JoeFerguson Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 After they play the fight, they replay it with the Laraque microphone audio. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNUTSTRnz8&eurl=
stevestojan Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 "You want to? Ok. --- Good Luck Man" That is AWESOME. How ANYONE can watch the NBA and not the NHL blows my mind.
duey Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Oh that's classic! Just another day at the office.
Kevbeau Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Love it...like he was just heading into a meeting at the office. "Good luck man"
erynthered Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I'd like to know, what preceded that. Just to see why they danced. I also like the way they waited for the puck to drop.
JoeFerguson Posted December 7, 2006 Author Posted December 7, 2006 I'd like to know, what preceded that. Just to see why they danced. I also like the way they waited for the puck to drop. 859983[/snapback] Because they're both enforcers. They probably know they are going to fight at least once a game if they are on the ice at the same time.
ofiba Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Because they're both enforcers. They probably know they are going to fight at least once a game if they are on the ice at the same time. 859999[/snapback] That's lame. What exactly are they enforcing? Enforcers should only fight when someone on the other team deserves a pounding.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Remember the old cartoon with Sam SheepDog and Ralph the Wolf? Kinda like that... They punch in on the time clock like best of chums... Go at it for their shift... Then "ding"... Punch out on the time clock best of chums... Sam and Ralph Most of the cartoons begin at the beginning of the workday, in which Ralph and Sam go to a meadow where sheep graze, exchange chitchat, and punch into the same time clock. Work having officially begun, Ralph repeatedly tries to abduct the helpless sheep and invariably fails, either through his own ineptitude or the minimal efforts of Sam (who always brutally punishes Ralph for the attempt). At the end-of-the-day whistle, Sam and Ralph punch out their time cards, chat amiably, and leave, presumably only to come back the next day and do it all again. Both Sam and Ralph are performed by voice actor Mel Blanc. In at least one instance, the workday is interrupted by a lunch break which they conducted amiably. The operation seems to run 24 hours a day or at least into another shift, as when Ralph and Sam "punch out" they may also run into their replacements for the rest of the day, Bret and Enoch, respectively.
erynthered Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 That's lame. What exactly are they enforcing? Enforcers should only fight when someone on the other team deserves a pounding. 860002[/snapback] I played for almost 30 years. I'm not sure I agree with you. I guess, if anything, someone who saw that game may enlighten us. And Joe, I'm not sure if I agree with you either. BTW, I understand all the consequences of the game, so please.
JoeFerguson Posted December 8, 2006 Author Posted December 8, 2006 I played for almost 30 years. I'm not sure I agree with you. I guess, if anything, someone who saw that game may enlighten us. And Joe, I'm not sure if I agree with you either. BTW, I understand all the consequences of the game, so please. 860016[/snapback] In those 30 years, how many times did you get in a drop-the-gloves NHL style fight? Fighting still remains apart of ice hockey, but only predominantly at the professional level. Fighting is not allowed at the collegiate or high school levels. In most NHL fights, I feel like it's just a tool teams use to motivate their benches. Danny Briere said something to that effect regarding the Peters fight two nights ago. In a situation where players are retaliating for something that happened earlier in the game, a fight makes more sense to me. In most games I've watched, however, where two enforcers who each get about 5 minutes of ice time a game just square off for no reason it doesn't even seem like there is any passion or enthusiasm in it.
erynthered Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 In those 30 years, how many times did you get in a drop-the-gloves NHL style fight? Fighting still remains apart of ice hockey, but only predominantly at the professional level. Fighting is not allowed at the collegiate or high school levels. In most NHL fights, I feel like it's just a tool teams use to motivate their benches. Danny Briere said something to that effect regarding the Peters fight two nights ago. In a situation where players are retaliating for something that happened earlier in the game, a fight makes more sense to me. In most games I've watched, however, where two enforcers who each get about 5 minutes of ice time a game just square off for no reason it doesn't even seem like there is any passion or enthusiasm in it. 860028[/snapback] I'd have to check with my dentist, on your first question. The style and rules of the game has changed over time, right? Face macks, blue & red lines, size of rinks, Goal size, overtime, shootouts, speed, size of the players...etc. Should I go on? My thought of what you said here: They probably know they are going to fight at least once a game if they are on the ice at the same time. Is that, you cant assume. That's why I was asking for someone who may have seen the game. Also, assuming that just because they are on the ice at the same time, doesn't mean they're going to go at it, just because. Please understand, I know what you're saying. But I don't think its entirely correct. Nor am I possibly. But I doubt it.
JoeFerguson Posted December 8, 2006 Author Posted December 8, 2006 I'd have to check with my dentist, on your first question. The style and rules of the game has changed over time, right? Face macks, blue & red lines, size of rinks, Goal size, overtime, shootouts, speed, size of the players...etc. Should I go on? My thought of what you said here: Is that, you cant assume. That's why I was asking for someone who may have seen the game. Also, assuming that just because they are on the ice at the same time, doesn't mean they're going to go at it, just because. Please understand, I know what you're saying. But I don't think its entirely correct. Nor am I possibly. But I doubt it. 860033[/snapback] Of course they're not going to fight EVERY game. There are some situations where they won't, for instance playoffs or a close game or whatever. But I think for two Andrew Peters types, guys that only get like 5-6 minutes of ice time a game, if you just so happen to line up face to face with your enforcer counterpart at a face-off, they probably just figure "why the heck not get in a fight, since I'm not going to do anything else this game".....or as it was stated in this video, "You want to?"
erynthered Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Of course they're not going to fight EVERY game. There are some situations where they won't, for instance playoffs or a close game or whatever. But I think for two Andrew Peters types, guys that only get like 5-6 minutes of ice time a game, if you just so happen to line up face to face with your enforcer counterpart at a face-off, they probably just figure "why the heck not get in a fight, since I'm not going to do anything else this game".....or as it was stated in this video, "You want to?" 860037[/snapback] OK, Isn't it dependent upon the game? Yes, you agree. That's why I said I'd like to see what happened before this clip. There are so many intangibles. This argument is really moot, without knowing what happened before this clip. But I don't think, just because they might only be on the ice for one shift, means, they'll only get into a fight. We could split hairs all night, if you like? My fridge is full. BTW, that is a classic clip, thanks. It brought back some painful memories.
Recommended Posts