From: jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio;6442;3.55;)
Subject: Re: War on Violence a Joke (Scott Taylor)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:48:59 GMT

In article <kalford-270193180749@staffws.maclab.comp.uvic.ca> kalford@sol.uvvm.ca (Keith Alford) writes:

>If you're a parent with a young kid in minor hockey , you hate NHL fights
>with a passion.  
>If the kid is natural athelete, you suggest baseball over hockey (baseball
>players make FAR
>more money and the sport is a LOT safer).

And a lot more boring......

>Outside of boxing and wrestling, I can think of  no sport other than hockey
>in which INTENTIONALLY hurting a player isn't cause for the stiffest
>penalty.

But it is.  In hockey, an intentional injury (or unintentional, for that
fact) will get you tossed out of the game.  That's the stiffest
penalty.  As for suspensions, I agree-- Stein is a moron if he thinks
that suspending for non-playing days works.  Still, the players do get
the stiffest penalty for intentionally causing injury.

>I know a lot of people who refuse to go to or watch on TV local WHL or NHL
>hockey because of the fights. Many of these watch international hockey and
>love it.

I can't get enough hockey, period.  I don't care what level, or where, I just
love the sport.  I don't like fighting, but I will put up with it, rather
than deprive myself of the enjoyment of the game.  Many more feel the same.

>We got a little guy on the WHL Victoria Cougars named Scott Fukami who can
>do things on skates I've yet to see some NHLers do. But his team owners
>doubt he'll make it into the NHL because of his size -- I guess they 
>forget about Fleury. There is something wrong with a sport when the best of
>any local team has little chance of making it on a professional North
>American team simply because people think he can't take the punishment. No
>one doubts Fukami has a great future in international hockey.

So let him try.  Like you said, there are others.

>If money is all important to owners, what I don't understand is how they
>accept illegally caused injuries to the likes of Gretzky and Mario. Owners
>have millions invested in these guys, and yet they don't protest the rules
>that allow them to be blatently injured.

Tell me, how is Lemieux's disease caused by an "illegally caused
injury"?  Gretzky's bad back isn't the result of a cheap shot, either--
how can it be if he never has gotten checked in his life, save for the
NON-illegal hit by Suter in the Canada Cup?

>One can't enforce rules without penalties. There should be more refs on the
>ice. There should be TV monitoring. There should be an escalating series of
>penalties. First offence, a game misconduct. Second offense, a seven game
>misconduct (game not "working days"). Third offense, a season misconduct.

There are penalties in place.  Too bad that Stein pulled that crap about
"non-game days".  Even so, the first offense usually is given a suspension
(for instance, Mike Gartner's slash of Oaf Samuelsson last season-- never had
an incident before, but was suspended for two games).  The second offense is
treated in a stiffer manner, as is the third, etc.

>It is a money in some aspects. And I think hockey will LOSE money if it
>shortly doesn't clean up its act VERY quickly.

Well, that's what happens when self-righteous do-gooders try to "clean
up" the sport-- they call for a ban on fighting, and the cheap shots
continue.  Fighting isn't the problem, except for premeditated crap
like Domi-Probert and the crap that starts at the end of a lopsided
loss.

-JPC

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Curcio 		          Go Bruins!		   Philips Laboratories
jpc@philabs.philips.com 			           345 Scarborough Road
(914) 945-6442               	 		     Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510