In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal
[QUOTE]@SteveGM I don't think my thoughts are immoveable, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty open minded in general, but I can be hard headed. Sorry I said things in a reply to your post which seemed to be directed personnaly to you... but I've been replying left and right and some of it was directed to a more "general" you/others, etc. Maybe we disagree on the method of changing things, I don't know. Even if I had the greatest ideas, who would they serve, right ? I'm no expert. Hypocrites, hey ? Maybe... I'd have to think that over. It's probably at least partly right if you're saying it. I don't think it's fair to put everything in the bag of hypocrisy, but I can't stop you from doing that. At least, I know our hypocrisy on that matter won't kill anyone on or off the ice. And you asked why now... You know the answer to that question. Because Pacioretty got hurt, jee ! Pacioretty caused it to be now. I'm passionnate about my own self interests. Can't talk for others, but yeah, you're right on that one. I'm also concerned about players safety, for a lot of reasons, including self interests. And I don't expect anyone to accept anything I say, I'm just saying things whether they are accepted or not. That people would agree might be a bonus. I'm a fraud ? ... ok !? Let's cut this one short. And there's one thing you guys need to realize. Our legal system is different from yours and you can't think of the recent legal actions that took place here, as being equivalent to what it would have been like if it took place in the States. Our system is not as "adversarial" as yours and the Crown (I think you call them district attorneys) doesn't limit its actions to convicting people. Anyways, I don't mean to go into details, but I just wanted to point out that part of your reaction to this "criminal investigation" is due to how you look at this from a US legal system perspective, which is quite different. It was a funny thing to call the 911... not very responsible, but still funny. Maybe it helped, maybe it didn't. I can't tell. Didn't hear of any bad consequences from that. Air Canada is free to say what they want to say. They chose to join in. I don't blame them. Via Rail (rail road company) did the same today. McDonald silently removed its name from hockey in Canada last summer. I welcome the Government initiative. Hell, they're watching hockey too, you know ? And since the little ppl like you and me aren't heard on the matter, well I like the idea of the media, NHL players, Geoff Molson, Air Canada, Via Rail, Criminal Court and Government teaming up on this. Sounds more promising to me than me calling up a phone line. I know it's coming from Montreal, and not from anywhere else. The worst thing is, I'm pretty proud of them. lol... I'm sure you're pulling your hairs out, but yeah, I'd be ashamed if nothing happened... I don't recall saying anything about us being the first ones to notice and talk about the problem. And I don't see much improvement in terms of injury prevention that resulted from the NHL's actions. Legal hits becoming illegal... I don't know if that's good, do you ? It all looks reassuring, but there are no results. Concussions are more frequent this year than ever. So maybe they don't know what they're doing, right ? I mean, "maybe" !? "Merely the consequence of the stanchion", like stanchions go out and hit players.. Trying to make the point that Chara didn't deliberately try to hurt Pacioretty is just as ridiculous... unless you read minds. I still have a hard time understanding how you can call this "benign", but then again, guns are benign objects down where you live, so I can see how "benign" a hockey check might look to you. It doesn't "have" to be ruled that way. I don't know why you say that... Unless "rules are rules" to you and "rules are guides" to me... It might contribute to me and you not understanding each other. As for your constructive suggestions, I agree with you. Especially with the culture part. And I would add that indifference and voyeurism over dirty plays won't help... Disgust might help, but anyways. "Only childish, self serving posturing"... hahaha, are you angry ? Was that necessary ? I'll do my best to be a logical, reasonable, well informed citizen. But I'll do that with my hat on... sorry but it's stuck there. As for yourself, be polite.
Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]
To me Wedgy, this is more about a responsible, sincere way to institute any change in our society....than it is a hockey issue. Your core belief that serious hockey injuries are a problem is solid. That is an undeniable fact. After that very basic premise though, you and the like minded people you applaud, lose sight of the obvious. The context of your argument isn't logical. You are trying to make it logical....based on the emotional, and I can prove to you...this won't work.
You open this latest post with the proclamation that your thoughts aren't 'immovable". You continue with, you're "open minded in general".
Yet on this very thread, within the span of just a few short hours...you state, "you're wasting your time trying to convince me I'm wrong". One stance couldn't possibly be more opposite than the other, and suggests you'll say anything if it fits the situation. I'm being neither rude nor impolite in pointing that out.
You agree that maybe you're partly hypocritical, but suggest putting everything "in the bag of hypocricy" is wrong. I agree, but hypocracy and your admitted lack of expertise regarding the game...taints everything beyond your core belief(dealing with serious hockey injuries)
Regarding the "why now". Again, the only problem there, is you're attempting to sell yourself, not as a hockey fan, but as a more enlightened passionate protector of human wellness. It's logical for a mother to become associated with MADD, only after the death of a child. It doesn't mean she's hypocritcal for not joining before her child was killed. Everyone should understand that. In attempting to draw a parallel here...the womans tragedy drew her attention to the cause. She became a lobbyist, and once she joined..a similar tragedy "anywhere" would incite the same response, regardless of where it happenned. That's what "cause" people do. In the case of you and me...we already belong to the organization. We're members of the "fans of hockey" group. If we're not...we're even more irresponsible for speaking up about something we know nothing about. The reason "why now"...is such a big issue, is simply because you falsely make claim to a higher calling in an attempt to gain more credibility, power and clout to your argument. If you say "I want a player suspended because my teams guy got hurt"....that's great. It's your opinion. If you say, "I want a suspension because I'm concerned about the state of hockey in this country, and I'm speaking up for safety...", that has more credibility than the first statement. There is however a responsibility to walk the walk.
You can't be a blind homer, and the voice of reason both. You chose the benefits of the latter, without having the pedigree to back it up. You got called on it...and exposed. The term fraud, is strong and blunt, but in this case, no less true.
"Regarding your legal system". I already told you I'm Canadian, and am quite familiar with Canadian law. You're right out in left field on this one too. Your comment about "the law" reeks of someone trying to bluff an opponent out of the game by introducing something which you assume he knows nothing about.
The law in both countries works off the same premise, and principals. There are very few differences. In fact the overall difference in Canadian and US law is no more different than state to state, or province to province. In Canada, crown prosecutors seek convictions, the same way DA's do in the US. In review..a hot air paragraph about the law.. because you forgot I was Canadian..assumed I wasn't a lawyer...and that I could be baffled by BS.
Wedgie, I disagree that the 911 thing is funny, however, it is stupid, and sometimes the 2 go together, so I'll give you that. Attempting to infer there possibly may have been something good come out of such childish behavior though...is irresponsible.
Yes Air Canada is free to speak up. Speaking up though, carries with it a responsibility to know in detail, what it is, they're speaking up about. They have, and will continue to get called on that. Just my opinion...but I think they'll regret that. As you say, Mcdonalds "silently" got out of hockey. Don't know what your point is there....except to infer that "silence" is in relation to serious injuries. Wedgie....you're reaching again..
Here's the problem with the "government initiative".."the Media, Geoff Molson, Air Canada"...et al.
They're pandering to a mob mentality....they're going against there own principals of civilized change because they've decided it may be politcally adventageous to jump on board !!! When it ceases to look that way...they'll run over people like you, trying to get out the door.
Everyone you mentioned above understands the need for rules, and process...and the pitfalls of knee jerk reaction, yet they abandon those principals to get in on this free for all..
Hockey is seeing an alarming increase in head injury.(so is football) We know many of the reasons, and none really matter. Head injuries are on the rise..end of statement.
You say..the NHL is "doing nothing". Again you're wrong. In the last 18 months, several rules have been instituted, or revamped to tackle this issue. The thing that seems to be escaping you, your buddies, Air Canada, the Government etc...is that the push for change is already going on, but the world doesn't stop just because it may involve you. A society of civilized logical people can't just go willy nilly and make the rules as they go...to fit the needs of the moment. Government can't do that. Organizations can't do that. Business can't do that, and pro sports can't do that either.
Mark Savard could be done for life because of the cumulative effect of the last 2 concussions. Lets go there for a moment. The one involving Matt Cooke didn't get a suspension because the NHL didn't have a rule allowing them the ability to hand one down.(perpetrators of alleged fouls, have rights too, and they will appeal, and win if there is no precedent)
That loop hole was closed. Today, that hit is suspendable 10 times out of 10.
Then we have Matt Hunwick, taking Savard out in January. He's done for the year. Serious head injury. No penalty, no suspension. Was the league wrong there? I say no. Virtually ever hockey expert agree's.
Does that mean they are condoning violence...celebrating guys getting their brains scrambled? Of course not !!... but you and your friends seem to think that answer is yes.
Logical, rational, thinking people understand, that Matt Hunwicks hit on Mark Savard was the unfortunate result of forces that have forever been a fabric of the game, and have always been considered within those confines. Maybe that needs to change...but you have to change the rules first. You don't suspend Hunwick, then change the rules. If you do that, everything flies out the window. Conspiracy theorists from Boston could have screamed that Mark Savard...the week before...lost his job to Savard, and was upset...even enraged maybe...and set out to maim him. Hunwick could have backed off...he didn't...he's a villan and should be suspended. Hockey violence must stop !! We must set an example !!
Like you, I think those rules and procedures have to be constantly monitored and updated.
Maybe body contact has got to go. Maybe hockey has to be played like basketball moving forward. Fact is though, that decision has to be made...the rules need to reflect that...and then...only then, are players punished for playing outside those boundaries. This is no different than virtually everything we deal with in our daily lives.
Moving ahead to Chara. Your assertion there is technically wrong too. I'm not making the point that there was not anything "deliberate" there. The point is.. it's hopeless, fanatical, overly dramatic, childish, mob mentality, nit picking homerism...to attempt to prove there was anything deliberate. The government you're so "proud of" would offer Chara much more protection and wiggle room than the NHL ever would. Sure you want to stick with that position?
And what's with your comment about stanchions. Do you really think "status quo" is the responsible forward thinking approach here? Geez man!!
And you even want to talk guns. Not an expert there, but take exception to your inference that Canada has a more civilized stance on fire arms than our friends in the US.
I do know this. You can have the ability here, to legally own 25 guns. Legally carry them, legally buy ammunition, and legally discharge them. You may not though, be legally allowed to trade one of them in for a new one.
That's the government again...that you're so "proud of".
You're probably a great person, but you really need to spend less time talking and more time listening. Maybe not to me...pick whoever you want. But certainly a wider sphere of influence then you currently have.
Finally, rules are rules, vs rules are guides. Probably your most misguided statement to date.
In any civilized state...rules are always rules...they are never ever guides. You can have a guide, or rules, but they don't match. You don't put them together.
That's not my opinion, it's universal truth.
If you disagree with a rule..you lobby for change. You don't disperse your idea of justice for the moment..., then rework the rules later.(that's exactly what you and your buds want to do with Chara btw)