I appreciate Gillis'/GM's early stance on fighting safety
by Sean Zandberg on Mar 10, 2009 12:54 AM PDT
in Rants
10 comments
A handful of NHL GM's are in Florida discussing issues including goaltender equipment size, headshots and safety in fighting. Here's what Mike Gillis said about the fighting issue today:
"I think that's a reaction to players deciding they were going to unilaterally take their helmets off before a fight, so to discourage that activity they (OHL) created a rule," Gillis said. "It's still in its infancy. You don't know what the result of that rule is or whether it's an effective tool or an ineffective tool. That was a reaction to a tragic event that occurred and I'm not quite sure whether it's applicable to the National Hockey League or not."
Gillis added "to make the analogy" between the OHL and the NHL "I think is really dangerous" because the NHL is guarded by the world's top officials, who are under a significant microscope. It's different in the OHL.
That is quoted from NHL.com, and it's a great read.
Let me just state that the following opinion is mine alone.
I can appreciate that Gillis said that. The last thing the NHL needs to do is initiate a "knee jerk reaction" rule to the issue of helmets being left on or off during fights.
I won't tip-toe around it. There doesn't need to be a rule instated that fighters need their helmets left on. No way. That is both weak and lame. What needs to happen is that players need to show more respect towards each other. The incidents where a fighter cracks his skull on the ice usually results from the opposing player yanking him backwards to the ice with the head naturally smacking the surface. That part needs to stop. It's one thing to wrestle an opponent to the ice. It's another thing to give him (exaggerating) a Russian Leg Sweep. Here is an example. Eliminate the backwards plunge and I think that is good enough.
That may sound insensitive, given the Sanderson incident, but some reality needs to remain here. That was a freak accident. But you don't obliterate the whole fighting system because of it. Just tweak it a little.
If players will be forced to leave their helmets on, the respect level will decrease further because the guy's head is "protected". More liberties will then be taken, especially as far as take-downs go.
Thoughts?
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
B etter still, themed fights based on the home arena. In Vancouver? Mufflers and other car parts. In LA? Office equipment! There’s a whole revenue stream and entertainment synergy idea here and damn it we should be ahead of the curve on this.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
“Synergy”, hahaha. You love Walter don’t you? You live by his teachings I’m guessing :)
I’ll go with axes and tree parts myself. Oh, and the heads of yuppies. (I kid)
I really just like violence. I’m a good american like that
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Mar 11, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Sometimes I wonder if I live in the wrong country…
Nah, it’s just the peace-loving hippies that ruin our image :)
by Sean Zandberg on Mar 11, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Look…I’m not a big fan of fighting in hockey…it takes away from the game from time to time. But, I also understand the concept of allowing players to police the game…look at International Football, and you get my point.
However, from a branding and marketing point of view, the banishment of fighting makes no sense. Now, again, I am not a fan, but, riddle me this people: What is the fastest growing spectator sport on TV? Anyone…Buehler…Buehler? That’s it, you got it…UFC. Ultimate Fighting.
The younger sports fan is flocking to extreme type sports…be it X-Games or UFC…the new generation likes that kind of stuff. Why on earth would the NHL even contemplate taking out fighting from the game? Because people that are not potential consumers don’t like it. The NHL should embrace fighting and market fighting as a part of the game…an important part of the game that preserves the integrity and traditions of the sport. Joisting, dueling, Errol Flynn sword fights, boxing, are all forms of gentlemanly combat. The NHL should grab a hold of this and work it to their advantage.
My 12 year old leaves the room when I put a hockey game on the tube. He likes to play the game, but he doesn’t like to watch it. How does the NHL grab that consumer…by eliminating something that would actually grab his interest? People say you have to love a sport, because you (or kids) have access to play the game. I never had that much access (except street hockey) and I love the sport. It has everything a sport needs to have to interest me; speed, power, violence and excitement. The NHL doesn’t understand the consumer that it doesn’t have…and its a damn shame.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Atlanta Thrashers
- Chris Pronger's contract accepted; why NHLPA could have advantage
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
