> Mike Collingridge wrote:
> Why might it be acceptable to throw hats on the ice and not anything else?
> As long as there is a stoppage in play I don't see how throwing hats on
> the ice can be viewed any less dangerous to the players than throwing sieves
> (unless they are 200 lb ones from MSU), tennis balls (thanks ESPN), or
> octopi.
>
And John Pilarski writes:
>
> I'm not certain whether you approve of everything being thrown onto the ice,
> or whether you disapprove of everything being thrown onto the ice.  If you
> are approving of everything, then I stand by what I wrote earlier.  The
> thread earlier was saying that it was *really* cool when they hit the goalie.
 
I disapprove of things being thrown on the ice, and I feel there should be
policies banning such activities at rinks, no matter what gesture is intended.
I just thought it was silly that you would say it may be o.k. "for hats at
the correct moment" since anything else thrown might be viewed as "dangerous
to the players." I can't see how a dead gopher would be more dangerous to
the players than a hat when thrown on the ice during a stoppage in play.
 
Besides, I think players would rather NOT see hats thrown on the ice when a
teammate gets the trick. Often the momentum is in their favour, but throwing
something on the ice affords the opposition a time-out and chance to regroup.
 
>  After all the talk earlier about the supposed unsportsmanship about a chant,
> this has received only mild response, barely any.  So now it's OK to throw
> things at a goalie, but don't say anything to him?
 
Good point. After all the chants or words are no worse than the trash talk
that goes on during those close encounters on ice.
 
Let the "seventh player" be heard but not seen on the ice, so to speak.
 
MC
--
Mike Collingridge
[log in to unmask]