the other leagues, those leagues may show decrease in fights, but they likely will show an increase in stick fouls, the very thing players don’t like, and what led, according to the article, to the self-policing. Basically, the officials are not well-equipped to handle the chippy play.
It’s basically the red-light district of prostitution, but about fighting instead.
What we need is alot of research before we come to any conclusion. There are alot of considerations, which is why I keep bringing this up.
May 25 13:18
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?
May 25 13:04
“Why Kickstarter works”
May 25 12:51
Chad Curtis
May 25 12:40
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?
May 25 11:32
Howard Stern
May 25 11:26
Lack of hustle during a game
May 25 11:22
What sabermetrics is NOT
May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry
May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion
May 25 01:43
Neal Huntington’s best moves
Maybe that’s how the tolerance started, but tow things--both of which we have discussed here before--argue against it today:
1. A fight between two players in the heat of a scrum is one thing, and may well act as a safety valve, though other hockey leagues seem to exist without it. Two designated fighters dropping their gloves during a faceoff does not.
2. Fights are rare in the playoffs, where emotions are highest.