Not a hockey fan either, but I’ve often asked this question of my friends that are. They all same the same thing: The fans enjoy and expect it. To me, it’s dumb. One team ends up a player (or two) down, and that’s when a lot fo the scoring happens. Ergo, you fight and you are more likely to lose. Pretty much any other sport in the world and you’re off the field of play, and often for a long period of time.
You seem to misunderstand how the penalties work out. 95% of the time after a fight happens, both teams get offsetting penalties, and so neither team is at a disadvantage because of the fight alone. There are instances where one team ends up with more penalties after a fight, but it's usually because of something that happened before the fight and prompted the fight (and should've been a penalty anyway)
They added the instigator penalty to cut down fights as well. The player deemed responsible for startibg the fight gets an extra penalty, and that does indeed give the other team an advantage.
Instigator penalties aren't given out every time people fight, they are only given in cases where one dude goes waaaaaaaay out his way to start a fight. The rest of the time the fighting penalties are even which doesn't result in a power play for either team.
As the other user commented, instigator is hardly ever actually used.
NHL reffing is... not great most of the time. Despite being a fan of the sport, I would like to see changes that would reduce the future rates of TBI among players. Refs actually enforcing the rules would probably help a bit there.
All good points. Just a minor thing, but when you say "you fight, you're more likely to lose," I'm not sure if this is true, because for a team to lose, another team has to win. So you could very well aay "you fight, you're more likely to win."
Now, you could make a case of a team that could easily and overwhelmingly beat the second team, and if they fight, they're more likely to lose players, and thereby, they're more likely to lose. Because if they fight, the other team could lose players, so if they fight.... they would win anyway, so the likelihood of winning doesn't increase.
One team ends up a player (or two) down, and that’s when a lot fo the scoring happens. Ergo, you fight and you are more likely to lose.
FWIW, this is also why I’m not a hockey fan…
I think you have a misconception about the rules. Hopefully if I clear this up, you may give hockey another shot.
One team ends up a player (or two) down, and that’s when a lot fo the scoring happens
True. In hockey this is called a power play. It's a well known fact about hockey that most of the scoring in a game happens during the power play. Power plays are a common occurrence in every game as a result of standard penalties (ie not fighting) such as high sticking (hitting a player above the shoulders with your stick), hooking (using your stick to 'hook' a player to try and slow them down), slashing (using your stick to whack someone, usually across the hands), etc.
Ergo, you fight and you are more likely to lose.
False. When players fight, they are given equal concurrent penalties. Both of their teams remain at even strength and there is no power play.
Well, you said it yourself, the NHL is not the NBA lol.
Context for why they fought in this game:
The red white and blue team is the New York Rangers. The red white and black team is the New Jersey Devils. They are indeed long time divisional rivals. The hatred is real. Also for context, the last time these two teams played, a Rangers player injured a Devils player with a nasty hit; he was challenged to a fight then but refused. So the tension had already built up.
Context for why they were allowed to fight:
Fighting has always been allowed in hockey. Big line brawls like this used to be more common even into the 2000s. They have become rare starting in the 2010s when the NHL meta shifted from "have dedicated face punchers fill out the bottom of the roster because they are scary to play against" to the new meta of "have skilled players even at the bottom of the roster because winning games is more important."
If you're wondering why the officials don't break them up immediately, it's a matter of practicality. There are only 4 on ice officials and there 10 angry dudes punching each other. Best to let them tire themselves out before intervening. Usually they will reach a point where they stop on their own. Also, the referees never break up scrums or fights even if there are only 2-3 guys fighting - this is so they can accurately pay attention to all of the infractions and make the proper penalty calls after it is all settled.
On your point about practicality. I think a big point about not breaking up fights is that they are on ice, which is slippery, and they won't have a good grip on the ground, and on skates so not the most solid footing. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's not a worthwhile risk when both hockey players have full gear vs. a ref with minimal gear.
Plus, the context of it being accepted as part of tradition weighs on why it's not as heavily regulated. If they wanted to, officials can force teams to be disqualified or ban players. Another point is It is more profitable to allow fights. Unless players themselves argue to ban fights for their safety, this will likely stay legal. The fact is, the new meta of having a good team but able to rough up the opposing team is better than it was before. Also quite a bit more enjoyable too.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's not a worthwhile risk when both hockey players have full gear vs. a ref with minimal gear.
This sounds reasonable, but no. Fights are successfully broken up all the time by the officials. It has gotten really irritating in the last 10 years how quickly they will jump in and separate players. Sometimes they will even jump in too soon, which results in a guy being held by an official but still getting punched by his opponent.
If you are confused by one of my other comments where I say "referees will never break up fights" it's because the refs don't break up fights, but the linesmen do. Refs: guys in striped shirts with an orange armband, linesmen: guys in striped shirts without.
Also everyone saying that the league wants more fighting clearly doesn't follow the NHL. The NHL has been steadily introducing rules over the last decade specifically to decrease the amount of fighting because they are wary of a similar CTE (chronic traumatic encephaly, aka brain damage) controversy that has taken root in the NFL and the WWE and they are afraid of getting their asses sued into the ground.
I am highlighting a limitation. Also, I never saw them break up fights by being able to "carry" or restrain players away from each other like other sports. It's much harder to do on the ice. A lot of times, the linesmen are mostly separating the players by strategically intercepting between the players' line of sight by pushing in between the players. On top of that, the players have enough sense that they should not hurt an official, especially when it's not advantageous back when it was the meta to have brawlers. However, there were moments when the players ignored the linesmen interception and kept going. Small example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yDkNvuuENwo
Also, I'm not saying the league wants more fights. They want to control those fights because they are profitable for entertainment, IE the fans and surrounding community are entertained by the drama. Having a fight break out for no reason other than to cause harm was not fun or much for entertainment. However, talking smack or telling someone off for bad plays/manners is fun to see.
a matter of practicality. There are only 4 on ice officials and there 10 angry dudes punching each other.
LMAO you are just saying these referees are weaklings.
Ok so why don't they deal these players a 5 or 6 figure penalty plus a ban for half a year, and their team has to play without spectators at their next home game... it needs to hurt more than one blow in the face.
Blocked most Linux communities on lemmy, as most of them are low hanging dumb image memes that lost their relevancy about 10 years ago. Haven't ran that much into this since.
That said, I use arch, and I'm very happy with it.
Arch Linux has always been the butt of a lot of jokes and memes. Anything that becomes popular and has lots of cheerleaders will become a target for jokes. You're just noticing now because it's peaking on attention on the places you look at. It's the natural ebb and flow of memes. It has no rhyme or reason. Trying to predict or explain it is a fool's errand.
Remember, "I use Arch, btw" was born almost the same year Arch was invented. And the first time, it was uttered without a single lick of sarcasm or irony
I installed arch back in the day when I was at university. It was neat, but I had classes and needed to be able to get work done and use wifi, so I installed Ubuntu.
I don't know, but I am here for it. I feel the same way, but also it seems unlikely anything will compete with package availability without introducing some other issues. I tried Tumbleweed and didn't like package management there either, specifically because of patterns. Some of my issues might be fixed in a newer install or could be done manually with help via the wiki, like auto-updating mirrors so there never is an issue, but honestly I just haven't bothered.
Well, some of my issue is probably just having DSL internet (6-8Mbps, also up to 3 other people using it) making updating more of a pain than it needs to be (including update frequency, trying other distros). Package sharing might be easier if my house had ethernet hookups, too (I'm using a not-very-good method now, a more official method that may be better was probably bugged when I tried it).
EDIT: I also wouldn't say I can feel the bloat on my system, but I do have some dread about lots of dependencies it seems I can't do much about (seeing a ton of python or KDE packages on update). The bigger issue is that I never have much luck updating the AUR stuff, also no-longer-available stuff (it got a bit better once with a re-install, but now it's back to where it was). I tried flatpaks at one point but I got tired of updating those separately (I don't know if hooks were added later or available manually, though I do wish I could choose major-versions only or some other way for less frequent updates of certain software).
I thought patterns are just meta/group packages. Do they do anything else differently?
It's been a while, but I remember patterns trying to re-install things that I removed and I didn't like the work-arounds listed. I can't remember what exactly it was, but I don't think it was anything I really needed even with whatever other thing it was grouped with.
Doing a search and it seems other people have been annoyed by patterns because of "recommended" packages, I don't know if it changed though.
what issues do you have updating them?
Some of it is the internet again (especially pulling down things from git that are quite large), some of it is stuff that just fails during building. Basically I can do a system update just fine, but I can't really expect the AUR update to go smoothly. I just pick-and-choose what of the AUR I try to update most of the time, luckily things often just continue working.
are the no-longer-available packages orphans?
That's an issue too, but no in this case I mean packages that have most likely changed names (or maybe removed) so replacements must be manually found. Unless there's some tool I'm unaware of. Otherwise, they will just never be updated, which is often fine. A lot of them are libraries that I'm not even sure about.
No, I think that's the default behavior but I believe I read somewhere that there's a way to stop zypp from reinstalling these packages.
Some of it is the internet again (especially pulling down things from git that are quite large), some of it is stuff that just fails during building
Do you know about chaotic-aur? It should solve most of your aur issues. There's no pulling or compiling. When a dependency is removed from the extra repo you wouldn't be able to install the chaotic-aur package until it's manually fixed but I don't think you'll have any issues updating already installed packages.
Well, there's a lot of trees on most golf courses, which attract birds. Birds have to poop too, and well gravity lead the shit down to the golf courses.
I guess it has to do with the possible seizure of Mar-a-Lago since Trump can't pay up his legal fees. I doubt any of those conservitards ever visited a golf club though.
That's not really a possibility either. He's not suffering from lawsuits in the state of Florida. New York, where that bond is owed, doesn't have jurisdiction over Florida to affect his properties there.
The golf course that was at risk is one in New York State.
I think it might be the one that his head lawyer(Alina Habba) conned a victim of years long sexual assault by her(the victim) manager to accept a shitty deal that forces the victim into silence and to accept a fraction of what she is owed. Which, incidentally, is how she became his head lawyer.
I suspect it comes from Trump "winning" at his own golf course, and Biden mocking him for it, leading to fake outrage that the noble institution of golf is being disparaged. Conservatives are fucking stupid, just move on.
Out of the loop
Newest