|
Post by Rocky Saganiuk on Nov 29, 2008 22:15:37 GMT -4
Is it just me, or has hockey in our division (maybe the entire league) less exciting with the lack of enforcers?
No matter where the Wildcats were in the standings, knowing that a Cormier, Tremblay, Bonneau etc... was coming to town seemed to create a buzz (actually a legitimate atmosphere at the rink as opposed to our efforts to create an artifical one).
I'm not talking excessive violence, like line brawls, but knowing there is such a slime chance that a couple heavyweights might try to re-energize their team, change momentum, or just plain square off for individual or team pride makes going to the games, for myself, much less interesting.
You would think that our winning streak would have created an extra hop in everyone's walk to the rink, but I haven't seen anymore excitment and enthousiasm. Not like when we were sitting on the edge of our seats when Cormier or Bonneau would jump on the ice.
Does anyone else miss this element of the junior game?
|
|
|
Post by juniorcormier16 on Nov 29, 2008 23:26:37 GMT -4
I do very much so. I think taking enforcers out of the game and making the new rules with the fighting and getting suspended etc is the must stupid thing i have ever herd. makes for boring games imo. Really miss the big guys like Bonneau, cormier.
|
|
|
Post by gongshow on Nov 30, 2008 8:40:08 GMT -4
I find that when they introduced these new rules the game has lost it's intensity...guys no longer know how to react in the heat of the moment...and that's when hockey's at it's best.
I stay home and watch the NHL for the most part this year....and I'm glad I didn't invest 400$'s in season tickets to the WC's this year.
|
|
|
Post by buckybuckbuck on Nov 30, 2008 9:45:32 GMT -4
I agree with you that something is missing. I have a big issue with the last second turn towards the boards to draw the checking from behind penalty. This is hockey and you should play to protect yourself all the time. They play with their hands at the sides facing the boards and are totally surprised when hit. I don't know if some smaller players who can skate around with their backs to the bigger players are dominating the game and that is ruining it or what it is, but I know I don't get the hockey fix nearly as much as I used to a couple of years ago and before. Here's my question if anyone cares to answer it. I can't figure out why I would say that 2005-2006 Wildcats would have murdered any of the teams in the league ever since, but in that year Quebec, Chicoutimi, and Bathurst were all very strong teams and they made for exciting games. Was that team not as good as I remember them or has the level changed drastically?
|
|
ronmac
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 376
|
Post by ronmac on Nov 30, 2008 10:46:52 GMT -4
I would agree hole heartily,. with all the new rules they have certainly taken the emotion and passion out of the game it is certainly not as exciting as before the rule changes IMO
|
|
|
Post by melly on Nov 30, 2008 11:08:10 GMT -4
Is it just me, or has hockey in our division (maybe the entire league) less exciting with the lack of enforcers? No matter where the Wildcats were in the standings, knowing that a Cormier, Tremblay, Bonneau etc... was coming to town seemed to create a buzz (actually a legitimate atmosphere at the rink as opposed to our efforts to create an artifical one). I'm not talking excessive violence, like line brawls, but knowing there is such a slime chance that a couple heavyweights might try to re-energize their team, change momentum, or just plain square off for individual or team pride makes going to the games, for myself, much less interesting. You would think that our winning streak would have created an extra hop in everyone's walk to the rink, but I haven't seen anymore excitment and enthousiasm. Not like when we were sitting on the edge of our seats when Cormier or Bonneau would jump on the ice. Does anyone else miss this element of the junior game? Absolutely, And I would agree that there is a serious lack of passion on the ice. I know the Moose are a bottom feeder this year, but that doesn't mean they can't show up and play physical and react to events with emotion and intensity. There have only been 2/14? games at the MC that had a decent amount of emotional intensity. And one of those was spurned on by a frustrated Sea Dog team. I am not sure about the other rinks, but the MC is a quiet place on most nights. The league has not just taken out fighting, it has somehow managed to remove the regular violence in hockey. Hard hitting, on the boards, and open ice, has been lessened. Guys are scared to take a little run at someone for fear of a penalty. Payback, as well, is almost non-existent. I remember one game last month where the refs handed out penalties, to the opposition, for great hits, as if it were European hockey! Hockey is inherently violent because of the speed, and we have no "out of bounds". The Quebec government in its' attempt to curb gratuitous violence, has removed alot of the necessary and normal violence that is part of the game. I have watched alot of NHL games this year, the league is fast, exciting, intense and YES, violent! It will only be a matter of time before people will opt to stay home and watch a game on TV, then watch a boring Q game live.
|
|
Jason
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 462
|
Post by Jason on Nov 30, 2008 11:52:06 GMT -4
I couldn't agree more with this thread. The frustrating part is that the commish is happy with these changes. Being a Titan fan I don't like the changes that might hurt the attendance because being a smaller market team, any negative change in attendance is felt extreamly hard.
At first it was reducing the schedule by two games and now these rules bring down the number of people that attend those fewer games.
Although I hate to admit it, I don't see the Titan in Bathurst after next season.....
|
|
|
Post by elementz on Nov 30, 2008 14:07:46 GMT -4
What new rules?
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Nov 30, 2008 14:40:55 GMT -4
Ask Cape Breton fans what the two best home games they saw so far this year were. They'll answer by saying the two home games against Saint John in early November. How many fights were there in those two games? ZERO! You don't need fights to have an intense game. I also seem to recall some people complaining about the lack of intensity last season so I don't think lack of fighting is the real issue here.
|
|
ronmac
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 376
|
Post by ronmac on Nov 30, 2008 14:55:33 GMT -4
It's anther element of the game that keeps it exciting and can change the momentum of a game, .....do you ever notice of many people stand when a fight breaks out especially between two willing com batons.
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Nov 30, 2008 15:23:43 GMT -4
I find a fight adds excitement to a game but I definitely don't need fights for a game to be exciting. What bothers me is this is supposed to be a developmental league and we're trying hard to put an end to fighting, all thanks mainly to that one infamous incident last year. Not everyone can make the jump to the NHL and when you look at most "semi-pro" type leagues, fighting is quite common. Even the NHL saw a 20 percent increase in fighting last year compared to the year previous, and this year fighting is up 30 percent in the NHL.
You can still play hockey as an enforcer these days, both in the NHL and in lower levels than that. The Q though is basically saying that if you want to try and make hockey a career by dropping the gloves, you better find another league to develop in. That in my opinion is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Nov 30, 2008 18:47:58 GMT -4
I don't have a huge problem with todays game but I miss the days where rivalries were so much more present. The nights where i'd be excited to see bathurst or pei roll into town knowing the game was going to be full of emotion not only on the ice but between the fans of both teams. I don't know how they can bring those rivalries back to what they once were but I find thats the element thats missing the most.
|
|
|
Post by nolman29 on Nov 30, 2008 22:48:04 GMT -4
Ya, they just had to bring in stricter fighting rules and make the game more boring than it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 1, 2008 0:36:07 GMT -4
I couldn't agree more with this thread. The frustrating part is that the commish is happy with these changes. Being a Titan fan I don't like the changes that might hurt the attendance because being a smaller market team, any negative change in attendance is felt extreamly hard. At first it was reducing the schedule by two games and now these rules bring down the number of people that attend those fewer games. Although I hate to admit it, I don't see the Titan in Bathurst after next season..... How do you know he is happy with those changes? The Q changed their rules when the dumbass politicians in Quebec got involed and threatened to implement their own "rules".
|
|
tal
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 327
|
Post by tal on Dec 1, 2008 9:38:12 GMT -4
I remember lots of games in 05-06 that couldn't be called exciting - where that skill-laden team coasted to a win over a much weaker opponent. There was lots of hype that year because of the Mem Cup, "star" players on the roster, etc., but there were lots of really "boring" games. The regular-season games that "do" stick out in my mind from that year (other than the dismal 7-3 performance against Quebec in I early Feb) - were the games against PEI and the Fog Devils that turned into fight-fests. Recall the 13-4 drubbing of PEI that also saw guys like Yandle and Pineault in fights. From a fan perspective, that was exciting - but from a coaching perspective, I would not want my star players involved in fights and risking breaking a hand on someone's helmet. I've seeng complaints for several years on here that the Cats don't fight as much because they want to be kid-friendly; that Irving doesn't want to see fights; that parents won't bring their kids if there are fights, and on and on and on. All that shows is that there are always some fans who want to see more fights - which, to me, is what Quebec senior league is for . All that aside - what I dislike about the new rules is the (perceived) increase in cheap shots without retribution - the biggest effect of the new rules is the instigator rule, which prevents a team from sending a message to a player that cheap-shots their goalie, for example. I know players who, after cheap-shotting someone, would go back on the ice expecting to get the crap kicked out of them by the other team's enforcer - and they were okay with that, it's the price paid for the cheap shot (which often as not wasn't intentional). What the instigator rule does is encourage a dirty player to play even dirtier - and unfortunately there are coaches who will encourage that. To me the rules need to penalize "dirty" play, not physical play. Having two players willingly face each other in a fight is not dirty - what the Roy boys did, was (imo), but the new rules won't prevent that anyway.
|
|