Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

  1. #16
    fzusher's Avatar
    fzusher is offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,464
    Rep Power
    21

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Sorry, IcyGrail, but I completely disagree.

    Bob Clarke INTENTIONALLY HURT one of the opposition\'s top players, with the SOLE PURPOSE of thereby taking that player out of commission for the series and gaining an advantage as a result. That does tarnish that win because it is as unsportsmanlike a conduct as they come.

    Avery never touched Brodeur, never tried to touch Brodeur, never threatened to touch Brodeur, and in fact clearly signaled in his body language he has no intention of entering the crease and touching Brodeur, but was merely trying to intentionally (a) block his view of the puck and (b) disrupt his concentration through (c) the combined use of erratic, unusual and admittedly silly-looking motions and trash talking. So this is nothing like the Clarke incident. Had Avery slashed or slid into Brodeur in a way calculated to injure him for the series, THEN it would as unsportsmanlike as what Clarke did.

    So, was what he did unsportsmanlike and disgraceful (regardless of whether it was legal or not, since a lot of illegal actions - anything carrying a penalty - are not considered unsportsmanlike) in any other way? Was it gaining him an advantage that has to be considered unfair?
    What he did was a combination of 2 generic actions which I labeled (a) and (b) above, carried out in a certain manner which I labeled (C). It would be logically correct to deem Avery to have been unsportsmanlike and disgraceful to the extent that either (a), (b), or (c) is unsportsmanlike.

    (a) - The generic action here is the intentional screening of a goalie. If that is, in principle and by definition, unsportsmanlike, then Avery was unsportsmanlike. As we know, intentional screening of goalies is common practice in the NHL and has not been deemed to gain a player an UNFAIR advantage in the past. So, logically, this is not unsportsmanlike or disgraceful.

    (b) - The generic action here is the intentional disruption of a goalie\'s concentration. If that is, in principle and by definition, unsportsmanlike, then Avery was unsportsmanlike. As we know, this also goes on all the time (regarding both goalies and skaters) and is also considered a not unfair part of the game. So, logically, that\'s also not unsportsmanlike.

    So, the generic actions themselves are fine. Now, what about the manner?

    (c) was comprised of five components: (c1) facing the goalie with the back to puck; (c2) moving in front of the goalie erratically; (c3) waiving arms and stick around; (c4) trash-talking ; (c5) looking silly while doing all of the above. Now, in the course of any hockey game, there are numerous occasions in which skaters face the goalie with the play behind them (for example when they are skating at center to a scoring position on a breakaway from the wing); numerous occasions in which players move back and forth circling the crease; numerous occasions of waiving sticks and arms (for example any tip-in attempt or chase for the puck); and numerous trash-talking. All are accepted during the course of a game and are not considered as giving a player an unfair advantage or otherwise be unsportsmanlike. So, logically, (c1), (c2), (c3), and (c4) do not make what Avery did unsportsmanlike.

    Logically, then, we are left with (c5), the fact that what Avery did - none of it in itself gaining him an advantage THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE CONSIDERED UNFAIR - looked silly. Does doing something that is otherwise legitimate in a way that looks silly gain the player doing it any unfair advantage? Obviously not, so it cannot logically be unsportsmanlike on that score.

    The only score on which doing something legitimate in a silly way can be considered disgraceful - though not unsportsmanlike - is if it harms the image of the game. And harm to image is as much about spin as anything - spin what Avery did as looking silly, and it makes the game look silly; spin it as being creative, and it makes the game look creative. Is there any inevitability as to how to spin what Avery did as silly rather than creative? What\'s really silly about it once we take away the fact it\'s something that is unusual and we\'ve never seen anything like it? Didn\'t the butterfly style look silly to the people who saw it for the first time, before they realized it is effective? Doesn\'t the idea of putting longer blades on the skates of taller players sound silly, until you realize it helps their balance? What about any innovation in skating technique introduced in the game? What about putting drawings and images on your helmet [seen Emery\'s helmet lately]?

    There is a tendency to deem something that is unusual and different unacceptable or silly, not because it really is problematic, but because it is unusual. Think of all the fuss in the 60s about men growing their hair long. To me, what Avery did is no more silly, and therefore, no more disgraceful, than a man growing his hair long or a goalie putting the picture of a boxer on his helmet. What\'s disgraceful is the conservative knee jerk reaction of the NHL\'s old guard to something that is merely new, innovative, different, outside the box, and yet, when you think about it logically, is no more disgraceful or unsportsmanlike than anything that\'s already allowed in the game.

    Off the soapbox and back to work ...
    Rebulding in two lifetime keepers, squads to follow ...

  2. #17
    Location
    Philly
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Blue-Chipper

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    That\'s just a silly argument. Comparing the butterfly to Avery\'s antics. I\'ll take my Clarke analogy over your butterfly. Unsportsmanship is in the INTENTION. Clarke\'s slash by itself is no different than any slash you see game in and game out. But like you said, his \"intention to put Kharly out of commission to gain an advantage\" leaves the tarnish. Just as Avery\'s INTENTIONS would leave the same tarnish. And to be honest, if a teammate, I\'ll take Clarke\'s asterisk over Avery\'s embarrassing display. At least Clarke\'s came from his all out desire and drive to win. (and Fergie told him to do it :P) Both would leave an asterisk to any championship won. To a man in that Ranger locker room, they will tell you they don\'t want to win using Avery\'s tactics. It\'s not really winning, not to the man, not to the player. Once tarnished, tarnished forever! Barry Bonds, anyone. That\'s my point.
    The butterfly you can compare to the \'trap\'. Both technically are more efficient and perpetually unexciting. Who misses kicksaves?
    The refs have the authority to interpret these rules in alignment to the best interest of the game. The rule makers know they can\'t think or every ridiculous action a player can take, so a certain amount of flexibility is written into the rules which give refs the ability to take action against these kinds of antics. To make a literal argument of the rules, as you have done, is in a word, shortsighted. Only a lawyer would rely their argument on such stupidity.

    You give Avery too much credit for being smart or innovative. You think Avery is smarter than the other 600 guys in the league? He\'s just the goofiest. Let\'s take this new innovation and let all the teams do it. Your interpretation of the NHL would be a laughing stock and would lose it\'s fan base. I can here Cherry saying, leave that girlie stuff to the Europeans, this isn\'t Canadien hockey. Just because it\'s not \'specifically\' in the rules, doesn\'t mean all the players, including Avery, know it\'s not right. The reason you\'ve never seen this before, isn\'t because no one ever thought of it, it\'s because NO ONE WOULD EVER DO IT. There\'s nothing ingenious about it. It comes down to, who\'s the moron that would actually do this. If you want to compare, compare it to Garth Snow\'s shoulder pads, which pails in comparison to Avery. There was nothing in the rules, so why not add 10 inches to my shoulders. Why no rule, because no one thought anyone would actually do something so obviously ridiculous. Even Avery knew before he even did it, it would be the last time it would ever be allowed. Everyone knew. So if you know it\'s not right, why do it? Because it\'s not in the rules, well that\'s not how I\'d want to win. There\'s no rule for driving the Zamboni to the front of my goal. Let\'s do it until it says not to in the rules. There\'s some innovation:P
    No, it\'s just bad for the NHL.

    Go Orange-n-Black

  3. #18
    Location
    Philly
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Blue-Chipper

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    I guess you guys are in Canada and the perspective is totally different. Hockey here in the US gets zero respect. Nascar and Ultimate fighting have eclipsed Hockey. I\'ve lived in several places in the US, and it\'s frustrating to see how my favorite sport is in large part ignored. The Flyers are in a playoff race and the Phillies dominate the airwaves and Philly has 2 full time sport radio stations and a local all Sports TV show, which owns the Flyers! ...and hockey is still the 4th sport in the city, if you lump college basketball with the NBA. Out here in LA, (they think they are a sports town, we\'ll let them pretend) hockey is barely mentioned. They don\'t even give all scores from around the league.

    As a fan of this great sport, it\'s frustrating when the Avery\'s of the world put a black eye on it. The NFL knows how to handle their bad apples and can absorb any bad publicity. However, the NHL cannot afford to appear gimmicky in their competition. Coach\'s and GM\'s can pull all the Roger Nielson type stuff to the cheers of fans, but Professional Athletes are held to a higher competitive standard. If Avery were in the NFL, he\'d be looking for a job in the NHL right about now:P

  4. #19
    fzusher's Avatar
    fzusher is offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,464
    Rep Power
    21

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    IcyGrail.com wrote:

    That\'s just a silly argument. Comparing the butterfly to Avery\'s antics. I\'ll take my Clarke analogy over your butterfly. Unsportsmanship is in the INTENTION. Clarke\'s slash by itself is no different than any slash you see game in and game out. But like you said, his \"intention to put Kharly out of commission to gain an advantage\" leaves the tarnish. Just as Avery\'s INTENTIONS would leave the same tarnish.
    You are missing the point I was trying to make. I agree that unsportsmanlike is in the INTENTION - namely, the intention to get an UNFAIR advantage. Both wanted to get an advantage, so the question is only if the advantage they wanted to get was unfair. There is no argument this was the case with Clarke. But was this the case with Avery? Well, the advantages he intended to get were (1) a screened goalie and (2) an agitated goalie. Now, since screening goalies by means other than the ones Avery used is not considered unfair and agitating the goalie by means other than the ones Avery used is acceptable in the sport, either of these advantages cannot be considered unfair and therefore his INTENTION was not to get an UNFAIR advantage and therefore what he did was not unsportsmanlike.

    The analogy to the butterfly served a different point I made following that. Something can be considered disgraceful even if not unsportsmanlike, and that\'s when the INTENTION is ok but the means for achieving it aren\'t. Here Avery would be considered disgraceful not because of what he intended to do but because of how he did. I looked at what he did, and all of his 4 specific activities (facing the goalie with his back to the puck; moving erratically around the crease; waiving his arms and stick; trash talking) are activities that occur numerous times during the course of any hockey game and therefore cannot be considered disgraceful.

    So, the only thing about what Avery did that can be considered disgraceful was the fact that he looked silly doing it. Then I simply made the point that oftentimes things look silly or even disgraceful to us not because there is any real harm in them but because we\'ve never seen them before or because we don\'t behave like that ourselves. But is any behavior that we\'ve not experienced silly just because we\'ve never experienced it? Is any behavior different than the way we always behave disgraceful? Of course not.

    Bottom line: if you want to convince me that what Avery did was disgraceful show me the harm and disgrace in it. It has to cause real harm. It has to be something that I would be ashamed to do in the same situation. The \'what will the neighbors [ESPN commentators] say\' doesn\'t do the job because why should they decide for me what is disgraceful and what is not. In other words: draw a convincing line for me - give me an effective criteria to distinguish - between \'a new and acceptable technique of screening a goalie\' and between \'a disgraceful way of going about screening a goalie\' that tells me why one thing is disgraceful and the other isn\'t, and i\'ll be convinced. Until then, I see nothing wrong in what Avery did, but I do see something wrong in people jumping on what he did with labels like \'disgraceful\' or \'clownish\' or \'childish\' or \'silly\' without explaining what is disgraceful in what he did compared to other, acceptable and established ways of achieving the same goal of screening the goalie.

    At least Clarke\'s came from his all out desire and drive to win.
    And Avery didn\'t do this out of a desire to win?

    To a man in that Ranger locker room, they will tell you they don\'t want to win using Avery\'s tactics. It\'s not really winning, not to the man, not to the player. Once tarnished, tarnished forever! Barry Bonds, anyone. That\'s my point.
    Barry Bonds cheated. He gained an UNFAIR advantage. And as for others in the Rangers lockerroom, if they don\'t have a good reason as to what is so disgraceful/harmful/tarnishing about what Avery did as compared to screening the goalie in other ways, then they\'re reacting in the same knee-jerk, unreasonable way.

    The butterfly you can compare to the \'trap\'. Both technically are more efficient and perpetually unexciting. Who misses kicksaves?
    What Avery did was a very efficient way of screening the goalie and agitating him, so efficiency fails as the criteria I was looking for. But that\'s better than simply saying it is disgraceful without explaining what\'s disgraceful about it.

    To make a literal argument of the rules, as you have done, is in a word, shortsighted. Only a lawyer would rely their argument on such stupidity.
    I did nothing of the sort. I explicitly said that I\'m putting the question of legality aside. What I did do is ask for an explanation of what \'unsportsmanlike\' and \'disgraceful to the game\' are; obviously, it can\'t be that anything I don\'t like is thereby \'unsportsmanlike\' or \'disgraceful\', so there needs to be a clear understanding of what the terms mean. It is reasonable to understand \'unsportsmanlike\' as something that gives one an unfair advantage, and so I showed that what Avery did didn\'t give him an advantage that was unfair. As for \'disgraceful\', while I didn\'t offer a definition of it, I showed that each of his general actions is accepted (and therefore not disgraceful) in the game. If you can give me a way of distinguishing between disgraceful and not disgraceful actions that is more objective than simply \'whatever you (or I or Don Cherry or ESPN) don\'t like, i\'ll concede your argument. That\'s not being literal, that just asking you to have a good reason with which to back the label you put on Avery.

    You give Avery too much credit for being smart or innovative. You think Avery is smarter than the other 600 guys in the league? He\'s just the goofiest.
    Maybe. Or maybe he\'s just the only one with the balls to go against convention and do things differently. If I decide I should drive my car on the left side of the street you could easily make the argument that what I propose to do is silly and goofy rather than ballsy. Give me something like that regarding Avery. For example, the point that in doing what he did he increased his chances of getting hit with the puck himself, in an unpadded area of the body, thereby also blocking a scoring opportunity for his team. If you want to say he was goofy and silly on those grounds, fine, i\'m with you.

    Let\'s take this new innovation and let all the teams do it. Your interpretation of the NHL would be a laughing stock and would lose it\'s fan base.
    Why? if fans see it working, causing better scoring opportunities and therefore more goals, wouldn\'t they like it? You are assuming that all fans will react to this in the same way you are, but would they? would they not get used to it if it became more prevalent?

    I can here Cherry saying, leave that girlie stuff to the Europeans, this isn\'t Canadien hockey.
    And who made Don Cherry the person who determines what\'s right and what\'s wrong to do in Hockey? He\'s just one fan of the game, like you and me.

    Just because it\'s not \'specifically\' in the rules, doesn\'t mean all the players, including Avery, know it\'s not right. The reason you\'ve never seen this before, isn\'t because no one ever thought of it, it\'s because NO ONE WOULD EVER DO IT. There\'s nothing ingenious about it. It comes down to, who\'s the moron that would actually do this.
    Or, who\'s got the balls to go outside of the widely accepted convention (whether it\'s in the rules or not). When something like that happens, the result is that the reasonableness of the convention is put into question. That means that if you want to condemn the person who went outside the convention, you cannot do it by simply saying \'this goes against convention\'; you have to to show that there\'s a reason behind the convention and that the action violates that reason. Just because nobody does something doesn\'t make that wrong; there has to be a reason for why it\'s wrong.

    If you want to compare, compare it to Garth Snow\'s shoulder pads, which pails in comparison to Avery. There was nothing in the rules, so why not add 10 inches to my shoulders. Why no rule, because no one thought anyone would actually do something so obviously ridiculous. Even Avery knew before he even did it, it would be the last time it would ever be allowed. Everyone knew. So if you know it\'s not right, why do it? Because it\'s not in the rules, well that\'s not how I\'d want to win. There\'s no rule for driving the Zamboni to the front of my goal. Let\'s do it until it says not to in the rules. There\'s some innovation:P
    No, it\'s just bad for the NHL.

    Go Orange-n-Black
    Garth Snow\'s shoulder pads weren\'t ridiculous. They were quite a rational way of gaining an UNFAIR advantage. What he did WAS unsportsmanlike, and it was disgraceful BECAUSE it was unsportsmanlike. But it wasn\'t ridiculous or silly. The zamboni example is also disgraceful because it gives the team an UNFAIR advantage. The advantage Avery sought, as I showed at the beginning, was not unfair.
    Rebulding in two lifetime keepers, squads to follow ...

  5. #20
    fzusher's Avatar
    fzusher is offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,464
    Rep Power
    21

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Here\'s one possible way of drawing the kind of line I was looking for (not necessarily the only way): did Avery, in doing what he did, show disrespect towards a fellow player (namely, Brodeur)? If he did, that was, indeed, disgraceful. Whether or not he did is a matter of interpretation so i\'d be willing to accept an argument that he was disrespectful and that THEREFORE he was being disgraceful and a tarnish.
    Rebulding in two lifetime keepers, squads to follow ...

  6. #21
    lockedge's Avatar
    lockedge is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,315
    Rep Power
    25

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Think of it this way.

    What\'s more disgraceful and unsportsmanlike in the game of hockey?
    -Standing in front of a goalie and screening him while moving your body in a way that distracts or agitates him
    -Standing beside a goalie and repeatedly slashing and pushing him
    -Running the goalie when you know that you can pull aside and still get a shot off

    Avery obviously did the first one. The other two are commonly seen in the NHL, yet who gets upset about that? The goalies. The difference between what Avery did and the other two is that what Avery did was new. If I was a goalie, I\'d take what Avery did over the other two because in the other two there\'s intent to agitate and injure, yet no intent to injure in Avery\'s display.

    I\'d rather have my hockey team win the cup by using a Flying V formation and other silly antics than something like Bobby Clarke\'s. If I was a hockey player in the cup finals, and my teammate did that, I\'d give him more than a piece of my mind after the game. I\'d want him off the team. Don\'t get \"desire to win\" mixed up with \"desperate not to lose\". There\'s a difference.

    I mean, sure Avery\'s display looks stupid to people watching on TV and probably isn\'t great for publicity, but come on. It\'s not like football and basketball, where due to the publicity its gotten over the last decade, I\'m led to believe half of all rosters are criminals or drug addicts... or like in baseball, where it seems like everyone\'s a cheating fraud.
    I\'ve lost respect for those 3 sports because of how stupid, selfish and arrogant their players can be.
    ZFHL
    ------------
    Ovechkin-Couture-Kovalchuk
    Benn-Ott-Eriksson
    Halischuk-Berglund-S.Thornton
    Bowman-Legwand-Mitchell
    Faulk-Orlov
    Martin-Y.Weber
    Wilson-Smid
    Niemi

    Butler,Horak,Nodl,Omark,Bartulis, Carson,Demers,Staios,Garon,Schneider

    PROSPECTS
    Nyquist,Bennett,Guptill,Haula,Knight, Kristo,Ranford,Rieder,Sundher,Barberio
    Dumoulin,Deslauriers,Janosik,Klefbom
    Ness,Sproul,Vatanen,Poulin

  7. #22
    repenttokyo's Avatar
    repenttokyo is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,182
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Cartman wrote:
    Early retirement does. I think the age is 35. Like when Nieds \"retired\", the Ducks were off teh hook for his salary. If he retires after he turned 35 (I think) then the team is left on the hook (cap hit) for the remaining years. The player in that example could \"retire\" at 34.
    no. it depends on how old the player is when he signed the contract, not when he retires. the ducks are on the hook for nieds even if he retires.

  8. #23
    fzusher's Avatar
    fzusher is offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,464
    Rep Power
    21

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    triple.

    [and karma to lockedge for saying it shorter, clearer and more persuasively than me B) ]


    reppentokyo,

    Niedermayer signed his contract 27 days before he turned 32, so they\'re actually not on the cap hook if he retires, unless they choose to pay him the rest of his contract (as with Flyers\' Primeau). If, say, Mathieu Schneider retires they will be on the cap hook for him even if they don\'t pay him the rest of the contract.
    Rebulding in two lifetime keepers, squads to follow ...

  9. #24
    nyrblue2's Avatar
    nyrblue2 is offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Prodigy

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    How is this any different than:

    - The first guy who faceguarded a WR in football
    - The first guy who kicked a ball forward on a fumble in football
    - The first guy who ran inside the baseline on a bunt in baseball
    - The first guy who slam-dunked a basketball
    - The first guy in baseball who stole a base
    - The first guy in basketball who committed goaltending
    - The first guy in football who used his opponent\'s facemask to make a tackle


    I\'m sure there are other examples like this that are slipping my mind, so chip in if you know of any.

    In all of these situations (Avery included), everyone was basically just caught off-guard because it had never been done before. In most cases, the league did something about it, end of story. Hell, in the 4th and 5th cases, it\'s become a major part of the game. Nobody got suspended or had to show remorse for what they did, beause they were playing within the rules at the time.

    Nobody remembers these other 7 guys or feels spite that they never \"apologized\", because it\'s not really a big deal. That\'s how a lot of rules in sports get made. Somebody does something new, the league decides if it\'s legal or not, the world moves on.

    To me, the example of the defensive back/wide reciever in football is a carbon copy of Avery\'s. If he turned around, he might have been able to intercept it. One could argue that a defensive back\'s main goal isn\'t to make an interception, but simply to stop the WR from catching it. However, in many cases, a guy screening a goalie\'s main purpose is not to score (via deflections or rebounds), but simply to get in the goalie\'s line of sight.

    You hear announcer\'s say it all the time \"If the defensive back had just turned his head around, he wouldn\'t have gotten called for the penalty.\" Well, the same is true for hockey screeners now. All they have to do is turn around and they won\'t be called for a penatly. These 2 scenarios are incredibly similar.

    Watch Drury screen the goalie sometimes. Yes, he does go for deflections sometimes, but he also frequently just jumps as high as he can as the puck is coming. This is partially so he is still front of the goalie\'s eyes, but his legs are out of the way of stopping the incoming shot.

    Both of these tactics (Avery\'s and football faceguarding) are now illegal. I just don\'t see how one is a scar on the player and the game while one isn\'t. If Avery had turned around, he could have gotten out of the way of a potential shot. If the defensive back had turned around, he could have gotten an interception instead of allowing another play for the other team, which could possibly lead to a TD.

    I have no problem with the NHL making this a rule (well...not in the middle of the playoffs, but that\'s a different story). The same way I wouldn\'t have had a problem if I was involved in an argument about faceguarding in football. I just don\'t understand why one scenario is just a penalty, while one is a mockery of the game.

  10. #25
    Location
    Philly
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Blue-Chipper

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Don\'t confuse ballsyness with brashness. If I\'m playing in a pickup game of hockey and someone is screening the goalie using Avery\'s tactics, he\'s getting booted from the arena after a beatdown.

    What you guys are talking about here is semantics. because the rules are open to interpretation you are putting your own spin on it to make an argument, but the difference between Avery and most of the other \'firsts\' is public opinion and common sense. You say it\'s mine and yours opinion...it\'s not. It\'s public opinion that matters and the only one that counts to a struggling sport. And if public opinion isn\'t enough, how about player opinion. You would be hard pressed to find one NHL player that would agree with your opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and can love Avery for his balls, but don\'t try and sell that what he did was kosher and innovative or that it could possibly be adopted into the game. I didn\'t hear one media outlet comment on Avery\'s ballsyness; just the opposite. If it hurts the sport, it\'s not good. That\'s a fact you just cannot get around. This is just common sense.

    The other sports can afford to be arrogant because they got their money. Hockey players are definitely the best of all the sports, which is why there is no outcry of support by the other NHL players for Avery. If this were the NFL, you would likely get several uprising comments from the malcontents throughout the league. Hockey players are better than that. I would like to see Hockey on espn again and NHL players paid appropriately for their valor; IMO, the NHL playoffs is the closest thing you can get to war in any sport...they deserve it. I would like to see hockey at the level it was at when I was growing up. The first time Snow used those pads was as a Flyer and no one in Philly was cheering him for using semantics in the rules to gain an advantage. Philly fans don\'t want to see that corny shit. They want to see a guy run through a brickwall for their team.
    And Brodeur is a goalie, and he\'s already sited his discontent for option number one. I\'d think common sense would prevail that option 2 and 3 are part of the game and are called penalties more often than not.

    I don\'t expect to convince you otherwise, I don\'t really think I have to; I think this has gotten to a point you guys are making arguments, just to make arguments. I can\'t imagine any one of us doing such a thing in a pickup game at the local arena or pond. But I don\'t want others reading these posts thinking we\'re all missing the bigger picture.

  11. #26
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Apprentice

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Well I can\'t write as much as some others on this topic but I do believe that any other North American professional sport league, namely the NFL would never put up with this crap. I say this mostly b/c they have to deal with garbage night and day that their players dish out. The NHL could take a page out of the book of NFL and punish accordingly, glad the NHL stepped up and I agree it was a tough situation given the nature of the time of the incident...the NHL just needs some balls. How about a stoning...but with pucks, will that get some air-time in the US? :P
    16 team H2H Dynasty G, A, +/-, PPP, SHP, PIMS, SV%, GAA, W, Saves

    C: Tavares, Krejci, Brassard, Turris, Grabovski, O'Reilly
    LW: Nash, Mueller, Kulemin, Pacioretty, Caputi, Gerbe
    RW: Perry, Hudler, Skinner, Brouwer, Ryder, Simmonds, Boll
    D: Weber, Kaberle, Stralman, Del Zotto, Schenn, Meszaros

    G: Price, Bryzgalov, Schneider, Allen, Holtby, Harding

    Russia: Grebeshkov

  12. #27
    Location
    Ottawa
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Icy, will you marry me?:lol:

    Easy guys, it\'s a joke! Wow, many wordy responses on this one.

    Icy nailed it when he mentions how the players feel about Avery\'s \"screen\". I have yet to read of any NHL player who supports Avery\'s actions, even his own team mates.

    I haven\'t read any serious hockey writers (that means no one from the Sun chain in Canada) that say this is acceptable behaviour. Read what the well respected TSN columnist Bob McKenzie has to say on this.

    You have to allow the goalie a certain measure of respect in order to be able to stop the puck.

    We are all going to have our own opinions on this one, but as a hockey player, what Avery did should be a penalty without a doubt.

    The NHL acted swiftly and properly in order to prevent a rash of these during the most wonderful time of the year.
    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary, full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen." - Sterling Archer

    "Don't spray that urine on my sons window. If you want a dollar for doing nothing, walk to Canada." - Malory Archer

    “Anyone who thinks the pen is mightier than the sword has not been stabbed with both.” - Lemony Snicket

  13. #28
    repenttokyo's Avatar
    repenttokyo is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,182
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    The Comish wrote:
    Icy, will you marry me?:lol:

    Easy guys, it\'s a joke! Wow, many wordy responses on this one.

    Icy nailed it when he mentions how the players feel about Avery\'s \"screen\". I have yet to read of any NHL player who supports Avery\'s actions, even his own team mates.
    montreal gazette, yesterday: Chris Drury said that when he spoke to Avery during the stick waving, it was just to warn him that the ref had been yelling \"i\'m gonna call a penalty, i\'m gonna call a penalty\" so that he knew it could happen. Drury then said he fully supported Avery and that he would \'take a bullet\' for him, as he would for any teammate.

  14. #29
    repenttokyo's Avatar
    repenttokyo is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,182
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    Diamond Joe wrote:
    Well I can\'t write as much as some others on this topic but I do believe that any other North American professional sport league, namely the NFL would never put up with this crap. I say this mostly b/c they have to deal with garbage night and day that their players dish out. The NHL could take a page out of the book of NFL and punish accordingly, glad the NHL stepped up and I agree it was a tough situation given the nature of the time of the incident...the NHL just needs some balls. How about a stoning...but with pucks, will that get some air-time in the US? :P
    They don\'t call the NFL the \'No Fun League\' for nothing :lol:

  15. #30
    Location
    Pickering
    Rep Power
    40

    I...am your father.

    Default About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

    I love what Avery did, argue all you want. Will highlights of it bring new fans? I guarantee you that if I didn\'t like hockey and I saw that highlight, I would at least start being open to watching it. But my personality it \"fun\" and \"anti-Political-Correctness\" and \"push the humor limit\". My personality is uncommon - but all who have it would become new fans.

    A reference to a \"beatdown\" in beer league hockey drives the point home. In the NHL, you can\'t deliver a \"beatdown\" or you get an instigator penalty. Because there is no instigator penalty, the NHL opens itself up to smartass tactics that Avery can get away with. As such, he should try to get away with it.

    A \"tainted\" Cup win? You\'re nuts. If it\'s legal, it\'s part of the game. At the time - it was legal. If the Rangers win the Cup now, do you think they\'ll feel any taint?


    But the real moral here is: I laughed my ass off. Laughing makes me feel pleasure inside, which in turn raises my opinion for the stimulant of said pleasure. In this case, said stimulant was hockey.

    NFL - no fun league, is bang on. That league should allow celebrations, and pulling markers out of socks and signing footballs, etc. A BUNCH OF BABIES prevent this stuff. I love trash talk - I love to give it and I love to take it (although...not so much at the time, but in hindsight I like the ribbing).

    Wah! Wah! That\'s no fair! Wah! That\'s illegal! Wah! Wah! That guy\'s a meanie!

    Here\'s your participation ribbon. Thanks for playing :lol:
    The Best Fantasy Hockey Site

    15-Team Keeper, points only, best 12 fwd, 4 dman, 2 G count. Playoffs count.

    F - T. Thompson, Thomas, Nylander, Tarasenko, Arvidsson, Guentzel, Fiala, Quinn, Mittelstadt, Hagel, Zacha, Roslovic, Berggren, Brink, Ostlund
    G - Kahkonen, Vejmelka, L. Thompson, Levi, Comrie
    D - Hronek, Morrissey, Lundkvist, Girard, Brannstrom, Rathbone, Hanifin, Severson, Durzi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •