Helmet, Fighting, together???

Welcome to the Society of the "Nanny State"

How do you define Nanny State in the context of this post Pagan?

HA HA HA HAA HA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAAAAAA!!
I can't even believe this is an issue for the NHL to deal with.

I can.

So, rules in a game represent nothing more than being treated like children?

Lynn, I gotta ask you something at this point...

What's the matter with just letting them go at it? It IS part of the game. Just because Don Sanderson died from a fight, does not negate all of the "safer" fights before him, does it? This is a society reacting in a knee-jerk fashion over something they cannot control, This is nothing other than window dressing.

My answer

dead kids

I have posted all the info in another thread on this previously.

There is PROOF that helmets save the lives of hockey players. One need only look it up.
Hockey...........while considered a Canadian way of life........is but one thing...........A GAME.

All games have rules. Play by the rules or get outa the game. SIMPLE. And as Pagan has pointed out there's always choice......................

We're talking about the NHLPA....not the government of the US. Thus we'renot talking about laws etc...or the RIGHTS of the NHLPA to make new rules.....

Now, here's my question.

Who in the hell are we to QUESTION wht the National Hockey League PLAYERS ASSOCIATION????

DO ANY OR YOU KNOW ABOUT THE NHLPA??? Here's a hint...

The National Hockey League Players' Association

The NHLPA is a labour union whose members are the players in the NHL and whose mandate is to represent their interests. Headquartered in Toronto, the NHLPA has a staff of approximately 35 employees who work in such varied disciplines as labour law, marketing, product licensing, community relations and communications.

While the management of daily operations is the responsibility of the NHLPA Executive Director, the ultimate control over all NHLPA activities resides with the players, who each year elect representatives in order to form an Executive Board.

http://www.nhlpa.com/AboutTheNHLPA/WhatIs.asp

So, how bout this....perhaps I would give all your dissent some clout if it EVEN REMOTELY affected ANY ONE OF YOU....but it doesn't. It's not your life THEY are looking out for................IT'S THEIR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who are ANY OF YOU....to say what's best for THEM??????????????

end of thread no?

I bet this came down from the insurance company that the NHLPA is using to cover members, not the membership itself.

wrong................WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Look it up. The elected (by the PLAYERS) NHLPA Boss, Paul Kelly, went about INTERVIEWING PLAYERS...AND asking them for their input on the issue of fighting and helmets.........Why? Because that's his JOB....
He is REQUIRED to talk to the PLAYERS...and find out what THEIR concerns are...so he can (if the PLAYERS desire) enact new rules and make changes (proposals) on their BEHALF. He CANNOT do ANY of this without their CONSENT.

Read the article where Kelly was interviewed on this issue... He's much more eloquent than I...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=265782

It has absolutly NOTHING to do with insurance. If it did - that would have been the REASONING back in the 70's when the mandatory helmet rule was enacted...............
But it wasn't. Back then, like now, the rule was enacted for the purpose of saving these guy's lives. The players don't give a shit what you or I think of their fighting skills....The also don't give a shit that some here consider it entertainment and part of the game (which I do). They give a shit about playing the game...saving face...and LIVING to see another game.
They may get their heads banged around but they are smart enough to know that smacking your coconut on solid ice can cause death too.

I was just poking fun, Lynn you had said close of thread... But my question, had it been left unanswered, merited some thought.

ppfftt BRAT!

LOL

I'm pretty passionate about Hockey... One of the reasons is there is a course "Hockey in Canadian Pupolar Culture" offered at the Univ. where I used to teach... I have sat in on it and participated in some lively discussion about various aspects of the sport.
I know that Americans would typically find this silly - but it really plays a HUGE part in the culture up here.

It also begs to ask, what are the total number of fights that have occurred without death. What "percentage" of all of those fights wound up in death? Once we know the full picture, those who are involved could make a much better decision.

I agree. This is about liability, not safety.

Now, we're actually getting somewhere!!!!

Both of you are just trying to push my buttons.
I'll play along k? (Cuz I'm a good sport like that!)

Here we go.

As I stated, it is NOT about friggin insurance. One need only look...and learn....to see this is not the case.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/123913

As for the number of fights w/o death... Dude (MF) this is NOT about JUST FIGHTING. lol Follow my link re: NHLPA and see what the PLAYERS had to say. I believe they are a LOT more INFORMED than you on what theyu face on a daily basis on the ice...and that it was THEIR DECISION to have the helmet rule.
Here's the link......again.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=265782

And again, it's not abut what YOU think is safe either. THEY are the experts - not you...not I....the players...

So, MF...how many deaths related to head injury occured in the history of Hockey BEFORE the mandatory helmet rule in the 70's world wide? How many since?
Do the math. I know you're a smart man.
(Hint - it's already posted in this forum!)

I will do the math when I have the full picture, Lynn. And that would include how many deaths HAVEN'T happened as a result of fighting. I've already been clear on that. And yes, I AM a smart man. Which is why I read the entire article, which states that the players union is under pressure from Bettman's office to re-examine the issue:

Then Kelly (Player Association Head says:

Not be be obtuse, Lynn, but that doesn't exactly mirror what you are trying to portray here.

He adds one gratuitous comment at the end that pretty much spells it out:

I wouldn't say this is a done deal, yet. And I would also second Fremen's comment about a puck being dangerous. As a former goalie for my high school team, I know. It's just the nature of the game.

MF put your shit into context and don't cherry pick the goddamn article k?
lol
Plus, if you want the WHOLE picture as you state...do the friggin research... Which INCLUDES looking at the info from a PLAYERS perspective.

The PLAYERS...(read NHLPA) do NOT want fighting removed (and I have never ever ever once stated otherwise....NB: recall this thread is about a helmet rule).............THAT'S what you are cherry picking.
The PLAYERS want the helmet rule...that's what you are clearly negating.

PS - Your argument deaths from fighting vs. no deaths from fighting is stupid really. For several reasons not the least of which is that YOUR opinion doesn'\t mean a goddamn thing to the PLAYERS.....ONLY THEIR OPINION matters.
At some point you're going to have to get that through your head............and then ACCEPT IT.

TORONTO - The head of the NHL Players' Association believes it's time to consider a rule mandating helmet use during fights, and to examine the role of one-dimensional enforcers in the game.

While a "clear majority" of players want fighting to remain a part of hockey, Paul Kelly feels his constituency is open to new restrictions on how the gloves are dropped.

"A couple that we've talked about that ought to be looked at anyway is, do you consider a rule whereby players need to keep a helmet on during the course of a fight, and perhaps require officials to step in if a helmet comes off during a fight," Kelly told reporters ahead of Wednesday's Conn Smythe Celebrities Dinner and Auction.

"If it's true that when guys get hurled to the ice or tripped to the ice and bang their skull on the ice is where the real danger comes from, then maybe we can protect against that. It's certainly something worth looking at."

Kelly, however, didn't stop there.

........he goes on to talk about fighting in the game after that...which is what YOU cherry picked.
When you read ANYTHING from Kelly - you MUST put it in proper context....He heads up the NHLPA - he's not a fucking lackie...he works FOR the players. He addresses issues the PLAYERS want him to address.

This ISN'T about fighting...it's about WHEN fights occur - the PLAYERS want a rule that says helmets remain ON.
You don't like? They don't care. It's not YOUR head they are trying to protect...it's THEIRS.
What don't you get?

Re: The puck being dangerous.

If you people want to nitpick this shit to death go right ahead. It looks stupid.
If you had a fucking CLUE about the history of this game you would KNOW that throughout time - rules have changed....for the betterment of the game and for the safety of the players. There was a time when padding was minimal...face masks non-existant, helmets unheard of, visors a dream, and the ice was awful because there was no zamboni. In fact in the past 10 years the rules of the game itself have changed so much that it takes some research before a game to keep up with the changes.
But even the puck comment is nuts because what you both keep IGNORING is that safety issues are brought up by the PLAYERS... Clearly the PLAYERS don't take issue with the puck....that was addressed LONG AGO....when they demanded an increase in the protective padding....for the players and the goalie especially.

Jesus christ sometime I wonder about people.............

Lynn.

Of course I hear your opinion loudly and clearly. But for the head of the NHLPA actually say that he doesn't want a knee jerk reaction is significant to me. I don't want to belabor the point here, either. I have no problem IF the players wish to have a helmet on during fighting, but I just don't see that happening.

Why?

If I'm a pissed off hockey player ready to go at it, I won't EVEN think about the helmet coming off first, just like I won't think about the ensuing penalty that I will receive for fighting. And that's just the practicality of it. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I would think that this will create more problems than solving here. That's why i want to know the full picture.

It is MY opinion that Kelly was simply playing politics here and applying window dressing to give the appearance that he really cares about the players, which I'm sure he does. But, he will also care more about the players wishes, I would hope. it'll be interesting to see just how this pans out.

When Kelly said he didn't want a knee jerk reaction - I believe you are reading it out of context - he was saying that he doesn't want FIGHTING removed....because the majority of players want to keep the fisti-cuffs as part of the game (and so do I!)..

Simply put he's saying PLAYERS want the issue of helmets staying on addressed during fights for safety reasons....but don't go so far as to remove fighting alltogether.
As for your opinion re: windowdressing for political purposes.... Again I question your knowledge of the purpose of the NHLPA....and I direct you to my original post where I show the mandate of the NHLPA to you...it was my effort to inform - so that people responding to this thread have a CLUE about the function and purpose of the NHLPA.
What you are IGNORING is that Kelly takes his direction FROM the players. So, how is it political or window-dressing? When it is THE PLAYERS wishes to have the helmet rule during fights?

Those are good points, Lynn, which is why I say this one will be interesting to follow.

What are your feelings on my comment about fighting and whether players will actually do this? It could happen as their gloves come off, but that is for the actual fight. Funny thing is that many already keep their helmets on until they are pulled off from the other person fighting! What will happen and how will that be handled by the NHLPA?

I am all for fighting in the game of Hockey. So long as it doesn't violate the criminal code (which it has in the past resulting in criminal charges - recall Bertuzzi and Moore - but there are many more)

I have said all along that it's the players who want the helmet rule...so the players will follow the rule - since it's their rule.
However, I have been reading up a bit more on this and concerns regarding one player removing the helmet of another player will ultimately result in a penalty - (though the details have not yet been fleshed out) and hopefully at the very least a double minor with a game...
The NHLPA only protects the interests of the players - at the players request. It will be up to the NHL (Gary Bettman) to determine the penalty I suspect.

One interesting question has come up on this issue on a Canadian forum...

What about visors during a fight? If the rule is helmets stay on - doesn't that make it impossible to punch someone in the face?

Did any of you see the Goal of the Millennium last night? Ovechkin was unfrikken real!!! Check it out! It's insane!

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/A-moment-of-dissent-on-the-Alex-Ovechkin-goal-o?urn=nhl,142562&cp=21

Yeah, I caught that goal on SportsCenter! Not only did he set himself up with an incredible pass to himself, he followed with that incredible goal!

And, he did it all with his helmet on!

But back to matters at hand. Calgary is STILL leading the Canucks!

sniff the java dude.

WE upset the flamers winning streak...and there's FUCK ALL STOPPING US NOW!
Lou is back and in FINE shape. Did you catch the game against the Sens last night? Lou must have said something to the team (Our goalie is our Capt. ) because all of a sudden - we were on the sens like flies on shit!
When I watched my guys last night..I was in awe. For a long while there they looked like shit. Weak whiney bitches who lost their love for the game. But they're BACK!
Either way, regardless of how they are playing, I'm not a bandwagonner...I back my boys no matter what. A

As much as i completly despise calgary..I would love to scoop Kippur and Iginla. Both valuable players. Iginla is a strong ctr. and Kipper can be our BACK UP GOALIE! lmao!!!!!!

Now, my comment was uncalled for!!!

Foul!!!!!

I do love Igninla, but it is a long season. I was surprised at what happened with the Canucks early, as I was expecting more of them. What I'd like to know is who has played more home games to date? That would be telling.

Loungo is a stud. I wish that I could get more West Coast hockey games here, though. The only time I get to see them is when they're on the road.

Admittedly their stats look much better than ours....

Vancouver Canucks:
GP = 58
Home stats : 14-11-4 (14 wins, 11 losses, 4 ties)
Away stats : 15-10-4

Cangary AssholePricksWhoAreDespised
GP = 58
Home stats : 20-7-4
Away stats : 14-11-2
pricks

But you'll see...we're going to be coming from behind and pushing them beneath us in the standings - which is EXACTLY where they belong.

Thanks for doing the work...

I got lazy there..... My bad. But, I did notice the misspelling of Calgary and the word "pricks" used!

I love your "trucker" mouth, Lynn. It gets me laughing all the time and keeps it real.

But, what I was looking for was the home games played so far. "Cangary AssholePricksWhoAreDespised" has played two more home games and two less road games than Vancouver. That's almost a wash. They play each other once more and that could be an important game, on April 7th.

Looks to me like your only hope is the next road trip for the "pricks" which begins on March 3rd. If not, get used to second place.

While I try to abstain from trucker mouth in more intellectual conversations...we're talkin hockey here.
No one's going to take me seriously if I'm all academic about it. However, throw in the odd cuss word and some emotion (disgust for example) and people's eyes perk up! LOL Some will agree with me while others (Flamer-worshitters) want a piece of me! I love it!

Hockey is truly the only sport I watch regularily. When we had the strike - I was completly lost...and saw no reason at all to go to my local pub. I'm so glad we're back to playing!

Right on, Sista!

I heard a good hockey joke.

What the difference between a pitbull and a Hockey Mom?........

A REAL hockey mom gets up at 3:30 am to cook breakfast, make sure equipment is dry, loads the friggin van at 4 am and takes the kid to the rink for 5 am practice.

A REAL hockey mom DOESN'T HAVE TIME to put friggin make-up on or wash her ass for that matter!

In fact hockey moms and pit bulls have much more in common than they differ if ya actually give it some thought.
Palin is an idiot...and a liar...who gave it no thought - which is what I expected from someone with no friggin experience on the national stage.
She was just fodder...