Re: Hockey
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose a bigger issue is whether fighting really does have anyplace in hockey, I would argue that it does, but that the rules of engagement have become a bit muddled.
[/ QUOTE ]
No comment on the story, except Lawyers suck, and they lost this one.
Anyhow... I think fighting definitely has a place in hockey. The first & foremost role is that of protection - not just for stars, but guys who, for whatever reason, cannot protect themselves. Stars because they're needed on the ice, little guys because they can get hurt.
Second, is to fire up the team & the home crowd. This is when your two enforcers drop 'em at centre ice right at the face-off. Silly, but fun.
The third reason is to "show 'em you won't be embarrassed". This is stupid. Reference Atlanta losing to Leafs, and Tampa Bay. They got slaughtered, and then started running guys & starting fights. There's no place for this in hockey, because it serves no purpose.
I think, as far as the Rules of engagement go, they're pretty clear with the players. If you lay a big hit on a star player, expect to fight. If you're the enforcer, you're going to talk about it before it happens anyway. And everyone knows about the third reason, and anyone can see it coming. The problem is with the observers of the game - refs, officials, media, etc. who make fighting out to be something it's not. The instigator rule is the worst thing in hockey. Wayne Gretzky could not have performed the way he did in Edmonton if Dave Semenko wasn't skating around to beat the crap out of anyone who touched Gretzky.
|