From: allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan)
Subject: Re: What the world needs now is an AMERICAN TV CONTRACT.
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:07:00 GMT

ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:

>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.

The point I was getting at, which doesn't seem to be getting through, is
that even if everyone in the league decided fighting and high sticking
were bad, all it would take is ONE player to step outside the rules
for trouble to start. For example, Ulf Samuelson has caused injuries
to 5 of the best NHL players in the league. (And he did it without
fighting.)

>>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. 

Sorry, I didn't expect you to be so pickey with the wording. How
many players can you name who have been injured in fights, to the
point where they had to leave the game? (Not counting players who
were simply thrown out of the game). And how many injuries caused
the players to miss more than 2 or 3 games?

I can probably identify more cases of players injured with high
sticking, bad checks, kicking, etc. (given the same requirement
for severity.)

>>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? 

No, they should change those factors. But those factors have nothing
to do with fighting. (How many players are on strike because they
think fighting should be eliminated?)

>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.

But I'm still living in my house, and Canadians are still watching
hockey. And they will be for a long time to come. I would like to see
more fans in the southern states, and I think the sport does deserve
more attention down there. But NOT at the cost of altering the
of the game.

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

As a side note, there was an article in Fridays 'Edmonton Journal', which
discussed the marketing problems of the NHL. (Sorry I don't know names,
because I left the article at home...) Anyways, they had an interview
with a person who was once a manager at CBS (At one time was also in charge
of sports programming) and at Turner Broadcasting. He gave all sorts
of things they should do to hockey (eliminate fighting, change the
period structure, etc.) in order to make it popular in the states.

Of course, from some of the things he was saying, I don't think
he really knew the game. And if he thought hockey would be popular
in the states, WHY DIDN'T HE USE HIS AUTHORITY TO TRY TO TELEVISE
GAMES WHEN HE HAD THE CHANCE? (Of course, the networks are so
good at predicting what the public wants to see; how do you explain
great shows like 'Manimal'?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   \  \                   |Allan Sullivan (allan@cs.ualberta.ca)
    \  \                  |Department of Computing Science,
     \  \_______          |University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
      \    ###  \     _   |---------------------------------------------------
       \___###___\   (_)  |My opinions are mine and mine alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the
 credit..."          - U. of A. Golden Bears Hockey Motto (C. Drake)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey