PCM

You could post it here. I'd be interested to read your perspective.

Do a search for "grahamkracker's" posts. Read them and then you'll know more about the harrassment he said that he endured at UND.

What do you define as "physical stuff"? Hockey is, by nature, a physical game. As far as I know, nobody here is advocating an end to legal hitting. I certainly am not because that's an aspect of the game I enjoyed as a player and I enjoy it as a fan. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I realize that there will always be some fighting in hockey simply because it is a physical sport played with sticks that can be used as weapons. So, yes, I understand that tempers will flare from time to time and players will be unable to resist the urge to punch someone. Fights will happen. I don't deny that. Where is the evidence that this actually works? Someone should be able to prove that superstars suffer fewer injuries because of the enforcers who protect them. My point was that if fighting is such an important part of the game, why not start teaching kids how to fight when they're at the pee wee level? Using your logic, the more quickly players settle issues by fighting, the better off the game is. What I know is that not a season goes by in college hockey in which some player doesn't lament the fact that he can't take care of things on the ice (i.e. fight someone to settle a score). I know players are brought up with that attitude because it's the attitude that permeates pro hockey. And I'm sure they'd feel a lot better if they were given an opportunity to punch the lights out of someone who did them or a teammate wrong. The folly of this thinking is that is assumes the players who deserve "prairie justice" are going to get it and that at some point, the score will be evened. So let's look at a real-world example of how this supposedly works. Geoff Paukovitch breaks Robbie Bina's neck with an illegal check from behind. Mike Prpich pops Paukovich in the groin to get even for his hit on Bina. Paukovich comes back with a cheap shot on T.J. Oshie. So where are we now in this little drama? Did Mike's illegal hit on Geoff's family jewels make up for the illegal hit on Bina? And if retaliation for cheap shots works so well, why didn't Paukovich get the message? Why did he come back by slamming T.J.'s head into the ice? And now that Paukovich cheap-shotted Oshie, do we owe Geoff two cheap shots or one? Who keeps score? Who decides when enough is enough? I have been in the position of wanting to fight another player who cheap-shotted me. And if he wouldn't have skated away, I certainly would have fought him because I was that angry. If we would have fought, maybe I would have beat him up and I'd feel better. Or maybe he would have cleaned my clock. Either way, what would it have solved? In retrospect, the real source of my anger in that game wasn't the player who purposely and flagrantly tripped me. It was the ref who stood there and let it happen without calling a penalty. It was during a game in which the officials were calling every ticky-tack little penalty they could on my team and nothing on the opposing team. I became extremely frustrated to the point where my anger boiled over. Had the officials called the game fairly, it never would have come to the point where I was angry enough to fight. My postition has always been that responsiblity for the enforcement of the rules belongs with the leagues in charge of the games. If players believe that the hockey is dangerous to them because penalties aren't being called and the rules aren't being farily enforced, then there's something wrong with the game. Players, coaches, parents and fans should demand that leagues do everything they can to enforce the rules. If bad behavior continues to be a problem, then the rules need to be changed so that engaging in such behavior becomes too costly and the players who continue to engage in it are banned from the game.

No, that's your interpretation of what I wrote. Your interpretation is wrong. Sorry.

Oh, it happens. A few seasons back, Andy Schneider came out of a game with the Gophers in which he received a high stick right across the throat. And I remember Zach Parise needing stitches on his lower jaw from a high stick around the throat.

I have an idea. Why don't you try responding to what I actually said instead of some words you made up to put in my mouth? That way, we could have an actual discussion. I'm not about to argue a point I never made.

I quit at pee wees because I wasn't being taught how to fight, which, as we all know, is part of the game. That's the great thing about unwritten codes. Nobody is required to follow them and they're always open to broad interpretation. I hear that Todd Bertuzi and Marty McSorley introduced some amendments to the code, but they weren't well received. Maybe the NHL Players Association needs to sponsor some unwritten code workshops so nobody makes this mistake again. The association could hand out an unwritten code handbook published on an Etch-A-Sketch. Just a thought. If he can't protect the Wild's players from other teams' goons, what good is he? I thought that's why enforcers were a necessary part of the game. Sheesh. In other words, hockey needs enforcers to stop the stuff from happening that continues to happen, even though the enforcers are there to stop it from happening. You know what? Given the choice between a clean hit and a Boogaard punch to the face, I would pretty much opt for the clean hit every time. But that's just me. That certainly explains why college hockey games are so much more bloody and violent than the NHL. Thanks for setting me straight.

Others call it "Slap Shot."

Been there. Done that.

It made WDAZ's TV news last night. If you go the the Grand Forks Herald Web site and look to the right under "Media On Demand," you'll see a link to "Quitting UND over the Fighting Sioux nickname."

After seeing the face-smashing punch, I agree. What does this mean in the grand scheme of NHL enforcer hockey? I understand how it works in theory, but how does it work in practice? Does it mean that because the Wild have the best goon in the league, they can get way with cheap-shotting other teams' players? Who's going to stop them with Boogard around? Does it mean that no fool will dare cheap-shot a Wild player as long as Boogard is on the bench? Is there even a need to have officials on the ice in any game in which Boogard participates? Why not just let him enforce the rules if he's so good at it? Better yet, instead of refs, why not have a couple of non-aligned goons work every game to smash the face of any player who commits a penalty? Let the goon-refs wear brass knuckles just to make sure the penalized player gets the message. The cheaters wouldn't even get to defend themselves. They'd just have to submit to having their faces smashed right there on the ice for being naughty. Think of the blood! The gore! The TV revenue! Fans would love it because it would take the guesswork out of whether or not they'll see a good face-smashing fight. (There'd have to be a requirement that the officials call at least one penalty on each team per game, regardless of whether anyone actually commmits a penalty.) And believe me, this officiating system would cut down on stickwork and obstruction in a heartbeat. Of course, it's too perfect, so the NHL would never implement it. Back to the enforcer solution. If another player successfully smashes Boogard's face, does the balance of enforcer power automatically shift to the team for which that player plays? Is the team that successfully puts Boogard out of commission then given free reign to cheap-shot Wild players? Is that team also allowed to cheap-shot at will because no team can stand up to its enforcer? Better yet, why bother putting any players on the ice who can pass, shoot and score? Why not just load a team up with goons to assure that it can play the game any way that it damn well pleases? If other teams don't like it, boo freakin' hoo. Let them put together a team that can out-goon the other team. The team with the biggest, baddest goons would win the Stanley Cup. Now that I think of it, this is a great idea for a movie.

I think all hockey players should be allowed to pack heat. That would solve everything.

I also watch the NHL on occasion, especially if there's a game on in which a former Sioux player is playing. But given the choice, I'd much rather watch college hockey. The only point I'm trying to make is this: Fighting is not a necessary part of the game of hockey. Fighting is part of the pro game -- by choice. It is not part of the college game -- by choice. The fact that two different styles of hockey can be played -- one with fighting and one largely devoid of fighting -- proves that fighting need not be "part of the game."

I miss the GAG Line.

What if they replace him with a loon?

I would prefer to stick to the merits of an issue, but if people want to make it personal, I'll get personal.

I never said it was illogical. I do think it's strange that some rabid college hockey fans insist that fighting "is part of the game." It's an important part of the pro game because a conscious decision has been made to make it so. It's not an important part of the college game because a conscious decision has been made to minimize fighting. Quite obviously, fighting does not have to be part of the game. Hockey can be played and be entertaining with a minimal amount of fighting. I accept that it has a certain amount of entertainment value to NHL fans and even college fans. Beyond that, there's no compelling reason to allow it.

Let's look at this statement because it seems to be the prevailing attitude of those who think fighting is a necessary part of hockey. The fact is, if this actually worked in practice as well as the theory holds, the NHL would be one of the cleanest games on the planet. Players would be trembling in fear at the very idea of cheap-shotting another player, knowing that their transgressions will bring swift and perhaps brutally violent retribution. So why, despite the presence in the NHL of enforcers and the two-ref system, do players continue to run goalies, continue to slash, continue to high-stick, continue to throw elbows, continue to throw illegal checks, and continue to use their sticks as weapons? Isn't that the exact type of behavior that "the enforcer" is supposed to deter? How does it make sense to say that enforcers are needed to cut down on activity that continually happens? If enforcers were at all effective, their very presence would be enough to ensure that nobody ever got out of line. But we all know that cheap-shotting and other potentially dangerous play continues to be a problem. Should we now assume that because Boogaard demonstrated his ability to smash an opposing player's face with one punch, nobody will dare cheap-shot a Wild player as long as Boogaard remains on Minnesota's roster?

His point was valid. Your was way off target. In fact, your last two points haven't even been close.

Completely missed the point. Again.

There is ample evidence to suggest that you're wrong. You simply refuse to see it. The Sioux tribes have every right to lobby UND to change its nickname. And if they can convince the university's leadership that it's in their best interest to make the change, then I have no doubt that the name would change. That's the way it's supposed to work in this country. No government agency responsible for enforcing civil rights has found UND in violation of anybody's rights because of its nickname or logo. No court has ever forced an insitituion to change its nickname. No legislation has been passed outlawing or banning American Indian nicknames. The NCAA, however, believes that it can very selectively force social change, something the government has not seen fit to do. I respect your opinion that UND shouldn't use the Fighting Sioux nickname, even though I dont' agree with it. However, the issue currently before the court is about legality, not morality.

Thanks for the "help," but I said exactly what I meant to say.

You're right. It's not fair to match wits with half-wits. So I'll leave you alone from now on.

Then I'll draw you a picture because you apparently need it. Just as Eskimos misrepresented my point to claim that I said something I never did, I misrepresented the 87 percent stat to support an arguement that was never made. See how much fun that is? If you want to do that to me, I can play that game all day long. It's sort of like someone claiming that I never watch the NHL when, if that person's reading comprehension was any good, he'd know that I never said any such thing. And if you need additional clues as to the identity of that person, it was the same capitalization-challenged guy who accused me of "misrepresenting information."

If "The Tribe" + two feathers = American Indian reference... ...then why doesn't "Dakota" + bison = American Indian reference?