Monday, November 12, 2007
"A dirty, dangerous play, no? Well, yes, but..."
John MacKinnon's excellent post from yesterday about Regehr/Hemsky can pretty much serve as my last word on the subject, with the possible exception of the sentence containing "it's precisely what the NHL should want".
I really don't know if I'd like NHL hockey more, or less, if supplemental discipline was torqued to severely punish (and strongly deter) what MacKinnon calls "a battle for the puck that went bad". The overall level of physical play would go down; players would, on average, be less aggressive (they just would; when the consequences of crossing a line become much more severe, players will on average stay further away from the line).
My sense is that I'd be OK with it. I don't think I'd like the NHL less if what is presently a legal shoulder-to-head hit became illegal, or if there were fewer high-speed collisions, or just less contact overall. If I never saw another Regehr on Hemsky, or Cooke on Langkow, or Jones on Bergeron, I wouldn't miss it. I don't think I'd like the NHL less if it was less violent... but what I do know is that opinion would be a small, small minority amongst the people who make their living playing in the NHL, or coaching in it, or covering it.
Today of all days should drive that home. Mark Messier and Scott Stevens are being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, and they are not merely respected, they are revered for playing a physical game that was on the edge, and occasionally, over it. Reducing the amount of violence in the NHL necessarily means that -- in relative terms -- Messier and Stevens move down in the pantheon, and guys like Pierre Turgeon** move up.
Here's a list of Messier career highlights you probably won't see anywhere else today:
That, OR, he would have adapted early, played the game less aggressively, and he wouldn't be remembered in the same way. And today, you just won't find many people arguing that the NHL would have been better off as a result. You won't find many people arguing that Scott Stevens' highlight reel of concussing an All-Star team's worth of opponents is actually shameful, and something that the NHL should be legislating out of hockey; he is being celebrated without reservation.
Your own opinion on your Ideal NHL is yours to keep. But as MacKinnon says, Welcome to the real world.
[**Staples' story about "Buddy, from where you're standing, they're all tough" obviously applies here.]
I really don't know if I'd like NHL hockey more, or less, if supplemental discipline was torqued to severely punish (and strongly deter) what MacKinnon calls "a battle for the puck that went bad". The overall level of physical play would go down; players would, on average, be less aggressive (they just would; when the consequences of crossing a line become much more severe, players will on average stay further away from the line).
My sense is that I'd be OK with it. I don't think I'd like the NHL less if what is presently a legal shoulder-to-head hit became illegal, or if there were fewer high-speed collisions, or just less contact overall. If I never saw another Regehr on Hemsky, or Cooke on Langkow, or Jones on Bergeron, I wouldn't miss it. I don't think I'd like the NHL less if it was less violent... but what I do know is that opinion would be a small, small minority amongst the people who make their living playing in the NHL, or coaching in it, or covering it.
Today of all days should drive that home. Mark Messier and Scott Stevens are being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, and they are not merely respected, they are revered for playing a physical game that was on the edge, and occasionally, over it. Reducing the amount of violence in the NHL necessarily means that -- in relative terms -- Messier and Stevens move down in the pantheon, and guys like Pierre Turgeon** move up.
Here's a list of Messier career highlights you probably won't see anywhere else today:
- Suspended one game by NHL during 1983-84 season for receiving three game-misconduct penalties during course of season
- Suspended six games by NHL during 1983-84 season for hitting Thomas Gradin over the helmet with his stick during Edmonton's Jan. 18, 1984, game vs. Vancouver. Gradin suffered a mild concussion
- Suspended 10 games by NHL for cracking Jamie Macoun's cheekbone with a blind-side punch during Edmonton's Dec. 26, 1984, game at Calgary
- Suspended six games by NHL during 1988-89 season for hitting Rich Sutter in mouth with a high stick during Edmonton's Oct. 23, 1988, game at Vancouver. Although Messier was not called for a penalty on the play, Sutter suffered four broken teeth
- Suspended without pay for three non-game, non-travel days and fined $500 by NHL for stick-swinging incident with Ulf Samuelsson during N.Y. Rangers' March 5, 1993, game vs. Pittsburgh
- Suspended two games and fined $1,000 by NHL for hitting Mike Hough from behind during second period of N.Y. Rangers' Oct. 6, 1996, game vs. Florida
- Suspended two games by NHL during 2003-04 season for spearing Martin Strbak in N.Y. Rangers' March 21, 2004, game at Pittsburgh
That, OR, he would have adapted early, played the game less aggressively, and he wouldn't be remembered in the same way. And today, you just won't find many people arguing that the NHL would have been better off as a result. You won't find many people arguing that Scott Stevens' highlight reel of concussing an All-Star team's worth of opponents is actually shameful, and something that the NHL should be legislating out of hockey; he is being celebrated without reservation.
Your own opinion on your Ideal NHL is yours to keep. But as MacKinnon says, Welcome to the real world.
[**Staples' story about "Buddy, from where you're standing, they're all tough" obviously applies here.]
# posted by Matt @ 2:37 pm 
Comments:
I don't begrudge anyone their opinion about Regehr v. Hemsky -- I don't even necessarily disagree with them -- but I don't want to hear it here.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm saying I don't want to -- I can't stand them.
You've now written over 1300 words on the subject. For a guy who keeps throwing up his hands saying, "I don't want to talk about," you sure spend a lot of time talking about it.
The overall level of physical play would go down; players would, on average, be less aggressive (they just would; when the consequences of crossing a line become much more severe, players will on average stay further away from the line).
I've watched the NFL go through a series of rules changes all intent on providing more safety for the players--protecting the QB, penalties for blows to the head, neck and face, blocking below the waist on kicking plays, helmet to helmet hits, chop blocks, peel-back blocks below the waist, and horse-collar tackles--and not for a single second have I ever been concerned about the level of physical play going down. I watched a CIS hockey game on Saturday night full of physical play. In fact, you'll probably see more physical play at a CIS hockey game (at least a Golden Bears one) than you'll ever see at a regular season NHL game. And yet you'll rarely see a fight in a CIS game, because those who do receive an automatic one game suspension (two if they are the instigator/aggressor). Checking from behind and game misconduct? Automatic one game suspension. Two if it is done again again, and indefinite suspension after that. Gross misconduct? Automatic two games. Second gross misconduct in a season? Gone for the entire season. Match penalties for butt ending, spearing, or deliberate intent to injure? Automatic two, three, and four game suspension. There are more, and both you and Mackinnon are invited to read about them here.The point is, it's erroneous to suggest that the NHL will automatically be less physical because of rule changes intended to protect the players. It will just become less dangerous of a league to watch or play in, and I, at least, am pretty comfortable with that.
This is not a gotcha to Oiler fans who are unhappy that I'm not personally calling for a long Robyn Regehr suspension.
Actually, it is. You've done it for three days now. "But what about Raffi Torres?" "But what about Steve Staios?" "But what about Matt Cooke?" "But what about Randy Jones?" It's a diversionary debate tactic. Mark Messier hitting someone with his elbow has nothing to do with whether or not Regehr should be punished.
Your own opinion on your Ideal NHL is yours to keep. But as MacKinnon says, Welcome to the real world.
In the real world, people can't slam someone else's head against a wall with a stick and get away with it. But thanks for the lesson. I know I trust the word of a guy who calls Regehr's attack "a battle for the puck that went bad", while calling Downie's attack on McAmmond a "cheap, vicious hit."
Painting the issue as though hits would disappear if Regehr was suspended for cross-checking a player in the neck is ludicrous. There's room for hitting in hockey. Hard hits. However, there's no room for cross-checks to the neck that send a player head first into the dasher. None.
Bottom line, this wasn't a hit. It was a cross-check. How supplementary discipline would affect hitting is beyond me.
Bottom line, this wasn't a hit. It was a cross-check. How supplementary discipline would affect hitting is beyond me.
Robyn Regehr at a NHL disciplinary meeting:
"What do you mean I can't cross-check a guy in the back of the head, and drive his head into the boards? WHAT!? Well, I'm never bodychecking ever, ever again. No, never, no matter what you say. I can't risk hurting my team by finishing off a clean bodycheck. And I'm telling all my teammates, and every single person in the league. We will never bodycheck someone ever again!!!"
Cmon, Rod, can't you see that happening? I totally can.
This post isn't about Regehr/Hemsky. It's over. You guys have got to face the fact that no one else cares. The NHL head office doesn't care, the Edmonton media doesn't care, MacT doesn't care.
Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
This post isn't about Regehr/Hemsky.
It's not? I guess the lead-in sentence using the words "Regehr/Hemsky" was in fact, misleading. Same goes for the mention of the Regehr/Hemsky cross-check in paragraph two ("a battle for the puck that went bad"), paragraph three ("If I never saw another Regehr on Hemsky"), and paragraph six ("unhappy that I'm not personally calling for a long Robyn Regehr suspension"), along with the link to stories on the issue by David Staples and John Mackinnon. Looking at it again, I can see that we were talking about something totally different.
Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
Yes, Rod, rules affect behaviour. Creating clearly defined rules that would protect players and stiffly punish those who broke those rules would end the game of hockey forever. Just like how all the other rules in hockey have ended the game of hockey.
Hard to believe it hasn't happened yet if it's that simple, isn't it. You'd almost think it's because those changes aren't wanted.
Matt said: Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
Are you honestly saying that with a straight face? Because we certainly saw a sharp decrease in hitting after the Downie hit and subsequent suspension. At least that revolved around a hit, and it did *not* deter clean hits...even dirty ones. How's that for flying the face of every known thing?
Also, please explain how football--both north and south of the border--remains a hard hitting sport in the face of increased penalties on hitting.
That's when enforcing penalties on hitting. Regehr's third period act was not a hit. It was a cross-check Matt. A cross-check to the neck. Somehow, it should be possible for NHL calibre players to make body checks without resorting to cross checks. Yet, you're saying otherwise, as though players are compelled to cross-check opponents in the neck, particularly when said opponent is bent over slightly, a few feet from the boards. Yep, it's inevitable all right. Body checks always result in a cross-check to the neck. Whatever. With logic like that, I can see why you didn't want to post on the issue. You're making no sense.
Extending your argument, players won't even take the ice for fear of an instigator penalty. Seems they do. Whether that flies in the face of "every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives" or not, players still take the ice. Exclaim all you want that hitting would disappear with a cross-checking suspension, that doesn't make it a legitimate statement.
It was a cross-check. Bringing body checking and physical play into the mix is red herring. And yet another attempt at deflecting the issue away from Regehr's accountability for his actions.
Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
And so are you, Grabia.
I would be happy with players staying further away from the "over-the line plays." I'm fairly certain that I said I was comfortable with the league becoming less dangerous. Well look, there it is!
It will just become less dangerous of a league to watch or play in, and I, at least, am pretty comfortable with.
It was your assertion that the overall level of physical play would go down that I have a problem with. But I guess my arguments about the existing state of the NFL and the CIS just aren't as strong as your slippery slope arguments about the future of NHL hockey.
We probably haven't heard anyhting from Campbell about this yet because he has more important things to deal with right now.
http://www.tsn.ca/tsn_talent/columnists/bob_mckenzie/
I agree that staying away from "over the line" plays is a decent enough thing. Point is, suspending a player for cross-checking an opponent in the neck does nothing more than that. It might, at most, get a player or two out there to think twice before cross-checking an opponent in the neck, into the boards. It won't make players think twice about making body checks.
On the other hand, if the Regehr suspension also referenced his blatantly late hit in the 2nd period, then maybe hitting would be affected. I wouldn't suspend Regehr for the 2nd period hit alone, but he should have received a penalty on that play.
That's the point we were making Matt. You made the strange leap that a Regehr cross-check suspension would lead to less hitting in the NHL. The two aren't connected in the least. A cross-check to the neck is not the inevitable result of clean body checks. So there's a miniscule chance that hitting in hockey would be affected by a Regehr suspension for his third period cross-check. It certainly wouldn't change the league to the point you described in the blog post.
Yeah, the Avery thing is more high profile at this point. That doesn't make it more important in my view. Nobody's career was inches from ending. Coincidence the Avery side-show is in the press because it happened in Toronto?
How many Torontonians does it take to screw in the lightbulb?
1.
He simply holds it up, and it screws itself in as the world revolves around him.
cmon matt stick to your guns the hemmer hit was carma coming back to bite the coil in the rear for being a dirty team
no way does regehr deserve a suspension. talk about peverse inscentives to punish the guy who brought his physical game to the game.
I think it's obvious that if a guy doesn't get seriously hurt, you won't get suspended. Tootoo tried to kill that young Yote but didn't get suspended because the guy managed to get up and go after him. I don't think anyone can say that Lispy Reghr's hit on Hemsky wasn't as dangerous as Jones on Bergeron, but the latter wound up concussed so Campbell acted.
Outside of stickswinging like Boulerice vs Kesler, I think it's clear that unless you seriously hurt a guy, you can dirty check from behind with impunity.
PS: I can't believe anyone would think that Messier was dirty!!!!
I feel ashamed to have brought it up on his Special Day. Leadership!!1!1!
cmon matt stick to your guns the hemmer hit was carma coming back to bite the coil in the rear for being a dirty team
Ya, cmon Matt. Agree with fever4flames. PLEASE!?!?!?!?
PRETTY PLEASE!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Apparently Matt has declared that blogs are no longer about writing/commenting/debating about issues in the NHL or news/business/analysis related to the Alberta teams that contributors and commenters want to discuss.
Only those that that the NHL actually makes a tangible action about.
Get your Centre Ice online!
Buy the all new great RBK gear!
Buy tickets?
Stop asking hard questions! Eurasia is at war with Oceania. That's all you need to know.
Andy is, for whatever reason, unwilling to realize or at least acknowledge that I haven't been defending Regehr. Again, I'm not really sure if he's disagreeing with me, or if he's mad because I'm right (that the NHL doesn't care enough about this play, or those like it, to dish out a suspension).
For some reason I'm also being tabbed as hypocritical, even though I think the only time I ranted about someone deserving a suspension -- and I mean deserve in the existential sense, absent any relation to the established disciplinary framework, kind of like Andy re: Regehr -- was when Jaro Spacek was a Blackhawk. Has Andy's discomfort with the level of violence in the NHL been a known concern for a while now?
What is the problem with what I've written? Is it really that I said I didn't want to discuss X, and then in fact did? Conceded. Other than that... I don't understand who Andy is mad at or for what reason.
the only characature is the COILERS, who's imitation of a legitimate nhl team is nothing but a twisted joke and a farce
hey coilerville, i here that that QMJHL is accepting expansion teams! LOL!!!
the only characature is the COILERS, who's imitation of a legitimate nhl team is nothing but a twisted joke and a farce
hey coilerville, i here that that QMJHL is accepting expansion teams! LOL!!!
C'Mon... this is just way too funny to be real. Dennis? Rivers? MC? Anyone?
Again with the deflection, Matt. Now I'm mad. And upset because the NHL won't do anything. Bravo, sir. Bravo. I look forward to your next 2000 word piece on stuff you don't want to talk about. Hopefully the game of hockey won't be destroyed from a lack of cross-checks to the neck by then.
I think you're being tabbed as a Regehr apologist here, Matt.
As for me, I suggest that Regehr simply couldn't see Hemsky. Besides, Hemsky was setting a pick anyways.
K. Anything else besides crosschecks to the neck you want to take a firm stand against now, while you're on a roll? Possibly illustrated by a non-Oiler victim? Any previous injustices that you made no mention of whatsoever at the time, but would now like denounce strenuously?
Preventing the destruction of the game of hockey sounds like serious business. I'm sure you take it that way, and won't just, I dunno, ignore it entirely until the next time someone does something to an Oiler.
Yes MG, and I'm not sure why, since I haven't defended the hit whatsoever, let alone made one of those absurd claims.
Ok here we go. So attempting to besmirch the Moose on his day. Well guess what that is part of his game Moose was always on the edge. I remember him in his early days you never knew which one would show up a power forward or a stick fighter. But what went in the 80's does not fly... watch the old gmaes and you will see hooking and holding on every play.
Since we are digging up old crap I seem to recall a certain D Man calling the all the women of Calgary whores or something to that effect.
the only characature is the COILERS, who's imitation of a legitimate nhl team is nothing but a twisted joke and a farce
hey coilerville, i here that that QMJHL is accepting expansion teams! LOL!!!
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the only difference between the Oilers and the Flames at this juncture of the season is two OT loss points.
Matt said:
Yes MG, and I'm not sure why, since I haven't defended the hit whatsoever, let alone made one of those absurd claims.
Right. No absurd claims. You've restricted yourself to mundane theories where supplemental discipline on cross-checks to the neck would impact the amount of body-checking in an average game (not that you have a problem with that). Right. Not absurd at all. Makes as much sense as saying tickets for blowing through stop signs will have a negative effect on the amount of vegetables the average person eats per day.
With deflections like that, it's really difficult to imagine how anyone could think a suspension was too much in your mind.
BTW, since when is a prior stand against decapitation necessary before people are allowed to speak against near decapitations? Are you peeved we didn't offer sympathy over the Langkow hit a little sooner? Geez, the night I saw that clip I came to the site, hoping to add a comment...but no game day thread. Get over it Matt.
Why do you think Regehr hasn't been suspended, Rod? As I've explained, my theory is that the NHL doesn't want to harshly punish that play (or ones just like it) because they don't want to reduce physical play and the tough battle for the puck. What's yours?
Or do you agree that this is the case, and are simply mad that I don't agree with you that they're misguided?
The lack of a suspension is *not* because the league is worried it would reduce hitting. That's absurd Matt. As I've stated numerous times already.
The league apparently feels that "battle for the puck" was nothing to worry about given that Hemsky survived. Period. Horribly misguided, and a travesty of justice, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Only reason I am is that I was correct on other suspensions (or lack thereof) so far this season.
I've lost a lot of respect for Robyn Regehr after repeatedly viewing this cheap shot. Dirty, vicious, dangerous, unacceptable.
OTOH, I had no respect to lose for Matt Cooke, who is a cheap shot artist of long standing. Thanks for the link to the Langkow hit, Matt, I hadn't seen it. What a gutless puke.
(And I'm guessing that's one comment both Flames and Oilers fans will agree on.)
Apathy during a time for much needed change is just as irresponsible as not doing enough to change something.
Change in behavior and attitude of a population takes time. Right thought becomes right action, a norm in your behavior and actions.
Regarding the right amount of punishment, some can argue over how many games a guy gets, the grey area, etc., but it's still a step in the right direction. This will also take time. The league missed an opportunity here. And Hemsky very possibly just missed having his neck broke.
Matt, this is a long response, but you've got me thinking . . .
I've been questioned on how I can both blast Regehr for his violent play while at the same time admiring the ultra-violent Mark Messier, who was admitted into the Hockey Hall of Fame on Monday.Mark Messier
Much of my admiration for Messier is rooted in a time long ago. In those days, I took the pragmatic view that violent hockey is winning hockey. The NHL wasn't willing to crack down on the most brutal acts of violence on the ice in any kind of meaningful way. This demoralized and intimidated non-violent players, who realized they were vulnerable in the face of a ferocious opponent.
If you were an Oilers fan in the late 1980s, as I was, this violence equals victory equation meant that your team -- which sported not only tremendous talent but also the game's most intimidating player in Messier -- had an excellent shot of winning the Stanley Cup each year. That was pretty heady stuff and I wasn't alone in my enthusiasm, at least in Edmonton. Fans in other cities despised Messier, though I suspect a vast majority of them would have loved to have him on their own team. In a league that did nothing to slow down the arms race, who wouldn't want the M-Bomb on their team?
It's worth noting that violence and winning have forever gone hand in hand in pro hockey. Messier was only the latest in a long line of great but ferocious NHLers.
Start with Eddie Shore, the first King of the NHL's Dark Alleys and the greatest defenceman of the first 50 years of the NHL, but a player who was fined and condemned repeatedly. On Dec. 12, 1933, Eddie Shore almost killed Toronto's Ace Bailey, when he ran him from behind and Bailey's head smacked the ice. Bailey never played again.
Next came Maurice Richard, another Hall of Famer, who once carved the face of Boston's Hal Laycoe with his stick, then belted a linesman in the eye when he tried to intervene.
Gordie Howe, Mr. Hockey, ruled next, elbowing two generations of players into submission. Bobby Clarke, the Machiavellian captain of the Philadelphia Flyers, followed, leading his team to two Stanley Cup wins in the 1970s. Most infamously, in the 1972 Canada-Russia series, Clarke took down Valery Kharlamov, the Soviet's best player, with a wicked slash to the ankle, greatly aiding Canada's cause.
The Flyers' coach Fred Shero was the ultimate pragmatist when it came to violent play. Shero calculated that it was a tremendous advantage to foul another team, to trip and hit and grab and spear and intimidate, because the referee simply couldn't call all of the fouls. That meant the more a team committed fouls, the more it got away with them, and the better chance it had to win.
Even the great Montreal teams of the 1970s had a deterrent to the Dark Lord-types of the league in big, fast Larry Robinson, who would eventually stand up to Clarke's Broad Street Bullies and Don Cherry's Big Bad Bruins. "Robinson was big enough, strong enough, tough enough, that there was nothing really to prove," Ken Dryden has said. "The assumption was he could handle anything you would dish out."
After Robinson came the Islanders' fearsome Denis Potvin, whose dynamic and nasty play inspired New York's championship run of the early 1980s.
And then came Messier. In my mind, his most violent play came during the 1984 Canada Cup when he elbowed Soviet Vladimir Kovin in the face for 28 stitches. Canada had lost to the Soviets in the previous Canada Cup tournament and they lost 6-3 to the Soviets in the early round game in 1984 where Messier injured Kovin, supposedly the Russian's toughest player. After that hit, Messier was lambasted as a goon by the Canadian media. He was seen as an indicator of all that was wrong with Canadian hockey.
Later though, after Team Canada rebounded and beat the Soviets in the playoffs, Messier's hit on Kovin began to be seen in a different light: seeing what Messier could do and would do to win, seeing Kovin drenched in his own blood, then in the dressing room the next day with a scar that would be with him for life, perhaps the violence demoralized the Soviets: Am I the next to go down?
Yes, Don Cherry has said, that check and others like it are dirty jobs. But they're necessary. At the time, Cherry scoffed at the those who would criticize Messier, saying they would have been all over Team Canada if it had lost again.
"We were having a tough time. The Russians were running around, doing exactly what they wanted and Messier took the bull by the horns and he straightened out Kovin and the Russians were never the same.
"If you talk to anybody in hockey, like, off the record, they say, 'Wasn't that a beauty?' But the same guy, the night before he'll tell reporters, 'Sometimes you can go too far in a hockey game. Sometimes a means to an end isn't justified,' and all that BS, but let's face it, Canada won and sometimes you have to do things like that."
You've got to admire Cherry's plain-speaking candor, but you also have to remember Cherry is the commentator who could always wax poetic about any old nasty bodycheck but found it surprisingly difficult to say anything truly spontaneous and admiring about the way Wayne Gretzky dipsy doodled.
And while Cherry is right that violent play leads to victories, it's not like this equation is burned deeply into holy stone tablets. The equation only holds true because NHL authorities have forever been unwilling to harshly crack down on violent play, thus encouraging players like Messier to constantly break the rules in spectacular fashion. And, as evidenced by Regehr's savage hit on Hemsky and the NHL's non-response to this latest violent and illegal act, such tactics still are winning tactics. It makes part of me wish Regehr was an Oiler.
Hemsky could easily have been injured for the season, ending any hope of Edmonton over-taking Calgary. But even with him healthy, how well do you think Edmonton is going to do against the Calgaries of the NHL if the Oilers skill players know their next trip into the corner could well be their last one? How would Gretzky, Coffey and Kurri have done under those circumstances?
Yet hockey doesn't have to be played this way, not even at the winning-is-everything NHL level. If NHL president Gary Bettman has the steel to take on hockey violence the way he took on the NHLPA, change can happen.
For instance, what if after bashing Kovin the Russian, Messier had received a one-year ban from international competition? Perhaps then the Canadian team and its fans would have been the demoralized ones, realizing that one of the team's best and most inspirational players was out for the rest of the tournament. The Soviets certainly would have been happy to have had justice done, and not to have to face Messier's menace in the Canada Cup playoffs.
What if throughout Messier's career he had been given 20 or 25 game suspensions for his most violent acts, instead of far shorter suspensions? Fans would have felt differently about his violent plays, I suspect. Knowing that such fouls would hurt the team's chances of winning, fans wouldn't have been seduced into accepting the violence as a part of game.
Messier, who is no dummy, would likely have toned down his act. Perhaps he might even have been somewhat relieved, knowing that his act wasn't so necessary, that the league itself was going to effectively police any on-ice acts of violence perpetrated against his Oilers teammates. Consider this quote from Messier found in Matty's excellent profile: "I went into every game thinking I had to play well and maybe fight and I knew what I was capable of if pushed too far. Sometimes that scared me, if I was put in a position ... yeah, I got there a few times ...I went into game with nervous energy knowing at any time I'd have to make a call to stand up for myself."
Hockey is meant to be a rough, demanding game, and I value that aspect of the sport as a proving ground for young men and women, but it's plenty rough and challenging without the NHL's head office siding with those players who would smash another player from behind, or knock out his teeth with a slash, or drive his head into the boards with his stick, as Regehr undeniably did to Hemsky.
My attitude towards violence isn't the same as it was in Messier's championship days. From covering the law courts for years, I've seen that ineffectual punishment encourages criminals. From being a father to five children, I've learned how important it is to set clear and tough rules if you want compliance.
I would like to think that I've grown up a bit from the days when I cheered Messier for bashing the Jamie Macouns (pictured) and Vladimir Kovins of the world.
But the NHL hasn't done the same growing. Its attitude towards violence remains juvenile.
As for Messier and his legacy, it's perhaps comforting to note that the issue of the proper response to a man who has won much partly through violent means isn't a new issue. There are authorities that can guide our thinking, such as Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, who in 1532 told the story of a prince, Agathocles the Sicilian, who gained power through prowess, bravery and crime. Machiavelli wrote the prince should earn glory for his prowess and bravery, but not for his crimes.
So it is with Mark Messier.
David...
imho, you should post this on your blog, or print and store away for future use.
My kids would tell you that I am old enough to have heard the first telling of The Prince.
;-D
I have lived thru the hockey you've recalled.
There are differences between then and now. Until the 'instigator penalty' every player had to be prepared to stand up for his actions on the NHL ice. Most European players were ill prepared, given their training in the European leagues.
The NHL's intentions of reducing violence were not well thought out; and half-***ed rules have been implimented and used by myopic, self-serving, twits. Cheapshots rule the day. woohoo
- Put an extra (striped) body on the ice to get in the way of bigger, faster bodies playing the game; just so you can catch more sticks parallel to other bodies.
- Video review-centre-of-the-universe is a great start, but they've just this year started to standardize the arenas with hi-def technology. Irrelevant, really... They can't get the obvious right. Video review could/should be used much more effectively.
The NHL wouldn't know common sense if it bit them in the ***, and it will. Someone is going to leave the ice on a stretcher and never return. BUT... They don't have to be accountable because we fans are hopelessly addicted to this incredible game.
Someday I'll tell you what I really think of the NHL.
:-D
Louise
Post a Comment
<< Home
I don't begrudge anyone their opinion about Regehr v. Hemsky -- I don't even necessarily disagree with them -- but I don't want to hear it here.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm saying I don't want to -- I can't stand them.
You've now written over 1300 words on the subject. For a guy who keeps throwing up his hands saying, "I don't want to talk about," you sure spend a lot of time talking about it.
The overall level of physical play would go down; players would, on average, be less aggressive (they just would; when the consequences of crossing a line become much more severe, players will on average stay further away from the line).
I've watched the NFL go through a series of rules changes all intent on providing more safety for the players--protecting the QB, penalties for blows to the head, neck and face, blocking below the waist on kicking plays, helmet to helmet hits, chop blocks, peel-back blocks below the waist, and horse-collar tackles--and not for a single second have I ever been concerned about the level of physical play going down. I watched a CIS hockey game on Saturday night full of physical play. In fact, you'll probably see more physical play at a CIS hockey game (at least a Golden Bears one) than you'll ever see at a regular season NHL game. And yet you'll rarely see a fight in a CIS game, because those who do receive an automatic one game suspension (two if they are the instigator/aggressor). Checking from behind and game misconduct? Automatic one game suspension. Two if it is done again again, and indefinite suspension after that. Gross misconduct? Automatic two games. Second gross misconduct in a season? Gone for the entire season. Match penalties for butt ending, spearing, or deliberate intent to injure? Automatic two, three, and four game suspension. There are more, and both you and Mackinnon are invited to read about them here.The point is, it's erroneous to suggest that the NHL will automatically be less physical because of rule changes intended to protect the players. It will just become less dangerous of a league to watch or play in, and I, at least, am pretty comfortable with that.
This is not a gotcha to Oiler fans who are unhappy that I'm not personally calling for a long Robyn Regehr suspension.
Actually, it is. You've done it for three days now. "But what about Raffi Torres?" "But what about Steve Staios?" "But what about Matt Cooke?" "But what about Randy Jones?" It's a diversionary debate tactic. Mark Messier hitting someone with his elbow has nothing to do with whether or not Regehr should be punished.
Your own opinion on your Ideal NHL is yours to keep. But as MacKinnon says, Welcome to the real world.
In the real world, people can't slam someone else's head against a wall with a stick and get away with it. But thanks for the lesson. I know I trust the word of a guy who calls Regehr's attack "a battle for the puck that went bad", while calling Downie's attack on McAmmond a "cheap, vicious hit."
Painting the issue as though hits would disappear if Regehr was suspended for cross-checking a player in the neck is ludicrous. There's room for hitting in hockey. Hard hits. However, there's no room for cross-checks to the neck that send a player head first into the dasher. None.
Bottom line, this wasn't a hit. It was a cross-check. How supplementary discipline would affect hitting is beyond me.
# posted by 
: November 12, 2007 3:49 pm
: November 12, 2007 3:49 pm Bottom line, this wasn't a hit. It was a cross-check. How supplementary discipline would affect hitting is beyond me.
Robyn Regehr at a NHL disciplinary meeting:
"What do you mean I can't cross-check a guy in the back of the head, and drive his head into the boards? WHAT!? Well, I'm never bodychecking ever, ever again. No, never, no matter what you say. I can't risk hurting my team by finishing off a clean bodycheck. And I'm telling all my teammates, and every single person in the league. We will never bodycheck someone ever again!!!"
Cmon, Rod, can't you see that happening? I totally can.
This post isn't about Regehr/Hemsky. It's over. You guys have got to face the fact that no one else cares. The NHL head office doesn't care, the Edmonton media doesn't care, MacT doesn't care.
Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
# posted by : November 12, 2007 4:11 pm
: November 12, 2007 4:11 pm This post isn't about Regehr/Hemsky.
It's not? I guess the lead-in sentence using the words "Regehr/Hemsky" was in fact, misleading. Same goes for the mention of the Regehr/Hemsky cross-check in paragraph two ("a battle for the puck that went bad"), paragraph three ("If I never saw another Regehr on Hemsky"), and paragraph six ("unhappy that I'm not personally calling for a long Robyn Regehr suspension"), along with the link to stories on the issue by David Staples and John Mackinnon. Looking at it again, I can see that we were talking about something totally different.
Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
Yes, Rod, rules affect behaviour. Creating clearly defined rules that would protect players and stiffly punish those who broke those rules would end the game of hockey forever. Just like how all the other rules in hockey have ended the game of hockey.
Hard to believe it hasn't happened yet if it's that simple, isn't it. You'd almost think it's because those changes aren't wanted.
# posted by : November 12, 2007 4:29 pm
: November 12, 2007 4:29 pm Matt said: Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
Are you honestly saying that with a straight face? Because we certainly saw a sharp decrease in hitting after the Downie hit and subsequent suspension. At least that revolved around a hit, and it did *not* deter clean hits...even dirty ones. How's that for flying the face of every known thing?
Also, please explain how football--both north and south of the border--remains a hard hitting sport in the face of increased penalties on hitting.
That's when enforcing penalties on hitting. Regehr's third period act was not a hit. It was a cross-check Matt. A cross-check to the neck. Somehow, it should be possible for NHL calibre players to make body checks without resorting to cross checks. Yet, you're saying otherwise, as though players are compelled to cross-check opponents in the neck, particularly when said opponent is bent over slightly, a few feet from the boards. Yep, it's inevitable all right. Body checks always result in a cross-check to the neck. Whatever. With logic like that, I can see why you didn't want to post on the issue. You're making no sense.
Extending your argument, players won't even take the ice for fear of an instigator penalty. Seems they do. Whether that flies in the face of "every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives" or not, players still take the ice. Exclaim all you want that hitting would disappear with a cross-checking suspension, that doesn't make it a legitimate statement.
It was a cross-check. Bringing body checking and physical play into the mix is red herring. And yet another attempt at deflecting the issue away from Regehr's accountability for his actions.
# posted by : November 12, 2007 4:47 pm
: November 12, 2007 4:47 pm Rod, if you don't think that punishing over-the-line plays more severely would result in most players staying further away from that line, you are certainly entitled to that ludicrous opinion that flies in the face of every known thing about human behaviour and the effect of incentives.
And so are you, Grabia.
I would be happy with players staying further away from the "over-the line plays." I'm fairly certain that I said I was comfortable with the league becoming less dangerous. Well look, there it is!
It will just become less dangerous of a league to watch or play in, and I, at least, am pretty comfortable with.
It was your assertion that the overall level of physical play would go down that I have a problem with. But I guess my arguments about the existing state of the NFL and the CIS just aren't as strong as your slippery slope arguments about the future of NHL hockey.
We probably haven't heard anyhting from Campbell about this yet because he has more important things to deal with right now.
http://www.tsn.ca/tsn_talent/columnists/bob_mckenzie/
# posted by : November 12, 2007 4:59 pm
: November 12, 2007 4:59 pm I agree that staying away from "over the line" plays is a decent enough thing. Point is, suspending a player for cross-checking an opponent in the neck does nothing more than that. It might, at most, get a player or two out there to think twice before cross-checking an opponent in the neck, into the boards. It won't make players think twice about making body checks.
On the other hand, if the Regehr suspension also referenced his blatantly late hit in the 2nd period, then maybe hitting would be affected. I wouldn't suspend Regehr for the 2nd period hit alone, but he should have received a penalty on that play.
That's the point we were making Matt. You made the strange leap that a Regehr cross-check suspension would lead to less hitting in the NHL. The two aren't connected in the least. A cross-check to the neck is not the inevitable result of clean body checks. So there's a miniscule chance that hitting in hockey would be affected by a Regehr suspension for his third period cross-check. It certainly wouldn't change the league to the point you described in the blog post.
# posted by : November 12, 2007 5:09 pm
: November 12, 2007 5:09 pm Yeah, the Avery thing is more high profile at this point. That doesn't make it more important in my view. Nobody's career was inches from ending. Coincidence the Avery side-show is in the press because it happened in Toronto?
# posted by : November 12, 2007 5:11 pm
: November 12, 2007 5:11 pm How many Torontonians does it take to screw in the lightbulb?
1.
He simply holds it up, and it screws itself in as the world revolves around him.
cmon matt stick to your guns the hemmer hit was carma coming back to bite the coil in the rear for being a dirty team
no way does regehr deserve a suspension. talk about peverse inscentives to punish the guy who brought his physical game to the game.
# posted by : November 12, 2007 7:50 pm
: November 12, 2007 7:50 pm I think it's obvious that if a guy doesn't get seriously hurt, you won't get suspended. Tootoo tried to kill that young Yote but didn't get suspended because the guy managed to get up and go after him. I don't think anyone can say that Lispy Reghr's hit on Hemsky wasn't as dangerous as Jones on Bergeron, but the latter wound up concussed so Campbell acted.
Outside of stickswinging like Boulerice vs Kesler, I think it's clear that unless you seriously hurt a guy, you can dirty check from behind with impunity.
PS: I can't believe anyone would think that Messier was dirty!!!!
I feel ashamed to have brought it up on his Special Day. Leadership!!1!1!
# posted by : November 12, 2007 8:35 pm
: November 12, 2007 8:35 pm cmon matt stick to your guns the hemmer hit was carma coming back to bite the coil in the rear for being a dirty team
Ya, cmon Matt. Agree with fever4flames. PLEASE!?!?!?!?
PRETTY PLEASE!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Apparently Matt has declared that blogs are no longer about writing/commenting/debating about issues in the NHL or news/business/analysis related to the Alberta teams that contributors and commenters want to discuss.
Only those that that the NHL actually makes a tangible action about.
Get your Centre Ice online!
Buy the all new great RBK gear!
Buy tickets?
Stop asking hard questions! Eurasia is at war with Oceania. That's all you need to know.
Andy is, for whatever reason, unwilling to realize or at least acknowledge that I haven't been defending Regehr. Again, I'm not really sure if he's disagreeing with me, or if he's mad because I'm right (that the NHL doesn't care enough about this play, or those like it, to dish out a suspension).
For some reason I'm also being tabbed as hypocritical, even though I think the only time I ranted about someone deserving a suspension -- and I mean deserve in the existential sense, absent any relation to the established disciplinary framework, kind of like Andy re: Regehr -- was when Jaro Spacek was a Blackhawk. Has Andy's discomfort with the level of violence in the NHL been a known concern for a while now?
What is the problem with what I've written? Is it really that I said I didn't want to discuss X, and then in fact did? Conceded. Other than that... I don't understand who Andy is mad at or for what reason.
# posted by : November 12, 2007 10:05 pm
: November 12, 2007 10:05 pm the only characature is the COILERS, who's imitation of a legitimate nhl team is nothing but a twisted joke and a farce
hey coilerville, i here that that QMJHL is accepting expansion teams! LOL!!!
# posted by : November 12, 2007 10:07 pm
: November 12, 2007 10:07 pm the only characature is the COILERS, who's imitation of a legitimate nhl team is nothing but a twisted joke and a farce
hey coilerville, i here that that QMJHL is accepting expansion teams! LOL!!!
C'Mon... this is just way too funny to be real. Dennis? Rivers? MC? Anyone?
Again with the deflection, Matt. Now I'm mad. And upset because the NHL won't do anything. Bravo, sir. Bravo. I look forward to your next 2000 word piece on stuff you don't want to talk about. Hopefully the game of hockey won't be destroyed from a lack of cross-checks to the neck by then.
I think you're being tabbed as a Regehr apologist here, Matt.
As for me, I suggest that Regehr simply couldn't see Hemsky. Besides, Hemsky was setting a pick anyways.
K. Anything else besides crosschecks to the neck you want to take a firm stand against now, while you're on a roll? Possibly illustrated by a non-Oiler victim? Any previous injustices that you made no mention of whatsoever at the time, but would now like denounce strenuously?
Preventing the destruction of the game of hockey sounds like serious business. I'm sure you take it that way, and won't just, I dunno, ignore it entirely until the next time someone does something to an Oiler.
# posted by : November 13, 2007 9:36 am
: November 13, 2007 9:36 am Yes MG, and I'm not sure why, since I haven't defended the hit whatsoever, let alone made one of those absurd claims.
# posted by : November 13, 2007 9:39 am
: November 13, 2007 9:39 am Ok here we go. So attempting to besmirch the Moose on his day. Well guess what that is part of his game Moose was always on the edge. I remember him in his early days you never knew which one would show up a power forward or a stick fighter. But what went in the 80's does not fly... watch the old gmaes and you will see hooking and holding on every play.
Since we are digging up old crap I seem to recall a certain D Man calling the all the women of Calgary whores or something to that effect.
the only characature is the COILERS, who's imitation of a legitimate nhl team is nothing but a twisted joke and a farce
hey coilerville, i here that that QMJHL is accepting expansion teams! LOL!!!
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the only difference between the Oilers and the Flames at this juncture of the season is two OT loss points.
Matt said:
Yes MG, and I'm not sure why, since I haven't defended the hit whatsoever, let alone made one of those absurd claims.
Right. No absurd claims. You've restricted yourself to mundane theories where supplemental discipline on cross-checks to the neck would impact the amount of body-checking in an average game (not that you have a problem with that). Right. Not absurd at all. Makes as much sense as saying tickets for blowing through stop signs will have a negative effect on the amount of vegetables the average person eats per day.
With deflections like that, it's really difficult to imagine how anyone could think a suspension was too much in your mind.
BTW, since when is a prior stand against decapitation necessary before people are allowed to speak against near decapitations? Are you peeved we didn't offer sympathy over the Langkow hit a little sooner? Geez, the night I saw that clip I came to the site, hoping to add a comment...but no game day thread. Get over it Matt.
# posted by : November 13, 2007 11:33 am
: November 13, 2007 11:33 am Why do you think Regehr hasn't been suspended, Rod? As I've explained, my theory is that the NHL doesn't want to harshly punish that play (or ones just like it) because they don't want to reduce physical play and the tough battle for the puck. What's yours?
Or do you agree that this is the case, and are simply mad that I don't agree with you that they're misguided?
# posted by : November 13, 2007 2:50 pm
: November 13, 2007 2:50 pm The lack of a suspension is *not* because the league is worried it would reduce hitting. That's absurd Matt. As I've stated numerous times already.
The league apparently feels that "battle for the puck" was nothing to worry about given that Hemsky survived. Period. Horribly misguided, and a travesty of justice, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Only reason I am is that I was correct on other suspensions (or lack thereof) so far this season.
# posted by : November 13, 2007 3:39 pm
: November 13, 2007 3:39 pm I've lost a lot of respect for Robyn Regehr after repeatedly viewing this cheap shot. Dirty, vicious, dangerous, unacceptable.
OTOH, I had no respect to lose for Matt Cooke, who is a cheap shot artist of long standing. Thanks for the link to the Langkow hit, Matt, I hadn't seen it. What a gutless puke.
(And I'm guessing that's one comment both Flames and Oilers fans will agree on.)
Apathy during a time for much needed change is just as irresponsible as not doing enough to change something.
Change in behavior and attitude of a population takes time. Right thought becomes right action, a norm in your behavior and actions.
Regarding the right amount of punishment, some can argue over how many games a guy gets, the grey area, etc., but it's still a step in the right direction. This will also take time. The league missed an opportunity here. And Hemsky very possibly just missed having his neck broke.
# posted by : November 13, 2007 5:56 pm
: November 13, 2007 5:56 pm Matt, this is a long response, but you've got me thinking . . .
I've been questioned on how I can both blast Regehr for his violent play while at the same time admiring the ultra-violent Mark Messier, who was admitted into the Hockey Hall of Fame on Monday.Mark Messier
Much of my admiration for Messier is rooted in a time long ago. In those days, I took the pragmatic view that violent hockey is winning hockey. The NHL wasn't willing to crack down on the most brutal acts of violence on the ice in any kind of meaningful way. This demoralized and intimidated non-violent players, who realized they were vulnerable in the face of a ferocious opponent.
If you were an Oilers fan in the late 1980s, as I was, this violence equals victory equation meant that your team -- which sported not only tremendous talent but also the game's most intimidating player in Messier -- had an excellent shot of winning the Stanley Cup each year. That was pretty heady stuff and I wasn't alone in my enthusiasm, at least in Edmonton. Fans in other cities despised Messier, though I suspect a vast majority of them would have loved to have him on their own team. In a league that did nothing to slow down the arms race, who wouldn't want the M-Bomb on their team?
It's worth noting that violence and winning have forever gone hand in hand in pro hockey. Messier was only the latest in a long line of great but ferocious NHLers.
Start with Eddie Shore, the first King of the NHL's Dark Alleys and the greatest defenceman of the first 50 years of the NHL, but a player who was fined and condemned repeatedly. On Dec. 12, 1933, Eddie Shore almost killed Toronto's Ace Bailey, when he ran him from behind and Bailey's head smacked the ice. Bailey never played again.
Next came Maurice Richard, another Hall of Famer, who once carved the face of Boston's Hal Laycoe with his stick, then belted a linesman in the eye when he tried to intervene.
Gordie Howe, Mr. Hockey, ruled next, elbowing two generations of players into submission. Bobby Clarke, the Machiavellian captain of the Philadelphia Flyers, followed, leading his team to two Stanley Cup wins in the 1970s. Most infamously, in the 1972 Canada-Russia series, Clarke took down Valery Kharlamov, the Soviet's best player, with a wicked slash to the ankle, greatly aiding Canada's cause.
The Flyers' coach Fred Shero was the ultimate pragmatist when it came to violent play. Shero calculated that it was a tremendous advantage to foul another team, to trip and hit and grab and spear and intimidate, because the referee simply couldn't call all of the fouls. That meant the more a team committed fouls, the more it got away with them, and the better chance it had to win.
Even the great Montreal teams of the 1970s had a deterrent to the Dark Lord-types of the league in big, fast Larry Robinson, who would eventually stand up to Clarke's Broad Street Bullies and Don Cherry's Big Bad Bruins. "Robinson was big enough, strong enough, tough enough, that there was nothing really to prove," Ken Dryden has said. "The assumption was he could handle anything you would dish out."
After Robinson came the Islanders' fearsome Denis Potvin, whose dynamic and nasty play inspired New York's championship run of the early 1980s.
And then came Messier. In my mind, his most violent play came during the 1984 Canada Cup when he elbowed Soviet Vladimir Kovin in the face for 28 stitches. Canada had lost to the Soviets in the previous Canada Cup tournament and they lost 6-3 to the Soviets in the early round game in 1984 where Messier injured Kovin, supposedly the Russian's toughest player. After that hit, Messier was lambasted as a goon by the Canadian media. He was seen as an indicator of all that was wrong with Canadian hockey.
Later though, after Team Canada rebounded and beat the Soviets in the playoffs, Messier's hit on Kovin began to be seen in a different light: seeing what Messier could do and would do to win, seeing Kovin drenched in his own blood, then in the dressing room the next day with a scar that would be with him for life, perhaps the violence demoralized the Soviets: Am I the next to go down?
Yes, Don Cherry has said, that check and others like it are dirty jobs. But they're necessary. At the time, Cherry scoffed at the those who would criticize Messier, saying they would have been all over Team Canada if it had lost again.
"We were having a tough time. The Russians were running around, doing exactly what they wanted and Messier took the bull by the horns and he straightened out Kovin and the Russians were never the same.
"If you talk to anybody in hockey, like, off the record, they say, 'Wasn't that a beauty?' But the same guy, the night before he'll tell reporters, 'Sometimes you can go too far in a hockey game. Sometimes a means to an end isn't justified,' and all that BS, but let's face it, Canada won and sometimes you have to do things like that."
You've got to admire Cherry's plain-speaking candor, but you also have to remember Cherry is the commentator who could always wax poetic about any old nasty bodycheck but found it surprisingly difficult to say anything truly spontaneous and admiring about the way Wayne Gretzky dipsy doodled.
And while Cherry is right that violent play leads to victories, it's not like this equation is burned deeply into holy stone tablets. The equation only holds true because NHL authorities have forever been unwilling to harshly crack down on violent play, thus encouraging players like Messier to constantly break the rules in spectacular fashion. And, as evidenced by Regehr's savage hit on Hemsky and the NHL's non-response to this latest violent and illegal act, such tactics still are winning tactics. It makes part of me wish Regehr was an Oiler.
Hemsky could easily have been injured for the season, ending any hope of Edmonton over-taking Calgary. But even with him healthy, how well do you think Edmonton is going to do against the Calgaries of the NHL if the Oilers skill players know their next trip into the corner could well be their last one? How would Gretzky, Coffey and Kurri have done under those circumstances?
Yet hockey doesn't have to be played this way, not even at the winning-is-everything NHL level. If NHL president Gary Bettman has the steel to take on hockey violence the way he took on the NHLPA, change can happen.
For instance, what if after bashing Kovin the Russian, Messier had received a one-year ban from international competition? Perhaps then the Canadian team and its fans would have been the demoralized ones, realizing that one of the team's best and most inspirational players was out for the rest of the tournament. The Soviets certainly would have been happy to have had justice done, and not to have to face Messier's menace in the Canada Cup playoffs.
What if throughout Messier's career he had been given 20 or 25 game suspensions for his most violent acts, instead of far shorter suspensions? Fans would have felt differently about his violent plays, I suspect. Knowing that such fouls would hurt the team's chances of winning, fans wouldn't have been seduced into accepting the violence as a part of game.
Messier, who is no dummy, would likely have toned down his act. Perhaps he might even have been somewhat relieved, knowing that his act wasn't so necessary, that the league itself was going to effectively police any on-ice acts of violence perpetrated against his Oilers teammates. Consider this quote from Messier found in Matty's excellent profile: "I went into every game thinking I had to play well and maybe fight and I knew what I was capable of if pushed too far. Sometimes that scared me, if I was put in a position ... yeah, I got there a few times ...I went into game with nervous energy knowing at any time I'd have to make a call to stand up for myself."
Hockey is meant to be a rough, demanding game, and I value that aspect of the sport as a proving ground for young men and women, but it's plenty rough and challenging without the NHL's head office siding with those players who would smash another player from behind, or knock out his teeth with a slash, or drive his head into the boards with his stick, as Regehr undeniably did to Hemsky.
My attitude towards violence isn't the same as it was in Messier's championship days. From covering the law courts for years, I've seen that ineffectual punishment encourages criminals. From being a father to five children, I've learned how important it is to set clear and tough rules if you want compliance.
I would like to think that I've grown up a bit from the days when I cheered Messier for bashing the Jamie Macouns (pictured) and Vladimir Kovins of the world.
But the NHL hasn't done the same growing. Its attitude towards violence remains juvenile.
As for Messier and his legacy, it's perhaps comforting to note that the issue of the proper response to a man who has won much partly through violent means isn't a new issue. There are authorities that can guide our thinking, such as Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, who in 1532 told the story of a prince, Agathocles the Sicilian, who gained power through prowess, bravery and crime. Machiavelli wrote the prince should earn glory for his prowess and bravery, but not for his crimes.
So it is with Mark Messier.
David...
imho, you should post this on your blog, or print and store away for future use.
My kids would tell you that I am old enough to have heard the first telling of The Prince.
;-D
I have lived thru the hockey you've recalled.
There are differences between then and now. Until the 'instigator penalty' every player had to be prepared to stand up for his actions on the NHL ice. Most European players were ill prepared, given their training in the European leagues.
The NHL's intentions of reducing violence were not well thought out; and half-***ed rules have been implimented and used by myopic, self-serving, twits. Cheapshots rule the day. woohoo
- Put an extra (striped) body on the ice to get in the way of bigger, faster bodies playing the game; just so you can catch more sticks parallel to other bodies.
- Video review-centre-of-the-universe is a great start, but they've just this year started to standardize the arenas with hi-def technology. Irrelevant, really... They can't get the obvious right. Video review could/should be used much more effectively.
The NHL wouldn't know common sense if it bit them in the ***, and it will. Someone is going to leave the ice on a stretcher and never return. BUT... They don't have to be accountable because we fans are hopelessly addicted to this incredible game.
Someday I'll tell you what I really think of the NHL.
:-D
Louise
Post a Comment
<< Home
