carpandean Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm sure many of you had heard about Don Sanderson, a defenseman for the Whitby Dunlops, being in a coma after hitting his head on the ice during a fight on December 12. Unfortunately, he passed away: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/01/02/hockey_death/ Scary. There have been a few fights that the Sabres have been involved in where one player fell to the ice hitting or almost hitting his head on the ice. Guys at the NHL level, especially fighters, are pretty good about falling "right" to not make direct contact with their heads on the ice, but it's not always possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why is fighting allowed in hockey? It's 2009, isn't it time to remove fighting from the sport at every level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why is fighting allowed in hockey? It's 2009, isn't it time to remove fighting from the sport at every level. Thats a dream..That will never happen..And as far as I knwo unless its MMA or some sort of fighting sport Hockey is the only sport that tolerates it with a penalty...It wont ever change.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Not that this was this case in the above story, but being "macho" and removing your helmet prior to a fight may be the dumbest thing a player can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Not that this was this case in the above story, but being "macho" and removing your helmet prior to a fight may be the dumbest thing a player can do. Unless I am mistaken, if you wear a visor, you have to remove your helmet before a fight or you can receive an extra penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwcolour Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Unless I am mistaken, if you wear a visor, you have to remove your helmet before a fight or you can receive an extra penalty. Rule 47.6 states: Face Protection - If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Should the player (including a goalkeeper) who instigates the fight be wearing a face shield, but removes it before instigating the altercation, the additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty shall not apply. Never seen it called though. I honestly don't think fighting makes the sport that much more dangerous, and then there is always the argument of the self policing, who knows, but I don't see it changing for a long long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Very sad. I feel for all parties involved. Just goes to show you that sometimes things go terribly wrong and that the result was terrible luck. Reminds me of the Bertuzzi/Moore incident. The guy who was in the fight has to live with this forever, as does Bertuzzi. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 How much of this could be avoided if the helmets are fitted for players correctly and they wear the chinstrap tight, the way it should be? This is a great tragedy but if it occured because his helmet wasn't worn correctly, that is something that could be and should be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 How much of this could be avoided if the helmets are fitted for players correctly and they wear the chinstrap tight, the way it should be? This is a great tragedy but if it occured because his helmet wasn't worn correctly, that is something that could be and should be avoided. Ah, the Drew Stafford paradox. I am really starting to wonder if the team's equipment budget was cut and he was given Briere's helmet after #48 left for the Cryers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crestwood Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why is fighting allowed in hockey? It's 2009, isn't it time to remove fighting from the sport at every level. I'm all for getting rid of the predetermined, Peters-style, "let's throw our gloves down and pretend we're boxers for 30 seconds before either of us lands a punch" type of fighting. That being said, I'm inclined to believe fighting still has a place in NHL hockey. I still like seeing the players policing themselves rather than watching referees try to "take control." Maybe the AHL and other developmental leagues need to take another look, but I'd be disappointed if the NHL banned it. John Buccigross wrote a nice piece on this earlier this year at ESPN.com. I agree with his reasoning: Fighting also achieves one very important thing for the NHL: It makes the sport stand out in a media world of white noise. No other sport allows bare-knuckle fighting, and no other team sport allows fighting with such a small penalty as a five-minute timeout in a small box complete with towels, ice and beverages. There is even a guy in the penalty box who appears as if he could give you excellent tax advice or 401(k) reassurance. And as he points out later in the column, sure, people can die in fights. But people also die in their own bathrooms, and nobody's calling for a ban on showers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McJeff215 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 And as he points out later in the column, sure, people can die in fights. But people also die in their own bathrooms, and nobody's calling for a ban on showers. Petitio principii. The two situations are not related whatsoever, but by drawing the same logical conclusion, you're inclined to believe both. One is intended to cause bodily injury, while the other is intended to make you not stink. I can see the argument either way. On the surface, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to have professional level athletes beating the hell out of each other on the ice. Dig a bit deeper, and the self-policing argument comes up. I'm fine with it, but I'd be just as fine without it. It would be nice to not have to hold on to that enforcer spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Rule 47.6 states: Face Protection - If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Should the player (including a goalkeeper) who instigates the fight be wearing a face shield, but removes it before instigating the altercation, the additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty shall not apply. Never seen it called though. I honestly don't think fighting makes the sport that much more dangerous, and then there is always the argument of the self policing, who knows, but I don't see it changing for a long long time. And you'll probably never see it called. They're supposed to get an additional 2 on top of the 2-5-10 (game) for instigating a fight? Refs aren't going to pile on like that. If it's in the AHL rulebook, I guess you might see it there rarely since all players wear visors, but the typical instigators in the NHL aren't wearing them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Very sad. I feel for all parties involved. Just goes to show you that sometimes things go terribly wrong and that the result was terrible luck.Reminds me of the Bertuzzi/Moore incident. The guy who was in the fight has to live with this forever, as does Bertuzzi. Sad. I have no sympathy for Bertuzzi. What Bertuzzi did was meant for things to go terribly wrong. The guy hit Moore from behind and Moore never saw it coming. Moore's career came to an end because of Bertuzzi's sick hit. After the NHL found out Moore's career was over they should've banned Bertuzzi for life. What Bertuzzi did was not "terrible luck." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I have no sympathy for Bertuzzi. What Bertuzzi did was meant for things to go terribly wrong. The guy hit Moore from behind and Moore never saw it coming. Moore's career came to an end because of Bertuzzi's sick hit. After the NHL found out Moore's career was over they should've banned Bertuzzi for life. What Bertuzzi did was not "terrible luck." Brace yourself, because the "Moore was a punk and had it coming" crowd is probably sharpening their pitchforks right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Brace yourself, because the "Moore was a punk and had it coming" crowd is probably sharpening their pitchforks right now. Even if you are a punk, it doesn't give people the right to go above and beyond a cheap shot. Bertuzzi's lucky Moore didn't get paralyzed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 How much of this could be avoided if the helmets are fitted for players correctly and they wear the chinstrap tight, the way it should be? This is a great tragedy but if it occured because his helmet wasn't worn correctly, that is something that could be and should be avoided. They showed Butler up close during the game yesterday and his chin strap was about 2 inches below his chin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 They showed Butler up close during the game yesterday and his chin strap was about 2 inches below his chin. Didn't Drury have his helmet on a bit loose when he got drilled by Chris Neil? The NHL should play it like it's Little League Baseball; meaning all equipment has to be on and worn properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Even if you are a punk, it doesn't give people the right to go above and beyond a cheap shot. Bertuzzi's lucky Moore didn't get paralyzed. I don't want to hijack this into another Bertuzzi debate, but I'll just say that whether the hit was clean or not, Moore did fight Cooke in the first period before Bertuzzi decided he hadn't paid enough. The whole thing should have been over then. And that's where I'll end that discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I have no sympathy for Bertuzzi. What Bertuzzi did was meant for things to go terribly wrong. The guy hit Moore from behind and Moore never saw it coming. Moore's career came to an end because of Bertuzzi's sick hit. After the NHL found out Moore's career was over they should've banned Bertuzzi for life. What Bertuzzi did was not "terrible luck." Moore knew he was going to get hit, because Bertuzzi chased him all over it telling him to go. The punch did NOT break Moore's neck. It knocked him out, for sure, which is where the bad luck comes into play. The broken neck was when everyone else piled onto Moore while he was out cold. That too is bad luck. Not saying Moore deserved it. But guys get punched in the head with the glove on, from behind, plenty of times in a season. This is where the bad luck happened imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Moore knew he was going to get hit, because Bertuzzi chased him all over it telling him to go. The punch did NOT break Moore's neck. It knocked him out, for sure, which is where the bad luck comes into play. The broken neck was when everyone else piled onto Moore while he was out cold. That too is bad luck. You sure? I'll give you that the punch did not break his neck , but there is no :censored: way that you can say for sure that Bertuzzi riding him down to the ice didn't. Maybe, it didn't and everyone else jumping on did, but there is no way to say for sure. It is very, very possible that hitting the ice is what did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Moore knew he was going to get hit, because Bertuzzi chased him all over it telling him to go. The punch did NOT break Moore's neck. It knocked him out, for sure, which is where the bad luck comes into play. The broken neck was when everyone else piled onto Moore while he was out cold. That too is bad luck. Not saying Moore deserved it. But guys get punched in the head with the glove on, from behind, plenty of times in a season. This is where the bad luck happened imo. I never said the punch actually broke his neck. It's what caused him to get knocked out. It was beyond a cheap shot and you could use the domino effect. The beyond cheap shot punch got the dominos to fall. Moore did have a scruffle earlier in the game, but Bertuzzi crossed the line. And if you condone crap like that you have issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blugold43 Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Why is fighting allowed in hockey? It's 2009, isn't it time to remove fighting from the sport at every level. i agree totally. it cheapens the sport as far as i am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 You sure? I'll give you that the punch did not break his neck , but there is no :censored: way that you can say for sure that Bertuzzi riding him down to the ice didn't. Maybe, it didn't and everyone else jumping on did, but there is no way to say for sure. It is very, very possible that hitting the ice is what did it. If I were a betting man I'd say that Bertuzzi driving him into the ice was what broke his neck. His arm was on the back of Moore's head/neck and he drove him forward. I never said the punch actually broke his neck. It's what caused him to get knocked out. It was beyond a cheap shot and you could use the domino effect. The beyond cheap shot punch got the dominos to fall. Moore did have a scruffle earlier in the game, but Bertuzzi crossed the line. And if you condone crap like that you have issues. Not singling rickshaw out, but I've seen a lot of people who seem to be OK with what happened to Moore (or at the very least have a "#%^$#! happens"/"he shoulda manned up and fought" attitude toward it) always seem to discount the fact that Cooke goaded Moore into a fight one period earlier, and the Canucks should have been satisfied then. But in that game the Avs were kicking their all over the ice, and Crawford and co. got embarrassed and mad and decided that Moore hadn't paid enough yet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 If I were a betting man I'd say that Bertuzzi driving him into the ice was what broke his neck. His arm was on the back of Moore's head/neck and he drove him forward. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Agreed. Most of us agree upon that.I was just saying Bertuzzi's want to beyond cheap shot him started it all. Simple common sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.