EHM The Blue Line

Minstrel wrote:Well this just goes to show, again, that you didn't actually read the actual letter just because you hate Buffalo because the point you're arguing is exactly what Galisano was addressing in his letter, it's not about a need for using a stopwatch to judge hits... it's about RESPECT and the fact that players have none for each other anymore and THAT is the difference between these hits and the one that knocked out another Sabre, Connolly in the playoffs.

"Hitting is a very important part of our game. You hit to break up a shot, you hit to disprupt a pass, you hit to battle for the puck and you hit to gain position for a defensive or offensive play. There are many times a player is vulnerable. And there are many times when a player can make a hit on a vulnerable player but chooses not to for fear of injuring an apponent for no no practical advantage. It's called respect."

Yeah but that letter was in response to Neil's hit which I really don't think you can call dirty.

In general I can see how it applies I guess, but in the situation it was written for it really didn't need to be written.

Maybe if he had written the letter after todays hit I could see what he was getting at, but I just saw the letter after the Neil hit as a sob story or something along those lines since there have been hits like that all season that nobody complained about.

Janssen received a 3 game suspension for the hit.

Reasonable, IMO.

The thing is, I don't think players have EVER had 'respect' for each other in the way some people say they used to. Maurice Richard was a violent player, attacking fellow players and officials alike. Doug Harvey nearly slashed an opponent into the emergency room and then said he deserved it afterwards. Mark Messier is known for the same thing with his elbows. All these players typify the various eras of hockey in which players 'showed respect to one another.' That's a blurry-eyed vision of the past--players have always been vicious towards each other; the only difference is that now there are players who are on the roster for that specific purpose, whereas in the 'good ol' days' the stars did it themselves.

Thundercleese wrote:The thing is, I don't think players have EVER had 'respect' for each other in the way some people say they used to. Maurice Richard was a violent player, attacking fellow players and officials alike. Doug Harvey nearly slashed an opponent into the emergency room and then said he deserved it afterwards. Mark Messier is known for the same thing with his elbows. All these players typify the various eras of hockey in which players 'showed respect to one another.' That's a blurry-eyed vision of the past--players have always been vicious towards each other; the only difference is that now there are players who are on the roster for that specific purpose, whereas in the 'good ol' days' the stars did it themselves.

Don't forget Bobby Clarke breaking someones ankles (literally) in the Summit Series (I think...)

Good call! That's another thing, the same guys who cry for hits that incedentally contact the head to be penalized or for fighting to be taken out of the game talk about the Clarke-era Flyers and say "boy, those guys sure were tough." They slashed, boarded, crosschecked and elbowed their way to the top! The hockey media, in Canada especially, is so myopic I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. There's a freakin' TROPHY handed out to the guy who's judged the least dirty in the league! If the NHL used to be so full of hugs and respect, I don't understand why they've needed to acknowledge the guy who throws the fewest elbows with a trophy since 1925!

Why do I say things about respect? Because of all the people that played during that era that no matter how much "dirty" play they were involved in to a man say they'd hold up if like Galisano says there was no advantage to a hit and put someone in a jeopardized position just to hit someone for the hell of it.

So you are taking a rather convenient spinning of what people have actually directly just because you don't agree, which is pretty stupid honestly:dunno:

Sorry. Spin it however you want but those are the exact words and sentiments of players in those eras. No mater how much the two of you want to agree with each other doesn't change what people have said, it's not an interpretation, it's fact. Violence histrorically in the game by players doesn't mean they had no respect for each other. There's no correlation and that is wh the distinction does come down to respect and lack thereof and it's a distinction that isn't being made by players nowadays. Or understood by either of you apparently.