Thoughts from Montreal

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

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    [/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!
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]


    Ohh... I sure understand the B's anger. 

    Forget Chara and the legal system.  It's not about Chara, it's about the NHL's lack of concerns with civilians playing hockey in their league. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]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. 
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]


    I have a couple of thoughts (I'll try to keep it short):

    1) I am not really interested in what Hab's fans are thinking, ever.  My expectations are that most Hab's fans think Chara should have been given a lifetime ban or the death penalty for the hit. 

    2) The rules that you acknowledge that have been implemented over the last couple of years illustrates to me that you are a little out-of-touch.  Anyone following the B's knows the key rule change was the Marc Savard Rule (Rule 48), eliminating the blind-side head shot.  This rule was proposed by the NHL GM's three days after the Cooke hit on Savard, and was implemented about two weeks later.  The new rule will have been in effect for 1 year on March 25th. 

    3) I was not aware that Pacioretty's life was in danger.  Unless you can show otherwise, I suggest that type of rhetoric is over-the-top, and not helpful if you want to have a serious conversation.

    In summary, my observation is that you are upset about the injury to Pacioretty and you are angry that Chara didn't get suspended.  This really hits home for you now, but Bruins fans are several years ahead of you in terms of frustration/concern, since Bergeron was injured in October, 2007 and Savard in March, 2010. You want "someone" in the league office to show leadership on player safety, but you must not have been listening when they implemented Rule 48 in direct response to Savard's injury.  

    I do share your concern about player safety.  I would like to see the league do more to limit player equipment, for example.  I also think Rule 48 was a good start to legislate against dangerous plays.  That being said, hockey is a physical and sometimes violent sport, played by big/fast guys that throw their bodies around.  Players get hurt now and will get hurt in the future. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SteveM. Show SteveM's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Enough from wedgie already. Enough about the habs, enough about Montreal, enough about Quebec. Go away. No wonder the rest of Canada despises all of it, for chrisakes...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]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.
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    I don't "dismiss" cultural issues.  You're merely attempting to further muddy the water here...cuz you're having no success otherwise.
    Calling 911 over a hockey call is irresponsible in any culture.  Assuming a wishy washy government(from any jurisdiction) will make things better, is a stupid idea that could, and has been put forth by both cultures, so it's not "culture specific", and again, dumb in the context of either culture. 
    Your assumption that French Canada sees no problem with shenanigans, and the rest of the English world does...is also incorrect.  It's not a French English thing.  It's not a cultural thing.  It's merely the creation of hysteria by illogical blind sports homers.  Taken a step further...the only francophones that potentially support you are Hab fans.  Many Francophones disagree with you, and many English Hab fans agree with you, so that pretty much eliminates the culture card.

    Most cultures have an issue with murder.  If a person jumps off a cliff... vs gets pushed off ,,...there's a difference.  Yes...they're both dead....but you deal with both situations differently.  Your thoughts up to this point, suggest you have a hard time understanding that very basic differentiation.

    And no..I wasn't making a threat.  You know that !  I was merely pleading for sensibility.  The crux of your original argument has been decimated, and introducing culture as any kind of validation doesn't fly.  Not because I don't understand cultural nuances....but because I do. 

    The overall fiscal health of the NHL has no bearing whatsoever with what we're talking about here.  What ever posessed you to bring that up now?  Why would increased player safety hurt their bottom line?  If done right...it could quite possibly increase things.

    You bring up colorful examples of potential death in the game.  Please write down your thoughts on these, if you would be so kind.
    I mentioned in detail Savards latest 2, very serious concussions.  That speaks directly to your self proclaimed passion.  They don't involve Hab players, so it should make you even more objective.  What didn't the league do correctly there?  What do you think should have happenned?
    What if, when diving for a puck, a player became nearly decpaitated by a skate(maybe 2)...and agonizingly died in a squirting pool of blood in front of 20,000 people.  It could happen, almost surprising it hasn't yet.  In any event....what would you do regarding this most terrible example of violence ?

    Anxiously awaiting.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    "The overall fiscal health of the NHL has no bearing whatsoever with what we're talking about here.  What ever posessed you to bring that up now?  Why would increased player safety hurt their bottom line?  If done right...it could quite possibly increase things."

    That's also stupid.  I don't feel like being polite.  BECAUSE, in the end, the Chara-Pacioretty drama will have put more money in the owners pockets than a Crosby's healthy 150 points season.  BECAUSE the images of the Chara-Pacioretty incident are a lot more appealing to our fellow citizens than a smiling Crosby on the front page.  BECAUSE the next game between the Habs and the Bruins will be one of the most watched hockey game of the season.  BECAUSE any business man would want Montreal and Boston to meet in the playoffs... BECAUSE ppl fantasize of what could possibly happen in the next game, and what attracts their attention has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility to witness a Bergeron's hat trick.  BECAUSE that incident fueled a rivalry to new hights... and BECAUSE there are profits to be made out of the fact that we hate each other.

    BECAUSE if you want to eliminate this, there better be some profits involved or a clear threat of losing money. 

    Hockey is a business.  Are you just playing dumb or do you really have some intellectual limitations ?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : I have a couple of thoughts (I'll try to keep it short): 1) I am not really interested in what Hab's fans are thinking, ever.  My expectations are that most Hab's fans think Chara should have been given a lifetime ban or the death penalty for the hit.  2) The rules that you acknowledge that have been implemented over the last couple of years illustrates to me that you are a little out-of-touch.  Anyone following the B's knows the key rule change was the Marc Savard Rule (Rule 48), eliminating the blind-side head shot.  This rule was proposed by the NHL GM's three days after the Cooke hit on Savard, and was implemented about two weeks later.  The new rule will have been in effect for 1 year on March 25th.  3) I was not aware that Pacioretty's life was in danger.  Unless you can show otherwise, I suggest that type of rhetoric is over-the-top, and not helpful if you want to have a serious conversation. In summary, my observation is that you are upset about the injury to Pacioretty and you are angry that Chara didn't get suspended.  This really hits home for you now, but Bruins fans are several years ahead of you in terms of frustration/concern, since Bergeron was injured in October, 2007 and Savard in March, 2010. You want "someone" in the league office to show leadership on player safety, but you must not have been listening when they implemented Rule 48 in direct response to Savard's injury.   I do share your concern about player safety.  I would like to see the league do more to limit player equipment, for example.  I also think Rule 48 was a good start to legislate against dangerous plays.  That being said, hockey is a physical and sometimes violent sport, played by big/fast guys that throw their bodies around.  Players get hurt now and will get hurt in the future. 
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]
    Crowls, Pac's life was in danger the minute he broke his C4 vert. He should be thanking God he is not paralyzed. The C4 vert is the top part of your spine any higher and we are talking life threatening.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BigPapaBear72. Show BigPapaBear72's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Don Cherry has it right as usual. Check the video

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2011/03/12/sp-cherry-charahit.html
     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]  The Habs will make your run at the Stanley cup a 4 games short adventure and you can go back to being irrelevant afterwards.
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    Ahh, finally Wedgy just comes out and says what he/she really wanted to say since post 1, but covered up with her illogical argument. Nice revert to form.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    the montreal canadien organization should be ashamed for not protecting the safety of THEIR OWN PLAYERS(and others in the league). put padding on that part of the ice and stop deflecting the blame, it lies solely on their shoulders.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]"The overall fiscal health of the NHL has no bearing whatsoever with what we're talking about here.  What ever posessed you to bring that up now?  Why would increased player safety hurt their bottom line?  If done right...it could quite possibly increase things." That's also stupid.  I don't feel like being polite.  BECAUSE, in the end, the Chara-Pacioretty drama will have put more money in the owners pockets than a Crosby's healthy 150 points season.  BECAUSE the images of the Chara-Pacioretty incident are a lot more appealing to our fellow citizens than a smiling Crosby on the front page.  BECAUSE the next game between the Habs and the Bruins will be one of the most watched hockey game of the season.  BECAUSE any business man would want Montreal and Boston to meet in the playoffs... BECAUSE ppl fantasize of what could possibly happen in the next game, and what attracts their attention has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility to witness a Bergeron's hat trick.  BECAUSE that incident fueled a rivalry to new hights... and BECAUSE there are profits to be made out of the fact that we hate each other. BECAUSE if you want to eliminate this, there better be some profits involved or a clear threat of losing money.  Hockey is a business.  Are you just playing dumb or do you really have some intellectual limitations ?
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't feel like "being polite" any more Wedgy.  Your arguments, and your logic just keep getting farther out in left field, and you're getting called on them.
      If I buy your claim that... "Chara/Pacioretty drama put more money in the owners pockets than Crosby's healthy 150 point season"...yes I probably have some "intellectual limitations".  WOW!  You just keep handing me ammunition.  Once again, you make a limp dick comment...(which defies preumptive logic)present it as fact, when there is absolutely nothing to back it up.  If it did in fact put "more money in their pockets"...it's not because they did, or didn't do anything.
    It's because of you and your like minded friends.  You're the ones that created the drama. 

    Congratulations on diminishing the entertainment of a "Bergeron hat trick", in favour of fueling "a rivalry to new heights".

    And I vehemently disagree that the majority..., from any area of Canada or the US, find the "Chara Pacioretty images appealling".  Geez man...it's really easy to get this one.  There are thousands of online comments about this thing, and virtually all feel it's unfortunate.  Virtually none think it's great.

    Wedgy, As my grandmother used to say..."You bring on lots of cackle....but no eggs".

    Finally, you introduce a video showing a crazed Hitler, as the last bastion of clear thinking and objectivity.  That must of been put together by an 8 year old, and really does nothing positive for your cause....only negaitive..  

    I think we've gone about as far as we can here Wedge.

    Am probably done.

    Have a good day.
      
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]smirk.  But I'm a good person, and I play by the rules. Here's a little video.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWE-OO9Zss I'm done.  You're stupid, blind and unaware.  And for what I've been reading from you, I'm justified to say it.  The Habs will make your run at the Stanley cup a 4 games short adventure and you can go back to being irrelevant afterwards.
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    That Hitler montage was disgusting ! How can you even bring that in here.
    Shame on you.!
    I get how you guys can relate to this , Savard and Bergeron hits never happened and you are all brainwashed just as were the Germains in the 40's.
    Again that's disgusting. Wonder what Air Canada would think about this being brought up by Hab fans.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikzor. Show mikzor's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : That Hitler montage was disgusting ! How can you even bring that in here. Shame on you.! I get how you guys can relate to this , Savard and Bergeron hits never happened and you are all brainwashed just as were the Germains in the 40's. Again that's disgusting. Wonder what Air Canada would think about this being brought up by Hab fans.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    I assumed Hitler was being played by Geoff Molson.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    The biggest thorn in what I've read of Wedgies recent arguement is that. Both Chara and Paccioretty admitted that niether of them cared at all about the incident where Pax shoved chara.

    Both of them have said that. Apparently the NHL agrees.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]the montreal canadien organization should be ashamed for not protecting the safety of THEIR OWN PLAYERS(and others in the league). put padding on that part of the ice and stop deflecting the blame, it lies solely on their shoulders.
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    Oh for God's sake. This was a freak accident. It is NOT:

    -a glaring example of an organization ignoring a clearly unsafe workplace
    -a criminal act
    -an intent by one player to kill another
    -a suspendable offense
    -the type of play that results in this type of injury all the time
    -something the NHL should have seen coming
    -something that should influence boycotts from major corporations.

    The sooner Habs fans stop trying to pin blame on either the NHL or Zdeno Chara, the better off we'll all be. And the sooner some Bruins fans stop attempting to use this as an attempt to take a swipe at their rival, the better off we'll all be. In fact, the sooner that both fan bases see this for what it is....a freak accident....the better off we'll all be.

    That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a review of the stanchion in Montreal and other places to make sure this freak accident doesn't happen again. There should. But the finger pointing rhetoric from both sides and how this is the other's "fault" is ridiculous.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : That Hitler montage was disgusting ! How can you even bring that in here. Shame on you.!
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    Godwin's Law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BigPapaBear72. Show BigPapaBear72's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : Oh for God's sake. This was a freak accident. It is NOT: -a glaring example of an organization ignoring a clearly unsafe workplace -a criminal act -an intent by one player to kill another -a suspendable offense -the type of play that results in this type of injury all the time -something the NHL should have seen coming -something that should influence boycotts from major corporations. The sooner Habs fans stop trying to pin blame on either the NHL or Zdeno Chara, the better off we'll all be. And the sooner some Bruins fans stop attempting to use this as an attempt to take a swipe at their rival, the better off we'll all be. In fact, the sooner that both fan bases see this for what it is....a freak accident....the better off we'll all be. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a review of the stanchion in Montreal and other places to make sure this freak accident doesn't happen again. There should. But the finger pointing rhetoric from both sides and how this is the other's "fault" is ridiculous.
    Posted by Kennedy97[/QUOTE]

    I have to say I agree with pretty much everyting you stated, good post.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    kennedy... the only reason this was a freak accident is there was injury. this injury could have been eliminated/decreased with a protective barrier. so how much responsibility lies on the employer for not providing a safe workplace? the only lawsuit that could hold any water- is this issue. of all the ways to decrease the chance of head injury in the game , this one is the easiest to remedy... pad the stanchion or reconfigure it to make it safer. then there will be less "freak accidents" involving this area of ice in  the future.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal:
    [QUOTE]kennedy... the only reason this was a freak accident is there was injury. this injury could have been eliminated/decreased with a protective barrier. so how much responsibility lies on the employer for not providing a safe workplace? the only lawsuit that could hold any water- is this issue. of all the ways to decrease the chance of head injury in the game , this one is the easiest to remedy... pad the stanchion or reconfigure it to make it safer. then there will be less "freak accidents" involving this area of ice in  the future.
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    I doubt any lawsuit will hold water.  And there have been around 700 hockey games played at the Molson/Bell Centre since it opened.  Now, I'm not saying "don't reconfigure" or "don't better pad the stanchion" but if this was clearly the dangerous workplace you say it is, how come this kind of issue in Montreal is rare (and until recently, nonexistent).

    The answer: while the stanchion can be improved, it was still a "freak accident". I know you want to point fingers at the Habs because you're a Bruins fan, but that's really more of what your point is based on than any real concern about workplace safety.
     
  20. 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 : Oh for God's sake. This was a freak accident. It is NOT: -a glaring example of an organization ignoring a clearly unsafe workplace -a criminal act -an intent by one player to kill another -a suspendable offense -the type of play that results in this type of injury all the time -something the NHL should have seen coming -something that should influence boycotts from major corporations. The sooner Habs fans stop trying to pin blame on either the NHL or Zdeno Chara, the better off we'll all be. And the sooner some Bruins fans stop attempting to use this as an attempt to take a swipe at their rival, the better off we'll all be. In fact, the sooner that both fan bases see this for what it is....a freak accident....the better off we'll all be. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a review of the stanchion in Montreal and other places to make sure this freak accident doesn't happen again. There should. But the finger pointing rhetoric from both sides and how this is the other's "fault" is ridiculous.
    Posted by Kennedy97[/QUOTE]


    Per usual your reasoning is top shelf.  I still believe the rules need to be defined down the road either in the next CBA or in some directive in the NHL governors meetings.  

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

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    kennedy... i'm going to resort to pure logic in trying to get my point across:  IF montreal had padded stanchions, THEN there would have not been a serious injury.  no serious injury.... not a freak accident. there that was easy, not as complicated as people are making it out to be.
     
  22. 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 : Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
    Posted by Kennedy97[/QUOTE]

    Great one Kennedy
     
  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 : Of course you don't feel like "being polite" any more Wedgy.  Your arguments, and your logic just keep getting farther out in left field, and you're getting called on them.   If I buy your claim that... "Chara/Pacioretty drama put more money in the owners pockets than Crosby's healthy 150 point season"...yes I probably have some "intellectual limitations".  WOW!  You just keep handing me ammunition.  Once again, you make a limp dick comment...(which defies preumptive logic)present it as fact, when there is absolutely nothing to back it up.  If it did in fact put "more money in their pockets"...it's not because they did, or didn't do anything. It's because of you and your like minded friends.  You're the ones that created the drama.  Congratulations on diminishing the entertainment of a "Bergeron hat trick", in favour of fueling "a rivalry to new heights". And I vehemently disagree that the majority..., from any area of Canada or the US, find the "Chara Pacioretty images appealling".  Geez man...it's really easy to get this one.  There are thousands of online comments about this thing, and virtually all feel it's unfortunate.  Virtually none think it's great. Wedgy, As my grandmother used to say..."You bring on lots of cackle....but no eggs". Finally, you introduce a video showing a crazed Hitler, as the last bastion of clear thinking and objectivity.  That must of been put together by an 8 year old, and really does nothing positive for your cause....only negaitive..   I think we've gone about as far as we can here Wedge. Am probably done. Have a good day.   
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    "Am probably done", I'll bet on the "probably"...

    Funny how I say things and you twist them around, and convince yourself that "being impolite" has something to do with your self proclaimed winning arguments. 

    Bringing into the discussion aspects that you have a hard time understanding doesn't necessarily make these aspects irrelevant, or "left field".  You're incredible... and kind of funny and entertaining to read, for I wouldn't be replying so frequently if it wasn't somewhat amusing. 

    You ask me to back up things I say... and you seem to be pretty resistant to the idea that profits are linked to violence... Here, I made an effort...

    Variations in NHL attendance: the impact of violence, scoring, and regional rivalries - Discrimination and The NHL

    American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, April, 2003 by Rodney J. Paul

    (Parts of the article)

    The scoring variables reveal an interesting result. To win games, teams obviously need to score, which means that the team record and goals are correlated figures. It appears, however; that within this sample higher scoring teams tend to have lower attendance. This is true for both the U.S. and Canadian teams. This could arise from fans preferring to see a more physical style of game (see the violence effect below) rather than a more wide-open contest. The previous season's goal total was found to be significant and negative for both U.S. and Canadian teams, while the coefficient on the goals per game variable was negative, but only significant in the U.S. sample.

    The fights per game for the home team, the proxy for violence, is found to be highly significant and positive across the sample. For teams in the United States it is more pronounced than for the Canadian teams, but both coefficients are large and positive. This is slightly different than the findings of Jones, Stewart, and Sunderman (1996), who studied violence a decade earlier. They found a negative impact on attendance for Canadian teams who tend to fight. Despite the NHL's efforts to minimize fighting and violence, it appears to be a very strong determinant of attendance across cities within the league.

    ...

    Conclusions

    The empirical results revealed that teams that fight more often tend to draw more fans. This was consistent across countries in terms of a positive influence, although the size of the coefficients reveals that this effect is magnified in the United States. Even though the NHL has tried to crack down on violence through rule changes and the league has been criticized in the media for incidents such as the Marty McSorley trial, violence still tends to draw fans to the arena.

    The scoring side was more surprising. It appears that for teams that have the same level of regular season and playoff success, more scoring actually decreases attendance. The coefficients on past scoring and the goals per game average were both found to be negative and significant. Although the NHL has made rule changes in recent years to increase scoring, the impact may not help team revenues. It appears that fans prefer teams that win and have tendencies toward fighting and violence, as opposed to high-scoring, low-violence teams.

    ____________________

    So yeah... you're intellectually limited... So that's it for what you considered being me throwing you ammunitions...

    If you "vehemently disagree" with what I said, and backed up with evidence (which honestly, I don't think was needed), you probably didn't get what your father meant when he told you "Do as I say, not as I do.."

     

    Yeah... so you better have a solid counter-argument to disrespectfully dismiss economic factors in the league decisions to erradicate violence... 

    If it's too hard for you to expand the discussion from the Chara-stanchion-Pachio-hysteria blah blah, keep on yappin' BS.

     

     

     
  24. 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]kennedy... i'm going to resort to pure logic in trying to get my point across:  IF montreal had padded stanchions, THEN there would have not been a serious injury.  no serious injury.... not a freak accident. there that was easy, not as complicated as people are making it out to be.
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    Your argument would stand if that was the first and only incident in NHL history... And deffering an incident to a later time or another place is good indicator of your "pre-opperational" (cf Piaget) cognitive stage of problem solving.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Thoughts from Montreal

    Oh and as for the criminal investigation...
    • 1905 - Allan Loney is charged with manslaughter in the on-ice clubbing death of Alcide Laurin. Loney claimed self-defence, and was found not guilty.[4]
    • 1907 - Ottawa Senators players Harry Smith, Alf Smith and Charles Spittal were charged with assault after beating Montreal Wanderers players, Hod Stuart, Ernie "Moose" Johnson and Cecil Blatchford with their sticks.
    • 1907 - Ottawa Victorias player Charles Masson is charged with manslaughter after Cornwall player Owen McCourt dies of a head wound sustained in a brawl. Masson is found not guilty on the grounds that there was no way to know which blow had killed McCourt.[5]
    • 1922 - Sprague Cleghorn injured three Ottawa Senators players in a brawl, leading Ottawa police to offer to arrest him.
    • 1969 - In a pre-season game held in Ottawa, Ted Green of the Boston Bruins and Wayne Maki of the St.Louis Blues engaged in a violent, stick-swinging brawl. A fractured skull and brain damage caused Green to miss the entire 1969–1970 NHL season.[6] The NHL suspended Maki for 30 days and Green for 13 games. Both men were acquitted in court.
    • 1975 - Dan Maloney of the Detroit Red Wings was charged with assault causing bodily harm after he attacked Brian Glennie of the Toronto Maple Leafs from behind. In exchange for a no-contest plea, Maloney did community service work and was banned from playing in Toronto for two seasons.
    • 1975 - Police charged Bruins player Dave Forbes with aggravated assault after a fight with Henry Boucha of the Minnesota North Stars. After a nine-day trial ended with a hung jury, charges against Forbes were dropped.
    • 1976 - Philadelphia Flyers players Joe Watson, Mel Bridgman, Don Saleski and Bob "Hound" Kelly were charged with assault after using their hockey sticks as weapons in a violent playoff game between the Flyers and the Toronto Maple Leafs in which fans had been taunting the Flyers players and spitting at them. Bridgman was acquitted, but the other three Flyers were found guilty of simple assault.
    • 1976 - Calgary Cowboys forward Rick Jodzio plead guilty to a charge of assault following a cross-check to the head of Quebec Nordiques player Marc Tardif during the World Hockey Association playoffs. The hit led to a 20-minute bench clearing brawl.[7]
    • 1977 - Dave "Tiger" Williams of the Toronto Maple Leafs hit Pittsburgh Penguin Dennis Owchar with his stick. He was charged with assault, but acquitted.
    • 1982 - Jimmy Mann of the Winnipeg Jets left the bench and sucker-punched Pittsburgh Penguin Paul Gardner, breaking Gardner's jaw in two places. Mann was fined $500 and given a suspended sentence in Winnipeg.
    • 1988 - Dino Ciccarelli hit Leafs defenceman Luke Richardson with his stick. Charged and convicted of assault, he was sentenced to one day in jail and fined $1,000.
    • 1998 - Jesse Boulerice of the Plymouth Whalers was suspended for the rest of the playoffs after violently swinging his stick at Guelph Storm forward Andrew Lang. Boulerice was charged with assault as a result of the incident.
    • 2000 - Marty McSorley of the Boston Bruins hit Vancouver Canuck Donald Brashear in the head with his stick in the waning moments of the game, after losing a fight to Brashear earlier in the game. McSorley was convicted of assault with a weapon and given an 18-month conditional discharge.
    • 2004 - After repeated failed attempts at instigating a fight, Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks sucker-punched Steve Moore of the Colorado Avalanche in the back of the head, knocking Moore unconscious. The pair then fell to the ice with Bertuzzi's weight crushing Moore face-first into the ice, followed by several players from both teams further piling onto the mêlée. Moore sustained three fractured vertebrae, a grade three concussion, vertebral ligament damage, stretching of the brachial plexus nerves, and facial lacerations. Bertuzzi was charged by police, and given a conditional discharge after pleading guilty to assault causing bodily harm. His suspension resulted in a loss of $500,000 in pay and the Canucks were fined $250,000. Bertuzzi was re-instated in 2005; Moore has not played since and made several unsuccessful attempts at civil litigation.
    So yeah... Hysteria...
     

Share