I remember that game, if it wasn't their first game playing together it was early on the season? Look at all the games that get played and you're presenting that as the norm?
You keep moving the goalposts here. First it was, "maybe it doesn't deter Ott game-to-game, but I bet he stopped every individual game after getting his ass kicked!" Then I provide evidence blatantly confirming that this is not the case. Now it's about "all the games." So what's your point here. Fighting didn't stop Ott from being a jackass for future games, and sometimes not even game-by-game, but I bet we can find a few examples where it did! Well done! A truly convincing argument that fighting deters stupidity.
There's too much disrespect in the game today and I'm not talking about smack talk etc. Some fellas deserve to get tuned up for their borderline actions.
This keeps being brought up AGAIN AND AGAIN and every time nobody has actual evidence supporting this. It's just like old people who insist that "times were simpler back in my day." It's all ******** and nostalgia driven. Once again. McSorley on Brashear. Bertuzzi on Steve Moore. Dale Hunter on Turgeon. Ciccorelli and Tiger Williams swinging sticks around. All the way back to the 1930s and you can find Eddie Shore FRACTURING ACE BAILEY'S SKULL and ending his hockey career because he retaliated for a hit someone else threw. To drive home the fallacy of there being more "respect" in the past I'll use this quote.
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise."
Sounds like a quote your grandpa would say to you now, right? About how today's kids are spoiled and didn't have it hard like he did and blah blah blah? Guess what. That's a quote from Socrates from around 400 B.C. Even thousands of years ago the same ******** nostalgia and disparaging of "today's kids" and their "disrespect" was being thrown around. I guarantee Stan Fischler was whining in 1980 about the attitudes of players compared to the players he covered in 1940.
You've got me wrong if you think I believe it should happen after hard clean hits. Unless it involves a star player getting tagged, well, an ensuing donnybrook is almost a given and is as old as the game.
So what's your solution on borderline plays here? The game happens a million miles an hour. Should the referees call time out and let the Colorado Avalanche collectively huddle around a TV screen watching replays of a borderline Nik Kronwall hit so we can see whether it was clean or not? And then let them take justice into their hands if necessary? How do we draw the line here?
I thought we were talking about dirty hits in this thread and the relation to fighting? If you think the Orpik hit is perfectly clean on Eriksson, then I know the type of hockey you like to play and we'll never come to an agreement.
We are. Unfortunately, nobody has given factual, objective evidence that fighting as a retaliation for dirty hits serves as a successful method of keeping the game safe. All anyone has done is give anecdotal ******** about, "I remember that one time Mark Messier stood up for a teammate and it worked." As I've said before in this thread. You can keep asserting that effectively serves as a deterrence. I can assert myself that playing hopscotch can lead to leukemia. Until either of us provides evidence to actually back up the claims, the claims are meaningless.