From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: What the world needs now is an AMERICAN TV CONTRACT.
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:44:14 GMT
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia

In article <allan.702887502@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:

>>In article <allan.702803291@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>>>ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:
>>>>In article <allan.702679696@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>>>>>ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:
>>>>>>In article <allan.702362807@so-heart-rv> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>>>>If 560 players can get together on this strike thing, why in the world, as 
>>>>some of the best athletes in the world, can't they get together and protect 
>>>>their bodies? 
>>>Well, for one, the strike vote wasn't unanimous; there were 4 people
>>>who voted against it. 
>>That's why I said if 560 players can get together on this strike thing and 
>>not 564. The vote was 560-4.  But you dodged my point, if all but four 
>>players can get together on issues, why in the world don't you think they 
>>can get together, as athletes, and protect and respect their bodies?

>Because, like I said, the vote WASN'T UNANIMOUS. If all players
>except 4 decided to try extra hard not to break the rules, the
>remaining 4 can still do lots of damage.

Four players on twenty two teams can do "lots of damage?"  If that's the 
case, you would think these four would be as emotionally involved about the 
issues concerning their professional livelihoods as they would a "code of 
honor" grudge match. Unless I missed something, they haven't done "lots of 
damage" to the union's position.

>Besides, the threat of 'If you play dirty, you will get beaten up'
>probably carries a lot more weight than 'If you play dirty, the
>league president MAY give you a slap on the wrist, assuming that
>the incident was captured on video tape.'.
That's why I said the refs should make the calls on the spot.  If the fight 
takes place as a result of the action AND does not get out of hand in the 
refs judgement, call offsetting penalties like other self-respecting sports 
do.  The Probert-Domi heavyweight thing is a different story. 

>>>With most fights, its usually two 'heavy-weights' who are going
>>>at it. (I doubt any team would send a Probert or a Crowder
>>>to beat up on Gretzky). And they are rarely hurt.
>>>(There's sort of a 'code of honour' among the 'goons'.)

>>So even the goons can get together an establish a code of "honor" (now 
>>that's an ironic choice of words) as to respect and disrespect of the body.
>>I believe, perhaps unkowingly, you are agreeing with me.

>No, I am not agreeing with you... there IS a code of honour among
>'goons'. For instance, you will rarely see someone like Probert or
>Manson trying to poke out someone's eye with a stick. And they have
>a little more respect for the referees. (Compare with someone like
>Jagr, who got suspended for running into a referee... )

So, I get it.  I'm saying that athletes should be able to get together on 
this fighting thing (like they have done with the strike thing) and you're
disagreeing with me by saying that as athletes, they have gotten together 
and established a code of "honor" with regard to fighting.  

>I'll tell you what, YOU come up with a list of players who have
>been seriously injured in FIGHTS, and I'll come up with a list
>of players who have been injured from sticks, kicks, careless
>checks, etc. THEN we'll see what the greater danger is.

My list is to include "serious" injuries and your list is to include just 
injuries.  Gee, I wonder where the "greater" damage will be with those 
parameters. 

>You know, I can compare this whole thread with someone who
>owns a house, and someone comes to the door and says, "Hey, I'm
>going to come into your house, and I'm going to bring my friends
>along, but first you must paint the walls pink and install green
>shag carpeting." In other words, people are saying "Hey, get
>rid of fighting so we can get more viewers and expand into
>areas of the U.S. where people don't really give a damn."

>If people like hockey the way it is, fine. (That probably
>includes 99% of Canada, and many of the American cities with
>teams.)
>If people don't like hockey because of some factor, then I don't
>think we should change the game just to satisfy them.

Why do you think the players are on strike?  They don't like a "factor" of 
the game - namely their "low" salaries and freedom of movement.  Should 
their be no changes to the game because these people don't like these 
factors? 

To use your example, no you don't paint the walls and install new carpeting 
if you don't want these people in your house.  But say you're selling the 
house (as the league is selling the NHL version of ice hockey).  If the 
house stays on the market, does okay but not nearly as well as the other 
houses in the neighborhood, and suddenly you find yourself with not 
much of a product and the potential is in pink walls and green carpeting 
only you and John Ziegler would keep the walls white and the curtains drawn.

Warren
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey