Why are hockey players' actions compartmentalized with respect to their character?

[PistolPete]

Was reading an article shared by another poster and was amused by how a distinction was claimed between on ice behavior and off ice behaviour.

A particular case was Sam Bennett. It mentioned how he raised money for orphaned animals as if that excused or overode his propensity for intentionally- or at least wirh reckless disregard- injuring opponents. (And don't make this an argument about Bennett, if you disagree with my characterization, fine, but the post is about the general tendency, not just one player)

if it's a run of the mill goon we're talking about, sure, he's just a guy who fights on the ice bit doesn't off of it. But if he was a guy who'd gouge the eye of an opponent does he get a pass for that as well?

Where is the line drawn whereby on ice behavior is attached to a player's overall character and a P.O.S. on the ice is considered a P.O.S. off the ice?

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Where is the line drawn whereby on ice behavior is attached to a player's overall character and a P.O.S. on the ice is considered a P.O.S. off the ice?

The line is whether you’re also a “P.O.S.” off the ice, seems fairly straightforward tbh

 

[JianYang]

I basically look at the nhl and the world outside of the nhl as two different beings.

The nhl ice is an environment where you only get 5 minute penalties for punching guys in the face, and you wont go to jail for clubbing someone in the head. Its a dog eat dog environment where the player's alter ego comes out.

Then there's the real world outside of the rink with its very different rules and much lower tolerance for violence. That's the actual human being.

 

[Shark Finn]

It's their job.

 

[PistolPete]

The line is whether you’re also a “P.O.S.” off the ice, seems fairly straightforward tbh

Or an oversimplification?

 

[PistolPete]

I basically look at the nhl and the world outside of the nhl as two different beings.

The nhl ice is an environment where you only get 5 minute penalties for punching guys in the face, and you wont go to jail for clubbing someone in the head. Its a dog eat dog environment where the player's alter ego comes out.

Then there's the real world outside of the rink with its very different rules and much lower tolerance for violence. That's the actual human being.

So if a player is a headhunter it's a pass for him because it's in the context of a game and he won't necessarily do that off the ice?

But he still is willing to injure other people intentionally.

 

[Albatros]

I'll never forgive John Cena turning heel.

 

[Albatros]

e: Double.

 

[JianYang]

So if a player is a headhunter it's a pass for him because it's in the context of a game and he won't necessarily do that off the ice?

But he still is willing to injure other people intentionally.

Nhl condones the behavior and I consume it, so who am I to act all righteous in that particular environment?

In contrast, if I meet raffi Torres on the street, him taking my head off would be the last worry on my mind, to be honest.

 

[PistolPete]

Nhl condones the behavior and I consume it, so who am I to act all righteous in that particular environment?

In contrast, if I meet raffi Torres on the street, him taking my head off would be the last worry on my mind, to be honest.

Not a matter of condemning players per se but just an honest assessment, much as you would a close friend or relative. So hypocrisy wouldn't be an issue.

And not a matter of predicting behavior but as a honest, full characterization of any given player

A fascinating component for me to this is we tend to see personality as stable and set and a true core and while intuitively we know of it, we srill disregard the importance of situations .

I am curious if anyone even points that out ex. "Player X is an asshole on thr ice but nice off of it but his actions on the ice aren't bad enough to have it colour my overall impression of his character"

 

[catnip]

I sort of assume everyone's a douche canoe as a baseline.

 

[PistolPete]

I sort of assume everyone's a douche canoe as a baseline.

Nietzsche...you're back!

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Was reading an article shared by another poster and was amused by how a distinction was claimed between on ice behavior and off ice behaviour.

A particular case was Sam Bennett. It mentioned how he raised money for orphaned animals as if that excused or overode his propensity for intentionally- or at least wirh reckless disregard- injuring opponents. (And don't make this an argument about Bennett, if you disagree with my characterization, fine, but the post is about the general tendency, not just one player)

if it's a run of the mill goon we're talking about, sure, he's just a guy who fights on the ice bit doesn't off of it. But if he was a guy who'd gouge the eye of an opponent does he get a pass for that as well?

Where is the line drawn whereby on ice behavior is attached to a player's overall character and a P.O.S. on the ice is considered a P.O.S. off the ice?

probably because Sam's on-ice antics help his team win hockey games

 

[1989]

Not a matter of condemning players per se but just an honest assessment, much as you would a close friend or relative. So hypocrisy wouldn't be an issue.

And not a matter of predicting behavior but as a honest, full characterization of any given player

A fascinating component for me to this is we tend to see personality as stable and set and a true core and while intuitively we know of it, we srill disregard the importance of situations .

I am curious if anyone even points that out ex. "Player X is an asshole on thr ice but nice off of it but his actions on the ice aren't bad enough to have it colour my overall impression of his character"

Do you subscribe to the ideas that people who play violent video games are likely to commit violent crimes in real life? Simulating things like assault or worse on a repeated basis - are they bad people?

Do you believe someone who has killed another living human being (i.e. military, police) is someone devoid of good character to the community?

What exactly is it that you're looking for here?

 

[PistolPete]

probably because Sam's on-ice antics help his team win hockey games

This can be interpreted in one of two ways....care to give a hint which way?

 

[PistolPete]

Do you subscribe to the ideas that people who play violent video games are likely to commit violent crimes in real life? Simulating things like assault or worse on a repeated basis - are they bad people?

Do you believe someone who has killed another living human being (i.e. military, police) is someone devoid of good character to the community?

What exactly is it that you're looking for here?

Interesting portal you just opened up...

Not seeing how my question leads to such a portal but interesting nonetheless

 

[shello]

I mean, I have a different persona at work. Sure it’s not as extreme, but as humans you do act different in different environments

 

[GeeoffBrown]

This can be interpreted in one of two ways....care to give a hint which way?

hockey is a sport where violence is often encouraged, so Sam is just doing his job

There are some sports, such as boxing or MMA which are literally ONLY violence

 

[PistolPete]

hockey is a sport where violence is often encouraged, so Sam is just doing his job

There are some sports, such as boxing or MMA which are literally ONLY violence

But are they?

Look at all the rules to prevent violence.

And he's paid to play hockey, but the way he plays is his own choice.

 

[PistolPete]

I mean, I have a different persona at work. Sure it’s not as extreme, but as humans you do act different in different environments

But at what point does the worse of the two personas overtake the overall picture of you as a person?

 

[Heffyhoof]

I thought there was an age restriction for creating an account? For functioning adults the distinction should be easy to spot.

 

[joestevens29]

This isn’t black and white as you want it to be. Its a lot of gray with multiple factors to look at

 

[StrangeVision]

A certain level of violence and aggression is allowed and welcomed in the NHL, while in the real world it is not only unacceptable, but punished judicially. It's even safe to say a lot of people watch hockey (and other sports with violence) as a way to indulge in their more primitive compulsions that are otherwise not allowed in everyday life. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[1989]

Interesting portal you just opened up...

Not seeing how my question leads to such a portal but interesting nonetheless

If you want to want to play at assessing philosophies of character, it's a normal discourse. I think you're being purposefully obtuse or otherwise you have posed your question poorly.

@JianYang pretty much already answered your question in post #3. To simplify:

People equipped with standard mental faculties (ie. without debilitating mental illness) understand that the when/why/what/where/how of their actions matter, and are not always synonymous with their person and know to act as such when necessary.
Simulated environments (such as sports) which allow for extrajudicial actions without standard expectations of real-world consequences are understood to be an outlier example and not indicative of the character of the person.

Do you think Bennett thinks of himself as a bad person?
What about McSorley or Stevens or Iginla or Pronger?

Lucic was a loved skilled goon on the ice for many seasons but little bad if anything was ever said about him off the ice.
Then he beat his wife and fans disavowed him with great vitriol.
If this is hard to understand, I don't know if there is any more to discuss here for you.

 

[NyQuil]

The poster boy for this is Stan Mikita.

One of the toughest and dirtiest players of his time. Goes on to win two Lady Byngs after deciding to change his style of play for his daughter.

Stan Mikita went from being one of the most penalized players to winning the Lady Byng Trophy twice for sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct combined with excellence all because his daughter.
"One day, we got home from a short road trip. We played the game the night before and it was on television back to Chicago. Our oldest daughter, Meg, was four years old at the time. She said, 'Daddy, Mommy let me stay up and watch the hockey game for the first period.' She said, 'You were sooo good out there. All those people were clapping for you!' I said, 'Honey, they weren't really clapping for Daddy, but it's nice of you to say that.'
Then she said, 'I couldn't understand one little thing, Daddy. When that guy with the stripes on his shirt blew his whistle, Uncle Ab (McDonald) and Uncle Kenny (Wharram) and Uncle Bobby (Hull) went to their side of the ice and they sat together with all their friends. Then, you had to skate all the way over to the other side and sit by yourself. Why did you do that, Daddy? Didn't you like those players?'
I had to tell her, 'Well honey, that meant Daddy did something bad and he had to go sit out for two minutes.' It got to me — a four year old child who doesn't know hockey but wonders what's going on."
Mikita went from 154 penalty minutes in 1964-65 to 58 the next season. Then, astonishingly, Stan collected only 12 penalty minutes in 1966-67.

He proves that it is possible to be a nice guy on the ice, regardless of your history.