March 30

Fighting is

Have you read Fighting in ice hockey? Gabbe (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sports in which violence is not condoned as such, but it's "relatively condoned", if I may use such an expression. The sport may contain sanctions against the use of unseemly force or fighting etc. These could include being sent to the sin bin for a period of time; or being suspended for the rest of the game; or even being suspended for more than one game; or even in extreme cases being suspended for the rest of the season. These are essentially minor irritations. The offender is still able to go about his or her daily business away from the sporting arena. But engage in exactly the same behaviour in an office, or in almost any other situation, and it's a police matter, there could be charges, there could be a court case, and there could be a fine and/or a prison term. None of these ever apply on the sports field; that's what I mean by "relatively condoned". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts, at least, to bring the law into it with some of the more severe muggings that have occurred in the NHL. Although the penalties for fighting are much lighter in general - 5 minutes in the penalty box, vs. ejection in other sports. Being an Aussie, you may not have heard this old joke: "I went to a fight, and a hockey game broke out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No, but I can relate to it. The absurd, childish, irresponsible rough-house antics that many football players engage in here, are almost part of how the game is played. It seems to be particularly a problem with AFL, less so with rugby or soccer. But I'm not an authoritative source when it comes to football of any kind, so don't quote me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that fighting is NHL culture. Not ice hockey culture. 70% of the hockey fans, managers, players, and owners want the fighting. Is this existent in university hockey? NHL is the modern gladiator fighting.174.3.113.245 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In

Canadian Interuniversity Sport, you get kicked out of the game for fighting, (page 77 in the rules). Presumably NCAA is the same in the US. I believe the Canadian Hockey League uses Hockey Canada rules, which also has a game penalty for fighting (page 90). Fights do happen in these leagues, of course, but not as often. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

NCAA rules (6.17, downloadable here) give "disqualification" as the penalty for fighting, which I guess is a game misconduct, so, same as in Canadian universities. The American Hockey League also gives a game penalty ([1]). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The justification (not my explanation, nor do I necessarily agree) for fighting in the NHL is that fists do less damage than sticks. In other words, the players would do more of this if they didn't get to "vent" their aggression by fighting. Again, not that I agree with this myself, but it is frequently the response when asked "why not just outlaw it altogether". --Jayron32 05:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the event I had in mind when I referred to a "mugging". Yet the penalty for high-sticking, in general, is not very much either. I don't recall offhand if it's 2 or 5. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High sticking as in "incidental contact with the stick blade above the waist" is a 2-minute minor. High sticking as in "Holding the stick luck a cudgel and swinging it at a guys head" is an assault charge, 18 months criminal probation, and a 1-year suspension from the NHL, according to the Marty McSorley article. --Jayron32 05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High sticking is a

bright line rule where holding the stick above the waist will deliver you a penalty. Actually using the stick as a weapon, well that's a whole different story.174.3.113.245 (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And then there's using your skate as a weapon. --Jayron32 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/12228641/Anathema+5.jpg

This is a guitarist from the band Anathema. I'm not sure of his name. Dethmetal (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Gibson Marauder. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Daniel Cavanagh. Different bridge and pick-ups to a Marauder though, and it doesn't look like a Gibson logo on the headstock.--Michig (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true, and Marauders apparently don't have whammy bars. Maybe it's some sort of modification...the body certainly looks Gibson-shaped. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like a Paul Reed Smith like this one (but a different tremelo) - the bevelled top, the head, and the inlays all resemble a PRS. But the photo isn't detailed enough to resolve the inlays properly, and the angle makes seeing the shape of the head difficult. I can't find any reliable source for Cavanagh playing or endorsing a PRS, or any other guitar for that matter. The Anathema article links to a fan-forum for them; someone there is sure to know. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that as a PRS. PRS makes high-end Les Paul knockoffs (well, knockoff in the sense of the same basic shape. They're well respected guitars, and quite expensive too!). They are also known for making custom models for high-profile players. The headstock looks like a standard PRS headstock, so even if this is not a true production model PRS, it is a PRS. --Jayron32 04:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]