Here's an interesting morsel from a classic sports book:
The NHL theory of violence goes something like this: Hockey is by its nature a violent game. Played in an area confined by boards and unbreakable glass, by players carrying sticks traveling at speeds approaching thirty miles per hour, collisions occur, and because they occur, the rules specifically permit them, with only some exceptions. But whether legal or illegal, accidental or not such collisions can cause violent feelings, and violent feelings with a stick in your hands are dangerous, potentially lethal feelings. It is crucial, therefore, that these feelings be vented quickly before anger and frustration explode into savage overreaction, channeled towards, if not desirable, at least more tolerable, directions. In essence, this is Freud's "drive-discharging" theory of human aggression.
Is it possible that:
- Violence begets more violence creating a vicious cycle of addictive aggression?
- Violent feelings can be vented in other more constructive ways?
- Violence should be outlawed as it is in European hockey?
- Violence brings into question the very legitimacy of the NHL as a viable sport?
Is it really necessary to permit violence?
Source: The Game by Ken Dryden, p. 217.
Technorati Tags:
NHL,
violence,
fighting