The Players' Tribune: Why We Fight by Brandon Prust

[Yzerman1919*]

Is there this much bickering over Brandon Prust. He is not a dirty player and steps up for his teammates against guys much bigger than him. There are many more dirty players than Brandon Prust, and hell actually answer the bell. Malkin, Cooke, Marchand, Burrows, Garbutt, Torres, Downie, etc.

All he is saying is that fighting has a place because it can swing momentum or does it's best to keep a guy honest. No one is afraid of sitting 2 games in an 82 game season, who cares. I'd rather sit 2 games than have my nose or jaw broken.

If you want soft hockey then start a petition for no contact at all...

And for anyone else calling him a pest or weasel who shouldn't be in the NHL. He's a third liner who PKs. I don't see the issue.

 

[covfefe]

He says people like him are required to deal with rats

Then he proceeds to willingly injure a player

You need me to protect you against people like me

How about we just get rid of you and not worry about headshots?

Here are a few considerations for you:

- Regardless of a player's intent (malicious or otherwise), if a hit results in an injury, the player who delivered the hit is a 'willing' participant in the act of injuring the other player.

- Prust neither implicitly nor explicitly states in the article that he intended to injure Stepan. He says he knew it was a late hit - but doesn't specify whether he knew that prior to or after the hit. His direct quote is:

It’s crazy the things you’re willing to do for the Stanley Cup. Those friendships disappear on the ice. I knew nobody on the Rangers was going to give me a fight. So I had to go out there and hit some people and cause havoc so that I force someone to come after me. On my first shift, I saw a blue jersey making a pass at the blue line and I came across him and tried to finish my check hard. He didn’t see me coming. He went down and stayed down. I knew it was a late hit. What I didn’t know is that it was Derek Stepan, one of my closest friends on the Rangers. I broke his jaw.

- Context is important with regard to Prust v. Stepan. It was the 3rd game of the ECF with Montreal having dropped successive home games, Price is injured, the Habs are essentially golfing. The Prust hit swung momentum in that game and, right or wrong, Montreal won in OT. They got roasted in the series and rightfully so, but those things happen every year in the playoffs and have since before any posters on this board were born. Every player is more desperate in the playoffs, refs are looser, and people tend to do things they wouldn't do at less critical points of the year. It's not like Prust intentionally charged Stepan during a Tuesday night game. stuff happens in the playoffs and lambasting one guy who is willing to state the facts ignores the larger issue at hand.

 

[haveandare]

I cannot believe people in here are defending that hit on Stepan, especially given the ridiculous amount of outrage MTL fans threw at Kreider for clearly being tripped into their goalie.

Given the way they reacted to the Price incident, which was way, way more up for debate than the Stepan hit, people would have burned a Ranger in effigy and called the mounties if one of them hit a MTL player the way Prust hit Stepan, especially if they then wrote this type of thing to try to dress it up as a "that's hockey" story.

Dorsett cuts across the ice, delivers a late high hit to Galchenyuk, breaks his jaw, then writes this about it. People are going to defend it? Please, they'd start a riot.

Try to look at this without the fan biases, the hit was dirty and no essay about it changes that.

Prust is generally good at balancing on the line between doing his job and being reckless. This was an example of him failing to do that.

 

[Sleepy]

His article was what I expected, and once again doesn't make any sense.

A rat hits your best player with a dirty hit and knocks him out of the game. What's he more afraid of:
1) Having a guy jump him, taking a few punches before the ref gets in and getting his team an instigator power play. Which actually helps him become an even better "rat" and ups his NHL value. Honestly a couple punches from an enforcer probably hurts less if you can defend yourself than blocking a powerplay slapshot.... or having Prust break your jaw with a hit.

or

2) Being suspended for 10 games, losing 12% of his salary and knowing that if he ever does it again, it could be 15 or 25 games.


Prust himself said guys will do anything to be in the NHL, including taking a few punches. They make their money this way, and they will do anything to continue making NHL money. The only way to properly discourage that is to take that NHL money away from them.

Stepan broke his jaw playing hockey, not in a fight and still came back to play in that game. PRUST HIMSELF makes his career in the NHL taking punches. His logic makes absolutely no sense. Guys might be afraid of taking punches, blocking shots, or absorbing hits, but at the end of the day they still do their jobs. They're all courageous, so his argument kinda falls on its face there. It makes no sense. It's the Wookie defense.

 

[Philly85*]

Just read the article. You know, it was decent enough, but entirely predictable and rather boring IMO. I mean it sheds no new light on why guys fight and the place it has in the game. I'd argue he's easily wrong (logically speaking) in many of the examples he tries to provide for using fighting as a tool of defense, response, honour, or as a deterrent etc. The code No longer exists. And many "rats" have won in the past and present... not sorry to say its pretty dumb overall... anyways carry on...

 

[WaltWhitman]

Haha thanks foxygen for posting that quote. I didn't waste my time actually reading this, but that quote is great.

I broke my friends jaw because I needed to get in a fight to protect the game from people running around and injuring players.

Is it April 1st already?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Here are a few considerations for you:

- Regardless of a player's intent (malicious or otherwise), if a hit results in an injury, the player who delivered the hit is a 'willing' participant in the act of injuring the other player.

- Prust neither implicitly nor explicitly states in the article that he intended to injure Stepan. He says he knew it was a late hit - but doesn't specify whether he knew that prior to or after the hit. His direct quote is:




- Context is important with regard to Prust v. Stepan. It was the 3rd game of the ECF with Montreal having dropped successive home games, Price is injured, the Habs are essentially golfing. The Prust hit swung momentum in that game and, right or wrong, Montreal won in OT. They got roasted in the series and rightfully so, but those things happen every year in the playoffs and have since before any posters on this board were born. Every player is more desperate in the playoffs, refs are looser, and people tend to do things they wouldn't do at less critical points of the year. It's not like Prust intentionally charged Stepan during a Tuesday night game. stuff happens in the playoffs and lambasting one guy who is willing to state the facts ignores the larger issue at hand.

We all saw the hit

We all know it was a gutless headshot

Context might explain it but there's reasons for everything and reasons don't make something right

The guy is a great example of how dangerous circular logic because it attracts people based on the conclusion "I am useful" rather than the reasonning

 

[The Sweetness]

Fighting needs to stay in the game because it will prevent late hits that might result in a broken jaw

I like Prust and really respect his courage and the balls enforcers show on a nightly basis but I thought his reasoning for keeping fighting in the game to be pretty weak. Fighting gave him a chance to be a millionaire playing the game, it's not shocking he wants to rationalize it.

 

[The Sweetness]

His article was what I expected, and once again doesn't make any sense.

A rat hits your best player with a dirty hit and knocks him out of the game. What's he more afraid of:
1) Having a guy jump him, taking a few punches before the ref gets in and getting his team an instigator power play. Which actually helps him become an even better "rat" and ups his NHL value. Honestly a couple punches from an enforcer probably hurts less if you can defend yourself than blocking a powerplay slapshot.... or having Prust break your jaw with a hit.

or

2) Being suspended for 10 games, losing 12% of his salary and knowing that if he ever does it again, it could be 15 or 25 games.


Prust himself said guys will do anything to be in the NHL, including taking a few punches. They make their money this way, and they will do anything to continue making NHL money. The only way to properly discourage that is to take that NHL money away from them.

Stepan broke his jaw playing hockey, not in a fight and still came back to play in that game. PRUST HIMSELF makes his career in the NHL taking punches. His logic makes absolutely no sense. Guys might be afraid of taking punches, blocking shots, or absorbing hits, but at the end of the day they still do their jobs. They're all courageous, so his argument kinda falls on its face there. It makes no sense. It's the Wookie defense.

Agree.

 

[NYR713]

I always like Prust. I had some problems with the Stepan hit, being a Ranger fan, but I still like Prusty. He knows his job and he does it. I enjoyed the article.

The whole idea of talking about rats though... made me think of his own teammate Subban who is on the high council of NHL rats with a few others. We just watched him pull a rat move the other day vs NYR.

 

[Jack Straw]

I've always liked Prust, and coming from this Flyers fan that's not easy to say. I don't think he's dirty, or a cheap shot artist, or a goon, or a rat. I'd love to have him on the Flyers. That said, as others have pointed out he's incredibly hypocritical in the article:

If they take fighting out, and guys aren’t worried about answering the bell, I guarantee more people will get hurt from an increase in open-ice body checks.

So how does he wrap up his article? By describing how he hurt a guy by throwing a dangerous open-ice body check.

I knew nobody on the Rangers was going to give me a fight. So I had to go out there and hit some people and cause havoc so that I force someone to come after me.

He basically gives the lie to his own argument.

 

[frivolousz21]

because one is willing to take responsibility for his actions and the other is not ?

and saying that Prust is a Rat because of ONE hit on Stefan is idiotic. He's a guy who will stand up for teamates, and will oblige when asked. His job is to give the team a jump ( whether you think that no jump is provided when he fights is moot, that's between him and Therrien) and is willing to square up with another guy, nod his head and go. he will go with friends, he will go with foes.

Did I like the hit on stefan ? no. I wish he didnt make it but that hit, as much as you want it to, does not define prust. I'm willing to give guys the doubt, I am sure that a lot of hits are initiated with the best intentions that go south and guys get hurt. Part of the game. But irrespective of your intentions, if you do throw one of these hits and it DOES go south, the guy who acknowledges that it was bad and faces the consequences is 100 X better than the guy who refuses to fight because he either a) thinks the hit was not bad or b) thinks the hit was bad but that he's not accountable to answer for it.

So deliberately hurting another person is ok if one takes responsibility for it?

Wow

 

[The Undertaker]

I cannot believe people in here are defending that hit on Stepan, especially given the ridiculous amount of outrage MTL fans threw at Kreider for clearly being tripped into their goalie.

Given the way they reacted to the Price incident, which was way, way more up for debate than the Stepan hit, people would have burned a Ranger in effigy and called the mounties if one of them hit a MTL player the way Prust hit Stepan, especially if they then wrote this type of thing to try to dress it up as a "that's hockey" story.

Dorsett cuts across the ice, delivers a late high hit to Galchenyuk, breaks his jaw, then writes this about it. People are going to defend it? Please, they'd start a riot.

Try to look at this without the fan biases, the hit was dirty and no essay about it changes that.

Prust is generally good at balancing on the line between doing his job and being reckless. This was an example of him failing to do that.

So true.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

Good article by Prust, I liked it. Good perspective, good insight. Liked his take on that Stepan hit.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I've always liked Prust, and coming from this Flyers fan that's not easy to say. I don't think he's dirty, or a cheap shot artist, or a goon, or a rat. I'd love to have him on the Flyers. That said, as others have pointed out he's incredibly hypocritical in the article:

If they take fighting out, and guys aren’t worried about answering the bell, I guarantee more people will get hurt from an increase in open-ice body checks.

So how does he wrap up his article? By describing how he hurt a guy by throwing a dangerous open-ice body check.

I knew nobody on the Rangers was going to give me a fight. So I had to go out there and hit some people and cause havoc so that I force someone to come after me.

He basically gives the lie to his own argument.

Yep. His thought process only works if you are already accepting the basic assumption that goons are "good guys" and rats are "bad guys". It's a circular argument and bad logic.

Doesn't matter if you are for or against fighting or whatever you believe. The objective fact is he makes a very poor quality argument for his position.

So deliberately hurting another person is ok if one takes responsibility for it?

Wow

This is the essence or the pro-goon argument. In their heads, nothing they do is wrong because they fight. In truth, goons are usually some of the dirtiest players in the league. Prust's cheapshot, Scott chasing around Kessel like the gorilla he is, etc etc. But it's okay, somehow. Because they fight.

 

[Section32]

When playing for the Rangers he rarely if ever truly crossed the line. He was generally in control of his emotions and played a very effective game.

I don't watch too many Habs games, but he has definitely had several cheap shots in games against the Rangers.

Still, even the other night, he could have smacked Glass hard when he had him down on the ice and instead he held up.

So, my take is that he probably is one of the "cleaner" fighters but has clearly developed a grudge against the Rangers.

His hit on Stepan was pure crap. Curious if they talk anymore.

 

[sandysan]

So deliberately hurting another person is ok if one takes responsibility for it?

Wow

how do you know he deliberately did it ? What if, as he said, he wanted to throw big hit on "some ranger" and the consequences were not what he liked ?

and yeah if I can hit you legal and you get hurt, them's the breaks.

 

[Killahpunk]

I would take Prust on my team any day!

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Reading through a thesis I found (link to published work) on pre-World War I hockey in the Maritimes, there's a section of the conclusion which I thought might be thought-provoking:

"...by the early 1900s, the sport was transformed by the bourgeoisie into an organized recreational pastime in which middle class players could display their skill; a process in keeping with amateur codes of civilized behavior. Class tensions became even more evident in the separation of lower and middle class hockey. In other words, as the sport became institutionalized and organized it did so in class ways.

Amateur clubs were elitist and spectators from the lower classes were chastised for their "vocalness." Blamed for encouraging their social superiors to fight, lower class spectators faced the possibility of being denied access to matches, It is unknown if "unruly" spectators recognized the hypocrisy of bourgeois players, although it is hard to imagine that they failed to do so. What is known is that middle class players consistently defied the amateur "code" by fighting and blamed "unruly" spectators for causing such incidents..." (pg. 118)

and

"...the past offers us not so much an escape or a way to find answers to our present dilemma, but a manner in which to understand that others encountered obstacles in every way as challenging and complex as our own..." (pg. 120)

* As an aside, anyone from around here will understand what I'm saying when I tell you that only a SMU student could submit a thesis with as many grammar and punctuation errors as can be found in there, lol.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

I really enjoy these player articles nice to hear it right outta a horses mouth

 

[c-carp]

I would take Prust on my team any day!

Me too

 

[Doshell Propivo]

I'd love to read the follow up to that article - "Why We Don't Fight (in the Playoffs)"

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I'd love to read the follow up to that article - "Why We Don't Fight (in the Playoffs)"

If you haven't noticed fights in the playoffs, you haven't been watching very much.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

If you haven't noticed fights in the playoffs, you haven't been watching very much.

I've been watching the playoffs since the 70's What I've noticed is a significant decrease since the instigator penalty. And even more so of a decline during the last 10 years or so. A fight in the playoffs is a very rare event nowadays. Goons are a liability and virtually all of them don't even sniff the ice come playoff time.

I used to be a staunch supporter of fighting in hockey and felt it had a real place in the game (which it did. Back then). It's time we all wake up and realize that fighting in hockey is no longer relevant. The more important the game, the less likelihood of a fight.

It's all but disappeared from the playoffs yet the hockey is still great and intense. Nothing would happen if they took fighting out of the game completely. Nothing. It's current value is merely a side show during the pre (errr... regular season).

 

[sandysan]

I've been watching the playoffs since the 70's What I've noticed is a significant decrease since the instigator penalty. And even more so of a decline during the last 10 years or so. A fight in the playoffs is a very rare event nowadays. Goons are a liability and virtually all of them don't even sniff the ice come playoff time.

I used to be a staunch supporter of fighting in hockey and felt it had a real place in the game (which it did. Back then). It's time we all wake up and realize that fighting in hockey is no longer relevant. The more important the game, the less likelihood of a fight.

It's all but disappeared from the playoffs yet the hockey is still great and intense. Nothing would happen if they took fighting out of the game completely. Nothing. It's current value is merely a side show during the pre (errr... regular season).

first round fights are relatively common ( think pens flyers 2 years ago) As the stakes get higher, the fights get lower but they still occur ( prust tuned up dorsett pretty good in the ECF).

scoring also, generally drops in the playoffs as do power plays. Are these two things not important because they decrease as the stakes get higher?

as to what would happen if " they took fighting out of the game completely" ? I'm glad we won't ever have to find out.