|
Post by sammy on Mar 14, 2004 8:08:05 GMT -5
Being a Canadian and helping coach the kids just starting out in hockey, I believe I can see the main differences that arise between European and North American hockey. From the ages 4 to 8 (for the most part), the kids are taught to handle the puck and skate. Passing is an option that the more skilled players on a team develope. A game of 4 to 6 year olds usually consists of one kids with the puck, being chased around the arena by both teams. No positional play is taught and every kids takes their turn at being a goalie. There is no red line, no blue lines, and no icing. There is no score clock and every game ends in a tie. The ages 7and 8 introduces offsides and icing. They are also introduced to positional play at this age. Defencemen are taught to shoot the pucks up the boards instead of out in front of your net, and forwards are taught basic skills in how to go around the opposition with one on one moves. Again there is not much taught on passing plays as more time is spent on skating skills and puck handling control. The ages 9 and 10 is where everything changes. The kids by this time know the offside and icing rules. They can skate and many have already developed a good shot. At this age, they are taught the team concept. We really concentrate on teaching the kids that they are one of a team, and the team is more important then any individual player. You play as one on and off the ice. The pay-back code is a major part of this teaching. They are taught that a stick is not a weapon but a tool. Slashing and high sticking are not allowed and if anyone gives someone on your team a cheap shot, they have to pay the price for it and anyone on the team can give out the punishment. If someone is checked (which is not allowed, but everyone does it), it is that individuals job to check the kid back when the opportunity arises. Checking is not looked upon as a cheap shot. EG. In the last game of the regular season, Sammy Jr. was checked at center ice, knocked down and the puck taken from him. He got to his feet and went back to his position. The kid that knocked Sammy Jr down retained the puck and went wide on our defenceman, but was forced behind the net. Sammy Jr met him along the boards behind the net and crushed him, regained the puck and passed it out to our center. The refs turned a blind eye to the hit, because they knew it was payback. I know this because I asked the ref after the game why that hit wasn't called. His reply was, "The kid deserved it." The team is everthing and the pay-back rule is ingrained into the players thinking. By the time the kids hit 11 years old. They can pass, they can shoot and they are team players. At this point emphasis goes to playmaking and individual skills. That is why Europeans are the more skilled players on average. I believe they are taught skills at a younger age then the NA kids. That is why NA hockey is a rougher sport then European hockey. We are taught the pay-back rule and the team concept at a younger age. Anyways, this is just the opinion of a NA hockey dad.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 14, 2004 8:38:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 14, 2004 8:48:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 14, 2004 15:11:09 GMT -5
Well, I may have some difficulties with understanding the payback code (since I'm not a Canadian), but needless to say I agree: NHL is still the best league in the world, and hockey is still the greatest game in the universe. Cheers! Here's a video link to Don Cherry's Coach Corner, 13 March: cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/coach040313.ramBtw, who's Don Cherry's taylor? Outrageous outfit!
|
|
|
Post by bling on Mar 14, 2004 20:30:22 GMT -5
I really hate to say this, but I can see where Bertuzzi is coming from. One of the first things we teach the kids is to be responsible for their actions on the ice. Eg. if you give someone a cheap shot, expect a cheap shot in return, and if you recieve a cheap shot, you are taught to return the favorite. The hit on Naslund was the cheap shot. I personnaly don't think it was a penalty, but you always hold back a bit so you don't injure the guy. He didn't and Naslund was out. Bertuzzi challenged this guy and he ran. If he would have stood and fought Bertuzzi, none of this would have happened and the hit on Naslund would have been forgotten. He didn't stand and fight, bad move. Granted, he would have got the stuffing beat out of him, but it would have been better then what happened. This enraged Bertuzzi and he lost his cool so he attacked. What he did was wrong, and personally I would have smoked Sakic or Forsberg as hard as I could have and then asked the kid for a fight, just to let him know that I can hit their star players too. What should happen to Bertuzzi? Same as McSorley, one year suspension minimum. I have checked the board and read your response and subsequent discussion several times. I have written at least three responses and deleted them. I keep hoping my anger and disgust will dissipate so that I can address this issue logically and unemotionally. But that may never happen so my choices are to leave the board or express my feelings..... Sammy, your explanation of how hockey is taught in Canada was probably the most revealing thing to me. That along with your desire to see what that ignorant blowhard Don Cherry had to say before you rendered your final opinion tells me a lot too. Whatever Cherry would have said I suspect you would have agreed wholeheartedly with. You are one of the Canadian hockey fans who take your cue from that senile old man who is an embarrassment to hockey and one of the many reasons our great game will never be an acceptable mainstream sport. As for your contention that all Moore had to do was turn around and fight Bertuzzi and that would have been that, Steve had his obligatory revenge fight with Matt Cooke earlier in the game...Oh, but I forgot, the code demands that you lose a fight in order for the revenge to be ellicited. Was Moore supposed to fight each and every canuck in turn until somebady beat him in the manner your blood lust demands? This is the attitude that makes me sick and disgusted with all the Bertuzzi apologists. You yourself said it was not a penalty that Moore commited on Naslund but according to your precious code it was a cheap shot. Steve had his fight and took a lot of extra hits and dirty little pokes here and there during the whole game. He took it like a man and when the game was way out of Vancouver's reach the whining baby Canucks tried to save some little bit of face by at least "getting" Moore. Bertuzzi had to act on his big mouth promise that Steve Moore would not be in the Colorado line-up in March.... I know I am waisting my time and energy here. Nothing will change the macho attitude or behavior of Canadian men. And it don't look too good for you children either with you and Todd Bertuzzi as role models.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 14, 2004 21:50:15 GMT -5
Well, I guess I better defend myself here. I was trying to explain how the kids are brought up here in Canada to play hockey. They ARE brought up playing with the code of ethics afore mentioned. They are brought up to face their antagonist and drop their gloves if need be. They are taught to retaliate when a cheap shot is taken at them or their team mates. They are NOT taught to sucker punch someone in the head. I would love nothing more if Bertuzzi got his just deseves and had to sit out a minimum of a year and hopefully more. If Moore cannot play again, then Bertuzzi should not play again either. I also stated that I agreed with half of what Cherry said. I agreed with his comment that the way Canadian kids should face an antagonist is to go face to face with him, not a cheap shot in the back of the head. The only reason I wanted to see what Cherry said is because he is such a baffoon, I was wondering how idiotic he would make himself look over this one. I also stated that if Moore would have turned around and fought, this would never have happened. To this I still agree. When a hit like that is rendered to a star player on the team, you better be ready to take on all comers the next game. We have watch many games and my little guys opinion of Todd Bertuzzi is that he is a goon and not a hockey player. His favorite player happens to be Ryan Smyth of the Oilers. As for your comment about me being a role model for the little guy and compairing me to Todd Bertuzzi. Screw you Bling.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 14, 2004 22:04:54 GMT -5
As for Don Cherrys taylor Dancan. I believe it is the blind guy on the corner with the monkey and tin can.
|
|
|
Post by bling on Mar 14, 2004 22:08:33 GMT -5
"As for your comment about me being a role model for the little guy and compairing me to Todd Bertuzzi. Screw you Bling." Yup, I was out of line with that comment. I guess I should have waited another week before attempting to respond to this issue.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 14, 2004 22:24:31 GMT -5
No problem Bling, I know it was said in the heat of the moment, so no hard feelings I hope. I really don't condone what Bertuzzi did and I hope he sits out at least a year and if he was banned from hockey all together, that wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least. We don't need people (and I use that word loosely) like him around. I was just trying to explain how the kids in Canada are brought up to play. And Dancan, its tailor, not taylor. Sheesh what was I thinking when I spelled that one out.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 15, 2004 10:07:00 GMT -5
Tailor, of course. After watching the clip from Hockey Night, I was hypnotized by Don Cherry's suit, but for some reason, I was thinking Don Taylor, Don Taylor, Don Taylor...so I typed taylor instead of tailor. Btw. who is Don Taylor anyway?
Now, from time to time we discuss some issues which are highly emotional and sensitive. They may not look like that in the beginning, but when the discussion unfolds, it turns out that they are. The head scarf issue, to mention a recent topic.
It is said that (international) exchange of ideas foster mutual understanding and tolerance for diversity (but not necessarily consensus). Personally, I do not subscribe to such optimism. We have to recognize two facts: first, we have different national, social and personal backgrounds and this leads to a diversity in our values, norms and belief systems. Generally speaking, at times the diversity can just be to big to foster mutual understanding since this may require knowledge of each others social discourse and personal experience which guide and form our values, norms and belief systems. Mutual understanding may be hampered by two other factors, namely 1) the fact that this forum is largely anonymous, i.e. we do not know each other that well, even if we have been communicating with each other for a while, and that it is next to impossible to figure out the particular mood that a member was in when he/she posted, and 2) many of us do not speak English as our native language, and this increases the risk of misperceptions and/or misunderstandings.
All I am saying is that we cannot expect to reach a mutual understanding (let alone consensus) on everything. And we cannot expect that the discussion always will be civilized and well-mannered. However, if the posts become to loaded with personal charges, the admins/mods may have to intervene. That may be required if and when the forum gets more active members.
What, in my view, we should expect is that members give an explanation for why they are leaving the board, if they decide to leave the board . It's all to easy just to leave the board without giving an explanation. It is not that I find it vitally important. Life will go on, but I surely will regret it for two reasons: 1) exits may be caused by misperceptions or misunderstandings(see above) and 2) in the midst of the heat, members who leave the board may forget the all important fact, namely that we, despite our differences actually do care about them (as much as we can given the things I noted about the board being anonymous). At times, a cooling off period may be required, but I never hope to see another Hank stunt in this forum. Well, that's my opinion.
So, Bling, I am pleased that you bravely decided to express your anger instead of just leaving. In this case, we could not reach an agreement and there was little room for mutual understanding (I for one still don't understand the logic of the payback code when I compare it with the way the game is policed in Europe, i.e. the system I was brought up with when I played hockey), but I guess that we all learned something.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 15, 2004 11:09:14 GMT -5
Don Taylor, hmm...now I remember. He was the stupid and irritating color commentator in EA's NHL 2002 and 2003. Hence, the link to Don Cherry. My mind sometimes operates in mysterious ways, that is...when it operates
|
|
|
Post by bling on Mar 15, 2004 19:18:32 GMT -5
Sammy , I do need to apologize to you for directing my anger at you. That was very inappropriate.
Every since this whole thing started I have been enraged. First with all the talk of Steve Moore's cheap shot on Naslund, culminating in the horrific attack on Steve by Todd Bertuzzi.
I do not seem to be able to express myself yet without feeling the rage surge through me. I will instead post this editorial by Mike Bossy.
March 14, 2004 BACK TALK N.H.L. Was Too Tolerant of Bertuzzi's Brutal Act By MIKE BOSSY
What should have been the correct penalty for Todd Bertuzzi, who attacked Steve Moore in a game last Monday?
Put the decision in the hands of a jury and the penalty would have been tougher than what was handed down, a suspension for at least the remainder of the regular season and the playoffs. In the hands of anyone who has anything to do with the Vancouver Canucks, it would have been more lenient.
When you analyze the videotape of the act, you realize how ridiculously lenient the punishment is and how far it is from deterring other incidents.
Colorado's Moore had his neck broken by Vancouver's Bertuzzi, who grabbed him from behind and sucker-punched him. If you didn't close your eyes because you were appalled by that, you would have noticed that he continued his assault on Moore as he was falling to the ice unconscious.
If it wasn't for an Avalanche player who was close by, Bertuzzi might have killed Moore.
Let's forget about hockey careers for an instant and think of a human life. Let's forget about professional sports for a minute and think of human compassion. Our tolerance for illegal acts on the playing field is astounding, and our acceptance of them unacceptable.
We have somehow forgotten that these incidents are played out in front of millions of people. Anybody who thinks that Bertuzzi received the correct punishment is in fact condoning his actions. There is a whole lot of objectivity missing from comments on his suspension.
I played hockey for 25 years of my life. I know the feeling of being ambushed on the ice. Every time I look in the mirror and see my crooked nose, I am reminded of a game in Three Rivers, Quebec, where I was attacked without warning. You're never the same person after that. Just talk to someone who has been robbed or violated and ask how the person feels after such an incident.
I'm often asked how I feel after witnessing gratuitous acts of violence in the N.H.L. I've been preaching to deaf ears for the last 25 years that one day someone is going to leave his house to go to a game and he is not going to return. Until the N.H.L. disciplines its players to the full extent, that possibility unfortunately still exists.
People who abhor violent acts are not speaking loud enough. Zero tolerance is the only way.
Mike Bossy, a three-time winner of the Lady Byng Trophy for sportsmanship, entered the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1991
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 16, 2004 22:12:50 GMT -5
I guess I best have a girlie beer and continue on. Way back when dinosuars ruled the earth there was a guy named Sammy who played hockey. He wasn't too bad, but probably not good enough to get to the big leagues. What Sammy did very well was be a royal pain in the butt to the opposition. He was a fairly fast skater, but not the fastest and he had a fairly good shot, but not the best. He wasn't afraid to drop his gloves and he helped protect the better players on the team while chipping in a goal or two mostly by standing in front of the net and taking a bit of punishment. He always finished his check (at least I like to think so) and when he hit someone, they knew it (at least I like to believe). Sammy got hit from behind one game and went into the boards in an awkward position. When he got out of the hospital after back surgery, the doctor said that playing hockey again at that level was not an option. The hit on me was a cheap shot from behind. I have no sympathy for Moore as his hit on Naslund was a cheap shot. When a player is at full extension, you do not go for the head, you try to easy up on the hit or try to avoid it at all together. What would have happened if it had ended Naslund's career. I am sure the Vancouver fans would have been every bit as emotional as the Avs fans are. I have no sympathy for Bertuzzi. What he did was wrong. You never attack from the back. Never. People wonder about the code of ethics that have been brought up in these discussions. Some may call it the code of hockey. Hockey is a very fast, very physical sport. You put on armor, grab a weapon in your hands and strap 2 more weapons on your feet. The code of ethics in hockey protects players from serious injury. EG. If you take the weapon that you carry in your hands and strike the other player as hard as you can in the head, good chance he won't be playing again for a long time. If this does happen, it is up to your team mates to take out that player so he doesn't hurt anyone else. This of course is an exaggerated example, but the same holds true for all minor incidents. If a cheap shot is doled out, then be prepared, because you know what will happen. Canadian kids are brought up by this code. They are brought up to play as a team. As anyone who watches international hockey may have noticed, Canadian teams often lack in skill, but make up for it in team play. Many times we are beaten by more skilled teams, but many times we win with better team players. Look at the last World Cup. No one can tell me that Canada had the most skilled team on the ice. Why did we win? We played as a team. To the Canadian kid, the team concept is taught to them from a very young age. We are one of a team and if someone does something to one of your players he does it to everyone on your team. I have seen 9 year old kids benched by their coach because they slashed someone on the other team across the back of the leg. Slashing is not allowed as it can hurt someone, so the code of ethics is being taught because slashing is not an acceptable thing to do. I have seen 9 year old kids get a penalty for body checking and get a pat on the back from the coach after he gets back to the bench, because the kid he body checked had checked someone else on the team earlier. The code of ethics protects players from serious injury. Moore crossed the line when he hit Naslund. Bertuzzi crossed it even farther when he attacked Moore. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Mar 17, 2004 8:06:19 GMT -5
Sammy, I will keep my fingers crossed that what happened to you will never happen to Jr. I'm not sure whether we can cover much more common ground on this issue, but I'm willing to go along a bit further because its an interesting and important topic. Hockey is a fysical sport, but its not a violent sport! Check! It is important to teach young hockey players ethics. Formal rules cannot stand alone! Check! Ingraining the players with a payback code should be an important part of this learning process! Uncheck! I do not doubt that the code in general reinforces the general (ethical) dictum that the players must have mutual respect, but I fear that the code is being eroded, and that it is on the brink of a meltdown -- unless the NHL steps in and does something. Why is it being eroded? Is it because, at Philly's coach, Hitchcock, claims that about 35-40% of the players of the NHL were never taught the code because they are European? No, because this would imply that its only the European players who make the cheap shots and break the ethical code in the NHL, and that is clearly not the case. No, in my view, the code is being eroded for more fundamental reasons: first and foremost because the intensity of the game has increased dramatically, and secondly because the players are getting bigger and stronger. The consequences of the latter trend are pretty obvious: less space on ice, more contact, and, perhaps, harder checks. In all circumstances, big and strong players need to be more concerned about holding back when they do a check -- and they may not always remember this. The consequences of the first trend are more speculative because the operate on the psychological level. But as the intensity of the game increases, so does the risk that some players get their wires crossed and go over the line. This is likely to lead to an escalation, or at least an increase, in retributions. Florida's Olli Jokinen - your very own player on the Super Snipers - has raised concern about this: ""There's always a risk because there are 700 players in this league". "You never know what's going on inside somebody's head. Hopefully, everybody learns, but this is a tough way to learn, the wrong way to learn." As the fysical contact increases and the checks become harder, and the intensity of the game becomes more heated, more disputes are likely to arise about what constitute a clean or a dirty hit. Take the Bertuzzi-Moore incident for instance. You and the Canucks believed that Moore's hit was a cheap shot, the Avs and the NHL referees did not believe it. The payback code allowed the Canucks to seek retribution, but this lead to the next question: what is retribution? who decides when enough is enough? I have to say that I fully agree with Bling when she raises this question. I did not watch the game, but I understand that Moore knew that he had to fight and that he took this fight with Matt Cooke early in the game. Since I did not watch the game, I will let Jokinen speak again: "[Moore] knew that he had to fight, and he did his job. It was a fair face-to-face fight". So why did the Canucks players keep coming at him after the fight? And why did Bertuzzi step over the line? Is it because he's a goon? No, until the incident Bertuzzi had for a long time left the tough ranks to become one of the NHL leading goal scorer. Listen to what Bertuzzi said after the game on 16 Feb: "It's called respect in the league. Players like that kid coming up just shows what kind of respect we have around this league. He blindsided our guy". Nonetheless, Bertuzzi had his wires momentarily crossed, and this spoiled his magnificient career. I am sure that he for the rest of his life would wish that he could take that night against the Avs back. But he can't. But what led him to do it? In my view, there's no doubt: It was the code. The big question now is whether the NHL's stand-alone intervention will have any effect? I hope it will. Because there's no doubt that atmosphere has become more negative in recent months. And everybody -- right from the GM to the coaches and down -- have contributed to making things worse. Take for instance, Philadelphia's GM, Bob Clarke who declared that Senators stars --Marian Hossa and Daniel Alfredsson (MY players ) -- would be targets of revenge (for Martin Havlats cheap shot) and that he would not guarantee for their health the next time the two team met. When they did meet on 5 March (the super brawl game that resulted in no less than 213 PIM to Flyers, and 209 PIM to Ottawa), Ottawa's coach benched Hossa and Alfredsson for the most of the game *note), and he will probably do the same again next time on 2 April. Marian Hossa says: Do I worry if [what happened to Moore] could happen to me?. Definitely. We just have to have more respect for each other. The last few months have been very violent. I've never seen anything like it before. Never ssen anything like it before. We could call it the 'fear factor'! And it leads to one last obvious question: Could we imagine that the mere threat of injuring the opposite team's star players could be a means to get ahead in the playoff race? I sincerely don't hope that, but I'm afraid it might. Although I think (hope) I understand the rationale for the code, I remain unconvinced about its merits. * note): In the game on 5 march, Hossa's TOI was 13:09. Hossa's average TOI in this season has been 18:29; Alfredsson's TOI on 5 March was as low as 12:49 against his average 19:29 (source: NHL statistics). the quotes are from: Globe and Mail, 12 March, NHL players say payback isn't about to go away
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Mar 17, 2004 8:45:03 GMT -5
What we are seeing in the NHL in my opinion is a bastardization of the code. Yes, the players are bigger and stronger and faster, but what is missing is the respect. Respect for the other players is a major factor. The good Lord knows that more then once I had the urge to take someones head off with an elbow, but I didn't because of respect. Why are there serious injuries, because of lack of respect. Hockey is a physical sport, not a violent sport. Uncheck It is important to teach young players ethics. Formal rules cannot stand alone. Check Ingraining players with a payback code should be an important part of their learning process. Check Looks like we agree to disagree Dancan. Hockey is a violent sport because of the speed and armor. North American Football is a violent sport for the same reason. Anytime two people hit each other whether it is body contact or fighting, is this not violence? It may be acceptable violence, but it is still violence. If we took violence out of hockey, we'd have soccer(football) on skates. The payback code prevents this violence from escalating. If there was no retribution handed out by the players, the NHL would be over run with career ending plays. It is tragic what happened to Moore and because of the fight he had earlier in the game, Bertuzzi should never have done what he did. If Bertuzzi only gets the rest of the season and the playoffs as a suspension, I will be thoroughly dissapointed. The NHL governor falls down on his job yet again. As for Bobby Clarkes comment. He should have been fined and kicked out of hockey. He was probably one of the dirtiest players to ever play the game (the 72 slash) and his comments only make things worse. I would love to see the payback code stopped being taught, but it won't happen until the referees crack down on calls and the punishments fit the crime. This won't happen though as hockey is a violent sport.
|
|