12/03/24
December 14, 2011
Underage Handshake Hockey Brawlers: As this viral video shows, the nine-year-olds of Kokshetau-Burabay and Kazakhstan-Astana have become the Colorado Avalanche and Detroit Red Wings of the Turkic states.
So, in true 9-year old boy fashion, are they all best friends now?
posted by Bonkers at 01:42 PM on December 14, 2011
Atheist, look again at the video. The melee was broken up after less than a minute. That's not exactly having the officials standing around watching. As for the supposed cheering, whistling at European sporting events usually indicates disapproval, not support. The shouts didn't exactly sound like encouragement to me. I have no idea what might have set these kids off, but it appears that only 2 of the kids were initially involved, and the rest rushed in to either try to separate the combatants or to support their teammates. I don't know about what happens in central Asia, but in the US, fighting is discouraged in youth hockey. I understand your dislike of fighting in the game and the recent findings of neurological damage to those who routinely engage in hockey fights, but I expect this video shows the central Asian equivalent of what would be a very rare event in US youth hockey.
posted by Howard_T at 02:49 PM on December 14, 2011
FWIW - I don't have a particular dislike of fighting in hockey. I have only claimed there is a big fan appeal and resistance to stopping it, regardless of the rationalizations that it is a "necessary evil" to ensure less cheap shots, and protect players. As for the fact the fight only lasted a minute, well there seemed to be no rush from the officials to stop it and take it from someone who has boxed, a minute is an eternity during a fight. If your kid were getting his ass kicked and you were twenty feet away, how long do you think it would take you to get there? Only a minute while someone is pummeling your face seems a lot longer than you would think. If not step into the ring with a decent fighter for a minute and let me know how fast that minute goes by.
Also I agree that fighting in youth hockey in the USA isn't tolerated the same way it is in professional hockey. The main difference is that youth hockey isn't reliant on ticket sales like professional hockey which is probably the difference and only goes to further my point that it is tolerated in the game because it sells tickets. While it may serve some other purposes, the reason it is allowed to continue after it starts and repercussions are minor, is because it sells tickets.
posted by Atheist at 03:30 PM on December 14, 2011
Those kids know how to put the Kokshetau in Kokshetau-Burabay.
posted by beaverboard at 03:33 PM on December 14, 2011
Atheist, what are you talking about? You were just going on in another thread about how you don't like fighting and don't think it's necessary. You clearly have an axe to grind. Maybe you should try MetaFilter.
posted by insomnyuk at 04:19 PM on December 14, 2011
I'm going to be willing to bet that somewhere on this planet, a fight has broken out in the past year involving 9 and 10 year olds that weren't playing hockey. What does it mean, you ask? Jackshit. Your axe seems to be gaining momentum as it is ground each and every time hockey is discussed.
You don't get it. You never did. And I don't guess it's my responsibility to explain it to you again, so you can continue to blather on about a subject on which you are grossly underinformed.
This incident means nothing. It's kids who let their tempers get away from them. It does not indicate some sort of bloodlust on the part of their pareynts or the game itself. I played hockey from the time I could walk until I moved to a town without a rink. I played for 25+ years, including the collegiate level. In that time, I was involved in exactly 0 fights. It was not tolerated, and anyone who fought was suspended and/or benched.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:50 PM on December 14, 2011
Actually I don't think I was effective in making my point. So I will try with these points.
I like hockey and like to watch guys fight.
I don't think fighting is really necessary for hockey. I know tempers flair in all combat sports and feel the reason the fighting is allowed (even though it isn't part of the playing of the game) has to do with fan appeal more than anything else.
I don't give a rats ass whether pro football players or pro hockey players or professional fighters get their brains scrambled as long as they are aware of the risks and make informed decisions as to whether they want to participate.
The entire point of my statements were that because of what I read about Boogaard's problems, that if the NHL wanted to eliminate this additional risk to the players, they could. The main reason they are reluctant was it is a big draw for the fans. That does not make the fans evil or bloodthirsty, just human. The real point being how much do we want to really protect athletes from brain damage? It seems many on this forum are all for the NFL trying to protect players, side with the players and have sympathy for the long term effects the sport has on them, but throw that thinking out the window when it comes to hockey.
My only argument was that I see people rationalizing that the fighting part of the game is "a necessary evil" or that it protects players more than it hurts them etc. When in fact nobody has the balls to just admit it adds more fun to a hockey game for fans when some fights are thrown in. I added that the NFL no matter how much fans might enjoy watching those Marvin Harrison type crushing hits. The league is putting player safety above the spectacle of that extra violence whereas the NHL is reluctant to do so. Probably due to the difference in money issues and profitability.
Please don't insinuate I have some ax to grind regarding hockey. I love watching good hockey and good fights. I don't need them in the same show, but am fine with it. At least professional fighters have some protective protocol whereas professional hockey goons do not seem to have any protection at this point. I don't think suggesting this might be a good idea means I hate hockey. The term hockey goon or enforcer implies that they are different from skilled players and I might argue hockey is better without the goons and just skilled players on the ice. Imagine any other team sport where they just went out and hired professional fighters to enforce rules via beating the shit out of players, because the officials don't want to or can't. That was the point.
"I played for 25+ years, including the collegiate level. In that time, I was involved in exactly 0 fights. It was not tolerated, and anyone who fought was suspended and/or benched."
Your above statement only supports my point, that the fighting is not necessary for the game, unless that wasn't hockey you were playing, and it can be stopped by any league that doesn't want to tolerate it. So please tell me why in the NHL guys can drop their gloves and duke it out on the ice with little or no repercussions?
The answer is, it is a fan favorite. I am not making a judgement about those fans, I am just calling it like it is. It seems that as society evolves the trend has been to revise combat sports to better protect the participants. At one time gladiators fought to the death, eventually that was considered barbaric. Football is changing and at some point so will hockey. Fighting itself as a sport has changed in an effort to keep the combat but better protect the participants. What is really the argument. We may just disagree on one small point, I think you can have great hockey without the fights, and you can have great fights without the hockey. Combining the two is just value entertainment, allowing them to use the sticks during the fight would provide even more value for the price of a ticket.
posted by Atheist at 05:38 PM on December 14, 2011
If your kid were getting his ass kicked and you were twenty feet away, how long do you think it would take you to get there? Only a minute while someone is pummeling your face seems a lot longer than you would think.
I'm going to assume you're just trolling at this point.
"Pummeling"? These are 9 and 10 year old kids, wearing bulky hockey equipment. None of them take off their (full-face guard) helmets or their (heavily padded) gloves. None of them know how to throw a punch (unless you consider windmilling your arms a technique), and when you add in the constrictive jersey and the shaky footing from being on skates, I can say for certain that not a single kid was hurt by what happened.
I'm pretty sure a pillow fight by these same kids is more likely to injure them ("My eye!") than this "brawl".
posted by grum@work at 05:41 PM on December 14, 2011
grum@work - Look at that again. I was kind of impressed just how good those kids were at brawling. Using the same techniques for fighting on skates as the pros where they no doubt see a good example. As a matter of fact the guy who posted the video wrote this:
Fighting is as much a part of hockey as skating. The kids have to learn sometime, right? Though maybe nine-years-old is a little young to be throwing punches on the ice. Just don't tell that to these Kazakhstani under-10 players. They'll take your head off.
Per the video description:
This is my 9-year-old brother's team Kokshetau - Burabay (green) fighting against the team from the capital city of Kazakhstan - Astana (white). Even though team Astana won against Burabay 5:3, they started talking crap to their opponents during handshake; so the capitan of Burabay's team could not just let it go and started the fight.
Oh well, take it to him, Timur!
My brother Timur Serazhiyev is number 8 for team in green, and he is fighting with number 21 for team in white.
Because that's what it means to be captain: breaking off a post-game handshake to pick a fight. Will these rambunctious Kazakhstanis ever learn?
Sounds pretty proud of the kid to me and I am not trolling. Just when is it OK to allow 9 year olds to brawl like this ' because they are only nine and can't hurt each other too badly. Are you serious? I think their little brains are not developed nor have they reached an age of informed consent. Typically adults try to prevent this stuff not encourage it.
posted by Atheist at 05:50 PM on December 14, 2011
Just when is it OK to allow 9 year olds to brawl like this ' because they are only nine and can't hurt each other too badly. Are you serious?
Grum didn't say anything about the fight being OK because the kids weren't getting hurt.
posted by rcade at 06:53 PM on December 14, 2011
Sounds pretty proud of the kid to me and I am not trolling.
Dude, you are totally trolling. You are completely contradicting yourself from comment to comment because you want to make some pissy comments about fighting. You say you're against it with your sarcastic first post, then with your last post you say you like fighting. Pick one.
posted by insomnyuk at 07:08 PM on December 14, 2011
All this way into the thread and no-one has mentioned Borat? That Kazakhstan tourist information campaign must be working.
/was told lots of Kazakh jokes in Uzbekistan earlier this year.
posted by owlhouse at 07:49 PM on December 14, 2011
Sounds pretty proud of the kid to me ...
The last two lines you quoted aren't from the video description. They're from the blogger at the link.
posted by rcade at 07:55 PM on December 14, 2011
Oh c'mon - that wasn't so bad. They had a little mini hockey brawl. I think we can safely hold off on notifying the authorities.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:10 PM on December 14, 2011
grum@work - Look at that again. I was kind of impressed just how good those kids were at brawling
Keep trolling.
I've seen better punches thrown by guys in those oversized sumo costumes, pillow-sized gloves, and 6 Jagermeisters in their stomachs.
Foxy boxing displays more skill than these kids.
One kids tries to pull the jersey over another kid, but left his gloves on and couldn't get a grip.
The most damage done by anyone is when the one kid pushed the other kid off his skates and to the ice.
When they are throwing "punches" with both hands, they aren't going to hurt anyone.
posted by grum@work at 10:07 PM on December 14, 2011
Grum again you are focusing on whether or not the kids hurt each other. I have never taken a position regarding whether or not hockey should put an end to fighting, I was engaging a discussion as why pro hockey doesn't want to. It is in your own eyes that make it seem I am against it for merely questioning the practice as it isn't really the game. I don't believe I ever said I personally wanted to see it end.
I am trying to say you don't have to have fighting to have hockey.
I agree fights are fun to watch and have appeal to most fans.
Evidence shows that hockey goons are paying a horrible price in the form of severe brain issues.
Should hockey reconsider the entire practice of enforcers and allowing fights?
Should hockey takes steps to protect enforcers from permanent brain damage?
Why is there so much effort and support with regard protecting players from head trauma in the NFL but in Hockey....not so much?
Should hockey consider enforcers as expendable in order to keep the fighting which exists to protect less expendable players from injury, and having to protect themselves? That is the reason that has been given as to why fighting should stay in the league. The answer I seem to be getting from hockey fans is clear.
And yes, I was sarcastic regarding the video as it perfectly demonstrated the hockey culture of fighting at the very level where it could be stopped if there was a desire. When I proposed the question if your kid were being pummeled, I wasn't suggesting any kid in the video was suffering irreparable harm, I was merely rebutting the statement that it took a little less than a minute for the officials to step in. If someone had the desire to prevent or stop the fight, ten seconds would have been long. If you were watching your own kid getting pummeled a minute would seem like a very long time.
posted by Atheist at 12:18 PM on December 15, 2011
I have never taken a position regarding whether or not hockey should put an end to fighting, I was engaging a discussion as why pro hockey doesn't want to.
This is patently bullshit.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:45 PM on December 15, 2011
From your own comment in an earlier thread: "Maybe the league should put a stop to fighting which would actually open up roster space for players who can actually play."
Pick a side and stick to it.
posted by insomnyuk at 01:11 PM on December 15, 2011
I don't think fighting is really necessary for hockey. I know tempers flair in all combat sports
Hockey is not a combat sport.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:15 PM on December 15, 2011
I wasn't suggesting any kid in the video was suffering irreparable harm, I was merely rebutting the statement that it took a little less than a minute for the officials to step in. If someone had the desire to prevent or stop the fight, ten seconds would have been long. If you were watching your own kid getting pummeled a minute would seem like a very long time.
So you said you weren't suggesting they were being pummeled, but then you just coincidentally happened to ask what IF they were being pummeled?
Sure.
That's like asking Ted Kennedy "I'm not suggesting you left someone to drown, but what if you DID leave someone to drown, how would you feel?"
As for it taking a minute to stop the fighting, I'm not sure what you are thinking they could do. The kids don't have control collars on their jerseys. They can't just press a button and have them all drop the to ice, convulsing.
There are over 40 kids roaming the ice, acting like goofs. Most of the adults don't have skates on (I can't watch the video right now, but I'm guessing), so trying to run on ice with shoes is a VERY slow proposition. And since there aren't as many adults as kids, they can't break them all up at once.
posted by grum@work at 02:01 PM on December 15, 2011
insomnyuk - I said maybe, it was a supposition. Proposing a possible benefit of the elimination of enforcers to the game itself by opening up roster spots for higher skill level players. Something a person who likes the game of hockey might find beneficial for the level of hockey.
Again to quote a hockey player on this forum. "I played for 25+ years, including the collegiate level. In that time, I was involved in exactly 0 fights. It was not tolerated, and anyone who fought was suspended and/or benched."
Kiddie brawls are fun to watch, very entertaining. If the adults wanted to stop it, they would have immediately or at least attempted to immediately, but that particular video is really just distracting you from the point. If they wanted to prevent it in the future see the above quote. Please just tell me if you feel a hockey enforcer (meaning a player who's sole purpose on the team is to fight) in light of the evidence should have any protection from the league? Should hockey make any rules to at least prevent the Boogaards of the future?
Hockey seems resistant to change, even helmet rules were enacted slowly. Why? Why so much more resistance than say in the NFL which is actively doing more to protect players. Even when a lot of players want to continue to play as they always have, the league is putting their long term welfare ahead off fan or player wishes. Not that they do it with out their own motives. The real point of contention seems to be my insistence that Hockey has profitability and popularity issues the NFL doesn't.
LBB - I agree my mistake, should have said combative sport, in which it is very easy for fights to occur due to the very physical nature of the sport. I would however contend that Boogaard was a combatant more than a hockey player after reading his own words. Its all semantics, I suppose. If you say hockey is not a combat sport (which I agree with) that does sort of imply actual fighting isn't part of the sport, if it were then combat sport would be applicable.
Why am I being seen as a do-gooder who wants fighting eliminated. I read the article and tragic story of Boogaard and made an assertion as to why the hockey culture in general and NHL in particular are resistant to address what some might see as a problem.
posted by Atheist at 02:38 PM on December 15, 2011
Please just tell me if you feel a hockey enforcer (meaning a player who's sole purpose on the team is to fight) in light of the evidence should have any protection from the league?
Jesus Christ, this thread is about a scuffle among a bunch of nine-year-olds! How can you possibly be so unutterably ridiculous as to bring up the topic of hockey enforcers in this context?
LBB - I agree my mistake, should have said combative sport, in which it is very easy for fights to occur due to the very physical nature of the sport.
The correct phrase would be "contact sport", not "combat sport" OR "combative sport". Please stop talking about "combat sports", you clearly don't know what it means.
I would however contend that Boogaard was a combatant more than a hockey player after reading his own words.
Was Boogard in that video? Where? Somehow I missed him.
Why am I being seen as a do-gooder who wants fighting eliminated.
You're not. You're seen as being a tiresome troll who brought a series of failed points from another unrelated thread -- seriously, completely unrelated, despite your assertions about "hockey culture in general" -- and trying to somehow validate them through this thread.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:44 PM on December 15, 2011
Don't quote me to support your ever-evolving position. I stated that to point out the absurdity of your first post characterizing hockey parents as fools who choose to cheer while watching children fight. It had nothing to do with a position on the role of fighting in professional hockey. I've made my position on fighting in the NHL clear, as you have chosen to derisively cite it many times in other posts.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:45 PM on December 15, 2011
If they wanted to prevent it in the future see the above quote.
You really think an intricate set of rules about fighting would have stopped a 9 year old kid from skating over and punching a player after a handshake?
This was more about kids being kids than kids being fighters or brawlers or enforcers or any other silly role you want to stick on them.
You MIGHT have had a point about all this if they were lined up for a face-off and then they all paired off and started "fighting" when the puck was dropped (called a "line brawl").
Except, that didn't happen. You had one kid who was upset about something, bopped another kid in the helmet with his glove, and then every other kid skated over and started being silly (pushing, shoving, tackling) because they are a bunch of 9 year old kids.
Please just tell me if you feel a hockey enforcer (meaning a player who's sole purpose on the team is to fight) in light of the evidence should have any protection from the league?
What protection from the league do they have right now?
If they fight, they get a penalty, just like when a superstar like Jarome Iginla or Vincent Lecavalier gets into a fight.
posted by grum@work at 04:49 PM on December 15, 2011
grum - I don't know I was only using the kid fighting video to illustrate that the culture of Hockey makes this more acceptable. While many sports have spontaneous instances of tempers flaring, I couldn't think a an organized team sport (especially in a youth league) where a player during a post game hand shake could just assault another player over trash talk and not be expelled or suspended, or that an instantaneous effort to stop would not occur.
What protection from the league do they have right now? None that I am aware of except a minor penalty. What I am talking about is even in boxing or MMA if a guy gets beat up he has to be cleared by medical exam to compete again in sanctioned events. Something like that might have helped Boogaard. I am not sure why suggesting it cause so much animosity.
To tahomoj - I apologize, I was only using your statement that in all those years of hockey in leagues where fighting was not tolerated, you still played hockey and did not have fights, not to challenge your statement, it just seemed to show that suspension and or benching participants is obviously a deterrent that players in your leagues were able to respect.
To everybody else - I really enjoy a lively conversation and discussion of sports topics. Whether I agree or disagree with others, I try to be respectful and don't resort to personal attacks. Sorry to those who thought I was trolling or trying to hijack a thread. There have been several threads where hockey fighting, the Marvin Harrison and Suh incidents all seem to have a common denominator for me and that was to what extent should leagues go to protect athletes from injuries, especially brain injuries and injuries that result from actions not directly related to the playing of the game, which is dangerous enough.
I would like to feel welcome to express my opinions and engage in debate even if what I say creates a controversy, although at this moment I can't say that I do.
posted by Atheist at 06:03 PM on December 15, 2011
Some unsolicited advice: The reason your opinion is not being welcomed is because you're arguing in such a rhetorically sloppy and inaccurate way that it's dragging the entire discussion down with you.
I've posted two comments about glaring errors you've made, and others have pointed out things you've said about hockey that are false.
Tighten up your thoughts and try not to argue a minor point into the ground. And if you don't know hockey very well, which I regard as likely given the way you talk about it, go a little easier on your certitude.
posted by rcade at 07:29 PM on December 15, 2011
I couldn't think a an organized team sport (especially in a youth league) where a player during a post game hand shake could just assault another player over trash talk and not be expelled or suspended, or that an instantaneous effort to stop would not occur.
Do you have any evidence that the kids weren't disciplined?
And why do you keep harping on the ridiculous idea that no one tried to stop the kids from mixing it up as fast as possible?
Watching the video, the first kid takes a poke at the other kid at 0:09. The official skates over and tries to break it up at 0:12. That's 3 seconds. How much faster do you want them to be?
Then the other kids start getting goofy at 0:14. The other two officials are already there and are trying to stop kids from mixing it up right then. Again, it's an almost instantaneous response to stop it.
When even more kids start getting involved, the first person (without skates) stumbles into the scene at 0:19. Considering he would have to run across the ice in outdoor shoes, he's moving pretty damn fast. Have you tried to run across an ice surface with regular shoes? It's tough.
Finally, two more parents get involved at 0:24. We now have 3 officials and 3 parents involved in stopping the silliness in 13 seconds.
At this time a few other things are observed:
- You can see a parent picking up a kid and carrying him off the ice, as the kid struggles.
- Another parent horse-collars a kid to stop him from getting involved, and ends up swinging him around by the collar.
- Yet another parent is seen yelling at the kids and pointing at them to get to the door/dressing room.
By 0:38, all of the kids are busy looking for their sticks to pick them up and head off the ice.
The whole incident, from start to finish, took 29 seconds. You're blind insistence that the adults didn't immediately try to stop the actions of those kids is preposterous, yet you kept bringing it up over and over to support your (flawed) statements.
posted by grum@work at 08:51 AM on December 16, 2011
What protection from the league do they have right now?
None that I am aware of except a minor penalty.
It's a major penalty for fighting, which both participants receive if there is no clear instigator.
If you're talking about the "instigator" penalty, then you should also mention that if a player is assigned that penalty, they are also given ten-minute misconduct penalty (NHL rule 46.11). If you do it a second time in the game, you get a game misconduct.
If you knew about hockey, you'd definitely know that.
What I am talking about is even in boxing or MMA if a guy gets beat up he has to be cleared by medical exam to compete again in sanctioned events. Something like that might have helped Boogaard. I am not sure why suggesting it cause so much animosity.
You do realize that the league already has a rules about head injuries in place, right (including the "quiet room" examination)? There are at least 4 different players currently sitting on the sidelines (some, indefinitely) because of concussion-like symptoms (not having to do with fighting). The league is taking head injuries very seriously.
What causes "animosity" is that you don't seem to understand what you are talking about, yet insist on trying to make a point about it.
I would expect to receive some push back from rugby fans if I started to comment on the state of the sport because I don't know a damn thing about how it is run.
posted by grum@work at 09:16 AM on December 16, 2011
Now that's hockey! That is exactly what is woven into the fabric of the game and totally necessary to ensure there are no cheap shots during play. I love how urgently the officials rush to stop the melee, and the fans whistling and cheering at the end. Especially considering those whistling fans must be the kids parents since the players are ten year olds. Hockey plus MMA on ice all for the price of one ticket!