Personally, I think the world of hockey looks the other way at violence until it's so egregious and so public that they cannot. Then fans and representatives of the sport pay lip service to how awful the violence was, and how nobody condones it, and then the next day it's back to getting all excited when someone throws the gloves off and the blood starts flying.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that hockey is our unofficial national sport. We start kids playing hockey as soon as they're old enough to put on skates. As young players progress through the leagues, the pressure to be more "aggressive" and the desire to emulate their heros, combined with parents who don't know where to draw the line, has resulted in some very bizarre and violent incidents. Dad beats other dad to death on the ice while their kids watch in horror. Player hits other player over the head with his stick "in order to start a fight". 15 year old left paralyzed after a cross check after the end of the game.

quote:

---

Hell, football is a physical game too, but how often do you hear about bloody football brawls? Or bench-clearers in baseball?

---

Dugout (benches are called "dugouts" in baseball, Magoo) clearing brawls in Major League baseball? Are you kidding?

Every second week.

How about "Rocket" Ismail jumping on a Calgary Stampeders' head during a CFL brawl? Does that count? I saw only a couple of CFL games last year, and there was a brawl in one of them.

By the way, when was the last bench clearing brawl in hockey?

They are extremely rare, because the penalties are so severe.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

Whether any sport will be played in a 'gentlemanly' or 'cut-throat' style depends on how the external rewards for winning compare to the internal reward of participation.

I believe in the seperation of work and play: work is for money; play is for fun. Paying other people to play games for us is simply absurd.

quote:

---

In other sports (notably hockey and soccer), fights 'just happen' - are not built into the game and therefore not bound by any rules.

---

That is not true.

There are the "third man in"
and "instigator" rules, for example. In addition, you can't wear rings or tape your hands, and sweaters have to be tied down.

Obviously, martial sports garner no assault charges because it's recognized that boxers, kick boxers, karate, tai kwon do, and BDSM participants consent to be hit.

Hockey is a bit different, in that while the rules forbid fighting, tradition is that some fights are to be expected and are a part of the game. If we are to take the view that all fighting in hockey is assault, then so is tripping, hooking, high sticking etc.

Soccer, of course is different altogether because it's not a sport.

(*snicker*)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
It's called football Tommy and don't you forget - ARGH!, My leg, owwwww my leg, your insult injured my leg.

---

Hahaha!

quote:

---

Soccer, of course is different altogether because it's not a sport.

---

quote:

---

footballers run for 90 minutes unless they're substituted. next issue.

---

Oi!

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Golf is more like a game than a sport. Tiddly-winks with walking.

Oi!

Footballers stand around or stroll about 45-60 minutes per game. They run once every ten minutes, and the rest of the time (except while rolling on the pitch, looking for penalties) move at a slow trot.

---

Oh, you poor, ignorant man you.

Your view perhaps applies to an old-timers league.

In reality, the proportion of the game you run depends one 1) how much you want to run and 2)how much your opponent runs.

So, if you are defenceman you can just stroll around while you have posetion in your end. But in the modern game, you are expected to play like a winger and threaten the flanks. And so, an opposing midfielder or attacker is forced to cover you. Then, when the the attacking team loses posession, the defence has to scrabble back while attackers...well, attack.

Generally, soccer practices should be 50% running and 50% running with the ball.

But this is an old and lame debate. I agree soccer isn't the best spectator sport. But Soccer didn't become the global game because of TV promotion. It was fun to play and it was accessible (you don't need to be big or have money).

The history is soccer is also quite interesting. I recomend Eduardo Galeano's (yes the Galeano of "The Open Viens of Latin America) Soccer in Light and Shadow. The first bits about positions are mostly silly, but the historical anecdotes are fun. Also, there's a pretty good political and social discussion in there.

Allez Nantes!