Bertuzzi Suspension

[Vandiablo]

I like the injury based suspension time idea as well. Of course, what do you do if you end someone's career (or their life)? And how do you judge if something was intentional? It's just not workable.

It's a hell of a lot more workable than having some team goon dispense eye-for-an-eye justice. That was supposed to have been out the window two thousand years ago.

What I object to is saying that one who didn't participate in "the code" is a "coward". It seems more the other way around to me.

[Mirajj]

Amen, Vandiablo. I like the injury based suspension time idea as well. Of course, what do you do if you end someone's career (or their life)? And how do you judge if something was intentional? It's just not workable.

Sucks to be you, and here's a one way pass to the unemployment line. Hope you invested well, and should have thought of the ramifications of your actions before committing them.

I'm a fan of the injury based suspension simply due to that matter. We'd still see fights and whatnot, but people getting seriously hurt would go way down if the attacker missed (without pay) the same amount of time the attackee did. Or maybe if the attackers missed pay went to the attackee. *shrugs* All sorts of room for improvement, I think.

[DeeBye]

I'm a fan of the injury based suspension simply due to that matter. We'd still see fights and whatnot, but people getting seriously hurt would go way down if the attacker missed (without pay) the same amount of time the attackee did. Or maybe if the attackers missed pay went to the attackee. *shrugs* All sorts of room for improvement, I think.

I can see one flaw in the "injury based suspension" argument.

What if a an injury-prone player or a player that is still recovering from a previous injury is hit hard? I'm thinking of a player like Lindros or Roenick. A "questionable hit" against either of these two guys might put them out for good, whereas the same hit versus a younger and healthier player would likely be shrugged off.

Punishing someone with a lifetime suspension for injuring a proven injury-prone player that is nearly retired seems wrong to me.

[Chaerophon]

EDITED: As per Mr. Deebye's suggestions :D

As soon as CNN and the ladies at The View heard 'broken neck', they had to put in their two cents, and soon the soccer mom's of America had decided that they had a valid opinion. The NHL is trying to compensate for the fact that they've had no balls with suspensions in the past on this one; unfortunately, all that they've done is further prove that they have no balls by bowing to media pressure on an incident that deserves such punishment less than have many in the past. Pathetic.

Fanboy out.

[DeeBye]

some really great stuff

You know, your arguments would have been a lot better if you didn't add in all the pro-Vancouver fanboy stuff.

This is all you should have said:

Unfortunately, as soon as CNN and the ladies at The View heard 'broken neck', they had to put in their two cents, and soon the soccer moms of America had decided that they had a valid opinion. The NHL is trying to compensate for the fact that they've had no balls with suspensions in the past on this one; unfortunately, all that they've done is further prove that they have no balls by bowing to media pressure on an incident that deserves such punishment less than have many in the past. Pathetic.

The other stuff is fanboy fluff.

edit: Hey that rhymes!

[Chaerophon]

What I object to is saying that one who didn't participate in "the code" is a "coward". It seems more the other way around to me.

Why wouldn't he participate? He's a hockey player. Everyone else plays by those rules, why shouldn't he? There's no room for pacifists on the ice, it's an inherently violent game, so that excuse goes out the window.

He knew the consequences for his actions, there's no denying that. If he refuses to abide by "the code", there can be only one reason: fear. He's afraid to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Definition of a coward. He can show respect for his opponent in one of two ways: don't hit him when he's vulnerable, or take his lumps when they're coming.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not Don Cherry. However, I was never the best, but I was always an honest hockey player who earned a lot of respect taking my lumps, and I like to think that I earned it by playing with honour, the way that the game was meant to be played, Star Jones be damned.

[Chaerophon]

Fanboy? Yes.

Fluff??? Maybe. You know what they say about opinions... :P

[Mirajj]

Why wouldn't he participate? He's a hockey player. Everyone else plays by those rules, why shouldn't he? There's no room for pacifists on the ice, it's an inherently violent game, so that excuse goes out the window.

Why is hockey an inherently voilent game? It's because people think that it is. There is no need for the violence in hockey, it's there because the bloodthirsty fans enjoy it. Gretzky could be argueably the best player ever, and how many fights was he in? ;)

Honestly, if you took the violence out of hockey, the game would improve dramatically, the fan base would thin a bit to no great loss, and people would enjoy it all the more.

[DeeBye]

Why is hockey an inherently voilent game? It's because people think that it is.

Hockey is inherently violent because it's a game in which big and strong players skate around at incredible speed in a confined space and are allowed by rule to hit each other. People think hockey is violent because it is violent.

If you take the violence (the clean kind of violence, not the cheap stuff) out of hockey, you would be taking the essence out of the game.

There is no need for the violence in hockey, it's there because the bloodthirsty fans enjoy it.

There is no need for violence in the NFL either. They should just play touch football.

There is no need for excessive speed in auto racing. They would be safer driving 25 MPH.

There is no need for 100 MPH fastballs in MLB. They should throw slow underhands.

There is no need for boxing at all. People shouldn't punch each other.

I enjoy hockey, but I'm not bloodthirsty. I don't like seeing players seriously injured. That being said, if you take the danger out of hockey (indeed, all sports) you will be stripping it of everything that makes it worthwhile.

Gretzky could be argueably the best player ever, and how many fights was he in?

Gretzky was in one hockey fight that I know of.

Gretzky didn't fight after that because he had Semenko at his side. Semenko made sure that no one took cheap shots at Gretzky. It can be argued that Semenko's protective presence allowed Gretzky to show off his stuff.

Honestly, if you took the violence out of hockey, the game would improve dramatically, the fan base would thin a bit to no great loss, and people would enjoy it all the more.

I disagree with this entire statement. In fact, it doesn't even make sense. Why would the fan base thin out when the game would be "improved"?

[Jester]

"That being said, if you take the danger out of hockey (indeed, all sports) you will be stripping it of everything that makes it worthwhile."

Curling?

Jester

[Chaerophon]

You ever tried that one-footed sliding thing, at those speeds, while leaning on a broom!?! :D

[DeeBye]

Curling?

Exception noted!

I love curling :)