NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

[Osorojo]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Let's stick to college hockey.
Cheap hits, which are historically the cause of more serious injuries than fighting, are not called in a significant number of occurrences. Fighting is ALWAYS called, traditionally without regard to aggressor or victim. If and when a cheap shot is called the culprit is penalized to no greater and often to a lesser degree than both the aggressor (and the victim) in a fight. How does this support the conclusion that penalties for fighting should be increased? Are the sensibilities of fans offended by fights more important than the safety of the players? If not, the sanctions against dangerous cheap hits (not fighting) need to be strengthened BEFORE such hits cause permanent harm. Otherwise bring in the cops, the lawyers, and the judges.

[TimU]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Let's stick to college hockey.

Better yet, let's stick to facts and the topic being discussed.

Cheap hits, which are historically the cause of more serious injuries than fighting, are not called in a significant number of occurrences. Fighting is ALWAYS called, traditionally without regard to aggressor or victim. If and when a cheap shot is called the culprit is penalized to no greater and often to a lesser degree than both the aggressor (and the victim) in a fight. How does this support the conclusion that penalties for fighting should be increased?

Once again: it doesn't, and nobody has suggested otherwise.

Fighting should be eliminated from the game because it's stupid and dangerous. The arguments against fighting being made here have had nothing to do with whether a cheap shot is penalized more or less than participation in a fight. Exactly one person has tried to link those two things, in SUPPORT of fighting: you.

Fighting should be eliminated. When YOU suggested that it should be kept because it helps reduce cheap shots, others disagreed. They said it does no such thing, and that the two aren't related. If you want to get rid of cheap shots, assess long suspensions to players who make them. It has nothing whatever to do with fighting. You're the one who has defended fighting by suggesting it's needed to control cheap shots, and you're the one who tried to use a comparison of elbowing vs. fighting penalites to reach a conclusion about the value of fighting.

[Osorojo]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Better yet, let's stick to facts and the topic being discussed.




The arguments against fighting being made here have had nothing to do with whether a cheap shot is penalized more or less than participation in a fightExactly one person has tried to link those two things, in SUPPORT of fighting: you.

Not just ": you." but every hockey player who ever got into a fight after a cheap hit made the connection between cheap hits and fighting. Just think about the possibility that penalizing fighting more consistently and even more severely than a cheap hit - with a stick or to the head or from behind - might embolden dirty players.

[Stauber1]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Not just ": you." but every hockey player who ever got into a fight after a cheap hit made the connection between cheap hits and fighting. Just think about the possibility that penalizing fighting more consistently and even more severely than a cheap hit - with a stick or to the head or from behind - might embolden dirty players.

That's not an argument for permitting fighting, it's an argument for being more aggressive in identifying and severely penalizing players who commit dangerous and reckless infractions.

[Huskiefan906]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

I also think it is way past time to eliminate it at the junior levels. The game should be called correctly to eliminate the severe infractions. The focus needs to be on the real objective a competitive skilled contest to see which team wins out not which one intimidates the other. All should be mandated to play within the rules to minimize the serious injuries. Hockey offers the fan and players the best game, stop allowing that to be marred by fighting.

[Goon]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

As a counterpoint: the fight between Derek Boogaard and Todd Fedoruk resulted in serious injury. And for all we know, the former is dead in part because of hockey fighting.

Boogaard is dead because he took a fatal combination of drugs and alcohol. Boogaard was battling chemical dependency.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Fighting for the sake of standing up for your star player (or goaltender) should be perfectly fine. Fighting for the heck of it, like we see quite a gosh darn bit, is just silly. Obviously that gets into an "intent" argument, but once the cheap shot is committed, go after the person who gave the shot then and there, it's over, move on.

[LtPowers]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Boogaard is dead because he took a fatal combination of drugs and alcohol. Boogaard was battling chemical dependency.

Chemical dependency brought on by...?


Powers &8^]

[KnightsOfTheRound]

Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada

Boogaard is dead because he took a fatal combination of drugs and alcohol. Boogaard was battling chemical dependency.

I'm copy pasting from the NYT's excellent article on the subject:

Boogaard had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, commonly known as C.T.E., a close relative of Alzheimer’s disease. It is believed to be caused by repeated blows to the head. It can be diagnosed only posthumously, but scientists say it shows itself in symptoms like memory loss, impulsiveness, mood swings, even addiction."

It did not take long for Dr. Ann McKee to see the telltale brown spots near the outer surface of Boogaard’s brain — the road signs of C.T.E. She did not know much about Boogaard other than that he was a 28-year-old hockey player. And the damage was obvious.

“That surprised me,” she said.

A neuropathologist, McKee is one of four co-directors of Boston University’s Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy and the director of the center’s brain bank. She has examined nearly 80 brains of former athletes, mainly retired football players and boxers who spent their careers absorbing blows to the head. The center’s peer-reviewed findings of C.T.E. have been widely accepted by experts in the field. The National Football League, initially dismissive, has since donated money to help underwrite the research.

The group may now have its most sobering case: a young, high-profile athlete, dead in midcareer, with a surprisingly advanced degree of brain damage.

“To see this amount? That’s a ‘wow’ moment,” McKee said as she pointed to magnified images of Boogaard’s brain tissue. “This is all going bad.”

Linking C.T.E. to Boogaard’s rapid descent in his final years is complicated by his drug addiction.

"He had problems with abuse the last couple years of his life, and that coincided with some of the cognitive and behavioral and mood changes,” Stern said. “What’s the chicken? What’s the egg?”

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/sp...pagewanted=all

The point is, you can't easily separate the chemical dependency, which was the immediate cause of death, from the years of brain trauma. I hedged my initial comment by saying he may have died "in part because of hockey fighting," but my own personal suspicion is fighting had a lot to do with it.