AHL player has seizure after fight

[KoZed]

http://www.tsn.ca/ahl/story/?id=264386&amp...os=secStory_ahl

The images are really scary...

[jetsniper]

Man, it almost seems like a higher power is telling us to get rid of fighting in hockey. First Don Sanderson and now this in a matter of months.

[ForumGhost]

Damn, this does not bode well for the future of fighting...

[KoZed]

Man, it almost seems like a higher power is telling us to get rid of fighting in hockey. First Don Sanderson and now this in a matter of months.

If some wanted to find something to add to the death of Sanderson to get rid of fighting in hockey, they couldnt get anything better than pictures of a guy having a seizure, body shaking uncontrollably, mouth opened and eyes rolling back inside his head leaving on a stretcher.

But, this is like anything else in society: drunk driving, seat belts, smoking: only deaths (plural) will tilt the balance in favor of getting rid of it.

[kenadian]

And these fans who were cheering them on just seconds before the seizure looks stunned............And that's part of the problem, they like to see 2 guys slug it out but don't want to see the [possible] concequences of those actions......

[Fanpuck33]

Aren't guys just as likely to get hurt just as bad as when they get hit from behind into the boards? Or even a huge mid-ice collision? Far more careers have been ended by those types of plays than by fights. Did they ban checking when that guy was paralyzed? Did they ban hard tackles in football when that guy almost died? Saying that fighting should be banned because of isolated incidents is like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because they might hurt someone. I mean, we don't even have the facts yet. For all we know the same thing could have happened to the guy after a big hit or even just walking down the street. He could have had something that hadn't been diagnosed yet and the fight brought it to the forefront. We can't just assume the fight was directly and solely responsible for this. I feel for the guy and wish him the best, but he shouldn't be used to further an agenda until all the facts are in.

[kenadian]

Guess that was directed at me................where did I say fighting should be banned? My point was there's a risk involved in fighting, heck stepping on the ice is a risk; I'm sure the players know it but it seems some of these fans don't........ until they see the [possible] concequences

[Fanpuck33]

No, just directed at anyone in general who will use this to further an anti-fighting agenda, because you know they're out there.

[zumpano21]

Regardless of why he seized - and I have to say it's awfully suspicious he seized because he was getting knocked around - the optics are terrible for the future of fighting. Ultimately, if people start to call loudly for the cessation of fighting, it's going to happen.

[Tony]

Is there an unedited video somewhere of this event?

[Colin]

Regardless of why he seized - and I have to say it's awfully suspicious he seized because he was getting knocked around - the optics are terrible for the future of fighting. Ultimately, if people start to call loudly for the cessation of fighting, it's going to happen.

Tell that to John Ferguson Jr who appeared on Off the Record (with Michael Lansberg) and stated that fighting was the only outlet guys had. He compared the sport to football, the only other contact sport of the big four(he apparently knows nothing about basketball) and said that football players had, at least, the opportunity to absolutely clock their opponents with massive hits - he even referred to the helmet-to-helmet hit this past Sunday - as their means of retaliation while saying that hockey players had no such legal recourse.

Ever heard of a Scott-Stevens-thunderingly-legal-mind-blowing bodycheck? No recourse? How about nailing someone legally during the play? Idiot.

FIghting in hockey makes the sport look mickey mouse. It's barbaric; it tarnishes the sport. It's one of the reasons hockey struggles in the US market in my opinion. How come the playoffs are so much more exciting and there are SO many less fights?

I really don't get how people don't see how fighting is so bad for the sport. I suppose traditionalists need fighting to assure them all the rest of the changes won't ultimately make hockey something else. Of course, there's no red line anymore, and it's still hockey. It's time for the sport to grow up.

[Fanpuck33]

FIghting in hockey makes the sport look mickey mouse. It's barbaric; it tarnishes the sport. It's one of the reasons hockey struggles in the US market in my opinion.

There are more people who would stop caring if there was no fighting than would watch it because there isn't fighting. Heck, without fighting, the ECHL will cease to exist.

MMA is far more barbaric than fighting in hockey, and it's the fastest growing sport in the US. I mean, it's so barbaric that they wear pads on their hands not for protection, but so they can punch more before their hands give out.

[simonus]

There are more people who would stop caring if there was no fighting than would watch it because there isn't fighting. Heck, without fighting, the ECHL will cease to exist.

I don't think that's true and at the least I don't think that you can state this opinion with such apparent certainty.

MMA is far more barbaric than fighting in hockey, and it's the fastest growing sport in the US. I mean, it's so barbaric that they wear pads on their hands not for protection, but so they can punch more before their hands give out.

and while violence makes the MMA as popular as it is, it will always set a maximum on its fan base. I think that this kind of violence can be as much a hindrance as a help.

[KoZed]

Aren't guys just as likely to get hurt just as bad as when they get hit from behind into the boards? Or even a huge mid-ice collision? Far more careers have been ended by those types of plays than by fights. Did they ban checking when that guy was paralyzed? Did they ban hard tackles in football when that guy almost died? Saying that fighting should be banned because of isolated incidents is like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because they might hurt someone. I mean, we don't even have the facts yet. For all we know the same thing could have happened to the guy after a big hit or even just walking down the street. He could have had something that hadn't been diagnosed yet and the fight brought it to the forefront. We can't just assume the fight was directly and solely responsible for this. I feel for the guy and wish him the best, but he shouldn't be used to further an agenda until all the facts are in.

Hitting, checking, tackling are part of the game itself. Fighting isnt.

Tell that to John Ferguson Jr who appeared on Off the Record (with Michael Lansberg) and stated that fighting was the only outlet guys had. He compared the sport to football, the only other contact sport of the big four(he apparently knows nothing about basketball) and said that football players had, at least, the opportunity to absolutely clock their opponents with massive hits - he even referred to the helmet-to-helmet hit this past Sunday - as their means of retaliation while saying that hockey players had no such legal recourse.

Ever heard of a Scott-Stevens-thunderingly-legal-mind-blowing bodycheck? No recourse? How about nailing someone legally during the play? Idiot.

FIghting in hockey makes the sport look mickey mouse. It's barbaric; it tarnishes the sport. It's one of the reasons hockey struggles in the US market in my opinion. How come the playoffs are so much more exciting and there are SO many less fights?

I really don't get how people don't see how fighting is so bad for the sport. I suppose traditionalists need fighting to assure them all the rest of the changes won't ultimately make hockey something else. Of course, there's no red line anymore, and it's still hockey. It's time for the sport to grow up.

Ok, I'm not an anti-fight-ist. But I want to hear real reasons why it should be kept in the game.

That outlet thing is crap. An outlet is Robinson nailing a guy so hard the board caves in a few inches. An outlet is Kovy losing his helmet, picking up the puck, deeking everyone and scoring. Maybe if the players didnt have fighting as "an outlet", they'd have to channel it in checking harder, skating faster, shooting more often?

Agressivity doesnt necessarily have to be expressed in a brut, primitive way. It can be channeled into athletic skills. Because guess what? THAT'S THE REASON SPORTS WERE INVENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!

Also, fighting is a remnant from an era where players would literraly whack at each other with their sticks, in a way that'd make McSorley look like a sissy. I dont recall any death coming from a player getting whacked on the head by a wooden stick, but it's not in the game anymore, is it? Guess they could live without that outlet.

I'm not gonna past moral judgements on fighting. I'm more of a pragmatic utilitarist. I want someone to explain to me what's the real utility of fighting, why there's supposed to be more upside than downsides (which are various). Oh, and keep in mind: if there's a real score to settle, players will settle it no matter what. They do it in baseball! Doesnt mean it has to be institutionnalized and trivialized.

Now you've got specialists. Guys who are there only to fight, and will fight each other simply because it's their job, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the game, which was the case in that AHL fight. "Good fighting" is Iginla and Lecavalier going at it in the playoffs. That meant something.

[Fanpuck33]

Hitting, checking, tackling are part of the game itself. Fighting isnt.

But at least with fighting guys are intentionally taking part in an activity that could result in injury. The recipient of a dirty hit makes no such choice.

Now you've got specialists. Guys who are there only to fight, and will fight each other simply because it's their job, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the game, which was the case in that AHL fight. "Good fighting" is Iginla and Lecavalier going at it in the playoffs. That meant something.

Agreed, fights just for the heck of it, while entertaining, aren't needed in the game. Instances like Iginla vs. Vinny and situations where teammates are sticking up for each other are when fighting actually means something and has a place in the game. If guys like Boogard and Shelley who have extremely limited hockey skills want to fight on ice, let it be the intermission show of something. They're entertaining, but hardly hockey players.

I don't think that's true and at the least I don't think that you can state this opinion with such apparent certainty.

Perhaps not in older markets, but every ECHL game I went to in both Columbus and Dayton, fights got just as many people out of their seats as goals did, and fighters are the fan favorites. Heck, even at the NHL level, Jody Shelley was pretty much on the same level as Rick Nash in terms of popularity among fans.

[Colin]

There are more people who would stop caring if there was no fighting than would watch it because there isn't fighting. Heck, without fighting, the ECHL will cease to exist.

If that's true, then why does viewship go up in the playoffs when fighting is virtually gone from the game? Yes, sure, it's the playoffs and one would assume the viewship would go up - but the point is that people love the game more during the playoffs. There's more on the line, the game is more pure. You don't need fights to draw people out. If you need fights, then maybe you need to rethink your product - and how much of it there is.

Raise your hands if you think the season is MILES too long. Raise your hand if you think there are just too many games that mean so little. Remember when the playoffs was 1vs16, 2vs15, 3vs14, etc? When it meant something to be first overall? When the best team could meet the second best? Now it's silly.

Why not play everyone twice. Once at home. Once away.

Hey, why not reduce the roster by one complete line? 17 players instead. Then five-man units would really get used to playing with one another. More chemistry, less uselessness.

But then, we can't do those things because they'd actually improve the game at the expense of a few retread bums on the fourth lines who are unionized and are making exorbitant sums while displaying little in the way of skill except the requisite pugilism. Imagine the league with teams rolling three talented lines? Who needs fights when you have squads repleat with skill?

Don't pick on my ideas, by the way. I'll challenge you to a fight!

[JLP]

I think fighting continues to be used, indirectly, to promote hockey as "thrilling" (sort of like crashes in Nascar). I'd rather have contraction than a fanbase of bloodthirsty neanderthals whose sensorium does not equip them for following the puck, but I'm not Gary Bettman.

[KoZed]

But then, we can't do those things because they'd actually improve the game at the expense of a few retread bums on the fourth lines who are unionized and are making exorbitant sums while displaying little in the way of skill except the requisite pugilism. Imagine the league with teams rolling three talented lines? Who needs fights when you have squads repleat with skill?

Actually, for complete different reason, the NHL might actually be heading toward that. Just last night the La Zone panel was discussing that, saying that the Lecavalier-type of deals (long-term deals) might have been a good idea at first but that looking forward with possibly diminishing revenues, some teams could find itself in the position of not being able to field a 23-players teams. From there it's easy to speculate about simply cutting the roster from an entire 4th line.

[dlbalr]

Actually, for complete different reason, the NHL might actually be heading toward that. Just last night the La Zone panel was discussing that, saying that the Lecavalier-type of deals (long-term deals) might have been a good idea at first but that looking forward with possibly diminishing revenues, some teams could find itself in the position of not being able to field a 23-players teams. From there it's easy to speculate about simply cutting the roster from an entire 4th line.

I agree, but it should be pointed out that it's a CBA issue, and one I'm sure the union would fight vehemently. An easy argument to make for some of these lesser teams is that you only need 20 players to ice a team for a game; if you can't afford to keep 23 up, then don't. But don't take away roster spots (and NHL jobs) from teams that are able and willing to keep these players up.

As for the topic at hand, I have to admit I'm being swayed more towards the get rid of it side than before. Our local Jr. C team (championship calibre most years lately might I add) has always had a multitude of fighters that inevitably would pick a fight for the sake of doing so (or they wanted to get an early start on the beer case, who knows). Most of the fans like it (usually the drunk ones), and I used to, but it doesn't do a thing for me now. It brings nothing to the game itself and usually has no impact on the end result.

With that in mind, I'm not sure I'm 100% an advocate of banning it from the game. (In that Jr. C league, it's an automatic game misconduct and that doesn't deter them for a second). I still enjoy a spur of the moment, sticking up for a teammate if there's a cheap shot (but not if it's just a solid hit like we see often now), but these premediated ones are a farce.

Thus, I propose this as a rule change - if there's a fight right off the faceoff (or within x number of seconds), it's a 5 and a 10. If it's now 15 for fighting (the stupid arranged ones), coaches may hesitate to dress the psuedo-goons or order them not to have these fights as then you're either down to 11 forwards or 5 d-men for almost an entire period. I think it'd help to get rid of a lot of the stupid fights, while allowing the ones that people claim "is part of the game" to still exist - and the better ones at that.

[JoeLassister]

Thus, I propose this as a rule change - if there's a fight right off the faceoff (or within x number of seconds), it's a 5 and a 10. If it's now 15 for fighting (the stupid arranged ones), coaches may hesitate to dress the psuedo-goons or order them not to have these fights as then you're either down to 11 forwards or 5 d-men for almost an entire period. I think it'd help to get rid of a lot of the stupid fights, while allowing the ones that people claim "is part of the game" to still exist - and the better ones at that.

With friends, we came up with an idea a few months ago. It was a 10 min penalty for any fight. But useless faceoff fight could easily deserve a 10 + 5...

Anyway, guys like Laraque, Shelley, Boogard, Brashear, etc are likely to not come back on the ice in the next 5 minutes no matter what... Making it 10 minutes seems more dissuasive.

Edited January 25, 2009 by JoeLassister

[CerebusClone]

Actually, for complete different reason, the NHL might actually be heading toward that. Just last night the La Zone panel was discussing that, saying that the Lecavalier-type of deals (long-term deals) might have been a good idea at first but that looking forward with possibly diminishing revenues, some teams could find itself in the position of not being able to field a 23-players teams. From there it's easy to speculate about simply cutting the roster from an entire 4th line.

Those long-term deals would have made sense if they had signed those players at a significantly lower salary, like Rick DiPietro did in Long Island at 4.5M (although 15 years is way too long). If you can get a proven superstar player to sign for 6+ years at a discount, then you can truly benefit. However signing a one-year wonder like Briere at his inflated market price or even a guy like Ovechkin at the maximum possible salary makes very little sense (although Washington can now ensure they keep Ovechkin as long as they want him).

[johnnyhasbeen]

I have seen people at hockey games, some call them spectators, but if they were watching the action it wouldn't happen, get hit in the head with pucks. Two stick out, because they were close to me, a young girl, right in the cheek screamer shot,just tipped and an old doll that got it in the temple and I don't know about.... she was taken out unconcious. Now we have higher glass and netting, but there is still a risk! On the ice, off the ice, there is a vulcanized puck flying at 100 miles an hour in that building.

So, should we use a tennis ball? No! Allowable risk, print a disclaimer on the ticket.... We all accept the risk. So do the two people who throw down the gloves. That is why, if that guy had died floppimg on the ice like a fish, the other guy is not criminally guilty. When 2 guys get into a bar fight it is the same. As soon as you agree to the fight it is not assault. When you get into a fight, you know you might get hurt. Your nose may get broken. Shards of bone may enter your brain. You accept the risk, or you don't fight. If a guy doesn't want to fight , he shouldn't, and should turtle. Just don't be a constant almost fighter. World hates them.

[JLP]

"Shards of bone may enter your brain."

Go Johnny go!