Thoughts from Montreal

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RLSJR65. Show RLSJR65's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]Wedgy, I just hope that you understand that between the timing of this outcry and the tone of the outcry, it is impossible for many of us to see it as a principled, sincere attempt to improve the game.  Rather it seems like a reactionary response from the favorite son of NHL franchises, just because there is an ugly taste in your mouth; an ugly taste that many other franchises have already experienced, including Boston. Maybe I am quick to judge, but a lot of the Montreal rhetoric has been pretentious and arrogant, in my opinion.  Your fans seem to be suddenly staking out the moral high ground and trying to 'educate' other fans over issues that have been around for a long time.  Those of us that watch Chara play every night simply don't believe that his intent was to maim Max P., and without intent, what you have is a minor penalty. The calls for criminal charges lend a lot of support to the theory that this is not really about improving the game, but rather about gaining a measure of revenge for a disgruntled fan base.  Bring this issue up at the end of the season, or when it happens to a player outside of Montreal and I think you will get a much more serious, thoughful reaction from fans here.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    Amen.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]@Islamorada Thanks for the comment.  If we win the Stanley Cup, Montreal will be the best place to be during that night.  You should come down and party. 

    If it includes dim witted comments like the one above then I will start a bomb fire in my back yard in honor of you pretentious yahoos who will burn up your own neighborhoods in celebration of winning...get this...... two playoff series like last year.  Yahoooooooo!  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    I got another good dose this morning.
    Last night at  my game one of my team mates said he had a question for me since I was a Bruins and we all know what that question was. It's been burning up inside of him since the hit.
    I voiced my opinion as I've done on this board that since there was a 5min major Chara should have got at least 1game.  I'm not here to debate this but last night of course I gave the wrong answer. Afterall they're all Hab fans .
    I told them that one day maybe they'll understand but I was not to debate this with them . Montreal , only now, since it's happened to one of them are saying "Something must be done"  .
    That alone made me realize that it's not worth my breathe talking to any of them about it and that's including you "Wedgy".  I'm glad my fellow posters here have tried to explain this to you , reason with you and hopefully you come out of this a smarter person.  After reading all this I am and impressed with the counter conversation of my peers.
    The real reason they are upset , Montreal fans hate Chara and wanted him out for good. This episodes has added fuel to this lovely relationship between the fans in Montreal and Chara.  Next most hated is Lucic .

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : [QUOTE]@Islamorada Thanks for the comment.  If we win the Stanley Cup, Montreal will be the best place to be during that night.  You should come down and party.  If it includes dim witted comments like the one above then I will start a bomb fire in my back yard in honor of you pretentious yahoos who will burn up your own neighborhoods in celebration of winning...get this...... two playoff series like last year.  Yahoooooooo!  
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]


    Yeah... two series at the very least, and we'll take you out in the first.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]I got another good dose this morning. Last night at  my game one of my team mates said he had a question for me since I was a Bruins and we all know what that question was. It's been burning up inside of him since the hit. I voiced my opinion as I've done on this board that since there was a 5min major Chara should have got at least 1game.  I'm not here to debate this but last night of course I gave the wrong answer. Afterall they're all Hab fans . I told them that one day maybe they'll understand but I was not to debate this with them . Montreal , only now, since it's happened to one of them are saying "Something must be done"  . That alone made me realize that it's not worth my breathe talking to any of them about it and that's including you "Wedgy".  I'm glad my fellow posters here have tried to explain this to you , reason with you and hopefully you come out of this a smarter person.  After reading all this I am and impressed with the counter conversation of my peers. The real reason they are upset , Montreal fans hate Chara and wanted him out for good. This episodes has added fuel to this lovely relationship between the fans in Montreal and Chara.  Next most hated is Lucic .
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]


    I think I'm beginning to understand your point.  So because we decided that "now" was the moment, and because "now" is "because of the Chara-Pacioretty incident", you're saying whatever we do about it is not valid.  It just can't be now.  Nothing can be done now. 

    It looks pretty obvious to all of you that the fact that we think "now is the moment" represents a major flaw in whatever we'll do. 

    You're right about the fact that it's not worth wasting your breath if you're convinced that the way you think is the way to go.  Funny how you're all blind to your own arrogance.

    I don't remember hearing : "I understand what you want to do guys, but here's how you should do if you want an American (Bettman) to listen."  Instead of that, you guys have been falling into the pretentious stance of "We know what you're doing, it's wrong, it's dumb, and not worth a penny."

    I've seen less perspective on your side than on ours.  Haven't heard anyone take a step back from their own culture and ways, so they can discuss and try to understand what's going on here.  You're acting as if we were Americans doing something wrong in America, looking at us through American glasses.  You're the arrogants, imposing your understanding of things to others, thinking that how you would have handled a situation is somewhat superior. 

    It all sums up to "it doesn't fit with how we do it here, so it's by definition wrong." 

    NO ONE yet has answered these simple questions : "Why not now ?  Why should we wait ?  What better outcome do you expect if we followed your suggestion ?"

    If you can't look ahead and tell us about the consequences we would want to avoid by following your plan, I don't see how you can convince us of anything, 'cause your argument stays at the basic level of culturally-bound rights and wrongs.  You don't even realize that, do you ?  That's why you're all holding on to that conviction that everything is so obvious.  It's only obvious if you have a restricted way of thinking.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    because you, The Canadiens and Geoff Molson  are not the central of the hockey universe !  That is what you're not getting through your heads, you do have a hard head .
    Go see the thread started A nice sampling of MTL videos
    You ask "Why not now ." Where have you been ???  Many around have been talking about this for two years AND the best you come up with " why not now"
    While you and your Hab buddies in Montreal were talking about Halak or Pirce or about Gomez or about what Subban had for breakfast constantly the rest of the hockey world was losing their own players due to real cheap shots !
    But I get it, you want us to admit Chara did a dirty play . Not going to happen as the majority of the players that saw it already went on record saying it was not !
    I'm done with you and your arrogant Montreal air. Keep on repeating the same BS.

    P.S.  Now in Montreal they're saying that it's a good thing it happened in Montreal. Just what the league needed to start listening. 
    If that is not a pompous, arrogant comment I don't know what it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]because you, The Canadiens and Geoff Molson  are not the central of the hockey universe !  That is what you're not getting through your heads, you do have a hard head . Go see the thread started A nice sampling of MTL videos You ask "Why not now ." Where have you been ???  Many around have been talking about this for two years AND the best you come up with " why not now" While you and your Hab buddies in Montreal were talking about Halak or Pirce or about Gomez or about what Subban had for breakfast constantly the rest of the hockey world was losing their own players due to real cheap shots ! But I get it, you want us to admit Chara did a dirty play . Not going to happen as the majority of the players that saw it already went on record saying it was not ! I'm done with you and your arrogant Montreal air. Keep on repeating the same BS.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]


    You've been talking and not doing much... that's my point.  You ain't done nothing but talk, and whatever you tried didn't do anything.  I don't really give a damn about what are your thoughts on Chara.  It's not only about that one incident, but you're hard headed enough to keep coming back to this and making it our only motive. 

    Oh, and the best we came up with is an owner who challenged the NHL with the way they're not taking care of their players security.  First time in NHL history that it happens. 

    So keep on talking for another couple of years, thinking highly of yourself for just being conscious of an existing problem.  You'd only wish we would be as consilient as you are, and keep the discussion to our TV and radio shows, accepting the fact that we're powerless. 

    Oh and here's what Len Rhodes, vice executive president and GM of Reebok-CCM hockey :

    "Since the lock-out, the game has changed.  It's faster and players are bigger.  Everyone who's involved, including sport leagues, should look at their rules and see if they correspond with the needs of today's players.  It's normal.  We need to listen to the market.  The fans and the players are saying that we should do something."

    And what have you been doing for the last few years, if not useless repeating ?  Fact is, players are still falling.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Ken Dryden on hockey violence: How could we be so stupid?

    KEN DRYDEN
    From Saturday's Globe and Mail

    The brain weighs about three pounds. It floats inside a boney skull, surrounded by spinal fluid, not quite in contact with the skull. Except when the head is jarred.

    Then, the brain moves, ricocheting back and forth, colliding with the sides of the skull, like a superball in a squash court. With hard-enough contact, the brain bleeds. And the parts inside it – the neurons and pathways that we use to think, learn and remember – get damaged.

    Why would we ever have thought otherwise?

    Why would we ever have believed that when the dizziness goes away, everything goes back as it had been before? All the little hits, scores of them in every game, so inconsequential that we don't even know they've occurred – how could we not have known? How could we be so stupid?

    I feel the same when I remember that the effects of smoking or of drunk driving were ignored for so long. I feel it when I think of women in the past having no right to vote and few rights of any kind, and when I think about slavery: How could people 50, 100 or 200 years ago not have known? How could they be so stupid?

    I wonder what will make people say that about us 50 years from now. What are the big things we might be getting really wrong? Chemicals in our foods? Genetic modifications gone wrong? Climate change?

    In sports, I think, the haunting question will be about head injuries. It wasn't until 1943 in the www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/#" class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook">National Football League that helmets became mandatory; in the National Hockey League, not until 36 years after that, in 1979. The first goalie mask wasn't worn in the NHL until 1959.

    And in a whole childhood and adolescence of playing goalie, I didn't wear a mask until 1965, when I had to wear one on my college team. How could I have been so stupid?

    Smash, crash, bang, maim

    A football www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/#" class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook">wide receiver, 220 pounds, cuts across the middle of the field at 35 kilometres an hour; a linebacker, 240 pounds, cuts the other way at 20 km/hour. The wide receiver focuses on the ball; the linebacker focuses on the wide receiver, knowing that a good hit now won't just break up the pass but will break down the focus and will of that wide receiver for each succeeding pass in the game.

    Two hockey players, almost as big as the football players, but going even faster, colliding with each other and with the boards, glass and ice exaggerating the force of every hit.

    Boxers, snapping jabs and hooks at each other's head, round after round. (But no hitting below the belt; that's not fair.) Ultimate Fighting: Fist, foot, elbow, knee, bone against bone – get your opponent down, get him defenceless and pound away.

    In addition, there are the countless mini-collisions that never make the “Highlights of the Night.” They make players feel a little dizzy, but then seconds later, almost every time, they feel fine. So they must be fine.

    Years later, they may not be thinking so clearly or remembering so well, at a slightly younger age than other people, perhaps. But in the randomness of everything else in life, who's to know why? It could be genes or bad luck. Hockey player Reggie Fleming, known as “Cement Head”; football players Mike Webster, Owen Thomas or Mike McCoy; wrestler Chris Benoit …

    A few weeks ago, I read about the suicide of Dave Duerson, a former all-pro safety with the www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page2/#" class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook">Chicago Bears. He was 50. In recent years, Mr. Duerson had worked with the NFL players' union, dealing with retired players and their physical ailments, head injuries among them, and reading their doctors' reports. He had begun to have trouble himself remembering names and putting words together. Then, one day he shot himself, not in the head but the chest, so as to preserve his brain intact for future examination, bequeathing it to the NFL's brain bank.

    On the same day, in the same newspapers, there was another story about Ollie Matson, an all-pro www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page2/#" class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook">running back in the 1950s and 1960s for several NFL teams. He was 80 when he died, and for the last several years of his life he had been suffering from dementia; over the last four years, he hadn't spoken. Mr. Matson's death and dementia, it seemed, had to do with the consequences of old age. No connection was made to football or Dave Duerson.

    A few days earlier, there had been a story about the death of Bobby Kuntz. He had been one of my favourite players as a kid. During the late 1950s and 1960s, he played for the Toronto Argonauts and Hamilton Tiger-Cats, playing “both ways” as players of the time did – a running back on offence and a linebacker on defence.

    He was small for the positions he played, and especially small for the way he played them. He'd put his head down and throw himself into the line or into the bodies of ball carriers, the sound of his collisions sharper and more resounding than any others – the kind that, as a fan, made you go “oooh” and laugh. He was fearless. In playground games, I used to pretend I was Bobby Kuntz, head down, fearless in my own mind.

    Mr. Kuntz died at 79, having suffered from dementia the last 11 years of his life. The Kuntz family agreed to have his brain donated to a study of athletes and head injuries, the article said.

    The myth of the ‘nature of the game'

    What is our answer to those voices 50 years into the future? We can only say that we didn't want to know. We thought – we hoped – there wasn't a problem, because if there were, something would need to be done, and we didn't want to do it.

    To do something would change the nature of the game. It may be all right, or inevitable, for everything in the world around the game to change; but the game itself is “pure” and must remain that way.

    Hockey began in Montreal in 1875 because some rugby players wanted a game for the wintertime, and they wanted to hit each other. But the rugby players couldn't skate very fast, their bodies were smaller than ours are today, and they were playing on a smaller ice surface where they had little room to pick up momentum. With no substitutions allowed, the game moved at coasting speed.

    Bigger ice surfaces changed the nature of the game; so did the forward pass; so did boards and glass; so did substitutions, shorter shifts and bigger bodies. Helmeted players in today's game are far more vulnerable to serious head injury than helmet-less players were in generations ago.

    We choose to ignore the fact that the “nature” of any game is always changing. Today's hockey – in terms of speed, skill, style of play and force of impact – is almost unrecognizable from hockey 50 years ago, let alone 100. Likewise, helmets, facemasks, 300-plus-pound players and off-field, year-round training have transformed football.

    These and other sports changed because someone thought of new ways to do things, others followed and nobody stopped them. In many cases, sports have had to change for reasons of safety or economics. For the sake of the players and fans and the game itself, these sports will and do need to change again.

    A few days ago, I read the story of Bob Probert. He was a “goon” whose ability to fight got him into the www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page3/#" class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook">NHL, and gave him the extra years and playing time he needed to learn how to play an all-around game. It has been calculated that Mr. Probert was in 240 NHL fights – few of which he lost – and countless more in his minor hockey years. Before he died last year, his wife reported, he had been forgetting things and frequently losing his temper. In a post-mortem examination, Boston University's School of Medicine recently reported, Mr. Probert was found to have chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy cells in his brain. He was 45.

    The voices of the future will not be kind to us about how we understood and dealt with head injuries in sports. They will ask: How is it possible we didn't know, or chose not to know?

    For players or former players, owners, managers, coaches, doctors and team doctors, league executives, lawyers, agents, the media, players' wives, partners and families, it's no longer possible not to know and not to be afraid, unless we willfully close our eyes.

    Max Pacioretty was only the latest; he will not be the last. Arguments and explanations don't matter any more. The NHL has to risk the big steps that are needed: If some of them prove wrong, they'll still be far less wrong than what we have now.

    It is time to stop being stupid.

    Ken Dryden is a former NHL goaltender, and is a lawyer, author and member of Parliament.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    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 !!
    Sound familiar????
    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)

    More later      
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    great post steve. you're hunwick/savard example was bang on.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    I'm sorry, Wedgy, that didn't actually clarify anything.  Is it just that players get injured?  Because if so, I see that the league is already trying to take steps to improve overall safety.  The new blind-side hit rule, constant committees and meetings over rules changes and equioment guidlines.  People being upset over injuries in hockey is fine, and try to push a league already looking to improve on that subject, go right ahead.

    Things like police charges against Chara though?  That won't change anything.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : 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 !! Sound familiar???? 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) More later      
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]


    Thanks for the effort.  You've put everything you've got in that one.  I have a lot of respect for that.  But I think we won't agree.  I come from a town that was half french, half english, so I'm used to that.  Lot's of great ppl, nice parties, nice friends, but every once in a while, it was clearly impossible to agree on some subjects.

    You're being judgmental before seeing any results of what we've initiated.  That's your choice and a pretty normal reaction, since you seem to be more concerned with "how" things are done, than for the "end results" which you still have no idea of.  I think the "how" is less of a concern on this part of the country, especially if the "socially accepted how" has been tried without any success.  We'll try other things, which probably wouldn't have come to your mind.

    When our little crusade is over, we'll see where we're at.  You'll still disagree, but your agreement is not a necessary condition to make hockey safer. 

    And there are higher principles than rules.

    When I say the NHL didn't do anything, I mean what they did was useless.  You overvalue intellectualization, and underestimate the possible effects of generalized emotional disgust as a possibility of change.

    Morbid voyeurism will only come to an end when seeing a man down has lost its attraction to the viewer.  It's not rational and you're totally missing the point on this.  Intellectualizing the problem sells the product and the more we talk about it, the more money will be made out of it.  We're creating problems.  You're paying to maintain the problem. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    One precision... I follow rules 99.9% of the time, and when I don't, it usually doesn't go further than not stopping at a stop sign.  I don't mean to say that not following rules is a good thing.  Let's forget about my comment.  It won't get us anywhere...

    The actual rules in the NHL didn't protect players from their latest injuries.  And I don't think any rules will stop the actual problem, 'cause what we're seeing in the rink has attracted peoples attention.  What ppl say doesn't matter in the end.  They look at it, talk about it, and that's all money.  Media, images, papers, videos, blogs... money...

    There's no rational way out of this.  No one will make a rational decision not to love hockey, especially habs fans.  Hockey's culture will only change when disgust will be involved.  Without it, the business is healthy.  Controversy is money, and more money won't bring any effective changes.  Human beings are clever at bending rules, and that's also the case in the rink, so I don't think working on the rule book will work.

    I just think Montreal's reaction has a chance to change things, 'cause it's causing problems.  Not all conscious and volontary... but the amount of emotion involved is creating problems for the NHL... so in the end, although far from being pretty, it might be of some benefits. 

    I'm not sure of anything... just highlighting a few things that hasn't been mentionned.

    And I'm human too, so although I try not to get emotional at some of your replies, I'm not always succeeding ;).  I'm french-canadien, remember ?


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from gardenbees. Show gardenbees's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Wedgy, we all just gave you one - call it a day!  haha....
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]Ken Dryden on hockey violence: How could we be so stupid? KEN DRYDEN From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published Friday, Mar. 11, 2011 6:55PM EST Last updated Saturday, Mar. 12, 2011 2:31PM EST The brain weighs about three pounds. It floats inside a boney skull, surrounded by spinal fluid, not quite in contact with the skull. Except when the head is jarred. Then, the brain moves, ricocheting back and forth, colliding with the sides of the skull, like a superball in a squash court. With hard-enough contact, the brain bleeds. And the parts inside it – the neurons and pathways that we use to think, learn and remember – get damaged. Why would we ever have thought otherwise? Why would we ever have believed that when the dizziness goes away, everything goes back as it had been before? All the little hits, scores of them in every game, so inconsequential that we don't even know they've occurred – how could we not have known? How could we be so stupid? I feel the same when I remember that the effects of smoking or of drunk driving were ignored for so long. I feel it when I think of women in the past having no right to vote and few rights of any kind, and when I think about slavery: How could people 50, 100 or 200 years ago not have known? How could they be so stupid? I wonder what will make people say that about us 50 years from now. What are the big things we might be getting really wrong? Chemicals in our foods? Genetic modifications gone wrong? Climate change? In sports, I think, the haunting question will be about head injuries. It wasn't until 1943 in the www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/# " class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook" /> National Football League that helmets became mandatory; in the National Hockey League, not until 36 years after that, in 1979. The first goalie mask wasn't worn in the NHL until 1959. And in a whole childhood and adolescence of playing goalie, I didn't wear a mask until 1965, when I had to wear one on my college team. How could I have been so stupid? Smash, crash, bang, maim A football www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/# " class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook"> wide receiver , 220 pounds, cuts across the middle of the field at 35 kilometres an hour; a linebacker, 240 pounds, cuts the other way at 20 km/hour. The wide receiver focuses on the ball; the linebacker focuses on the wide receiver, knowing that a good hit now won't just break up the pass but will break down the focus and will of that wide receiver for each succeeding pass in the game. Two hockey players, almost as big as the football players, but going even faster, colliding with each other and with the boards, glass and ice exaggerating the force of every hit. Boxers, snapping jabs and hooks at each other's head, round after round. (But no hitting below the belt; that's not fair.) Ultimate Fighting: Fist, foot, elbow, knee, bone against bone – get your opponent down, get him defenceless and pound away. In addition, there are the countless mini-collisions that never make the “Highlights of the Night.” They make players feel a little dizzy, but then seconds later, almost every time, they feel fine. So they must be fine. Years later, they may not be thinking so clearly or remembering so well, at a slightly younger age than other people, perhaps. But in the randomness of everything else in life, who's to know why? It could be genes or bad luck. Hockey player Reggie Fleming, known as “Cement Head”; football players Mike Webster, Owen Thomas or Mike McCoy; wrestler Chris Benoit … A few weeks ago, I read about the suicide of Dave Duerson, a former all-pro safety with the www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page2/# " class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook"> Chicago Bears . He was 50. In recent years, Mr. Duerson had worked with the NFL players' union, dealing with retired players and their physical ailments, head injuries among them, and reading their doctors' reports. He had begun to have trouble himself remembering names and putting words together. Then, one day he shot himself, not in the head but the chest, so as to preserve his brain intact for future examination, bequeathing it to the NFL's brain bank. On the same day, in the same newspapers, there was another story about Ollie Matson, an all-pro www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page2/# " class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook"> running back in the 1950s and 1960s for several NFL teams. He was 80 when he died, and for the last several years of his life he had been suffering from dementia; over the last four years, he hadn't spoken. Mr. Matson's death and dementia, it seemed, had to do with the consequences of old age. No connection was made to football or Dave Duerson. A few days earlier, there had been a story about the death of Bobby Kuntz. He had been one of my favourite players as a kid. During the late 1950s and 1960s, he played for the Toronto Argonauts and Hamilton Tiger-Cats, playing “both ways” as players of the time did – a running back on offence and a linebacker on defence. He was small for the positions he played, and especially small for the way he played them. He'd put his head down and throw himself into the line or into the bodies of ball carriers, the sound of his collisions sharper and more resounding than any others – the kind that, as a fan, made you go “oooh” and laugh. He was fearless. In playground games, I used to pretend I was Bobby Kuntz, head down, fearless in my own mind. Mr. Kuntz died at 79, having suffered from dementia the last 11 years of his life. The Kuntz family agreed to have his brain donated to a study of athletes and head injuries, the article said. The myth of the ‘nature of the game' What is our answer to those voices 50 years into the future? We can only say that we didn't want to know. We thought – we hoped – there wasn't a problem, because if there were, something would need to be done, and we didn't want to do it. To do something would change the nature of the game. It may be all right, or inevitable, for everything in the world around the game to change; but the game itself is “pure” and must remain that way. Hockey began in Montreal in 1875 because some rugby players wanted a game for the wintertime, and they wanted to hit each other. But the rugby players couldn't skate very fast, their bodies were smaller than ours are today, and they were playing on a smaller ice surface where they had little room to pick up momentum. With no substitutions allowed, the game moved at coasting speed. Bigger ice surfaces changed the nature of the game; so did the forward pass; so did boards and glass; so did substitutions, shorter shifts and bigger bodies. Helmeted players in today's game are far more vulnerable to serious head injury than helmet-less players were in generations ago. We choose to ignore the fact that the “nature” of any game is always changing. Today's hockey – in terms of speed, skill, style of play and force of impact – is almost unrecognizable from hockey 50 years ago, let alone 100. Likewise, helmets, facemasks, 300-plus-pound players and off-field, year-round training have transformed football. These and other sports changed because someone thought of new ways to do things, others followed and nobody stopped them. In many cases, sports have had to change for reasons of safety or economics. For the sake of the players and fans and the game itself, these sports will and do need to change again. A few days ago, I read the story of Bob Probert. He was a “goon” whose ability to fight got him into the www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page3/# " class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook"> NHL , and gave him the extra years and playing time he needed to learn how to play an all-around game. It has been calculated that Mr. Probert was in 240 NHL fights – few of which he lost – and countless more in his minor hockey years. Before he died last year, his wife reported, he had been forgetting things and frequently losing his temper. In a post-mortem examination, Boston University's School of Medicine recently reported, Mr. Probert was found to have chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy cells in his brain. He was 45. The voices of the future will not be kind to us about how we understood and dealt with head injuries in sports. They will ask: How is it possible we didn't know, or chose not to know? For players or former players, owners, managers, coaches, doctors and team doctors, league executives, lawyers, agents, the media, players' wives, partners and families, it's no longer possible not to know and not to be afraid, unless we willfully close our eyes. Max Pacioretty was only the latest; he will not be the last. Arguments and explanations don't matter any more. The NHL has to risk the big steps that are needed: If some of them prove wrong, they'll still be far less wrong than what we have now. It is time to stop being stupid. Ken Dryden is a former NHL goaltender, and is a lawyer, author and member of Parliament.
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

     Wedgy...your post above validates everything I've been saying.
    This whole hoopla started because you and your friends wanted Chara suspended.
     Ken Dryden knows much has been done to clean up the game(you don't seem to)  He also knows much more needs to be done.  Seems I've been singin that song too.  My original point, and I'd be surprised if Ken Dryden disagreed...is that the league must rethink the game, and move accordingly foward regarding the prevention of injuries.  If you think the league is doing "nothing"...which is what you stated...you are flat out wrong.  It may not be moving as fast as many of us would like....but that's a whole different story.
    You don't suspend and fine someone, then rework the rules.  None of those people and groups you are so "proud of"...do business that way either...so I really have trouble understanding that "pride"
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal :  Wedgy...your post above validates everything I've been saying. This whole hoopla started because you and your friends wanted Chara suspended.  Ken Dryden knows much has been done to clean up the game(you don't seem to)  He also knows much more needs to be done.  Seems I've been singin that song too.  My original point, and I'd be surprised if Ken Dryden disagreed...is that the league must rethink the game, and move accordingly foward regarding the prevention of injuries.  If you think the league is doing "nothing"...which is what you stated...you are flat out wrong.  It may not be moving as fast as many of us would like....but that's a whole different story. You don't suspend and fine someone, then rework the rules.  None of those people and groups you are so "proud of"...do business that way either...so I really have trouble understanding that "pride"
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    The counter argument was a capitulation without being direct.  The "common ground" of the Chara hit is something needs to be done to clarify rules on charging, boarding, interference now, and the physical makeup of rinks which was a focus of one the threads this past week.  Montreal is one of the teams that have to deal with severe concussions. It is an important hockey culture center to make the change for the better, but not as a "knee jerk" reaction to the boisterous mob. Mobocracy does not work as a catalyst for change!  Period!  

    I am sure we will hear more "knee jerk" reactions from Don Cherry's broadcast as well. Shameful! Wedgy and others in Montreal should be outspoken on why hockey needs change but not as a response to the mass hysteria.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : Thanks for the effort.  You've put everything you've got in that one.  I have a lot of respect for that.  But I think we won't agree.  I come from a town that was half french, half english, so I'm used to that.  Lot's of great ppl, nice parties, nice friends, but every once in a while, it was clearly impossible to agree on some subjects. You're being judgmental before seeing any results of what we've initiated.  That's your choice and a pretty normal reaction, since you seem to be more concerned with "how" things are done, than for the "end results" which you still have no idea of.  I think the "how" is less of a concern on this part of the country, especially if the "socially accepted how" has been tried without any success.  We'll try other things, which probably wouldn't have come to your mind. When our little crusade is over, we'll see where we're at.  You'll still disagree, but your agreement is not a necessary condition to make hockey safer.  And there are higher principles than rules. When I say the NHL didn't do anything, I mean what they did was useless.  You overvalue intellectualization, and underestimate the possible effects of generalized emotional disgust as a possibility of change. Morbid voyeurism will only come to an end when seeing a man down has lost its attraction to the viewer.  It's not rational and you're totally missing the point on this.  Intellectualizing the problem sells the product and the more we talk about it, the more money will be made out of it.  We're creating problems.  You're paying to maintain the problem. 
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    Wedgy, in every post of yours I've responded to...I've stuck to the issues at hand.  I've argued point by point, and supplied logice for my position.  Your many responses never deal with those things.  You've never provided any logic to argue my points.  What you do...is conveniently go in another direction...each time a little fuzzier than the last one, with nothing more than generalizations that are taking you even furthere away from the reason you came here in the first place.
    Lets review this one.

    Please explain to me me, "how coming from a town that was half French, half English"...has any bearing whatsoever to our discussion.  By the way, I come from a French/English town, in Canada's ONLY bilingual province.  I hope you're not trying to infer that the cause of disagreement stems from the language one speaks.  Don't you dare try to make this a cultual issue.  Logic works the same in both languages.
    "results of what we initiated".  First of all you didn't initiate dick all, so whatever happenns, you should get no more credit than any other community, fan, or lobbiest for change.  Most of the 29 other NHL cities have screamed and yelled when one of their players went down too, and the NHL has been listening.   The only difference here....is that in Montreal, the uproar was laughably childish.  Yes, you got some press, but you should understand a few things.  Press is not always a good thing.  Good press flatters the message, adds credibility to the cause.
     To the rest of the world, Montreal has done nothing flattering to the cause, the community, and it certainly has done nothing to elevate credibility.  In fact Montreal's response to the rest of hockey world is a akin to that of a high spirited retarded nephew.
     One thing you may be able to take full credit for though, is the stanchions.  If nothing whatsoever is done to improve the safety of stanchions, in Montreal...you get all the glory,..as you guys seem to be the only people saying they are not at all part of the problem.
    Good luck on that one.
    Smart people do dumb things sometimes...but smart people always shut up..get out of the limelight, and let things cool off.  Smart people never do dumb things, then search out a soapbox in which to tirelessly purport their actions as smart.  That's the work of dumb people doing dumb things.

    "How things are done" vs "end results".  You're just spiraling further down that black hole of intellectual irrelevance.  Wedgy...how things are done, DICTATES end results.  Another undeniable Universal Truth.
    "The socially accepted how has been tried without any success".  That's just an outright untruth.  I've given you undeniable facts which prove the league is moving forward regarding serious injuries.  You don't argue them because you can't....yet you keep bringing this up.  Do you think saying this over and over will magically make it true?  Come on...this is getting ridiculous.

    And regarding your morbid voyeurism comment...you may want to tell Geoff Molson to take the video of Hal Gill smashing an opposing players head into the turnbuckle off his teams website home page.  Don't you think that smells of inconsistency to all these valued and sacred principals of his.....yours...and all those folks you're "appluading"
    Go ahead..check it out.

    Yes...you'll try things that "won't come to my mind"....you've proven that all right...but that comment, intended to be condesending to me...and quite becoming to you...glares additional light on your lack of self awareness, as well as like minded people on this issue.

    Finally... If I'm "missing the point" on something.  Please have the courage to articulate exactly what it is, so we can further discuss.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Dryden is smart. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    So you're from New-Brunswick ?  hahaha, I'm from Bathurst.  Where are you from in NB ?

    Ok, maybe I owe you a little more attention to the points you've been bringing.

    First off, you dismiss cultural issues as if they were irrelevant.  Culture historically defines what is acceptable and unacceptable among a given group of humans.  "Don't you dare make this a cultural issue", you said... Was that a threat ?  lol...

    You said : "In Montreal, the uproar was laughably childish [...] In fact Montreal's response to the rest of hockey world is a akin to that of a high spirited retarded nephew."  I've heard and read tons of similar comments.  And you all seem to agree on that.  And most of us think otherwise.  How do you explain that if not stemming from the fact that such a behavior or such a reaction is considered unacceptable in one culture, whereas in the other, no one seems to realize that it is.  Your culture is reacting to us in a way that we didn't expect, and we reacted in a way that you guys would have never allowed yourself. 

    Firm beliefs, on both sides, that the others are a bunch of idiots is partly and directly linked to culture.  And the more different the culture, the more relevant these issues are.  I was in Haiti after the earthquake, and I had a good laugh observing some of the other medical teams (most of the help came from the US) try to put their logic in the heads of Haitians.  You're english-canadian, and others on this board are Americans, you've spent most of your life as "the ruling majority"... it might be harder for you to relate to the experience of having to deal with other cultures... I don't know... Seems like you don't want to admit this for some reasons. 

    If logic worked the same way in every languages, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  You're deeply convinced that Montreal's reaction was wrong, and you don't realize that your reaction is culture specific and tied to your set of beliefs.  You're also deeply convinced that your way of thinking should have been followed by the whinning baby frogs.  We don't agree with you.  How do you solve that ?  It would be convenient to you that we took out cultural issues, 'cause then, without a doubt, we'd be wrong.  But here, we're right.  See ?  There's no way out of this.  And all your blah blah comes from your own overreaction to us, except for the fact that you're givin' it your best shot in making this a logical issue. 

    Oh... and the same is true for us.  We haven't been taking into account that what we've been doing might not be well perceived outside our border.  And that whole culturally bound reaction to each other has been taking center stage since the incident. 

    "Another undeniable Universal Truth..." If you're stuck with that notion of "Universal Truth", than I'm losing considerable time here. 

    You keep saying the league is moving forward.  I know what the NHL has been doing over the last few years.  I KNOW they have put some things in place.  I KNOW, ok ?  Stop bringing that up over and over.  I'm saying they haven't done anything significant.  Nothing they've done, 'till now, has had significant results on players security.  And the business of hockey has never been healthier than now.  Honestly, do you really think they will do anything significant that would represent a risk of losing money ?  The very fact that we've been talking so much about it represents money.  There's no talking way out of this.

    Morbid voyeurism is not limited to the non-frenchies... I haven't said that !  It's a real problem here as well.

    "Yes...you'll try things that "won't come to my mind"....you've proven that all right...but that comment, intended to be condesending to me...and quite becoming to you...glares additional light on your lack of self awareness, as well as like minded people on this issue."  You're just being paranoid there when you say that it's meant to be condescending to you and becoming to me.  I'm quite self aware, as that comment was meant to take into account that we're different cultures and the things we've done wouldn't have come to your mind as a thinkable way of behaving.  I didn't say superior... It meant different.  You're being a little thin skinned there...

    I told you before what's the point you're missing.  You think this problem can change in a rational, logical, civilized way.  I'm saying there's absolutely no way it's going to change like that, but you don't want to hear that.  The day it changes, it will be emotional... it will be a sad day... It hasn't gone far enough now... I thought it came close, but I'm beginning to think it didn't.  The more you do what you idealize as being the right thing to do, the more you put money in owners pockets and the less likely you are to help.  There are two ways out of this : (1) this problem is linked to diminished profits, which for now it isn't (Air Canada's try was quite weak and they didn't back their words with actions yet) ; (2) a player's death, with the accompanying horror, crying families, disgust, and all that...

    But now... nothing... unless Geoff Molson has the guts to tell the NHL his brewery wants its 750 million $ back. 

    But days are passing by, and I don't think anything significant will happen... It would be against logic.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Strong, articulate and thoughtful responses by many B's posters, including; stevegm, DrCC, islamorada and fletch.

    Still not sure what the OP is trying to accomplish with this thread?  Is there a recommendation here or just a critique of the outcome (no suspension for Chara)?

    The league has made some progress protecting players following the Savard injury, by implementing the blind-side head shot rule.  Players are already pulling up and those that don't face suspension (see Paille).  Additionally, they have been aggressive in cracking down on hits from behind, both by assessing penalties, as well as, with supplemental discipline. 

    So what does the OP want?  What change is the OP offering/recommending?  Nobody in Boston needs to be lectured about the the dangers of head injuries, not after what Bergeron has been through and Savard is going through.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]Strong, articulate and thoughtful responses by many B's posters, including; stevegm, DrCC, islamorada and fletch. Still not sure what the OP is trying to accomplish with this thread?  Is there a recommendation here or just a critique of the outcome (no suspension for Chara)? The league has made some progress protecting players following the Savard injury, by implementing the blind-side head shot rule.  Players are already pulling up and those that don't face suspension (see Paille).  Additionally, they have been aggressive in cracking down on hits from behind, both by assessing penalties, as well as, with supplemental discipline.  So what does the OP want?  What change is the OP offering/recommending?  Nobody in Boston needs to be lectured about the the dangers of head injuries, not after what Bergeron has been through and Savard is going through.
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for being politically correct on asking this poster.  I can understand now, he's not even from Montreal.
    I for one am living it and it's very frustrating .  I have no patience for his soap box stance.
    Like I said on another post thanks to the cooled headed posters as yourself, Stevegm, DrCC, islamorada and fletch. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    What I'm trying to accomplish, without much success I must admit :

    (1) Give you a little insight on what's going on over here.  But I've been failing at this task miserably.

    (2) Gain a little insight on what underlies the deadlock between you and us.  'Cause without this insight, I don't think any of us here can get a message audible to your ears, and vice versa. 

    (3) Sorry if I made it look like I'm trying to give you a lecture.  This is a disagreement for which we still didn't find a common ground.  I'm not trying to be a pain in the @$$, I just can't agree on some of the things you're saying, just like you cannot agree on things I'm saying.  I don't think you're idiots.  I'm just fascinated by how many miles appart we stand on this issue. 

    (4) English is my secondary language, so please excuse some of the mistakes I might have made along the way...

    (5) I don't disagree with the new rules that have been implemented over the last couple of years.  I think they were meant to help and improve the players security.  The effort was there, no doubt.  I'm just trying to make the point, which seems obvious to me, that the "end results" are not good.  When I say "not significant", I mean "no significant improvement in reducing the number of players' severe injuries". 

    If you ask about what are my recommandations, I can give you my thoughts on that.

    (1) The speech of concern over head injuries (among other injuries) must come from within the NHL.  And when I say speech, I don't mean a cold factual speech.  I don't mean issuing a memo that says a new rule has been added at page number 38 of the rule book.  I mean that they must say it in a meaningful, heart moving, inspirational way (eg. Obama's speech when he was named president, Al Pacino in Any given Sunday).  We don't buy into the NHL's willingness to eradicate the problem.  I haven't witnessed leadership from the NHL.  No words from them that could have struck a sensible chord in the players that play the game or in the fans who watch the game.  Nothing... Not a single word that could have cast an effective doubt in ppl's heart. 

    I would have expected that someone other than the fans or the media would have spoken somewhere along the way, whether it was for Pacioretty, Bergeron or the hundreds of others... It's called hope on my part.  Probably the dumbest thing I've been fighting for over this post.  I have expectations, not for a new rule, but for some leadership, a good "father figure" who'd stand up and speak in such an effective way that the players he's taking care of would be moved in such a way that they'd make it a personnal pride to show some respect and avoid "completing a check" when they feel they could hurt someone badly. 

    ...

    I don't know how to say it in another way, guys...

    I imagine Al Pacino saying something like :

    "I don't know what to say really... For a couple of minutes, I thought a young man had lost his life playing the game I've been so passionate about since I was a kid.  I've been working hard on making this game as safe and exciting as possible.  I've added new rules, removed others, talked with experts and I tried everything I could possibly imagine to avoid accidents like the one I witnessed yesterday.  Now I know you play the game hard... you play the game with passion, and you'll do your very best, like you've been taught so well to win games and win the Stanley Cup.  I did my best to protect you with my rule book and the referees of the game.  But my power over what goes on on the ice is limited.  I can't do it for you.  I look around and I see these young faces and I think... etc."

    You know... something like that... I mean, someone has to do this, and lead the way out of this "dangerous hockey culture" where men are replaceable peices of meat... replaceable parts of a puzzle that will lead to the only end that really matters, profits...

    ----------------

    You know... what I felt when I saw Pacioretty on the ice all came down to this : "God, I'm glad that was not my son, lying face down on the ice like a dead corpse.  For the first time in my life, I felt deep down in my guts that I wouldn't want my son to wear a Habs' jersey and play for the Montreal Canadiens in this league who's proven to me over the years that they won't go the extra mile to protect my son."  And when I realized that no one felt that something had to be said or done other than "this was legal and we're not going to do anything else about it", I was disgusted...


    But you must be right.  I'm just a whinning fan who's angry that Chara wasn't suspended. 






     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : Thanks for being politically correct on asking this poster.  I can understand now, he's not even from Montreal. I for one am living it and it's very frustrating .  I have no patience for his soap box stance. Like I said on another post thanks to the cooled headed posters as yourself, Stevegm, DrCC, islamorada and fletch. 
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't born in Montreal, but I've been living here for the last 10 years.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    NHL GMs wouldn’t listen about hits to the head

     

    Three years ago, after polling their players, Paul Kelly and Glenn Healy spoke to the general managers in the National Hockey League and made an impassioned plea for the elimination of head shots in hockey.

    The reaction of the GMs, Healy remembers? “Silence.”

    “I could feel the knives in my back as I was walking out of the room, everybody staring at you,” said Healy, who was then Kelly’s assistant with the NHL Players’ Association.

    “The response was that there was no response. We knew we were working in a hostile environment.”

    He didn’t know that just about everything they proposed would be the centre of so much controversy three years later. Kelly has since been fired, Healy is back on television and the problems of hockey are at a crisis point once again.

    “I look back and think — ‘We were heading down the right path.’ But it was clear to me that the GMs didn’t want to hear it from us and didn’t trust the referees to make instinctual calls at full speed.”

    The Players’ Association was proposing a graduated penalty for head shots, focussing on vulnerable players.

    The GMs are meeting in Florida starting Monday: Among the topics three years later, head shots in hockey.

     

    _____________________

    That's how much they care.  "Silence" and "Feeling knives in my back" are pretty strong statements on how players' concerns and suggestions have been dealt with by the league's authorities.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

     You know... what I felt when I saw Pacioretty on the ice all came down to this : "God, I'm glad that was not my son, lying face down on the ice like a dead corpse.  For the first time in my life, I felt deep down in my guts that I wouldn't want my son to wear a Habs' jersey and play for the Montreal Canadiens in this league who's proven to me over the years that they won't go the extra mile to protect my son."  And when I realized that no one felt that something had to be said or done other than "this was legal and we're not going to do anything else about it", I was disgusted... But you must be right.  I'm just a whinning fan who's angry that Chara wasn't suspended. 
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    Then you must understand the Bs frustration with the Bergeron, Savard hits.  The anger here after the Savard hit did prompt action btw.  But it was not done through the legal system!  I am not commenting anymore as the "common ground" in my mind has been established in the thread.  Yet, when Chara comes to Canada in the playoffs many in Montreal will be smiling, if in fact Chara has testify in the legal system on a hockey play.  Now that is yahooism!

     

Share