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

[Golden_Jet]

But when does on ice behavior become a consideration for off ice/general impression of a player?

Slurs against an opponent?
Kicking an opponent in the head?

Sure Linesman kicking someone , fine.

But since I know/knew Kenny Linesman he was a POS also off the ice.

being a POS at your job, doesn’t mean your a POS outside the job, it does in Linesman case, since he was. But no it definitely doesn’t mean there is a trend.

Don’t forget you said this,
if you disagree with my characterization, fine, but the post is about the general tendency, not just one player)

I disagree with your Characterization, so should be “fine” right.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Its fandom in general, not related to hockey specifically. When someone is good at something, people will care about that over something that doesn't affect them.

Chris Benoit killed his family but damn could he wrestle.

Ray Lewis might have been involved in a double homicide but damn he's good at football.

Kobe Bryant might've raped a hotel employee but damn he was good at basketball.

 

[PistolPete]

Sure Linesman kicking someone , fine.

But since I know/knew Kenny Linesman he was a POS also off the ice.

being a POS at your job, doesn’t mean your a POS outside the job, it does in Linesman case, since he was. But no it is definitely mean there is a trend.

Don’t forget you said this,
if you disagree with my characterization, fine, but the post is about the general tendency, not just one player)

I disagree with your Characterization, so should be “fine” right.

Wow. I've been quoted to myself.

Have I reached elite HFBoard status?

But alas, I am not getting your use of me against me.

My characterization of Bennett or......??

 

[PistolPete]

Its fandom in general, not related to hockey specifically. When someone is good at something, people will care about that over something that doesn't affect them.

Chris Benoit killed his family but damn could he wrestle.

Ray Lewis might have been involved in a double homicide but damn he's good at football.

Kobe Bryant might've raped a hotel employee but damn he was good at basketball.

I am referencing the on ice part and why it doesn't carry over into the off ice characeterization of a player.

Players seem to get a pass for what thry do on the ice as if playing a sport is like acting in a movie- it's a perforwmce, not the real person.

 

[Golden_Jet]

My characterization of Bennett or......??

In general, not specifically Bennett.

 

[theVladiator]

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?

These comparisons miss the mark imo.

In video games, the violence is perpetrated against pixels, not actual real human beings. The OP angle is ethical, and videogame violence lacks actual real world victim to be a good comparable.

In case of military/police they are meant to be violent towards "bad guys", with the violence in proportion to the level of threat the "bad guy" presents to others. In hockey, the injured player most of the time is not a similar physical threat himself. So, again, ethically it's not a good comparable.

 

[PistolPete]

In general, not specifically Bennett.

Didn't realize I was characterizing anything in general. Was attempting to delve into the dichotomy people make.

Ah well, I can only be perfect some of the time.

 

[Three On Zero]

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.

Hockey is a contact sport, how is that Bennetts fault. He’s a damn good player that knows how to walk the line that the NHL has defined.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Didn't realize I was characterizing anything in general. Was attempting to delve into the dichotomy people make.

Ah well, I can only be perfect some of the time.

Your words not mine, you said
but the post is about the general tendency, not just one player)

And I said I disagree with the general tendency, and outlined that previously.

 

[PistolPete]

Your words not mine, you said
but the post is about the general tendency, not just one player)

And I said I disagree with the general tendency, and outlined that previously.

Ah. Gotcha

 

[PistolPete]

Hockey is a contact sport, how is that Bennetts fault. He’s a damn good player that knows how to walk the line that the NHL has defined.

Replace Bennett's name wirh Player X. I only mentioned him because of the article I was referencing.

My question is particularly about the dichotomy fans, media, players etc make between on ice behavior and off ice behavior, as if the games were wrestling and it's all an act, not the real person at all

 

[1989]

These comparisons miss the mark imo.

In video games, the violence is perpetrated against pixels, not actual real human beings. The OP angle is ethical, and videogame violence lacks actual real world victim to be a good comparable.

In case of military/police they are meant to be violent towards "bad guys", with the violence in proportion to the level of threat the "bad guy" presents to others. In hockey, the injured player most of the time is not a similar physical threat himself. So, again, ethically it's not a good comparable.

The pixels can represent human beings (as in other players who are affected, even emotionally as it oftentimes is.) Video games or other virtual reality software have been in use for training for serious real-life scenarios, from military tactics to flight simulation and sports and they are judged or graded on their actions and reactions to arrive at conclusions based on ethics, professionalism and efficiency.

In hockey, if it's not because of a sneaky dirty play, then sometimes both players are engaging in an all-out fistfight - something that you wouldn't normally be able to engage in outside of the arena without serious consequence.

 

[PistolPete]

The pixels can represent human beings (as in other players who are affected, even emotionally as it oftentimes is.) Video games or other virtual reality software have been in use for training for serious real-life scenarios, from military tactics to flight simulation and sports and they are judged or graded on their actions and reactions to arrive at conclusions based on ethics, professionalism and efficiency.

In hockey, if it's not because of a sneaky dirty play, then sometimes both players are engaging in an all-out fistfight - something that you wouldn't normally be able to engage in outside of the arena without serious consequence.

I wasn't addressing causes though.

I was addressing people's ethical/moral compartmentalization based on in-game v out-of-game actions

 

[1989]

I wasn't addressing causes though.

I was addressing people's ethical/moral compartmentalization based on in-game v out-of-game actions

Sure but I don't know why you berate the point because virtually every answer has been the same which is why I said your question was answered in post #3 and that each example of simulated/extrajudicial environment produces the same understanding of why those actions are acceptable and likely not to count against their character of person.

The entire premise was flawed from the start. You're literally asking fans of a full-contact professional sports league whether they're okay with the actions the athletes undertake against each other in competition. I would think that if they said no, they might not be found here. There might be some variance between "I love big hits even if they're dirty" and "I like fights but I would like them to be not staged" and "I hate Dirty Player but I'd like them on my team."

 

[PistolPete]

Sure but I don't know why you berate the point because virtually every answer has been the same which is why I said your question was answered in post #3 and that each example of simulated/extrajudicial environment produces the same understanding of why those actions are acceptable and likely not to count against their character of person.

The entire premise was flawed from the start. You're literally asking fans of a full-contact professional sports league whether they're okay with the actions the athletes undertake against each other in competition. I would think that if they said no, they might not be found here. There might be some variance between "I love big hits even if they're dirty" and "I like fights but I would like them to be not staged" and "I hate Dirty Player but I'd like them on my team."

I wasn't asking that at all. I'm not asking if they're ok with actions on ice but how and why they separate an on-ice personality from an off-ice persianlry and when they merge them ro say- there crosses the line, he really is a total asshole.

And they're obviously not ok wirh it because many fans complain about various players and how dirty they are.

the question offers a chance to have some replies that are more thoughtful than rhe cliches offered by most and if willing, probe deeper past the cliches.

And well, gosh darn it, it's just in my doggone nature to get people's thoughts and ask follow up questions to understand their thought process more- not simply stop after post 3 and tell everyone it's a wrap, go home now.

 

[theVladiator]

I wasn't addressing causes though.

I was addressing people's ethical/moral compartmentalization based on in-game v out-of-game actions

Whose compartmentalization though?

If we are talking about judging the player's character, ultimately we are trying to understand that person's character and values based on the decisions that they make. Seems like the mere assumption that the person can "compartmentalize" their ethics and morals implies a serious character flaw. I mean, how can we call somebody a "good person" if he is known to temporarily abandon their presumably solid ethics and morals depending on the circumstances.

 

[rt]

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?

It’s a game, bro. Not that serious. Lighten up.

 

[nbwingsfan]

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?

Doing POS shit things on the ice = POS on the ice

Doing nice things off the ice = not a POS off the ice

It… seems so straight forward?

 

[luiginb]

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

I used to assume everyone was good, then social media happened.

 

[PistolPete]

Doing POS shit things on the ice = POS on the ice

Doing nice things off the ice = not a POS off the ice

It… seems so straight forward?

So...going to the extreme of thst logic....Player X kills someone- intentionally- no way axciidentally- he's only a murderer on the ice?

Are you seeing the massive flaw in your logic?

You may object and say this is a gross oversimplification but then it still begs the question:

Where is the line? Where does what a player does on the ice become too much for a fan and you deem him an asshole per se?

 

[3074326]

So...going to the extreme of thst logic....Player X kills someone- intentionally- no way axciidentally- he's only a murderer on the ice?

Are you seeing the massive flaw in your logic?

You may object and say this is a gross oversimplification but then it still begs the question:

Where is the line? Where does what a player does on the ice become too much for a fan and you deem him an asshole per se?

There is no answer to this question. Too many variables. It’s up to each of us to decide who we like and for what reasons.

My line is if you continuously hurt people intentionally. But even then. These guys are making split-second judgement calls without much thought. No time to think about it. So even when it looks really bad.. hard to think there are too many guys out there trying to ruin careers.

 

[Beneven Stanciano]

Also you:

Well that is correct. I'm unsure of the point?

 

[Beneven Stanciano]

Also you:

I'm not speaking to anything about them off the ice at all. I only reference on ice play. There has to be a point you are making?

 

[nbwingsfan]

So...going to the extreme of thst logic....Player X kills someone- intentionally- no way axciidentally- he's only a murderer on the ice?

Are you seeing the massive flaw in your logic?

You may object and say this is a gross oversimplification but then it still begs the question:

Where is the line? Where does what a player does on the ice become too much for a fan and you deem him an asshole per se?

I would assume criminal charges and a lifetime in jail would be crossing the line

Imagine comparing falling on a goalie to purposely murdering someone

 

[nbwingsfan]

There is no answer to this question. Too many variables. It’s up to each of us to decide who we like and for what reasons.

My line is if you continuously hurt people intentionally. But even then. These guys are making split-second judgement calls without much thought. No time to think about it. So even when it looks really bad.. hard to think there are too many guys out there trying to ruin careers.

That’s what so many don’t get.

There are so few plays where someone is internally trying to end a career/season.

You have Neanderthals like Cooke and Torres who just don’t think and are just going for a hit without once considering the consequences, but do I think they were trying to ruin the careers/ alter the life of the people they were hitting? No