Football and hockey are both known to be some of the most intense physical sports in the professional sports world. In football generally the most physical team prevails, and hockey is famous for its tolerance to fighting. Since both of these sports demonstrate what some consider violent acts as a nature of the game, it raises the question, “To what extent is violence acceptable in sports?” This question can be difficult to answer because the word violence can have different meanings to different people. If taken to mean physical or intense, it can appropriately associated to sports while if translated as the intent to injure or even kill, it has no place as a mindset for players and teams.
The 2007 Pittsburgh Steelers were known to have a violent defense. Although they did injure some opponents on the field, fans have to understand that this is not the intent of any NFL player. Mike Tomlin, head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers, uses the word violent as motivation to be physical, as the nature of the game requires in order to be successful. Being “violent” for an NFL player is a job as they are expected to be physical to make plays. Just as anyone needs to do certain things to excel in their field, the game of football has evolved to level where violence is becoming a necessity.
It is widely known that hockey permits fighting between its players with a relatively small penalty. However, these fights are more than just the everyday street brawl. The fights bring the intimidation factor to the game and can actually make the game somewhat safer. In the NHL, if a player is playing dirty, it is common that the victim of these cheap shots drops his gloves, the universal symbol for initiating a fight. Some might consider this unnecessary aggression but if a player is known around the league as a wimp that won’t fight back, teams can use this to their advantage and continue to play dirty which can actually be more dangerous than a fist fight. Players can also use the threat of a fight as a way to self regulate the game. For example, if the ref is missing illegal acts, a fight is a way to tell the other team that illegal play will not be tolerated.
It needs to be understood that violence in sports is hardly the same as violence on the streets. Instead, it’s a tactic that is used to be successful. The goal of sports violence is not to injure others but to put one’s self at a physical advantage over other teams. In the rare case that IT gets out of hand, the ref steps in to establish the line of where it becomes too dangerous. In this case, appropriate penalties will be issued. While reading the articles, look for the positive aspects of violence and ask yourself “Where is the line crossed?” when it comes to violence in sports.
peace, love and hot sauce in my bag,
Nate "the great" Schroeder, Adam "stick it to the man" Pike and Hector "The prodigy" Beltran.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The hockey article, as a secondary source, explains how violence in sports is accepted. The article about the steelers presents the question of where is the line crossed regarding violence but the hockey article helps to answer this. It explains that violence can part of the game, as much as scoring or playing defense, and without this intensity, the game would hardly be the same as we know it.
ReplyDelete-The Dream Team
I found all of this pretty interesting, because I have never really thought of the aggression in football or the fist fights in hockey as acts of violence. In a sense, though, they are being violent and the ways that hockey players settle disputes, for example, are not acceptable ways to deal with their aggression towards others. However, we don’t expect two hockey players who have been taking cheap hits at each other all throughout the game to “talk things out” and apologize to one another. And in fact, we as fans don’t want that, either. If you go to a hockey game you expect to see a fight or two break out (that’s probably half the reason you went in the first place). You want to see two guys drop their gloves and beat the snot out of each other…and you want to see the other team’s player with a bloody face afterwards. For the same reason, that’s why boxing, UFC, and violent action movies are so popular, because we love to see people fight...we love to watch violence. The aggression in hockey and football is what the sport is all about, and we embrace that. The refs embrace it, too. Fights in a hockey game only get the player five minutes in the penalty box. So, ultimately, in our American culture, perhaps violence really isn’t frowned upon all that much. In our society, certain acts of violence are acceptable, and even entertaining, as long as we decide that we want to define them that way.
ReplyDeleteI really liked both of these articles they made me really think about sports in general and question are they encouraging violence and is it considered acceptable. I think the group made a very valid point, “where is the line cross” with violence in sports; I don’t think anyone is too sure. I think that the article about the Steelers’ defense presents this question and hockey article tries to answers it with feedback from athletes. The truth is violence in sports is entertaining and that’s what pro athletes are being paid to do. But is violence really worth the injuries that could affect you for the rest of your life or even worse paralyze you or cause brain damage. Everyone says they do it “for the love of the game” but I’m not sure how much of my own body I would be willing sacrifice for it or even worse yet allowing my kid to play. Being on the sidelines during football games throughout high school allowed me to see a lot of cheap shot, vulgar langue ,“defend myself” mentality, they are talking about first hand. Don’t get me wrong I love sports. Its more than just a game to a lot of athletes including myself it’s being the best, it’s bragging rights, and above all its pride.
ReplyDeleteI think football and hockey are completely different in this case. Football is naturally a violent sport so I think a "violent" defense is a good thing, especially if you want to be a successful football team. Also, football players expect to get hit hard b/c it's part of the game. Hockey is not a naturally violent sport. When fights break out, they aren't part of the game. Good fighters do not make a good hockey team. People enjoy seeing violence in sports. It demonstartes passion for the game. Fights show that that the players truly want to win. Fights raise hockey ratings, so they are generally accepted. I think violence in sports is not a big deal, i mean there fighting about the sport, it beats fighting due to racism and other differences. Its not like sports fights will ever progress to the point of fighting to the death like street fights. Most athletes probably forget about there rivalries with other players and teams once the uniforms are off.
ReplyDeleteAs an ex-hockey player I personally, love to watch the gloves come off during the game. I've been in the situation and I know what it is like to take a cheap shot. Let me just say that it gets the blood boiling. I liked the point that the group made about the intimidation that comes with the fighting. In my experience the players that took the cheap shots were usually the cowardly and often bad players. It was their way of feeling accomplished. However, giving them a good hit back always seemed to make them a little less anxious to take another cheap shot. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the group in that violence is a neccesary part of sports. I think that to "be out for blood" is when it crosses the line. Most of the violence in sports is not cold blooded. Most of the players in the professional leagues know eachother and some have even played together. This isn't to say that all of them are the best of friends, but a lot of the time it is just friends beatin up on eachother. This, in my opinion, is not crossing the line, but rather fun and harmless entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that being violent for the sake of being violent was wrong. One should try to settle conflict without violence. I will agree if one does not follow the rules and use a cheap shot, an appropriate action can take place. What kind action? Enough to exact equivalent exchange. In nature lions fight for dominance and once dominance is establish nobody messes with that lion until another one is confident to make a challenge. Maybe using the word "violent" is too strong but being aggressive in sports does help. As long as no one is severely injured and everyone is having fun, I see no problem to have a little aggression.
ReplyDeleteThe main points i see between the two sources was that football violence was not even thought of as anything different, hockey violence was expected but not part of the rules, and nobody hardly considers ether to be wrong even though, as a society, we think violence is bad. It's odd how in football, for most violent acts, they get a cheer for it. I can recall seeing a ref get smashed in the middle of a play and no one hardly payed any attention to it. Now when you go hockey and see the fights start there, we pay all the attention to it, but we view it as another part of the game even though its against the rules. The article and the group also made a good point that the officials want fights to happen because of the small penalty they put on it. I liked how the group brought up the intimidation point, because even though i havnt watched much hockey, it does make sense that making yourself seem like a hard ass who will beat you up if you try to mess with him will make the other team want to stay in line more and may even psych them out. But there are several occasions when there is too much violence, such as hitting someone way to hard or "going for blood." This is when we have to decided what is too much.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading both the intro blog and the two articles, I thought it was interesting that the authors primarily focused on football and hockey- both male dominated sports. Although girls still have the option to play these sports, let’s be honest, these sports are made for men. And Americans love men sports. In my sociology class we learned about gender roles and how men are typically more aggressive in sports and winning is the ultimate goal whereas girls tend to focus on teamwork and are less aggressive. Men are then the ones who are examples of such behaviors. It was interesting to me how the terms violence and aggression seemed to go hand in hand at times. In my opinion, aggression is what is expected. People don’t go to hockey games to watch men gracefully skate around, do they? No, they go to see men get scrappy and bring out their “inner man fury” without brutally beating opponents. Violence is when athletes cross the line. This fall, during a New Mexico State soccer game, a girl became so intense during play that she pulled the opponents pony tail and threw her to the ground (I suggest to YouTube it). Colburn would agree that this behavior is crossing the line and is not necessary in accomplishing a task. Cheap shots also cross the line and are a form of violence. I feel as if cheap shots come from athletes who aren’t good enough to do the right thing. For example, in soccer, if a forward is on a breakaway, a defender who cannot catch up because they are too slow or out of position can take the easy way out by slide tackling from behind. Instead of working hard to get the ball back or deflect a shot, they purposely try to bring the other player down. Hurting players is bound to happen but I suppose it is how it happens and the intention of the opponent that draws the line between a violent move and an aggressive move.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, what is violence? I was brought up to believe that violence is any aggressive contact towards another human being. So does this mean that in sports every time someone tackles someone else, it’s violent? And who’s to say what’s violent and what isn’t especially in sports. In sports I think there’s definitely a fine line between aggression and violence. In contact sports like football, what kind of hit is considered a “violent” one? Maybe it’s my lack of knowledge about sports and my lack of playing but I really don’t understand why violence is needed at all. In the ice hockey article it explained how it was either defend yourself or choose to be forever picked on because you didn’t. What I want to know is who made violence apart of these games? And why are we so willing to accept that violence goes on. If violence isn’t acceptable in everyday life then why should we make it an exception during a game that fans are supposed to find enjoyment out of? I’m just saying my idea of entertainment is not watching someone get repeatedly shoved into a glass wall until blood is drawn. I liked how each article supported their content with direct quotes from athletes, but I wasn’t sure which article was used as a secondary article for which.
ReplyDeleteThe hockey article seems to give supporting evidence of the fact that there is “violence” in sports like football in the case of the Steeler’s defense. I think that everything that teams display in sports such as football and hockey. All of the hits that they described in the Steeler’s article were legal hits. As stated in the hockey article, it’s an intimidation factor. If you don’t agree with the amount of hits or fights in either of the two games the answer is simple, don’t play them. In hockey, the players use the fight as a way to stick up for themselves and for their teammates. Also they want the other players to always be wondering if they are going to get checked hard into the glass and that takes their minds off of the game. It seems like a pretty good tactic. Also I think that the punishment is harsh enough. If you get put in the penalty box for fighting and so do your opponent then both teams have to play short-handed. This is a cause for a lot of goals. When teams get a powerplay or are playing someone that is short-handed then there is a better chance for scoring. Again I don’t think that any of it crosses the line. There are so many rules in football nowadays that prevent players from getting hit in certain ways. So if you don’t like getting hit, don’t play football, hockey, basketball, soccer, rugby, or any other contact sport.
ReplyDeleteSince I’m not a fan of sports (in fact, sports kind of annoy me, especially when I am forced to watch them), I’m not all that familiar with the rules and regulations of violence within them. I do know that hockey is a very violent sport. My brother played on the high school hockey team for four years and suffered several injuries, sometimes requiring surgeries. It’s not like violence in sports is anything new or shocking. For example, boxing is a sport completely built around the idea of knocking somebody out. Part of football technique is tackling, and fist-fights in hockey have become a tradition. In my opinion, acts of violence have become a part of sports, and while it definitely promotes violence, taking violence out of sports would almost defeat the purpose. Like several other comments have already stated, people don’t watch a football game to see people sign peace treaties and give hugs. Personally, I believe the violence comes from the testosterone-fuelled aspect of sports. Obviously, the players are in it to dominate the other team and will resort to violence in order to obtain the goal. I just hope the fans of violent sports aren’t the same ones bitching and moaning about violence in movies and on television.
ReplyDeleteI found the “Steelers’ ‘D’ Provides a Lesson in Violence” article somewhat of an over sensitive view of a coach’s description of his team. I really do not see anything wrong with a coach telling his players to be tough and strong toward the opposing team. To me, that is what the coach meant when he used the word ‘violent’. This article and the class blog made me realize how I do not really feel like football is all that violent, but I cannot even watch hockey because of the violence. This made me think about how I am more conditioned to football then hockey. Because when you analyze the two, or play them, which I have not, they are both fairly violent sports. So why is a violent sport like football an American pastime, but hockey is reprimanded on its violence?
ReplyDeleteI feel that in sports, we can see different types of violence, especially between the two sports of hockey and football. There are some teams, maybe the Steelers, who I feel are somewhat over violent. This is not to say that some violence should not exist, but if players are in fact strategically injuring other players for the sake of maybe winning a game, I feel this is where we must draw the line. It is another thing when you see a hockey player get taken out brutally by an opposing team’s player and his teammates coming to his defense. Some would say that there is defense and there is assault, both of which occur in everyday sporting events around the world. I feel like maybe the word "Violence" carries several meanings in sports, as many sports are in nature, just that, "Violent". When a coach on a team tells his player to go injure an opposing player, this is to me, assault. When the player attacks or 'beats up' an opposing player because he is talking trash or threatening teammates, this is to me defense. In sports, Violence will always be a great debate, while to some it is fun to watch, it is gruesome and horrible to watch to others. Why would athletes play a sport if they felt it was too violent?
ReplyDeleteI have never really thought of the physical contact in football and hockey to be seen as violence. I guess it is just because it's just accepted in both sports, especially in hockey. I mean both sports are using "violence" as part of their strategy to win the game and I do think that is different than domestic violence or violence anywhere else. If they are using violence to intentionally injure a player than that is definitely crossing the line. Sometimes you can just tell when the violence is unnecessary, such as the violence by the Steelers. You really can't play football without tackling somebody, or else it wouldn't be football at all. No defense? Violence in hockey is a little different; I do think that it gets a little unnecessary because I think they are somewhat intentionally trying to "hurt" the other players. Some fights just start up when players are not playing fair but I think that’s just defense. Violence apart from sports is different because people who do the violent acts usually have a personal vendetta against another person or want to physically harm another purposefully.
ReplyDeleteI'm from Cincinnati, and a Bengals fan. All I remember is that in a 2005 game between the Bengals and the Steelers that determined who played the Patriots, Carson Palmer (our QB) was hit by a super dirty tackle that tore his ACL and MCL. It threw him out of the game and essentially, threw the Bengals out of a chance at the super bowl. In fact, his performance was never as good as his pre-injury prime. So what I'm saying is, before 2007's asshole defense aggression started two years before that, when the Steelers got cocky from being such douches. Good job, they won because they can make cheap tackles. Where is the line crossed? And what is done for it? That one cheap tackle got a mere penalty for the Steelers, but it was worth the game for the Bengals. So these dick tackles are only responded with a mere slap on the hand, and now we have the Steelers today: with two more Super Bowl wins that was gained with low blows, and they're cockier than ever.
ReplyDelete