Sick in the head (Pain acknowledged and denied, in the NFL, NHL and in general)

[Ravin]

And that's teh flip side.

My argument is that more area=more speed. More speed....more violent hits. I have the same take on the issue of the NFL making the field larger.



Ok? See above.

And I am telling you it doesn't. This is one of those things that if you were an actual hockey fan you would know. I know it, KG knows it, Wr50l knows it, leaf will know it as well. Bigger ice does not = more violent hits. It equals more open space for players to move.

If player A has more ice to skate into player B then logic would also say that player B has more ice to skate away/around player A's attempt to hit.

Euro playes are generally faster skaters then Canadians/Americans. The reason is because they have more ice then we do. They are better with the puck on average because they spend more time with it.


Good example is this. In Canada at hockey practice, the first 30 mintues was always skating. Goal line to blue line to red to blue and so on.

In russia, the second they hit the ice, they have a puck on their stick. They need to learn puck skills because there game is different. And when you watch most Olympic events you will see that.

It isn't a huge shock to see why Canada has won the Gold Medal in Vancuver and Salt Lake, yet got owned in Turin and Nagano.

 

[killgod]

Do not re-institute the two-line pass on 85 feet ice because just about every team has a guy who could replicate Scott Stevens these days. If bigger ice ever did occur, the two-line pass may actually be needed though.

The 2 line pass causes for players to have their heads down more in the neutral zone due to more lateral movement and short passing with the puck.

Again, analyze all concussions and look at the percentage where the player didn't see the impact coming. Last thing you want is more Big E's staring at their skates.

 

[FirstTimer]

Feel free to pull out your soother and explain how hockey fights are some kind of different entertainment than an MMA fight.

It's not about the entertainment value you fucking mouth breathing retard.

MMA/Boxing=Fighting is absolutely needed to determine the outcome.

Hockey=Fighting is not needed to determine the outcome.

Thus comparing fighting in each sport as to why it's allowed to exist is stupid and misses the point.

Heaven forbid people watch hockey for violence

Football has violence too. Yet no fighting. They seem to be doing ok.

 

[Ravin]

The 2 line pass causes for players to have their heads down more in the neutral zone due to more lateral movement and short passing with the puck.Again, analyze all concussions and look at the percentage where the player didn't see the impact coming. Last thing you want is more Big E's staring at their skates.

+

 

[wr50l]

And using your stat....how about let's reduce concussions by 10% right off the bat by banning fighting? That would be good right? Sure the other 90% exist, and you try and legislate the game the best you can to reduce and control that 90%..same as the NFL does. Fighting isn't neede din hockey so let's reduce concussions by "10%" tomorrow! That'd be a great step.

Let's be realistic here. While the NHL spends four years trying to gain acceptance from the hockey audience and media THEN from the Board of Governers, GMs and NHLPA, there will be yet another glut of non-fighting star players getting dinged on the head.

Fighting will eventually be banned, more players will be concussed than there need be and ironically you'll be happy.

Nice work retard.

Metaphorically, you're discussing whether to turn starboard or port while water is pouring through the hull.

 

[killgod]

It's not about the entertainment value you fucking mouth breathing retard.

MMA/Boxing=Fighting is absolutely needed to determine the outcome.

Hockey=Fighting is not needed to determine the outcome.

Thus comparing fighting in each sport as to why it's allowed to exist is stupid and misses the point.

I could have bet money "mouth breather" was coming in this post. Your repeated insults are as bad as dave's.

So why is the UFC and IBF allowed to make money of selling physical combat but the NHL cannot?

Last time I checked it's part of their product, they support it, the athletes support it and it attracts audiences.

Pro sports are not about scoring points you stupid asshat, stop thinking men's league and start thinking business.


Or is it you care about these men's safety? Which then is hypocritical if you defend the need of MMA.

Circles, you love to talk in them.

Football has violence too. Yet no fighting. They seem to be doing ok.

Yeah football seems to be doing just fine.

Totally fine.

No problems here.

This looks great.

Awesome.

Yep, fine!



Not like the retired players have issues either, not a problem at all, totally fine all around.

 

[FirstTimer]

And I am telling you it doesn't.

And I'm telling you simple science would disagree.

More speed=more violent hits when they occur. I don't need to give defenders an extra step or to to build up more speed..

I can see the flip side. That's fine. Make the ice larger but I'd disagree with it to a certain extent. Make the field in the NFL bigger. I'll disagree but see the other side's theory on it.

This is one of those things that if you were an actual hockey fan you would know.

LOL at thinking a bigger/smaller field/rink is something exclusive to hockey.

I believe Rush and I had this discussion on larger or smaller NFL fields a while ago..possibly here..possibly at CCS.

This isn't news..and isn't isolated to hockey

Hockey tard.

 

[killgod]

And I'm telling you simple science would disagree.

More speed=more violent hits when they occur. I don't need to give defenders an extra step or to to build up more speed..

I can see the flip side. That's fine. Make the ice larger but I'd disagree with it to a certain extent. Make the field in the NFL bigger. I'll disagree but see the other side's theory on it.




LOL at thinking a bigger/smaller field/rink is something exclusive to hockey.

I believe Rush and I had this discussion on larger or smaller NFL fields a while ago..possibly here..possibly at CCS.

This isn't news..and isn't isolated to hockey

Hockey tard.

The international ice size seems to disagree with simple science.

 

[Ravin]

Guy is going to use science to tell me how the game of hockey is played? Is this Nigga serious.

:jonesy:


Then I guess by this thinking we should see tons of concussions in the Olympics and IIHF games and Worlds and over in Europe and Russia right.

 

[wr50l]

The 2 line pass causes for players to have their heads down more in the neutral zone due to more lateral movement and short passing with the puck.

Again, analyze all concussions and look at the percentage where the player didn't see the impact coming. Last thing you want is more Big E's staring at their skates.

Perhaps. Though I would consider it plausible that the two-line pass on a wide rink may make the game a better spectacle and may not make it more dangerous. Either way this isn't important because we neither of us are putting forward an explanation of how the NHL would be played on a larger rink.

I think we both agree that on 85 foot ice the two-line rule would turn the neutral zone into a kill zone in today's game. Though I have heard arguments (which I do not believe) that it would slow the game down and by no coincidence make it safer.

 

[Ravin]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drawing a line. This is the part of the thread where FT's knowledge of hockey kills him in this thread and he goes back to circles. So just go read Page 1 to this point and you will get everything FT is saying.

 

[FirstTimer]

While the NHL spends four years trying to gain acceptance from the hockey audience and media THEN from the Board of Governers, GMs and NHLPA, there will be yet another glut of non-fighting star players getting dinged on the head.

Is the NHL leadership so retarded that they can handle only one issue at a time?

While they are looking to ban fighting they are unable to address any other player safety concerns?

LOL.

Great.

Simple minded faggot is simple minded.

So why is the UFC and IBF allowed to make money of selling physical combat but the NHL cannot?

bama:

Still with this shit.

MMA=Fighting needed to obtain outcome.

NHL= Fighting not needed.

Derp derp derp.

Last time I checked it's part of their product, they support it, the athletes support it and it attracts audiences.

Yeah. What do those idiot doctors know?!

Pro sports are not about scoring points

Derp derp derp.

Or is it you care about these men's safety? Which then is hypocritical if you defend the need of MMA.

:jonesy:

I never once said that MMA is "needed".

Go back and re-read.

Try not to be a fucking moron this time doing it.

You fucking stupid ass Canuck.

Get a fucking clue.

Yeah football seems to be doing just fine.

Popularity wise dumbass.

 

[FirstTimer]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drawing a line. This is the part of the thread where FT's knowledge of hockey kills him in this thread and he goes back to circles. So just go read Page 1 to this point and you will get everything FT is saying.

Yes because increased speed and velocity would have nothing to do with more violent hits. I never said that big hits would increase. I stated that the hits that would occur would be more violent. Especially with the way America hockey is taught as opposed to "euro" style.

But yeah let's argue rink size and safety while still allowing people to blungeon eachother in the head.

My rink size/field size argument has NOTHING to do with hockey..I hold the same mindset and though when it comes to the NFL..so it's not some hockey exclusive thought.

 

[Ravin]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3bZsI2ngMw"]Dr.Sheldon Cooper ftw - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FirstTimer]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ay-consider-widening-field-to-enhance-safety/

 

[DSpydr84]

FYI DSpydr your insinuation that fighting wouldn't get you fired up is a culturally-biased interpretation of a completely different sporting culture. Whether fighting is a fabric of the game's future or not, players and coaches in the NHL all currently subscribe and support the doctrine that fighting shifts momentum. This is undeniable from the inside, whether it looks corny to you or not.

Exactly like a huge hit in football when a safety crushes a receiver coming over the middle and knocks him out, does that not get everyone fired up?

I appreciate these answers. I sincerely wasn't trolling: I genuinely wanted to know why hockey allowed fighting in games.

Coming from a different culture, it still feels horribly out of place. To look at from the other side of the spectrum, it'd be like saying if two teams were going at each others throats all game and the aggressiveness was way too vamped up, two players could agree to perform synchronized skating at center ice to which both teams calm the nerves of their teammates and receive a warm, humble applause from the crowd.

But don't for a second think I'm not watching the game when two guys are going at it. It's certainly exciting. I just don't think it's completely necessary.

 

[killgod]

Perhaps. Though I would consider it plausible that the two-line pass on a wide rink may make the game a better spectacle and may not make it more dangerous. Either way this isn't important because we neither of us are putting forward an explanation of how the NHL would be played on a larger rink.

I think we both agree that on 85 foot ice the two-line rule would turn the neutral zone into a kill zone in today's game. Though I have heard arguments (which I do not believe) that it would slow the game down and by no coincidence make it safer.

Studies are still out there to prove, but I'm more of a believer that it's the unknown force is more dangerous than the velocity. Not to suggest velocity doesn't play a significant role though.

Again, how many concussed NHLers received them from blindsided contact?


I think you'll have just as much blindside contact with the re inclusion of 2-line passing.

 

[Ravin]

Yes because increased speed and velocity would have nothing to do with more violent hits. I never said that big hits would increase. I stated that the hits that would occur would be more violent. Especially with the way America hockey is taught as opposed to "euro" style.

But yeah let's argue rink size and safety while still allowing people to blungeon eachother in the head.

My rink size/field size argument has NOTHING to do with hockey..I hold the same mindset and though when it comes to the NFL..so it's not some hockey exclusive thought.

And as it has been said numerous times. No it doesn't. Because the game doesn't call for what you are saying. When you spread the ice the game changes. As I pointed out already, it is why Canada/USA have lost at Turin and Nagano, yet both were in the finals on home ice.

If the NHL went to bigger ice, you would see more speed but less violent hits because players have more space to move around. These open ice hits would be gone, and players can brace themselves for board hits.

 

[wr50l]

Is the NHL leadership so retarded that they can handle only one issue at a time?

Why they are looking to ban fighting they are unable to address any other player safety concerns?

LOL.

Great.

Simple minded faggot is simple minded.

You have no idea how the bureacracy of the NHL works, it's no simple process. I am also bewildered to find out that you have no idea just how closely fighting is woven into the fabric of the league and how much of a task it would be to remove it. It's true to say that if you were in a position to be effecting rule changes players would be in even more danger.

You obviously have 1st Class Honours in Simple Science but real world application proves you to be a fuckin' bawbag.

 

[Ravin]

If you open up the ice, I don't think two line is needed. The defence already have to stay back more because if they don't, they would get burned badly with the speed the forwards could get with the extra space. So in terms of violent hits, I don't think it would do much to leave it as it is. I think what you would see is more centre's playing back roles, and more trap style systems forcing players to the boards.