[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
I think fines should be a percentage of the players salary that year. Of course, since most players are getting smaller annual salaries in lieu of huge signing bonuses, it doesn’t work as well as it would in theory. Maybe it would work better if they fined them a percentage of what they cost their team’s cap that year.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not the worst idea in the world, although it’s not really fair. I was saying it would be worse if they judged it by a player’s career earnings - “T.O., you’ve made $35 million dollars in your career, so we’re fining you $500,000; second-string scrub, you’ve only made $500,000, so we’re fining you $5,000.”
[QUOTE=Marley23]
That’s not the worst idea in the world, although it’s not really fair. I was saying it would be worse if they judged it by a player’s career earnings - “T.O., you’ve made $35 million dollars in your career, so we’re fining you $500,000; second-string scrub, you’ve only made $500,000, so we’re fining you $5,000.”
[/QUOTE]
At least that way the fine would affect everyone “equally”.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
<snip>If we wanted sportsmanship, it would be required.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
Good point. I’m not a sports fan (I get my sports stuff vicariously, since I live with a sports nut), and I have no interest in supporting an athlete who is basically a thug and/or junkie (not talking about T.O. specifically here). I understand that there are sports nuts who support their team (and the players on that team) come hell or high water. I don’t agree with this attitude, but like I said, sports isn’t my thing.
My husband coaches 15-19 year old elite baseball players (they go from his league to scholarships or the majors), and at that level, bullshit is not tolerated, period. They won’t even draft kids who have known problem parents. Somewhere between that level and professional status, kids get the idea that a lightning bolt for a right arm is a license to do whatever you please with no consequences, and I truly don’t agree with that idea.
Hockey does penalize assault with a deadly weapon with actual suspensions.
I seldom read about ordinary court cases where assault with a deadly weapon results in sentences of “You can’t play hockey for the rest of the season.”
Why isn’t it illegal to hit someone in a sports arena? Because fans pay good money for the violence, and if you couldn’t see blood, the fans would not pay as much.
I say give 'em all clubs and sheilds, and let the survivors split the money.
Hockey does penalize assault with a deadly weapon with actual suspensions.
I seldom read about ordinary court cases where assault with a deadly weapon results in sentences of “You can’t play hockey for the rest of the season.”
Why isn’t it illegal to hit someone in a sports arena? Because fans pay good money for the violence, and if you couldn’t see blood, the fans would not pay as much.
True, it was only probation. But it was an arrest and conviction due to an on-ice assault.
[/QUOTE]
So, of course, in a public move to display Professional Hockey’s strong distaste for such action, how long was this felon barred from playing?
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
So, of course, in a public move to display Professional Hockey’s strong distaste for such action, how long was this felon barred from playing?
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Why isn’t it illegal to hit someone in a sports arena?
[/QUOTE]
That would just kill boxing and UFC. Hell, even Pro Wrestling would be gone.
It’s call assumed risk. When you box, you assume the risk that you are going to be punched repeatedly. You don’t assume the risk that the guy will blindside you with the spit bucket. Hockey players assume the risks of checks, slashes, and the occassional brawl. They don’t assume the risk that the opposing player will deliberately attempt to brain them with a stick.