The Players' Tribune: Why We Fight by Brandon Prust

[sandysan]

Ignoring the fact that he said without getting a penalty with regards to running Lundqvist now is what you're doing here.

Again, I didn't say he was a cheap shot artist. That's just you dramatizing it as usual. The issue is saying one thing and doing another and being a hypocrite.

Nobody really cares what your experience is. If you want credibility with what you're saying, you should probably get the names of the people you're referencing correct. And that aspect has nothing to do with the other points of the post. Acting like it does is just another attempt of yours to deflect the issue that you can't seem to get a grasp on.

so you hold it against a 4th line guy to wonder aloud ( after the fact) how is it possible that he could do something to throw off an all world goalie, without getting a penalty ?

you think that if he really runs lundquist he pulls out a monopoly get out of jail free card ? He didnt "avery" lundquist, he might have bumped him a little, needled him a little, its not like what he did with ben bishop.

His job is largely to stand in front of the net and make the goalies job hard. By contemplating how best to do this without drawing a penalty, THAT makes him a bad guy ?

if true he has plenty of 4th line company league wide.

 

[TheTwelfth]

your right, I should have said all the players not associated with third rate leagues. Thanks for the correction, because if only there were a poll of the players in the nhl about whether we should ban fighting and adopt the more " cerebral" european variant.
Man, if such a poll existed that would really go a long way to settling this controversy that as far as I can tell, has equal support for both sides.

oh well, I guess we will just never know.

Not at all, most North American players are associated with the much inferior CHL or NCAA league. The former even allow fighting

Lets take that poll after someone has a scary **** injury and see what the players think then. Some of us just don't want it to go that far.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

"When I Hit People In The Head It's Cool And Good. When You Do It You're A Rat." Penned by John Moore.

I think he'd sound a bit hypocritical - it's good that at least to the media, everything he's said is to the extent of "I need to stop hitting people in the head."

 

[sandysan]

So, it's all about consent. Should two consenting adults be able to agree to a duel to settle a dispute and just bypass any sort of modern justice system?

the justice system doesnt universally apply to sporting events. 90% of the things that happen on the rink that are legal under the rules, could be considered assault on the sidewalk. I understand the hyperbole, but if your asking if its okay for two guys to explicitly consent to getting punched in the face for the chance of punching someone else in the face under strict rules of conduct, the answer is yes. its called boxing.

because really, if there is something the nhl needs more of, its more legal proceedings.

 

[sandysan]

Not at all, most North American players are associated with the much inferior CHL or NCAA league. The former even allow fighting

Lets take that poll after someone has a scary **** injury and see what the players think then. Some of us just don't want it to go that far.

have you seen the stickwork in the NCAA ? its atrocious. And the CHL, the AHL, the NAHL ( especially the NAHL) are seemingly fine with fighting.

and I will say this, you secretly hoping for some injury to advance how you think the game should be isnt just untoward, its morose and its shameful.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

so you hold it against a 4th line guy to wonder aloud ( after the fact) how is it possible that he could do something to throw off an all world goalie, without getting a penalty ?

you think that if he really runs lundquist he pulls out a monopoly get out of jail free card ? He didnt "avery" lundquist, he might have bumped him a little, needled him a little, its not like what he did with ben bishop.

His job is largely to stand in front of the net and make the goalies job hard. By contemplating how best to do this without drawing a penalty, THAT makes him a bad guy ?

if true he has plenty of 4th line company league wide.

I hold it against him that he talks about protecting his guys from it and condemning certain players for it when he does the same thing. If you think that him saying how he can run Lundqvist without getting a penalty means standing in front of him, then you're a bit off with what that means and likely doing it intentionally.

 

[StrangeVision]

the justice system doesnt universally apply to sporting events. 90% of the things that happen on the rink that are legal under the rules, could be considered assault on the sidewalk. I understand the hyperbole, but if your asking if its okay for two guys to explicitly consent to getting punched in the face for the chance of punching someone else in the face under strict rules of conduct, the answer is yes. its called boxing.

because really, if there is something the nhl needs more of, its more legal proceedings.

But your entire premise is based on the idea that the players are the ones who want to fight, so therefore fighting should remain. This idea that it's the people's choice. If that is the case, why can't we extend that to society as a whole? Alternatively, if you're now saying societal rules are rightfully governed by bodies of power (i.e. the justice system), I can only assume you would have no issue with the NHL mandating that fighting be abolished, regardless of how the players feel.

 

[sandysan]

I hold it against him that he talks about protecting his guys from it and condemning certain players for it when he does the same thing. If you think that him saying how he can run Lundqvist without getting a penalty means standing in front of him, then you're a bit off with what that means and likely doing it intentionally.

and ive spent way to much time trying to get you to admit that its not "the same thing". But you keep arguing that it is because you condemnation of prust is dependent on it.

a guy stands in front of the goalie and bumps him ( brendan gallagher) is not running the goalie. A guy who skates the top of the blue and glances off the goalie is not " running the goalie".

I've seen more than my share of guys running the goalie, its an overt act. the notion that you can a) run the goalie and b) not get called for it has very very little historical support ( i.e lucic and miller).

If your asking if prust was contemplating how to emulate chris kreider ( is that spelling ok?) methinks you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[RandV]

But your entire premise is based on the idea that the players are the ones who want to fight, so therefore fighting should remain. This idea that it's the people's choice. If that is the case, why can't we extend that to society as a whole? Alternatively, if you're now saying societal rules are rightfully governed by bodies of power (i.e. the justice system), I can only assume you would have no issue with the NHL mandating that fighting be abolished, regardless of how the players feel.

Doesn't the state of Washington have a 'mutual combat' law? And because of it they can have costumed crime fighters, so I think they're onto something!

 

[TheTwelfth]

have you seen the stickwork in the NCAA ? its atrocious. And the CHL, the AHL, the NAHL ( especially the NAHL) are seemingly fine with fighting.

and I will say this, you secretly hoping for some injury to advance how you think the game should be isnt just untoward, its morose and its shameful.

What are you talking about? I am the one wanting this madness to stop before an injury occurs. You, who keep supporting this act of stupidity refuse to realise the danger the players are put in for your entertainment.

Also, you are lacking reading comprehension (again). The NCAA, CHL, AHL and NAHL are all inferior leagues to the SHL, KHL and Liiga that you enjoy badmouthing, and most players that support fighting are associated with those leagues.

 

[sandysan]

But your entire premise is based on the idea that the players are the ones who want to fight, so therefore fighting should remain. This idea that it's the people's choice. If that is the case, why can't we extend that to society as a whole? Alternatively, if you're now saying societal rules are rightfully governed by bodies of power (i.e. the justice system), I can only assume you would have no issue with the NHL mandating that fighting be abolished, regardless of how the players feel.

I would not, the league and the PA are partners, if they want to unilaterally impose a ban on fighting, they have two choices. get the players to agree ( unlikely) or lock them out ( again unlikely).

people make decisions that I wouldn't ALL the time, often at their own peril. People deep sea dive ( and die) people climb mountains ( and fall) people box ( and get KTFO) people fight in cages and get kneedTFO. As adults, its on them.

If two players decide to fight, how precisely are you harmed or anyone in society? Are the players being " forced" to fight ? And its not a "duel" its likely the least injurious of all the alternate possibilities, none of which ever even consider consent. The next time a guy consents to get speared or number run for a transgression would be the first.

in a game where emotions run hot and guys have clubs in their hands, having a way to let off steam that is largely non injurious and almost exclusively consentual seems like a good thing to me.

if the players decide to stop fighting, my support for fighting dies right there with it. It's THEIR choice so long as they live with the benefits or the liabilities.

 

[sandysan]

What are you talking about? I am the one wanting this madness to stop before an injury occurs. You, who keep supporting this act of stupidity refuse to realise the danger the players are put in for your entertainment.

Also, you are lacking reading comprehension (again). The NCAA, CHL, AHL and NAHL are all inferior leagues to the SHL, KHL and Liiga that you enjoy badmouthing, and most players that support fighting are associated with those leagues.

how many years has the nhl had fights ? where is the impending madness ?

I've seen two players almost die on the ice die to something that happened one the ice ( no pre-existing medical conditions). one was a skate ( malarchuck) one was a puck ( mcCleary).

Are we now advocating, roller blades and orange balls, no lifters ?

and the players, conciously enter into this peril. lots of adults do things I would not, but I dont go around telling them " you cant do that any more because I wouldnt"

 

[Off Sides]

in a game where emotions run hot and guys have clubs in their hands, having a way to let off steam that is largely non injurious and almost exclusively consentual seems like a good thing to me.

Except when a player can not find a fight, in which case he makes an illegal blind side late hit.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

and ive spent way to much time trying to get you to admit that its not "the same thing". But you keep arguing that it is because you condemnation of prust is dependent on it.

a guy stands in front of the goalie and bumps him ( brendan gallagher) is not running the goalie. A guy who skates the top of the blue and glances off the goalie is not " running the goalie".

I've seen more than my share of guys running the goalie, its an overt act. the notion that you can a) run the goalie and b) not get called for it has very very little historical support ( i.e lucic and miller).

If your asking if prust was contemplating how to emulate chris kreider ( is that spelling ok?) methinks you are barking up the wrong tree.

If you're so determined to get a point across that it's not the same thing then you're only proving not to get the point. It doesn't have to be the same level of running a guy for it to be hypocritical.

When you sit there and say that standing there in front and bumping a goalie is not running the guy, I agree with that. However, that's not what Prust was talking about. He specifically said running Lundqvist so that whole deal is irrelevant to the argument. But hey, if you want to go on continuing to pretend like Prust hasn't taken runs at people while condemning people that do that, you're more than welcome to that. We can talk about the varying degrees of how bad a hit is. That doesn't really matter at the end of the day when the topic is how he is a hypocrite for saying that he hates guys who intentionally runs talent and then talks about and has done the same before. When you actually argue that point, we'll continue this discussion. If you again deflect the issue, you can continue on your own.

 

[RandV]

I would not, the league and the PA are partners, if they want to unilaterally impose a ban on fighting, they have two choices. get the players to agree ( unlikely) or lock them out ( again unlikely).

people make decisions that I wouldn't ALL the time, often at their own peril. People deep sea dive ( and die) people climb mountains ( and fall) people box ( and get KTFO) people fight in cages and get kneedTFO. As adults, its on them.

If two players decide to fight, how precisely are you harmed or anyone in society? Are the players being " forced" to fight ? And its not a "duel" its likely the least injurious of all the alternate possibilities, none of which ever even consider consent. The next time a guy consents to get speared or number run for a transgression would be the first.

in a game where emotions run hot and guys have clubs in their hands, having a way to let off steam that is largely non injurious and almost exclusively consentual seems like a good thing to me.

if the players decide to stop fighting, my support for fighting dies right there with it. It's THEIR choice so long as they live with the benefits or the liabilities.

True to an extent but this fails when a guy like Brad Marchand can take dirty runs at players and if the other team tries to go after him there's Chara/Thornton/Lucic waiting to fight you.

'Enforcers' can play their role as a deterrent, but to look at them as the 'good guys' waiting their to dole out justice to anyone who steps out of line is disingenuous. Some of them could be sure but when you look at the league as a whole there are going to be tough guys who are happy to fight that also play dirty and cause the exact sort of problems they're supposed to prevent.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

It's one thing when a third party person like ourselves make that distinction. It's quite another when the guy that made the hit in question admits it was late or bad or whatever.

But then when he says that fighting belongs in hockey, we should all cover our ears and selectively ignore that, right?

 

[c-carp]

Most of you guys here kill me with this BS fighting has always been a part of hockey and it should remain a part of hockey. You are all over Brandon Prust for writing a well thought article trying to explain why fighting and fighters are needed in the game. It seems like every week here you all overreact to fighting in some way or another it just gets old. I love talking Hockey and this is a good spot for that in most cases but when it comes to the scraps most of you overreact like old ladies at a coffee clatcb. Pitiful

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

the hit on paccioretty wasn't called a penalty for one. it didn't merit any supplmental discipline for two and the rationale for the two incidents are motivated for fundamentally different reasons for three ( sticking up for a teamate vs trying to give your team a jump).

that enough chief ? But im glad you are asking about things you dont understand.

Prust's hit on Stepan wasn't called a penalty either.

 

[sandysan]

Except when a player can not find a fight, in which case he makes an illegal blind side late hit.

or he tries to make a big hit, that ends up a little late. tomato, tomahto.

you havent offered any proof that prust was skulking in the weeds waiting for his opportunity to take a full of completely illegal run at a ranger ( any ranger) with the hopes of breaking his jaw.

lots of squeaky clean guys end up delivering bad hits, including prust.

 

[sandysan]

Prust's hit on Stepan wasn't called a penalty either.

tis true, my bad. Doesnt this kind of go against the narrative that it was an obvious late hit with intent to injure, and that on the ice it looked like a borderline hit that ended poorly ?

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

the hit on paccioretty wasn't called a penalty for one. it didn't merit any supplmental discipline for two and the rationale for the two incidents are motivated for fundamentally different reasons for three ( sticking up for a teamate vs trying to give your team a jump).

that enough chief ? But im glad you are asking about things you dont understand.

Prust's hit on Stepan wasn't called a penalty either.

 

[TheTwelfth]

Most of you guys here kill me with this BS fighting has always been a part of hockey and it should remain a part of hockey. You are all over Brandon Prust for writing a well thought article trying to explain why fighting and fighters are needed in the game. It seems like every week here you all overreact to fighting in some way or another it just gets old. I love talking Hockey and this is a good spot for that in most cases but when it comes to the scraps most of you overreact like old ladies at a coffee clatcb. Pitiful

It is not part of the sport in most countries that participate in it.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

tis true, my bad. Doesnt this kind of go against the narrative that it was an obvious late hit with intent to injure, and that on the ice it looked like a borderline hit that ended poorly ?

No, it was a blown call by the referees plain and simple. It got a 2 playoff game suspension which is said to = 6 reg season games. That's not a borderline hit.

It was and obviously late hit and should've absolutely been a penalty on the ice. You could argue that it wasn't called a penalty because it was so late that it was completely missed.

 

[sandysan]

True to an extent but this fails when a guy like Brad Marchand can take dirty runs at players and if the other team tries to go after him there's Chara/Thornton/Lucic waiting to fight you.

'Enforcers' can play their role as a deterrent, but to look at them as the 'good guys' waiting their to dole out justice to anyone who steps out of line is disingenuous. Some of them could be sure but when you look at the league as a whole there are going to be tough guys who are happy to fight that also play dirty and cause the exact sort of problems they're supposed to prevent.

marchand is a rat, and if you want to go with him you are free to do so ( with the knowledge that you are almost certainly going to be asked to go with someone more formidable afterwards). Your choice.

which of the "enforcers" also play dirty ? That's the distiction between rats and enforcers. there is a honor system twixt the guys who throw as prust explained in his acceptance of the rinaldo invitation. if you want to say that Prust plays dirty as a result of the late hit, that's a very low bar that labels a big percentage of the league in the same manner.

Enforcers dont go punching up talent unless there is an egregious transgression. Remember the john scott/kessel brou haha. it made the rounds because it was so rare. Rats on the other hand will do anything to anyone without any semblance of honor or consent.

for the most part guys who drop the gloves rarely get stick infractions or kneeing infractions or are serial number runners. and they only use their talents on opponents similalrly inclined and skilled.

What's the problem again ?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

True to an extent but this fails when a guy like Brad Marchand can take dirty runs at players and if the other team tries to go after him there's Chara/Thornton/Lucic waiting to fight you.

'Enforcers' can play their role as a deterrent, but to look at them as the 'good guys' waiting their to dole out justice to anyone who steps out of line is disingenuous. Some of them could be sure but when you look at the league as a whole there are going to be tough guys who are happy to fight that also play dirty and cause the exact sort of problems they're supposed to prevent.

Wait, who ever thought enforcers were "good guys" out there to establish a modern sense of justice on the ice? They're bad guys out there to establish frontier justice, playing as best as possible within the "letter of the law". Sometimes it's "dirty", but they're all just pushing the envelope as far as they can to make an opposing team more uncomfortable, in a way that teams have had to deal with for the entirety of hockey's history.

Look, there are a set of rules that all teams have to play by, but not all teams are constructed equally. They do, however, have the same goal: win hockey games. There are ENORMOUS grey areas surrounded almost every rule, and a coach who wants to keep his job finds out how to exploit as many of those areas as necessary in order to produce wins. And if you can do it within the rules, you won't have to endure an inordinate number of penalty killing situations while you do it. If you're really good on the PK, maybe you don't even mind crossing over the line a few more times to make the other team uncomfortable.

The disconnect is right there: coaches coach to win and GMs try to give them the players to make that happen, while the league broadly promotes "entertainment" (that doesn't even necessarily consider wins vs losses - see: concerns over scoring levels vs just about every other issue in hockey). Players, coaches, and GMs still believe that physical punishment (or even just the threat) has an impact on how both sides play the game, so it's obviously something that has the potential to make a game that "should" be a foregone conclusion on paper WAY more interesting en route to the final whistle/horn. Sometimes it eventually puts just the right pressure on just the right guy to produce a chance that decides a game.

That means players on all teams are constantly pushing the barrier between fair/foul, and constantly tuned into the who/what/where/when/why when lines are blurred. I mean, penalties happen almost every game because of this very fact. Doesn't matter if the letter of the law technically isn't even broken. There's a mental side to the game which precludes turning the other cheek in most moments and waiting a week for someone else to dole out some kind of "justice"/discipline, or letting a teammate who feels "abused" (whether right or wrong) think that it falls on the deaf ears/blind eyes of other teammates. If anyone thinks the game cleans up with the abolishing of fighting/enforcing, they're kidding themselves. The exact opposite has been observed.