PDA

View Full Version : Any thoughts on the Bertuzzi mess?


bugstud
03-10-2004, 12:42 PM
Pretty sickening video clip

HDPM
03-10-2004, 01:21 PM
Yeah, I watched the stories on it for a while last night. I have always been a firm believer in fighting in hockey. Many times a game is going out of control and a fight takes care of things. Sounds strange to encourage fighting, but the stuff that goes on now is pretty bad. One problem is that Moore I don't think is a physical player, but I don't follow the avalanche closely enough to know. So he wears a visor. So is less likely to fight. And more likely to get a ridiculous shot like the one bertuzzi did. But the visor is protecting guys so it is hard to rail against them even though for years I thought visor wearers should have to wear a skirt and not be allowed to check anybody. The worst were guys like claude lemieux who wore the visor and were cheap shot artists.

Anyway, I saw the replay of the hit that moore put on naslund. Not all that bad. So then vancouver puts a bouty on him. And then they put perhaps the cheapest and most dangerous shot on him imaginable. Driving a guys head into the ice like that was awful. ANd bertuzzi started hitting him when he was out cold with a broken neck. That was pretty bad. Even significantly worse then what mcsorley did.

Given the fact there was a bounty on moore and the nature of the hit, I would hammer bertuzzi if I were the NHL commissioner. And I like hockey fights. I'd give him the rest of the season and all the playoffs off. Any partial season after the lockout off. And one year after that. Because of the bounty vancouver would pay damages to moore. If he can't return, vancouver would write him a check for his career. And forfeit their #1 picks for a while. If I had the power to do so. The bounty talk was terrible.

Gamblor
03-10-2004, 01:34 PM
I watched the game on CBC, so I can put it in some context for those who don't get it.

Last month, in an earlier Colorado/Vancouver tilt, Steve Moore hit Markus Naslund, the Canucks' Captain and arguably their best player, in open ice. He's in the upper echelon of the NHL's elite scorers. Naslund left that game with a concussion and did not return for two weeks.

Todd Bertuzzi plays with Naslund on the Canucks' highest scoring line and on the power play. He's a 6'4", 240-odd pound behemoth with incredible hands, a hard, accurate shot, and the propensity to get his nose dirty as well, and as such is one of those players in the game that every team wants and no team ever parts with. He's also the policeman, protecting Naslund (and to a lesser extent, Brendan Morrison) on the ice so opposing players don't take "liberties" with the top scorer.

So in a return trip to Vancouver, after the Moore-Naslund incident, Colorado is up 8-2 in the 3rd period, and outright humiliating the team they are fighting for first place in the Western Conference. As is usually the case when a team is getting humiliated and has no hope to come back, they have to both save a little face and send a message for the next game, that they won't just roll over like that again. Incidentally, this is why coaches often tell their players not to embarrass another team by scoring goals even after its in the bag - it's unsportsmanlike, and people don't like getting embarrassed. So first Rob Ray tries to get his team going and picks a fight with Peter Worrell.

After 3 separate stoppages for fights, including a couple line brawls, Bertuzzi has had enough and decides to finish the Steve Moore issue with an old-fashioned tilt. Unfortunately, Moore knows he's dead if he drops his gloves, so he chickens out. If you think someone deserves an ass-whupping, there's nothing more frustrating than if he won't stand up and fight you fair and square.

So Bertuzzi went temporarily insane.

Now, I don't say that this is okay, but this is why it happened. Todd has a lot of respect (which is obviously now gone), and for what it's worth, he has called Moore in the hospital to apologize. People can't possibly understand what it's like in the middle of a hockey game. There's simply no logical thought until you're on the bench after a shift. They always say, if you have to think you're already beaten. It's pure emotion once the puck is dropped, and if the skills and plays aren't already ingrained, then you're hopeless.

I wonder if this is a primal response to aggression from days when some animal or human or whatever threatened you in some way. Pride I'm sure is a defense mechanism in that way. But I digress.

Did Bertuzzi mean to try and kill Steve Moore? Not a chance. Does Bertuzzi deserve a significant suspension? Well, considering the number of punches to the back of the head during random scrums after the whistle, which happen at least once a game, it would appear otherwise. Yet, the severity of Moore's injury, which I regard as more a fluke due to the position in which he fell, would imply that a huge suspension is deserved.

Incidentally, does this mean that it is the results of the crime, and not the intention behind it that determines the severity of the punishment? Does this mean, if I shoot a gun to try to kill two people, and one dies but the other receives only a flesh wound, I deserve a lesser sentence for the second shooting?

This is nothing compared to the Marty McSorley/Donald Brashear incident, in which McSorley swung his stick and hit Brashear in the head. The stick is a tool, not a weapon, and any use of the stick in any manner outside of shooting, stickhandling, and defence, must be banned and penalized. A punch to the back of the head is not even close.

It does show one point I've been making for months on 2+2:

Events we witness are invariably started long long ago. Nothing significant happens overnight. The way the world works, is someone starts pushing envelopes until people get used to it, it becomes accepted, and then someone pushes it a little more. And the cycle continues.

Little girls suddenly don't decide they want to dress as sluts because of Britney Spears, it's a slow process that went through hundreds of years of showing more and more skin, challenging authority. And nobody woke up in the middle of the night and shouted "Democracy!" And anti-semitism started long before the Holocaust - it started with accusations of deicide, then came second-class status, then the Protocols, then the pogroms, and finally attempted genocide. (that was my argument in the Passion thread - that it would set the ball rolling, not necessarily cause some crackpot to kill Jews and quote the movie.)

Incidentally, what do you think the implications of this are? What is the end-game?

And as such, even the most anti-Todd Bertuzzi fan can understand that he didn't simply decide to try to kill Steve Moore, and as such, he should not be crucified. He does not have a significant history of this behaviour and the incident should be compared to a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge. Both teams are equally culpable for escalating the situation, but only Bertuzzi ought to be held responsible for his actions.

The British Columbia police have every right to investigate, and a hockey player is not exempt from the law just because he is a hockey player. But the context of the incident MUST be taken into account. My guess is they'll leave it alone. The NHL will [censored] up their own ruling somehow. That's the only sure thing.

Gamblor
03-10-2004, 01:39 PM
Incidentally, the only real problems I have with visors are as follows:

1) If you're going to fight, you take off your helmet first. In lacrosse (real, Canadian, BOX lacrosse), all players wear full cages, and if there's a fight, they both give each other a second to take off the mask so nobody breaks their hand.

2) Among the few players I've met who don't wear visors, they often mention that they are much more careful with their sticks, simply because they know they're dangerous and they want others to act the same. When players nowadays are dressed like gladiators with all of the equipment, why worry about carrying your stick at face level? Guys are more willing to throw their bodies around and slash and hack because everyone has 20 lbs of gear on. It is the guys who are most protected who are most careless with their sticks. Claude Lemieux was your picture perfect example.

My solution? Ban helmets. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

HDPM
03-10-2004, 03:06 PM
Yeah, hockey is emotional;. I never played anywhere close to top level hockey, but I played some. And I cheap shotted people. But there is no way you get so out of it that you do what bertuzzi did. Even taking a run at somebody you have control. I saw the mcsorley thing again last night and what bertuzzi did was much worse. As bad as using a stick as a weapon is, it is a lot easier to maim or kill a guy doing what bertuzzi did. He came down on his head and neck with his weight. That is how you kill guys in a fight, break their neck, etc....

Moore should have stepped up and fought. Hell, he wears a visor. Throw a couple shots and wrestle a while. The refs would break it up. One on one fights are no big deal usually. But moore being a wimp doesn't excuse what happened.

I kind of agree on the helmet thing. Guys are doing things they shouldn't. But helmets on balance are good. I just think they need to allow some fights (with penalties of course) but be very hard on the stick work and other things.

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 03:14 PM
I think the hit was sick, just like Rudy T getting blindsided, or when Sapp blindsided that guy on the packers(name?? ) away from the play. Only pussies punch someone from behind.

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-10-2004, 03:17 PM
I played the game through college, so I understand the emotional part. Nobody ever snuck up behind me and punched me, but that's just because I was a goalie. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I do think this was close to the McSorley hit, though. Not the punch, the driving of Moore's head into the ice.

I say give him a year. What's the difference? There won't be a NHL season next year, anyway.

HDPM
03-10-2004, 03:23 PM
Bertuzzis deal was orders of magnitude worse than Sapp's hit. There is no comparison.

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-10-2004, 03:24 PM
just like Rudy T getting blindsided

Whoah. Talk about revisionist history. Rudy T did not get blindsided. Kermit Washington was already fighting with one of Rudy's teammates. Rudy ran at Washington from behind. Washington saw someone coming at him out of the corner of his eye, spun around and threw a punch. True the punch landed flush and Rudy T landed face first on the floor and needed extensive reconstruction of his face, but he was the aggressor.

The Celtics later picked up Kermit, and with him and Dave Cowens on the floor, nobody picked a fight with that team.

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 03:28 PM
I will clarify, it was a savage a hit as those two other ones. Probably even worse given the fact that he drove his head into the ice, or atleast looks like he did.
I think Bertuzzi is going to be a marked man for many seasons to come.

J.R.
03-10-2004, 03:34 PM
Bertuzzi's actions were far worse than McSorely's hit, which was done to goad a fight, not with the intent to maim. This was not a punch to the back of the head, Bertuzzi had momentum, drilled Moore with a cheap shot and then drove Moore's head face first into the ice with such force that Moore's body slid forward with Bertuzzi on top of him. The real issue is not so much the punch, which was uncalled for but not unprecendented, it was the fact that Bertuzzi sought to and did drive Moore's head face first into the ice with Bertuzzi on top of Moore with the intent of smashing Moore's head into the ice. This was not just a cheap shot punch from behind.

BTW, Moore fought Matt Cooke in the first period so its not as if the Moore's actions had not gone unchallenged. And say what you will of the Moore's hit on Naslund, but that was a shoulder check that went unpenalized and about which the NHL declined to take any action after reviewing the hit. The NHL sanctioned Moore's hit as a clean check.

XlgJoe
03-10-2004, 03:45 PM
I was a hockey fan 20 years ago. But the fighting turned me off, as well as the inconsistent penalty calling(3rd period almost anything goes).

I don't understand why they don't address the figthing issue, and just stop it. No other sport has fighting as such a standard part of the game.

Gamblor
03-10-2004, 03:59 PM
When you give people big sticks to play with, in a high-speed, high-intensity, emotional game, if you don't allow players to drop the gloves and settle differences, then you invite a lot larger problem. The stick is a tool, not a weapon.

Gamblor
03-10-2004, 04:06 PM
The real issue is not so much the punch, which was uncalled for but not unprecendented, it was the fact that Bertuzzi sought to and did drive Moore's head face first into the ice with Bertuzzi on top of Moore with the intent of smashing Moore's head into the ice.

I saw it differently - it looked more like a tackle from behind instead of deliberately trying to break someone's face. It didn't look like Bertuzzi put his full weight on the back of Moore's head, but that's the way I saw it, and it is certainly up for debate.

BTW, Moore fought Matt Cooke in the first period so its not as if the Moore's actions had not gone unchallenged.

Anythings short of a decisive victory in favour of a Vancouver player would mean there was still, in the Canucks' eyes, a score to settle. As I'm sure Peter Worrell would feel if someone knocked Joe Sakic out for a week, then wiped the floor with Worrell.

And say what you will of the Moore's hit on Naslund, but that was a shoulder check that went unpenalized and about which the NHL declined to take any action after reviewing the hit. The NHL sanctioned Moore's hit as a clean check.

Agreed. I didn't see anything illegal in it either, but it doesn't mean the Canucks aren't going to take exception to it (nor does it mean you try to murder someone).

Gamblor
03-10-2004, 04:09 PM
There won't be a NHL season next year, anyway

That's the truest statement of all, sadly.

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 04:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There won't be a NHL season next year, anyway

That's the truest statement of all, sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]
are you guys being facetious?
I don't care much for hockey, thus I don't pay much attention to it, I was wondering if I missed something?
or are you guys implying that next years season will suck?
cuz hate to piss on your dream, but the NHL has sucked for a while.....

XlgJoe
03-10-2004, 04:17 PM
I don't buy that argument at all. All sports at major league levels are full of emotion, the NHL just allows that behavior. The thing is it can be so exciting to watch a close game where every shot on goal can be the difference.

I just think the top execs of NHL think people want to see the fighting and market it that way. It comes off as something between a sport and pro wrestling.

J.R.
03-10-2004, 04:27 PM
Labor mess, and unlike other sports many can and will go play in Europe. The league has 2 teams in bankruptcy and an owner like Stan Kroenke hellbent on being Hockey's verison of George Steinbrenner. They need a salary cap/fewer teams, even though it is cool when your home team (the Avs) always wins its division and can basically buy key players for the stretch run each year. The NBA even agreed to extend its collective bargaining agreement for an extra year solely because they expect to capitalize so greatly from this expected lockout.

Gamblor
03-10-2004, 04:29 PM
All sports at major league levels are full of emotion, the NHL just allows that behavior.

How many sports allow full body contact, without stopping the game every 10 seconds to take a break and come up with a new plan?

Lacrosse and Hockey.

Fighting is an outlet. Trust me. Having been in my fair share, it is not just the NHL. It starts as soon as they allow kids to hit. Kids get kicked out of games if they fight, but the game misconducts end in Junior hockey (17-21), not the NHL.

It's a way to stand up for yourself in a physical game where hitting and bodychecking (essentially, asserting physical dominance) are legitimate defensive tools. More than anything, usually the game settles down when two guys go at it (unless there was a long time score to settle, as in the Moore/Bertuzzi case).

Truth be told, what really messed up the game was the introduction of the instigator rule (start two fights and you're out of the game). It prevented guys like Bertuzzi from protecting the superstars, and the goons began to take advantage. The little guys who couldn't hit began to use their sticks.

What really shocks me is how there could be fights in basketball. It's a penalty if you touch the guy for chrissakes!

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 04:30 PM
wow!! I had no idea America's 4th favorite pro sport was in such disaray.
J.R. this is very interesting to say the least.
can you provide a link to a story talking about this?

XlgJoe
03-10-2004, 04:36 PM
Are you sure hockey is fourth, NASCAR might actually be Americas 4th rated

J.R.
03-10-2004, 04:45 PM
NBA rational (http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7089182)

Bettman (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/thorne/2003-01-21-thorne_x.htm)

bankruptcy (http://espn.go.com/nhl/s/2003/0113/1491998.html)

labor woes (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/2004/02/08/sports/7904251.htm)

The Kroenke angle is not exactly "reported" in the open press but is apparent to those who are informed and observant.

pudley4
03-10-2004, 05:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So in a return trip to Vancouver, after the Moore-Naslund incident,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did this Bertuzzi incident occur in the second rematch between the teams? Why couldn't he have "taken care of it" in the first one?

Oh that's right, it's because in the first meeting, they skated to a 5-5 tie and he didn't want to risk costing his team any points.

Cheap, cheap, cheap shot. He should be gone for a year (minimum)

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 09:28 PM
eh 4-5th who cares.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 09:28 PM

HDPM
03-10-2004, 10:07 PM
No, when speaking canadian it is 4th-5th, who cares, eh? Not Eh, 4th -5th who cares." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

They are talking about giving Canada a Nascar event BTW.

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 10:12 PM
eh, Canada-Nascar who cares... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

DonWaade
03-10-2004, 10:28 PM
I disagree. For years and years, NHL players have been able to "police up their own" The instigator ruling has crippled that. I think that when Moore hit Naslund, Vancouver should have just fought it out then because that too was a cheap shot. Albeit not nearly as terrible as the Bertuzzi hit. Do I believe that Bertuzzi should be punished? Absolutley. No call for something that extreme. In addition to punishing him though, I think the league needs to reassess where it stands. I am pro-fighting and in all honesty, the NHL needs to let it go with the impending lock-out. They are losing popularity as it is and allowing fighting is a big selling point. All that being said, I think that the NHL should allow teams to retaliate immediatley with out fear of penalty, fine, or suspension. However, to impose these "hits" some weeks and games later is stupid.

I am a diehard Cannucks fan, and yes Bertuzzi should be suspended for a lengthy period of time, but change the rules too.

DonWaade
03-10-2004, 10:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And say what you will of the Moore's hit on Naslund, but that was a shoulder check that went unpenalized and about which the NHL declined to take any action after reviewing the hit. The NHL sanctioned Moore's hit as a clean check.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot the NHL is so accurate with their impositions of fines and the like. They do not EVER fine or suspends none-tough guys. Moore falls in to that category and thus was immune from scrutiny from the NHL. At least scrutiny that Enoforcers face on a game by game basis.

DonWaade
03-10-2004, 10:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There won't be a NHL season next year, anyway

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the truest statement of all, sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true, but if he is suspended for a year, will it be served in the "extended off season?"

DonWaade
03-10-2004, 10:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure hockey is fourth, NASCAR might actually be Americas 4th rated

[/ QUOTE ]

And its the fastest growing sport in America (except Poker)
Realistically, however, America is quickly getting Five Big Sports. NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL, and Nascar. Six if you want to count March Madness as that has 10 times more credibility than NBA IMO.

DonWaade
03-10-2004, 10:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the hit was sick, just like Rudy T getting blindsided, or when Sapp blindsided that guy on the packers(name?? ) away from the play. Only pussies punch someone from behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Turn back the clock. . . how about Juan Marichal swinging for the fences on Johnny Roseboro?

ThaSaltCracka
03-10-2004, 11:14 PM
I am not that old soo.... I will have to take your word for it.
sure just like Marichal /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-11-2004, 08:41 AM
the NHL has sucked for a while

Perhaps, but it's nowhere near as bad as the NBA.

ThaSaltCracka
03-11-2004, 12:24 PM
that may be true, but most people would rather watch an NBA game than a NHL game

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 12:30 PM
that may be true, but most people would rather watch an NBA game than a NHL game

That has nothing to do with the league.

That has to do with two things:

1) The ridiculous parade that is an NBA game. I feel like I'm in the movie "Brain Candy" whenever I see the Craptors play.

2) Most people in the US simply don't grow up playing hockey and thus can't identify with hockey players. Meanwhile, every retard has a basketball hoop above his garage door, so they can imagine what it's like to dunk on their 7 foot plastic rim. There's no way to simulate the feeling of skating through the cold air with the wind in your face and catch some fool with his head down.

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 12:49 PM
Canada has had the CASCAR (http://www.cascar.ca/) circuit for years.

RcrdBoy
03-11-2004, 01:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The real issue is not so much the punch, which was uncalled for but not unprecendented, it was the fact that Bertuzzi sought to and did drive Moore's head face first into the ice with Bertuzzi on top of Moore with the intent of smashing Moore's head into the ice.

I saw it differently - it looked more like a tackle from behind instead of deliberately trying to break someone's face. It didn't look like Bertuzzi put his full weight on the back of Moore's head, but that's the way I saw it, and it is certainly up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw it the same way. I don't think Bertuzzi drove him head first into the ice. He sucker punched the guy and the guy went down with Bertuzzi holding his jersey. He fell on him and the guy fell at an akward angle. He briefly tried to hit him when he was down and landed nothing of significance.

He severely injured Moore and has to be held responsible, but this "driving him into the ice" bit seems just a tad over dramatized.

-Mike

J.R.
03-11-2004, 02:06 PM
I just ask you look at the clip at the bottom of the first paragraph and tell me if you honestly think Bertuzzi doesn't place his hands on Moore's neck and back and push Moore into the ice. I think Bertuzzi did push Moore, but that is just my opinion.

video clip link (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7bd651da-6b26-4f71-89e6-1872cfddbfa7#Soundoff)

ThaSaltCracka
03-11-2004, 02:31 PM
the only part of your post that makes any sense is:
[ QUOTE ]
Most people in the US simply don't grow up playing hockey

[/ QUOTE ]
this is ridiculous:
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, every retard has a basketball hoop above his garage door, so they can imagine what it's like to dunk on their 7 foot plastic rim.

[/ QUOTE ]
have you ever played Basketball, it is hella fun, and great excersise. Now I am not saying Hockey isn't fun and great excersise as well, however saying that people in America like Basketball more is because they like dunking on 7 ft hoops is pretty stupid.
First of all Basketball is not as popular as football or baseball. Why? well it must be because there are a bunch retards who like throwing a football around, or hitting a baseball. No of course its not that, its because MANY Americans grow up playing Baseball and Football. Hockey is popular in some areas of the U.S., although not in comparison to its popularity up north.

finally, the Raptors truely do suck. Maybe it was a mistake for the NBA to move into Canada, however no where near as big a mistake as bringing Hockey to Florida. Does that make any sense?

mosta
03-11-2004, 04:20 PM
I think most of the violence in sports stems from a shocking institutionalized willingness to allow brutality to hem in skill and talent. Imagine you're playing with your peers in a game of basketball or soccer, you make a sweet move with the ball, and you cleanly beat a guy. And then as you're going past him he trips you from behind or grabs your shorts. Right then and there the game is over, and whether you're going to beat the hell out of him or walk off the court, you react exactly the same way you would if you'd invited him to your house for dinner and caught him stealing from your bedroom. Yet in professional sports, the foul is just another technique like the head fake. And it ruins the game. If fouls were treated not like calculated exchanges (a big stop for a more minor penalty), but like outrageous offenses meriting immediate expulsion, then the whole cycle violence would be largely cut off at the root. Sure you still have physical defense and tempers and fights, but I think'd you'd have a lot less injury and better games. How this started? I don't know, but I think it has to do with the need of the professional organization not to lose, to stay in business and the negative strategy of preventing being scored on as the first priority being forced on the league. Oh and then you get the crap (Chick Hearn spouted this line constantly) that if you really punish fouls you hurt the game when you kick a good player out. As if not fouling, and following the rules, just isn't a reasonable expectation. So we get hack and shove and trip and all that shite and then the fights and the injuries. And yet for some reason athletes aren't put in jail for committing assault.

And this line about things being "emotional" and "intense" doesn't hold water. I agree that sometimes someone just needs to be badly beaten, but the fact is that it is still an assault and if you do it you need to be prepared to go to jail and accept that. You aren't excused for decking your girlfriend because things got "emotional". Or at least you shouldn't be. That's what laws or for. They're meaningless if they're only supposed to apply when people aren't inclined to break them anyway.

Sloats
03-11-2004, 04:30 PM
Long time hockey fan, well, actually I hate the NHL and won't watch it until the CBA is fixed, but I do play myself 1-2 times a week. Bertuzzi's sucker punch is nothing different from a hundred upper beer league level games I have seen before. What is different is that 1) Todd is a beast and probably can knock of us out here with one punch 2) Moore's chin tucked under and took the brunt of the impact (and with the 220 on the back) and broke the neck upon contact with the ice.

Cheap shot, yes. Most sickening thing in hockey? no. Much worse was Dale Hunter's hit on Pierre Turgeon. In all of the other cheap shots I that get brought up: Domi on Stevens, McSorely on Brashear, Bukeboom, everyone happend during game play. The worst on in my opinion was Dale Hunter on Pierre Turgeon. That happend way after a goal and after a player's defenses drop.

If we want to talk about outcome, this is as bad (and unfortunate) as Malarchuk.

ThaSaltCracka
03-11-2004, 04:30 PM
the fighting doesn't bother me in any sport, sometimes emotions take over and they make rash decisions that they later regret. Its part of life.
I don't know if anyone saw the news conference for Bertuzzi, but this is clearly a guy who regrets what he did, and he seems greatlty troubled and disturbed by the injury he afflicted on Moore. I think when these guys get in fights they don't intend to seriuosly hurt anyone, unfortunately sometimes they get out of hand, or some sort of catastrophic accident happens, like with Moore.

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 04:33 PM
My take on what makes a sport a good sport.

1) The sport can not simply be invented. Any great sport evolved out of a "fun" activity that was only later organized and rules codified. Hockey, football, baseball, soccer, all evolved out of boredom. Hockey began as a way for British soldiers in Canada to pass the time off duty. Wherever there is tons of ice, a few branches, and a rock, there isn't much else do to but play around and see what develops. Football was a combination of rugby and soccer, both of which were borne of bloated animal stomach and a lot of free time, a "goal" (i.e. end zone or net), and someone saying "betcha can't get past me". Baseball is a branch and a rock, and "Hey, bet you can't hit this here rock with that there branch!". The point: great sports develop over time. Basketball was the brainchild of Dr. James Naismith, who invented it in a day when he needed a way to waste time at the YMCA. No one man can substitute for decades and even centuries of evolution, and the fundamental skills needed to play the game haven't changed since day one.

2) The fact that the hoop is 10 feet high, gives an inherent advantage to complete and utter freaks of nature. The number of players who you wouldn't gawk at if walking down the street can be counted on one hand. Other sports' large players are the result of an evolutionary arms race, each side getting bigger and stronger just to stay equal, but the rules of the game do not give such an advantage to a big player just for being big. Case in point: 7'xx" Manute Bol, who had next to zero formal basketball training, played at the highest professional level, and for a good amount of time, too.

Why I think basketball is so popular:

1) Anyone can drop $150 to put a net up on their garage and let their kids blow some steam for an hour. The more you play something, the more you appreciate those who do it well and the more you'll enjoy watching it. Example: IOn my opinion, having played since little, lacrosse is the second best sport in the world (this would probably agree with my sport evolution argument above, as lacrosse is over 500 years old). Yet, I don't expect anyone else to understand why it is, because nobody plays it. But the number of skills required to play it well outnumbers football (which I agree takes far more mental awareness than any of the other sports), basketball, and baseball. Hockey, by virtue of the fact that skating is basically learning to walk all over again, puts it in first place.

2) Marketing. The NBA far and away dwarfs the competition on marketing individual players, and people love following individual heros in an era where the hometown team rarely has a player actually born in that city, or even that state. No other sport has taken such advantage of this, with perhaps the exception of football.

3) Back to the skills argument, it is fairly easy to simply dribble a ball. It is also easy to heave up a shot, even if it bricks. People simply feel like athletes no matter how much athletic ability they have. Those who couldn't hit a baseball off a tee, or throw a football farther than 10 feet, can bounce a ball off the ground a couple times, and bank a shot off the backboard. They obviously aren't as good, but they feel like the pros. But put a rookie on skates and he knows he's clueless. There's simply no way of learning hockey and playing it well without going through the initial embarassment of being a complete quad in public.

Arguments?

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 04:39 PM
More often than not, a fight is simply two guys who know that once its over, as long as nobody does anything particularly objectionable, its over.

Most guys will drop 'em, then if one guy falls down, or is left in a defenseless position, the other combatant will let him get his position back. Most don't want to take a cheap shot, and there's a lot of mutual respect in it.

As far as calling the game by the book (re: mosta), I agree. The whole clutching and grabbing is the perfect example.

If someone hooks you going through the neutral zone, that's HOOKING. If someone grabs you on the way to the net, that's HOLDING!

CALL IT!

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 04:45 PM
I always thought Dale Hunter was the worst goon I ever saw, and I've been watching hockey religiously since 1984 (I was born in '80).

Turgeon had his hands in the air and Hunter cross-checks him in the face. I think Gary Suter did that to Paul Kariya also. But Domi on Niedermayer, nobody, least of all Domi, could explain that one. After the game he goes "I have no idea what I was doing." He took full blame and his suspension like a man. Matt Johnson (the guy who ended Beukeboom's career) is another idiot goon.

I'm recalling also the 1987 Stanley Cup when Philadelphia goalie Ron Hextall broke the Oilers' Kent Nilsson's leg with a vicious hack as he skated throught the crease.

And wow, I remember watching the Malarchuk incident. Total accident but the amount of blood in the crease was disgusting.

For anyone who doesn't know, basically someone fell on the Sabres' goalie and skated over his neck, and cut his jugular. He survived and even played again, but only after 500 stitches.

Sloats
03-11-2004, 05:26 PM
I almost got in a fight the last hockey game. Why? two teams of 11/12 year olds with a bunch of vicious loud ahole parents screaming down were involved in one of the cheapest chippiest dirtiest games I ever saw. They almost got into a fight, then the losing team started smashing their sticks everywhere, destroying the bench, along the glass, EVERYWHERE. We were already 30 minutes late getting on the ice and these kids were acting like spoiled punks. Actually both teams. And yes, both teams were ready to jump a bunch of preteens.

Case in point: back when I played/learned, we were told anytime you hit a player and part of your stick was not touching the ice, it was a crosscheck. Players checked with hips and shoulders, not two fists to the face. These little bTurds were running at each other and then bringing there gloves right up to the chin; like a Mortal Kombat uppercut.

The game just sucks. To much grabbing, no enforcement of the rules. Refs don't want to decide the game? Well when you allow some low talent shlep grab and hinder and allow him to cheat against a high talent player negating the player's talent, you ARE deciding the game. Talent should decide the game. As well as luck, but talent should never be negated.

ThaSaltCracka
03-11-2004, 05:54 PM
before I attempt to argue/refute what you are saying, can you clarify somethings for me?
exactly what are you arguing,
Basketball takes little skill?
Its not a sport because it was "invented"? or its not a good sport because it is "invented"?
Hockey is the hardest sport to learn?
please point out your thesis to this dumb yankee /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
There's simply no way of learning hockey and playing it well without going through the initial embarassment of being a complete quad in public.

[/ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by quad?

Homer
03-11-2004, 06:23 PM
I don't understand why they don't address the figthing issue, and just stop it. No other sport has fighting as such a standard part of the game.

Hockey is a boring game. The only reason most people watch the games is because they want to see a fight. If fighting were eliminated, the sport would cease to exist (which would be fine with me, btw).

-- Homer

DanS
03-11-2004, 06:25 PM
I haven't had time to wade through every single post in this thread, but the intent of what Bertuzzi did sickens me way more than McSorley, and even that nauseated me. Obviously, if you want to confront someone, you use your hands/body, and not your stick. But I think that McSorley truly was trying to whack Brashear on the shoulder and goad him into a fight. But his suspension was still clearly merited.

Bertuzzi isn't the designated tough guy. It's Cooke, it's May, it's someone else. But he is a power forward, and he knows the code. Guys like Worrell, Simon, Parker... a guy goes down, and they let it go, with a little prodding from the linesmen, perhaps. What Bertuzzi did was chickensh!t. He didn't give the guy a chance to defend himself. Pure rubbish.

Dan

DanS
03-11-2004, 06:27 PM
P.S. The reason hockey is better than basketball, amongst other things, is that it rewards discipline and the players aren't a bunch of big pussssssies.

Dan

HDPM
03-11-2004, 06:44 PM
My father always told me of the time he saw Gump Worsely's head skated over by a Blackhawk in the 6 team no goalie mask days. Not nearly as bad as a jugular skated across of course, and it was an accident, but his skull was laid open. There were 2 minutes left in the second period, so they took an early intermission and stitched Worsely up. They played a 22:00 third period. Worsely played with hundreds of stitches and no mask.

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 07:31 PM
Basketball takes little skill?

Compared to what it takes to play at the highest level of hockey, lacrosse, football, and baseball, yes. It is the inherent advantage given to height that neutralizes any skill differences, and the number of Spud Webbs in the NBA attest to that.

or its not a good sport because it is "invented"?

Not a good sport because its invented.

The argument is that the best sports develop over decades into what we see, and not dreamed up overnight by a Gym teacher.

Hockey is the hardest sport to learn?

Yep. Step into a pair of skates for the first time and see if you can stand up longer than 5 seconds.

what do you mean by quad?

From quadriplegic. colloquially, someone with no athletic ability.

DanS
03-11-2004, 08:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Basketball takes little skill?

Compared to what it takes to play at the highest level of hockey, lacrosse, football, and baseball, yes. It is the inherent advantage given to height that neutralizes any skill differences, and the number of Spud Webbs in the NBA attest to that.


Hockey is the hardest sport to learn?

Yep. Step into a pair of skates for the first time and see if you can stand up longer than 5 seconds.

what do you mean by quad?

From quadriplegic. colloquially, someone with no athletic ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played basketball, football, crew, and golf in high school, and lacrosse in college, and no sport has been as hard for me to pick up as hockey has been. Fortunately, I always got by in sports on hustle and intelligence, and hockey rewards both like no other.

You have to understand the game, as well, to play hockey. Look at all the kids playing NCAA or even NBA ball that have zero fundamentals/skill. Sickening.

Dan

banditbdl
03-11-2004, 08:17 PM
All right, as a hoops junkie I feel its my duty to tear this argument to shreds.

Invention argument- This is just silly. First of all, a great sport is a great sport, no matter how long it took to gestate and develop. Secondly, the basketball played today is light years from the game Naismith "invented in a day", 3-point lines, shotclocks, and a painted area (which by the way has gone through 3 or 4 incarnations to get to its size today) and many others have dramatically altered the way the game is played. The list of rule developments that have taken place over the last 100 years goes on and on.

Moving on to your 2nd argument- all professional athletes are by definition freaks of nature. NFL lineman come in at 6' 6" 350+ and can run a 40-yard dash in around 5.0 seconds. I'm a fit 22 yearold who ran track (800m and 1600m) in high school and I can't break 5.0 in the 40. Wayne Gretzky, the great one of hockey, was a freak of nature with his speed and agility on skates and incredible vision. Many excellent hitters in baseball distinguish themselves at the plate with their ability to see a pitch with incredible vision (The story goes that Ted Williams, last .400 hitter, had something like 20/14 vision). Any professional athlete is a freak of nature, its just that in basketball a big part of their ability is tied to height. I'd note that few average, i.e. 5'8"-5'9" 160 pound, men qualify as NHL prospects. Also, I should point out that height is not a requirement in basketball i.e. Spud Webb, a 5'7" Dunk contest winner, Mugsy Bogues of all 5'6" how had a longer and better career than Manute Bol and current Denver Nugget Earl Boykins who is 5'5" and scores 10 points a game for a playoff contender. Allen Iverson is uner 6 feet tall and is a former MVP and is a true superstar of the game.

Basketball's popularity:

Basketball is popular due to 1)easy access to the game 2)its exciting to watch both live and on television and 3) yes tremendous marketing of its individual stars.

1) Basketball courts are found in parks and gyms all over. All it takes is one ball, two (or even one) hoop, and eager bodies to get a game of 5v5, 3v3, HORSE, Twenty-one, Around-the-World, or whatever going. Pickup games of fullcourt basketball go on all the time in high schools, college gyms, and fitness centers all over. There are games for all skill levels if you look and its flat-out a great workout. Also, skills like dribbling, passing, D-ing up, and running the fastbreak can be learned in a couple days, but take a lifetime to master.

2) A well-played basketball is great to watch both live and on television. My college has both bball and hockey and I go to games for both, I find both to be a great time. Live hockey is absolutely awesome. However, the game really seems to fall apart in the transfer to TV. Overall, I'd say football does the best in going from live to television. Hell, it is probably better on television.

3) Basketball has tremendous success marketing its stars for what I see as three reasons. The first and biggest is just the tremendous job the NBA commissioner David Stern and company did in developing the league around MJ, Magic, and Larry, and then continuing that tradition as new stars come along. Secondly, basketball players have no need for helmets or other assorted body armor. This gives the advantage of being able to see players faces at all times (an underrated advantage) also, many of the female variety have great appreciation for the wellcut bodies of bball stars covered only by tanktops. Big contrast here to the heavily armoured and sweatered hockey player sporting the disastrous "hockey hair". And finally, the game itself is set up to showcase the incredible abilities of its stars more than any other. In football, a great wide receiver like Randy Moss can be taken out of a game through constant doubleteams and other defensive adjustments. Hockey continues to suffer due to the excessive use of the neutral-zone trap and general thuggery that handicaps the great, creative offensive talents. In baseball, a dominant player like Barry Bonds can be pitched around with intentional and pseudo-intentional walks as evidenced so thoroughly in the World Series a couple years ago. In basketball its nearly impossible to contain the superstars, you just don't hear about a playoff series where Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant etc. are taken out of the game. As they said about Jordan, "You can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him."

HDPM
03-11-2004, 08:36 PM
You are right that most people- at least in the US- would rather watch the NBA. I am not one of them. And that goes for any game, regular season or playoff, but I will talk mostly about the playoffs here. The NHL Stanley Cup playoffs are tremendous. Yeah the 84 or whatever regular season may not be great, but the playoffs are tremendous. I prefer hockey for various reasons, some of which Gamblor already mentioned. I much prefer playing hockey, or at least preferred since I don't play either hockey or basketball at all anymore. And I never played much basketball, as little as I could get away with between gym classes and people's driveways. Never liked it. And that has something to do with my opinion. I think people are always more inclined to watch sports they have played. And a lot of people in the US play basketball. Not nearly as many play hockey. But anyway, the hockey playoffs are a war. Hockey is a true team game. Requires more players who have to play together better. Yeah, the NBA requires teamwork and great team defense to win. Hockey requires all of that plus is a hitting sport plus requires more teammates to work together. The effort put forth in the playoffs is amazing. The games are hard fought and physical and usually close. A 7 game series that has a triple OT or two is fantastic to watch. Much better than basketball IMO. By the time it is over, the winning team has been through a sports equivalent of a war. And the players appreciate it and appreciate each other. The players play injured, play hard at all times, and play together. Or they go home. So yeah, I prefer hockey anyway, although I don't watch religiously and am not a die hard fan of a particular team. But IMO a person who has never played either sport and didn't grow up with either would be more likely to follow hockey after watching the stanley cup playoffs than follow basketball after the NBA playoffs. Maybe not. But that would just reinforce my view about the masses. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I disagree w/Gamblor about the invention of the game thing. Sports evolve various ways and I don't know that how they were invented has much to do with it.

Gamblor
03-11-2004, 08:48 PM
The list of rule developments that have taken place over the last 100 years goes on and on.

No changes to the fundamentals of the game have occured. Fine, so the offence has to hurry a bit and they can't stay in the key more than 3 seconds. But the dribbling, the shooting, the defence is still the same. You still set your feet and keep your hands up, and realistically, changing the size of the key a few feet really doesn't alter the game itself.

Compared to the introduction of the forward pass in football and hockey, where brand new skills needed development, and the skills were changed fundamentally - i.e. the quarterback now had to throw the ball. The point is, in basketball, the fun (i.e. street) version came second after the organized version, whereas in good sports, the fun version came first, and only then did they decide to organize it.

2nd argument

Absolutely untrue. The number of Spud Webbs in the NBA can be counted on one hand. What makes the other sports' players freaks is superhuman ability. What makes NBA players freaks is a 10 foot hoop that lets a Manute Bol pick up the game for the first time and play as a professional. Length of career is irrelevant. The fact that he was there is testament to the faults of the rule book. Put the hoop 5 feet off the floor and you have an argument.

Also, skills like dribbling, passing, D-ing up, and running the fastbreak can be learned in a couple days, but take a lifetime to master.

Pretty much everything on earth takes a lifetime to master. But my grandma could dunk if she were 7 feet tall, and a one-armed fugitive could dribble a ball. But take a perfectly healthy person who has never skated, and tell him to take a 50 mph slapshot.

A well-played basketball is great to watch both live and on television.

How do you stay awake until the last 2 minutes, and why do those last two minutes take two hours?

As usual, anything not mentioned I agree with

ThaSaltCracka
03-11-2004, 09:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No changes to the fundamentals of the game have occured. Fine, so the offence has to hurry a bit and they can't stay in the key more than 3 seconds. But the dribbling, the shooting, the defence is still the same. You still set your feet and keep your hands up, and realistically, changing the size of the key a few feet really doesn't alter the game itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm... I will list several changes to the fundamentals of the game.
Dribbling.
-Dribbling between the legs, this was a revolution in ball handling. This is not some easy play to pick up. I have played basketball for fun, for a long time and cannot do this play with any consistency. Dribbling behind the back.... many a ankle has been broken by this difficult move, very hard to do.... the crossover, a very effective dribbling manuever. None of these were around when the Doc. invented this game.

Passing.
-The no look pass, behind the back pass, the fake pass-with the head fake, the alley-oop(we'll get to the other part later of this play later), the give-and-go. Again none of these existed when the game was invented.

Shooting
-Three point line was not there when Doc. created the game. Shooting from this range with consistency requires a lot of skill. The finger roll, sky hook, fade away, and the grand daddy of them all the dunk, which has seemingly endless variations. Again none of this was around when the game was invented.

All of these plays take a lot of time and practice to master. These aren't something that anyone could do just by picking up a basketball.

[ QUOTE ]
in basketball, the fun (i.e. street) version came second after the organized version, whereas in good sports, the fun version came first, and only then did they decide to organize it.


[/ QUOTE ]
something about football without passing doesn't seem fun at all. Looks like they had the boring one first.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely untrue. The number of Spud Webbs in the NBA can be counted on one hand. What makes the other sports' players freaks is superhuman ability. What makes NBA players freaks is a 10 foot hoop that lets a Manute Bol pick up the game for the first time and play as a professional. Length of career is irrelevant. The fact that he was there is testament to the faults of the rule book.

[/ QUOTE ]
the NBA is full of 7 footers that did nothing. Being tall is not that big of an advantage. You seem to be implying that tall people rule the NBA, however a lot of the 7 footers in the NBA now play PF, a posistion that is practically requiring an outside shot. Less and less there height is an advantage. Besides how much of an advantage is there height if everyone out there is about the same height?

[ QUOTE ]
How do you stay awake until the last 2 minutes, and why do those last two minutes take two hours?

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense but hockey on TV is so boring, I can't even get myself to watch 1 minute of it.

DanS
03-12-2004, 06:48 AM
I went to two professional games in the last week. Sat in $18 seats for hockey, got free $93 seats for hockey. I'll let you guess which one I found more entertaining. Hopefully, you've at least been to a T-birds games. You're right, though, hockey on TV pales in comparison to a live game.

Dan

47outs
03-12-2004, 07:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I almost got in a fight the last hockey game. Why? two teams of 11/12 year olds with a bunch of vicious loud ahole parents screaming down were involved in one of the cheapest chippiest dirtiest games I ever saw. They almost got into a fight, then the losing team started smashing their sticks everywhere, destroying the bench, along the glass, EVERYWHERE. We were already 30 minutes late getting on the ice and these kids were acting like spoiled punks. Actually both teams. And yes, both teams were ready to jump a bunch of preteens.

Case in point: back when I played/learned, we were told anytime you hit a player and part of your stick was not touching the ice, it was a crosscheck. Players checked with hips and shoulders, not two fists to the face. These little bTurds were running at each other and then bringing there gloves right up to the chin; like a Mortal Kombat uppercut.

The game just sucks. To much grabbing, no enforcement of the rules. Refs don't want to decide the game? Well when you allow some low talent shlep grab and hinder and allow him to cheat against a high talent player negating the player's talent, you ARE deciding the game. Talent should decide the game. As well as luck, but talent should never be negated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copy and send this to Hockey Night in Canada. It should be told to all.

OuuTs

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-12-2004, 10:23 AM
Not where I live

ThaSaltCracka
03-12-2004, 01:09 PM
I have seen only one Hockey game live and that was in Helena, MT, and while I found it to be very fun to watch, I still wouldn't watch it on TV.
Hockey seems def. like a sport to see live and not on TV

ThaSaltCracka
03-12-2004, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Not where I live

[/ QUOTE ]
and where you live encompasses the entire U.S.?
Hockey is clearly a regional sport, which is popular in a lot of northern states and Canada, unfortunately most people don't particulary like Hockey in the U.s., much to the dismay of Hockey fans in Canada and the northern U.S.

banditbdl
03-12-2004, 05:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The reason hockey is better than basketball, amongst other things, is that it rewards discipline and the players aren't a bunch of big pussssssies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this statement ridiculous in context of a thread discussing a mess created by an All-Star caliber player and vital member of his team demonstrating a complete lack of discipline by cowardly suckerpunching a guy from behind.

DanS
03-13-2004, 06:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason hockey is better than basketball, amongst other things, is that it rewards discipline and the players aren't a bunch of big pussssssies.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's precisely why it's shocking. Come on now, were you really "shocked" when Latrell tried to choke P.J. Carlesimo to death?

Dan
I find this statement ridiculous in context of a thread discussing a mess created by an All-Star caliber player and vital member of his team demonstrating a complete lack of discipline by cowardly suckerpunching a guy from behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

mosch
03-13-2004, 09:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Live hockey is absolutely awesome. However, the game really seems to fall apart in the transfer to TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love hockey, and I'm forced to agree with you here, with one exception. Hockey on HDTV is excellent. You can see all the details that are merely inferred on a normal broadcast. It makes watching the game a lot easier, and more exciting.