John MacKinnon retweeted my announcement of my previous post and got the following response:
From past interaction with Liam I know that he is a staunch supporter of fighting and the role of the enforcer. I will acknowledge that he has more experience within the hockey media as his Twitter profile states. “Liam is the Editor in Chief and Lead Commentator/Analyst of the Ultimate Hockey web media outlet. He's a published author, hockey trivia King and historian.” He also has his own website, Liam Maguire’s Ultimate Hockey. I can’t compete with that.
But let’s first delve into the facts and motivation that resulted in Carkner sucker punching Boyle at 2:15 of Game 2 of the Eastern Conference quarter-final, on April 14, 2012. We know that the Ottawa team was upset after their loss in Game 1, both because of key mistakes that led to Rangers goals, but also because Boyle took liberties with their star defenseman Erik Karlsson. Karlsson was punched in the head by Boyle after a whistle late in the 1st period, as reported by The Hockey News:
“The men in blue banged early, closed off the speed and space of Erik Karlsson (and, absurdly, even got away with turning him into a Daniel Sedin-esque punching bag with Brian Boyle playing the role of Brad Marchand)”
So we fast forward to Game 2 and it’s expected that Ottawa will respond to Boyle’s actions in Game 1. The video below shows what happens early in the 1st period:
Carkner said he was being a team player and was not happy that Boyle didn’t defend himself.
“It’s standing up for your teammates,” said Carkner. “I think if Boyle had just stood up and fought me — he’s a big guy (6-foot-7, 244 lbs.), he could have just held on to me or whatever, we wouldn’t be here talking. We had a guy taking liberties on our smallest player. Boyle is a big fella.”
Senators GM Bryan Murray defended Carkner.
“We understand the league’s decision in the suspension, but are disappointed for Matt, whom we felt was being a good teammate by standing up to a tough opponent who had gone out of his way to take physical liberties on Erik Karlsson,” said Murray.
Shanahan felt Carkner used “excessive force” on Boyle.
“While we understand a player’s desire to protect a teammate — and we’ve seen some examples in these playoffs — Carkner is excessive in his approach,” said Shanahan, who cited a past incident in which Carkner was fined $2,500. “(He) approached Boyle with the sole purpose of punching Boyle.”
So what was resolved by this fight? Karlsson still got punched in the head and if you watched the rest of the series, Boyle didn’t change his game and continued his aggressive play. Carkner got tossed and earned a game suspension. “The Code” was violated - sucker punching a player and continuing to hit him when he’s down is not kosher. Proves once again that “The Code” is used by players to defend fighting, but easily ignored when emotion takes over
The real issue here is weak or inconsistent application of the rules by officials, and a high tolerance for violence by the NHL. Try throwing a punch after the whistle in the NBA or NFL. Any other professional sports league would send a message to the player that violence is not part of their sport. By defending fighting Liam and others have agreed that hockey officiating and discipline is useless and cannot be trusted. They feel that it’s important to use roster spots for hulking individuals with few hockey skills and turn these emotional, biased and undisciplined players loose to enforce rules that may or may not have been broken. How is that good for the image of the sport?
Carkner sucker punching Boyle is a symptom and the cure is improved officiating and discipline. Instruct the referees to call the game more rigidly and with consistency. If you think on-ice officials can’t catch everything then put one or two additional referees up high in the rink, something suggested by Scotty Bowman and others years ago. Review incidents after every game and suspend players for acts of violence that are detrimental to the image of the sport. Assess a game misconduct for any fight and you’ll see enforcers quickly relegated to the press box and ultimately out of hockey. If two players in the heat of battle feel the need to drop the gloves then they can do so and know the consequences. No more staged fights, no more acts of revenge for something that happened weeks or months ago, no more messages sent late in a game when a team is getting blown out.
From my viewpoint, there is no doubt that Carkner’s response to Boyle was wrong.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Great comedy. Just great stuff. What zealots such as yourself fail to recognize is this;
ReplyDelete1) There is no mens hockey played anywhere in the world without fights. NCAA, European, minors, junior, kids, all hockey has fights.
2). The people involved in the NHL,owners, managers, coaches and players know that the rules have never been stricter and that fighting plays much less of a 'role' in games
3) What Boyle did to Karlsson happens 500 times a season. In many of those instances penalties are handed out and so they should be. However, if thatyour star player being attacked you need a response physically.
4) This is where you exit stage door left in understanding hockey. You obviously never played, certainly not contact hockey. Perhaps you've never had to come to the aid of a friend on the ice or vice versa. But fortunately you are in a what I think is a shrinking minority of anti fighting zealots who in the face of this years 39 majors in the playoffs are realizing that as much as its been greatly reduced and the pure enforcer is all but extinct there is still going to be a call to arms on occasion.
You are in a shrinking minority my friend. In fact you are becoming the very side show you decry the fights to be. Your last hope will be the upcoming CBA. If they don't make a significant ammendment to fighting this fall then what we've seen will be what we get for the next 10-12 years for sure.
Max Pacioretty did not have his vertebrae displaced in a fight. Erik Cole did not suffer a broken neck in a fight. Its unfortunate you have chosen this avenue to pursue rather than the style of game played by the Raffi Torres and Cal Clutterbucks and the endless parade of gutless run and gun cheap shot hockey players which now vastly out number the enforcer in the game.
Its my contention that your ilk find all fighting barbaric. My guess is you didn't watch the very entertaining UFC 148 last night or that you would have enjoyed any of the Ward-Gatti trilogy. Pro sports runs that fine line of acceptance of controlled violence. Whether it be a Metta World Peace elbow in the NBA, baseballs deliberately thrown at 90 MpH at somebody leading to there brawls or bounties in football, its controlled violence at that level. In hockey part of that is a fight and I for one am extremely thankful it is still a small part of the NHL.
What Carkner did was fantastic. I loved it, his teammates loved it and all Sens fans loved it. Obviously so did the Isles. Great signing by them.
First, I wanted to commend the professionalism inherent in your reply, Mr. Maguire.
DeleteBut this part is the only real comedy: "You are in a shrinking minority my friend." I've been writing about this topic for many years, and the people voicing their support has only grown over time.
Point 1 is irrelevant to whether fighting *should* be part of the game.
Point 2 apparently admits that the rules applied to fighting have been changing - so why can't they change some more?
Point 3 offers an assertion that you "need" to do it, but offers no evidence that this is true.
Point 4 is the classic logical fallacy that it seems *every* face-punching supported seems to fall back on. "You just don't get it" is not an argument.
Another important point, one that I've never received an adequate reply to: if "gutless" players are so prevalent in the game, IN A LEAGUE WHICH ALLOWS FIGHTING, then what good does fighting do? Your "ilk" claims that fighting is needed to keep cheap shots out of the game, but then you point out that cheap shots are prevalent. So what good does fighting do? (If you're tempted to answer "But there would be *more* cheap shots without fighting, I'd then ask you to prove that.)
It's also fitting that you mention UFC. If I wanted to watch people punching each other, I would watch UFC. But I don't. I want to watch people playing hockey.
Bringing in the violence in other sports is also comical, because it actually works against you. Yes, all sports involve controlled violence. But hockey is the only major sports that allows fighting. Brawls in baseball and basketball and football are uncommon, and are considered shameful when they happen. Players are suspended just for fighting. Equivalating that situation with the NHL is ludicrous.
Thank you for your comment Mr Fyffe. I choose to differ from your thought. I feel the out break of fighting in this years playoff brought about a more laissez-faire attitude from most hockey fans. Not all certainly but most. The old adage, they never fight in the playoffs certainly went out the window. Fighting in hockey is a deterrent to more violence. We know this because of the countless quotes and comments from NCAA and European players who are in the NHL and have been for years. They have almost to a man when asked, have indicated fighting is a neccesary part of hockey that they are quite content to have part of the game and they feel it is a deterrent in the game. Its my belief that the proliferation of the 'rat' type of player is due to the stricter fighting rules.
DeleteThe comparison to other sports fits perfectly. They are violent. Brutally violent including numerous bench clearing incidents in baseball usually after somebody has been hit deliberately with a ball. Nice. Basebrawls happen every month and have for 100 years. It totally fits my point.
Football rarely has fighting but now the news of bounties??? And if you think that's isolated you're naïve.
I've watched hockey for years, 47 years of watching starting with Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard. I've played the sport for 44 years, 16 of those competitively and I've now coached my son for ten soon to be eleven years. I've never gone to a game expecting to see or be in a fight; well one time in College in 1982 but that was it. However I fully expect any team I played on or any team I've cheered for to have a response to cheap shots or intimidation wrought by the other team. Especially at the NHL level. What's your experience with the sport Mr Fyffe? I'm always curious as to what the background of the detractors is in respect to the sport.
I will reiterate what I stated earlier. You guys better hope for something significant in this upcoming CBA. Who knows, maybe the NHL makes the change and a fight will be accompanied by a game misconduct. We'll soon see.
"Fighting in hockey is a deterrent to more violence." Classic line. Please prove it.
DeleteI've got a simple counter: violence breeds more violence. There's at least some research to support that claim, unlike the truism you're relying upon.
You missed the comparison to other sports entirely. Yes, sometimes fights happen in other sports. But they are rare, relative to hockey, and most importantly, they are not pre-planned and teams do not carry players specifically to break the rules.
So hockey, which apparently has fighting to keep the violence down, has more violence than sports which have no fighting. This seems incongruous.
As for the attempt at an ad hominem, go ahead and ask Jim Thomson what his experience is with the game. Attempts to ignore the issue by painting those who are against fighting as disconnected from the game fails miserably in light of his comments on fighting in hockey.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Great comedy. Just great stuff. What zealots such as yourself fail to recognize is this;
ReplyDelete1) There is no mens hockey played anywhere in the world without fights. NCAA, European, minors, junior, kids, all hockey has fights.
2). The people involved in the NHL,owners, managers, coaches and players know that the rules have never been stricter and that fighting plays much less of a 'role' in games
3) What Boyle did to Karlsson happens 500 times a season. In many of those instances penalties are handed out and so they should be. However, if your star player is being attacked you need a response physically.
4) This is where you exit stage door left in understanding hockey. You obviously never played, certainly not contact hockey. Perhaps you've never had to come to the aid of a friend on the ice or vice versa. But fortunately you are in a what I think is a shrinking minority of anti fighting zealots who in the face of this years 39 majors in the playoffs are realizing that as much as its been greatly reduced and the pure enforcer is all but extinct there is still going to be a call to arms on occasion.
You are in a shrinking minority my friend. In fact you are becoming the very side show you decry the fights to be. Your last hope will be the upcoming CBA. If they don't make a significant ammendment to fighting this fall then what we've seen will be what we get for the next 10-12 years for sure.
Max Pacioretty did not have his vertebrae displaced in a fight. Erik Cole did not suffer a broken neck in a fight. Its unfortunate you have chosen this avenue to pursue rather than the style of game played by the Raffi Torres and Cal Clutterbucks and the endless parade of gutless run and gun cheap shot hockey players which now vastly out number the enforcer in the game.
Its my contention that your ilk find all fighting barbaric. My guess is you didn't watch the very entertaining UFC 148 last night or that you would not have enjoyed any of the Ward-Gatti boxing trilogy. Pro sports runs that fine line of acceptance of controlled violence. Whether it be a Metta World Peace elbow in the NBA, baseballs deliberately thrown at 90 MPH at somebody leading to their brawls or bounties in football, its controlled violence at that level. In hockey part of that is a fight and I for one am extremely thankful it is still a small part of the NHL.