In Defense of Fighting

The meetings of the NHL general managers happened earlier this month in Toronto and, much to the surprise of your dog, fighting was discussed.  Lightning GM Steve Yzerman, himself a former great player who belongs in the top 20 of the game, has proposed a ban on fighting whereby players engaging in fights will receive a match penalty.  This would throw them out of the current game and keeps them out of further games until the NHL brass schedules a disciplinary hearing.

This debate has raged for years, without anything truly changing.  But, an announced lawsuit by former NHL players about concussions, the hot-button issue when trying to shake down the game that gave you a fairly good livelihood, could actually precipitate some significant changes in the sport.

Based on the title above, you know where I’m going, but I think it fair to point out a large group of peons in this debate.  I refer to those who steadfastly utter the following: “Because it’s been done that way for years!”  I won’t accept that.  The large number of head injuries and our growing sense of concussions require a more creative response than that.  Hockey has a very proud tradition, having been played since the very early 1900s, but in the modern game the reformers have some decently compelling arguments that need to be addressed.

An ideal policy about fighting will try to achieve the following objectives; (1) reduce all-around injuries in hockey; and (2) properly penalize players that engage in violent behaviors and break the rules.  Those are not tough objectives and the current policy meets them.

Many reformers now point to some truly vicious injuries suffered at the fists of other players.  George Parros slammed his head on the ice this season and Nick Kypreos was knocked out on his feet and broke a cheekbone when he collided with the ice.  There are dozens of these incidents, and with each new installment the chorus grows.  But these are exceptionally unique scenarios, and the majority of concussions suffered in the NHL result not from fights but from incidental (or intentional) blows to the head.  Those are plays that truly need to be weeded out from the game, and fighting plays a part in doing so.  Here’s why:

A lot happens in a hockey game.  Sticks, gloves, skates, pads, and a small rubber biscuit all move at the same time.  And for all those nuances, only two men can call penalties.  For eleven men on the ice, two referees.  In the NFL, there are seven.  Those NHL referees must also do what many NFL referees do not: they have to stay out of the way.  With no sidelines, hockey often tangles its zebras in a herd of lions, forcing some fancy footwork and pirouettes to escape the carnage.  There are a multitude of factors contributing to hockey referees missing not just penalties, but dirty hits.

There are many good examples of this.  Three come particularly to mind: Tie Domi’s elbow on Scott Niedermayer in the 2001 playoffs, Claude Lemieux’s vicious hit on Kris Draper in 1999, and Raffi Torres’ missile act on Marian Hossa in 2012.  Those were missed on the ice, resulting in bad injuries for everyone and huge playoff ramifications.  While we can discuss the state of officiating all we want, there is one truth: Domi would never have attempted such tomfoolery had Scott Stevens not been in the penalty box already.  What happened to Lemieux the next year?  Darren McCarty gave him what the NHL should have given him…an early exit to the dressing room.

Jarome Iginla, former Calgary great and waffling trade participant, recently told SI.com that fighting cuts down on dirty play because it acts as a deterrent.  If you play dirty, says Iginla, you will pay for it.  While the question of deterrents and incentives largely dominates the political world, the confined space of a rink allows for real deterrents.  A dirty player’s actions are seen by all.  We see this writ small in our nightlife: would you antagonize a guy who has a friend much bigger than you?  No, unless you’re stupid (and there are definitely very idiotic NHLers out there).

Many point to the aforementioned Parros injury as the need to eliminate “stage fights” in which two tough guys square off.  They say these are examples of barbarism in sports and the NHL should do more to make these die.

Forgive me, but what is barbaric about two grown men, knowing the stakes and risks, dropping their gloves and having a bare-fisted thumping match.  If that’s barbaric, then what is boxing?  An import from Candyland?  NHL enforcers that square off in this manner do not dive around the issue of contention, but rather they face each other, man to man.  I see no difference between this and boxing except for the ice and three inches of glove padding.  For that matter, the NFL has until recently been fine with running at a receiver and hitting him as hard as you can.  That causes way more head injuries than fighting, so which sport is truly barbaric?

The larger point about the NHL not doing enough is similarly misguided.  The institution of the “third man in” rule provides an ejection to any third player who joins a fight with two combatants.  Players receive ten game suspensions for jumping off the bench into a fracas, and their coach is fined.  As of this year, all players must keep their helmets on when fighting or risk ejection.  In short, the NHL has provided proper incentives to keep fighting contained.  Sure, there will be sucker punches and similar moments, but that’s where the pugnacious teammates come in.  There are fewer injuries because overall there is less dirty play, and those players who might try to push the envelope are always penalized in some fashion.

This of course does not prevent dullards like Chris Simon and Todd Bertuzzi from really hurting people unnecessarily.  The plays of those two caused bad injuries, but just because fighters engage in that behavior sometimes does not immediately imply that fighting needs to be eliminated.  In both those cases, the NHL handed down large suspensions (25 to Simon, Bertuzzi missed about 20 games) which, in a sport full of so much intensity, made a conscious effort to brand the behavior as improper.

There are a few other objections that are raised.  In no particular order, some say fighting would be illegal on the streets.  The stage fights might get you a one night stay in jail, but the true street assault is the sucker punch or stick slash.  Those are illegal in the NHL too, and they penalize them heavily.  Others believe it is just a fan gimmick and that the sport should stop the “brutality for the sake of fans” attitude.  While fans enjoy fighting, they care about winning more.  Red Wings fans have been plenty happy with their team not fighting and yet competing every year for the Cup under Mike Babcock.  I will also point out that a little fun for fans is not unheard of.  The IOC allows beach volleyball players to wear bikinis, so where’s your indignation about that?  You are probably too busy watching Sweden vs. Greece on NBC, so I’ll check back later.  Selling violence and selling sex appeal are not the same thing of course, but don’t raise your hackles about the barbarism of one sport when another very clearly feeds on our most primal instinct.

There are others. But, it’s time to accept that hockey has a great policy currently that achieves real objectives while not stifling the intensity of the sport.  I will also point out a ban on fighting is completely unnecessary, as the “goon” is dying out.  There’s no need to add a bureaucratic layer when the teams and GMs of the NHL are already on that train.  Let them go their way, and we’ll enjoy the game as is.

The Rush to Conclusions

I realized this past weekend that I neglected a huge sports story during my short sabbatical from Dibbles and Bits.  Namely, I said nothing about Jonathan Martin and the Miami Dolphins Bullying saga.  I kept waiting for more information, and eventually kept waiting for anything remotely interesting to emerge.  For me, it was a boring story that got overblown.

But, in trying to be a little more proactive, I think it time to confront what will certainly be a huge story in the coming two weeks.  That is the unfolding ordeal surrounding Jameis Winston in Tallahassee.

Winston is leading the Heisman race and, thanks to some really terrible performances by Manziel, Petty, and Mariota this past weekend, will likely take home the bacon in December.  But, that storyline will soon collide with the image of Winston as a potential assailant, a man who forced himself upon a young woman a year ago.

Details are still Broncos-defense sketchy, but the known facts are the following:  the accuser filed a police report in December of last year against Winston for rape, the complaint lay dormant for much of the intervening time, and the circus started once media outlets made public records requests for documents related to the complaint.  Winston submitted DNA last week and the results leaked to the press showed that he engaged in contact with his accuser.  I realize that’s very little, but those are the extent of “known” facts.  Right now, there really isn’t anything else we can truly hammer down.

I am not in the business of deciding guilt…the system thankfully believes in innocent until proven guilty, and legal officials conduct themselves as such.  But, in today’s world, and particularly in the media-hungry market of college football, public perception matters.  The ESPN, Fox Sports, SI, and Bleacher Report journalists follow these stories like hawks, and universities have their revenue numbers to think about when it comes to any possible brouhaha surrounding the football program, so winning the PR battle matters.  And, to that end, it’s a one-sided affair.

There is very little chance that a college female, even with legal help, has against a star college quarterback in these matters, especially when that quarterback can point to over 90,000 people who, I bet, are in his corner.  What’s unfortunate about this is that FSU currently sits in the title game hunt, and any charges against Winston will, by team rules, automatically suspend him from play.  Some Ohio State fans might silently rejoice, but for the rest of us, it would be a tough way for a promising season to end for one of college football’s traditional powers.  (For my money, it also guarantees the most unlikable man in the world a third straight national championship).

And yet, if Winston actually did rape someone, he deserves the scrutiny and punishment tenfold.  To figure out the nuances of that question, however, requires a deep eye and the willingness to listen to both sides.

What it decidedly does not require, need, or even tolerate is the vitriol that has been displayed towards the accuser by many Florida State fans.  None of these people were there when this rape occurred, so I find the comments by many Florida State fans that the accuser is either a “gold-digger,” a “slut”, or a “whore”, supremely misguided.  (On that note, posters like the one found here need to be retired at once).

The parallels to the Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger cases are understandable…they are recent cases that bear some similarities.  What’s less understandable is the culture of denial whenever a high profile athlete is accused by a woman that no one has ever heard of.  No matter what, the woman is looking for attention, trying desperately to squeeze some cash out of the whole thing right?  Maybe a nice settlement suit right?  Perhaps looking to affect the awards race?  Wrong.

Those two guys might not have been found guilty or indicted, but we should remember Mike Tyson’s rape conviction in 1992, just when the world slowly began to realize the importance of his daily medication dosage.  He sat on top of the world.  This also has occurred at Florida State before, including this very season.  Above all else, we should not immediately dismiss these accusations.  The sad reality: many people are raped on college campuses.  One in four to five women are raped on college campuses, according to almost every study you can dig up.  (A nice gathering of stats seen here).

And yet, when sports figures are involved, the accuser clearly wants attention.  I am not buying that argument here…the accuser submitted the report back when EJ Manuel was still quarterbacking this team, and she has not been parading her case to the media since season’s open.  The image of an attention grabber would, you would think, likely tell many people about her case as Winston’s popularity rose.  Intellectual honesty says she certainly could have leaked the story to the press initially.  Even so, despite the fact that journalists really started this whole mess and won’t release their sources, this “gold-digger” seems to be receiving a large brunt of the attention.

I am similarly not impressed by the argument that Jameis just “can’t be that kind of guy.”  Some base that impression on his media personality and general demeanor.  I will be the first to admit, I was shocked when this all emerged.  He has a masterful way with people, perfectly blending humility and confidence in a way that Manziel only dreams of.  But, if memory serves, many referred to Jerry Sandusky as a lovable grandfather figure.

Please do not read this and assume I am coming out in support of the accuser here.  While I admit I am more inclined to believe accusers than alleged perpetrators, the accuser’s story has a very serious hole.  The interim police chief told the Tallahassee Democrat that the accuser stopped cooperating with police, at which point the case went inactive.  It seems that someone who has a true story would continue pushing that story to the very end.  There are reports that Tallahassee police informally advised her against pushing such a claim in “a football town,” in which case the accuser may have felt her complaints might not be taken seriously by law enforcement. If the police did give such a warning, I can’t say I blame her for feeling that way, but that she made no other movements afterwards certainly raises some eyebrows. 

There is plenty more to figure out in this case, and too many questions remain unanswered for a conclusive finish.  In writing this post I merely want to raise a finger against the prevailing wind to say that rape accusations against anyone are serious business and I find it hard to fathom someone undertaking the resultant media circus willingly unless they firmly believed an actual rape took place.  That subjectivity obviously doesn’t mean much, and the motivations of us humans are hard to decipher, but we should all cease from jumping to conclusions.

Wanted: Coaching Staff in Washington?

It’s been a crazy last month for me, meaning my attention to this space has faltered.  But, today, I am driven to write a post that I thought up about two weeks ago and have steadily been ruminating on ever since.

Everyone should know I try not to be a doomsday machine.  When the Caps started last season with the force of kittens, I did not call for Adam Oates’ head.  One division title later, I’d say he’s worked out well enough to deserve our confidence.

The same cannot be said, however, for any coach on the Redskins.  Don’t be cheeky and tell me how great the linebacker coach is…you know what I mean.  Those men who have the most familiarity with the three major areas of football have let us down this year.  Don’t get me wrong…execution on the field has been terrible as well.  The Skins also have the problem of turnovers, in which they picked up their own fumbles last year.  This season, that run of grace reversed itself, bringing everyone back down to earth.

There’s one coach in particular that I think deserves the most criticism: offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan.  To illustrate my point, let’s rewind to the Denver game nigh on three weeks ago.

At the 11:25 mark, the Skins had a 21-7 lead on the most prolific offense in the NFL.  The defense was getting stops and scored a touchdown!  At that point, I admit, my heart fluttered and I felt a nauseous sense.  “If only we can notch a huge win and start stringing victories together, we might be back where we need to be…”  Denver, of course, remained in the game and benefited greatly by a neutral zone infraction call on Ryan Kerrigan that I truthfully want to see again.  Anyway, it seemed that all of a sudden, the game remained tied at 21-21.

But, much like the playoff game against the Seahawks, Washington should not panic.  Especially when playing a defense that, coming into this game, was a bottom-5 defense!  Alfred Morris, by that time in the game (just at the start of the fourth quarter), had racked up 74 yards and a touchdown on the ground.  While he might not possess quick speed, he is the best option this team has when Robert Griffin doesn’t appear to have the necessary stuff in the pocket.  With only 91 yards through the air until then, it makes sense to slow the tempo down, give the ball to Morris, and utilize the play-action pass.  Makes sense, doesn’t it?  Especially with such middling receivers, there’s no need to revert to the circus performance complete with acrobatic hula hoops and trapeze artists.

Makes sense to all except Kyle Shanahan.

Obviously, I don’t call football plays for a living.  Just as obviously, it’s easier to poke holes in a plan rather than create your own.  But, after being tied for 21-21, Shanahan dialed up three plays, which look like this on the Pro Football Reference play-by-play:

Robert Griffin III pass incomplete deep middle intended for Josh Morgan

Robert Griffin III pass incomplete deep middle intended for Pierre Garcon

Robert Griffin III pass incomplete deep middle intended for Aldrick Robinson

 

Lovely to behold isn’t it?  Three deep passes in a tie game after your team has given up two straight touchdowns to a great offense and, dare I say it, needs some fricking rest.  That “drive” (should you choose to give a meager possession such a positive spin) finished with a 15 yard punt by Sav Rocca, which effectively ended the game.  Knowshon Moreno scored one play later.  What’s better is the whole sequence wasted only 20 seconds of game clock.

In short, Kyle made the same mistake he made during the playoffs against Seattle: keeping the rock from Alfred and instead putting the weight on the quarterback.  One of RGIII’s best qualities is that, despite being a miserable long-ball thrower, he rarely underthrows when trying to hit Aldrick Robinson’s token Go Route once per half. 

Shanahan himself has pinpointed the third series when, down by 10, the Skins went pass, sack, pass.  He’s obviously right, there should be a running play in there, but the first series matters more.  The team is tied and the game still salvageable.  Good enthusiasts will tell me that RGIII threw behind Josh Morgan on first down and Aldrick Robinson dropped the third down pass, but these are very deep passes.  When presented with the opportunity to sustain a drive, Shanahan opted for the home run play.

My problem is that this continues to be a problem.  While RGIII played really well last season and is great when on all cylinders, he has not done well enough to justify the trust Kyle places in him.  But, for some reason, Alfred Morris receives lots of touches in the first half, and then sits on the sideline for the majority of the second half.  He had four carries in the second half last week.  You will remember the same problem plagued the Skins when playing Seattle in the playoffs last January.

This has now happened enough in big games that perhaps someone else should be calling the offensive plays.  Kyle has not proven that he can call plays in big spots, and I continue to place some blame for RGIII’s poor play early on Kyle Shanahan.  He believed in big plays and waited until way too late in games before asking Griffin to utilize three-step instead of five-step drops.

I know the counter-arguments, and they are somewhat valid.  The defense is the real problem here, Kyle has a good track record with previous teams, and our offense ranks sixth in yards gained.  All granted points, but there’s no evidence that Kyle can get the most out of his offensive unit.  His work in last year’s postseason and in big games this year gives me no confidence that he will lead this offense to the proverbial promised land.

There are many other changes the Skins can make, and truthfully I bet the Shanahans are back next year.  The salary cap penalties should be considered, as I do think they are affecting the team’s personnel moves.  Above all else, the defensive coaching staff needs to be replaced.  Besides Jim Haslett, none of the current assistants had any experience with a 3-4 defense prior to joining DC.  That’s inexcusable, and ridiculous for many reasons.  If that side of the ball can be revamped somehow, it will pay dividends.  Shanahan has one year left on his contract, and I’m okay with another year of their reign.  He’s only one year removed from playing meaningful football in December, and we’ve seen too many starts and stops in DC.  Dan Snyder always said he wanted to stay out of the think of it until he was needed…I don’t think he’s needed until next year.

That said, this offense stinks.  I am not buying the stats about our yardage gained, mainly because we certainly haven’t led enough in games, meaning lots and lots of garbage time.  I fully admit that I have no numbers to back this up, but the eye test doesn’t lie.  Wins matter, and right now, the entire team hasn’t done enough to get them.  But, after the great offensive output last year, we all expected better.

Again, I don’t think the Shanahans will be fired and I’m not really rooting for that route, but it might be time to bring in offensive “advisors” and, possibly, fire Bruce Allen in favor of a real general manager that will take personnel decisions away from Mike Shanahan.