Decius wrote:
] crankymessiah wrote:
] ] ] With the 2003-04 National Hockey League season now
] ] ] underway, it's time for hockey fans to admit the
] ] ] game needs a face lift. Clearly, some refinishing is
] ] ] required to bring hockey back to the fast-paced,
] ] ] highly-skilled, physically-demanding sport that is used
] ] ] to be.
]
] I agree about the goalies. I'm not so much concerned about
] obstruction as I am about the fact that you can't score unless
] the goalie is distracted or slips. It should be possible to
] out-skill the goalie. Higher scores are ok.
]
] I am obviously strongly opposed to eliminating the Nashville
] Predators.
]
] One thing I'd argue is that there are too many fights. There
] are so many fights that they are like clockwork. I imagine
] that the management sets that up such that there is at least
] one fight every game. Fans like fights. However, I'm beginning
] to suspect that the situation is more like that of
] professional wrestling then that of NASCAR.

Negative goatherder.

I meme'd this article because of two things:

1) I needed to forward it on to others who would be interested in it.
2) I needed to expose the stupidity in tinkering with the NHL.

If you read the article completely, you'll realize that the last thing suggested is to do nothing (or very little).

Everyone's always trying to tinker with hockey to make it 'better'. Yes, it's a different game than it was in the late 80's/early 90's, which was different still from the late 70s. Sports evolve. Just like everything else does. It will be different in the next 10 years as well. Quit complaining about it.

There are a couple of things that need to happen to save the league. I trust the CBA negotiations will solve most of them. Contracting the league is not one of them. There's no reason why a team like Nashville or Calgary cannot be financially successful. It's all about managing expectations. One thing that's been proven is that a large payroll does not equal a Stanley Cup.

But to address your particular gripes, the ruling on restricting the size of goalies pads is fine. Goalies get beat. Frequently. In fact, even the best goalies get beat plenty. What's kept the # of goals per game down is defensive systems. There are far less shots per game than there used to be. The shots that do get off are generally weak or low percentage shots. So naturally that makes the goalies look good. They're not as good as the stats would suggest. If you're going to do anything to pump goals up, start calling obstruction. There's no reason why anyone should touch me if I don't have the puck. And that means possession AND control of the puck.

Finally, on fighting - no... there needs to be MORE fighting. Fighting is not gratuitous violence as many ignorant fans assume it to be. Fighting is ACCOUNTABILITY! Hockey is just like any other sport - you can cheat or play cheap without being detected often. In the good ole days (70s & 80s), if someone speared your best player, or was constantly crashing your goalie, you were allowed to make a statement. That statement was with your fists. It basically sent the message "you can continue to engage in this behavior, but if you do, you'll need to pay a price." No other professional sport has this ability. In most professional sports, cheating allows you to win unfairly with no recourse (see NFL).

By removing fighting (or worse, calling the instigator penalty), you remove that layer of accountability. So what you end up with is two things:

1) Guys who cheat, but have no accountability. The refs cannot see everything, and generally only see the retaliation. So if you get sticked in the gut, and do nothing, there's no accountability. If you do retaliate, you get called and your team goes down a man. See how this works against the flow of the game? The skill? You effectively reward players with lessor skill who resort to cheating to make a play.

2) Guys are more likely to cheat with VIOLENT or DANGEROUS infractions because they know there won't be any accountability. If I can slow you down with a hook or a slash, which will I take? I'll likely take the slash, because I know that I won't get my face bashed in by doing so. So essentially you are INCREASING the likelihood of injury and escalation of violence by decreasing fighting. It's counterproductive. This is why stick infractions have skyrocketed and along with them, injuries.

Hockey is perhaps the last sport with a 'code of honor' somewhat intact within it. That code basically says that we agree to play as sportsmen. The minute you deviate from that, there are penalties and accountability. By tinkering with that code, you are impacting the heart of the game and removing what makes it the coolest game on Earth. It is the combination of brute force, speed, agility, and strategy that makes it so compelling. Removing any of these, especially brute force, and you weaken everything.

RE: How to help hockey