Cherry on Top

Here’s Mirtle in his post about the tiff between Charles Tator And Don Cherry:

Is Cherry part of the problem? Sure. But he’s got so much company that it hardly seems fair to single out one voice from a united chorus against altering the rules for the good of its participants (once they’re long out of the spotlight).

Maybe Charles Tator is jumping into the limelight here by calling out the NHL’s most famous advocate, but so what? At least this is on the news agenda again, making headlines. Tator, after all, has an important voice in the discussion. He’s the man behind these numbers, data that didn’t receive nearly the attention it deserved last year, and bringing Cherry into the equation is likely far more effective than relying on the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences to do it.

I agree that Tator is forcing his issue back into the news again by attacking Don Cherry, but I don’t think it will be any more effective in advancing his agenda. It obviously isn’t fair to single out Cherry (and neither is it fair to blame the nearly united chorus.) The attacks are easily batted aside because they are unfair.

The real problem is that the league permits gratuitous violence, condones fighting and encourages vigilante justice. As a result, players are needlessly injured and long term health problems are made more likely. The NHL permits gratuitous violence? The league sells it! While it is true that the hockey media for the most part presents a united chorus, we can’t expect anything else. Somebody has to justify the unnecessary violence. If it was not Cherry or Milbury, it would be someone else. The chorus won’t change until the league changes because the tail doesn’t wag the dog.

At least both Cherry and Milbury have, in the past, been honest about it. There may not be any good hockey argument for the thunderous hits and the fighting, but fans really don’t care about whether the gratuitous violence can be justified or not. We – foolishly – believe we can have our cake and eat it too. We want the violence without seeing players cross the fine line and cause devastating injuries. We want the spontaneous fights without the staged ones. Cherry and Milbury reflect the opinions of most fans.

This issue is not really about player safety. It is not about whether the players, if given enough rope, can police themselves to a safer game. It isn’t even about whether the game should be as violent as it is. It is about money. The league believes that the gratuitous violence sells tickets. As long as that is the case, we can expect to see discussions and handwringing, and stiff punishment and vilification for those who go a little too far, but no real change.

I’d like to think that the league is wrong on this score but the rise of sports like mixed martial arts makes me doubt it. I’d like to believe that a less extreme sport would sell better, that more mothers would be happy to see a son play the game, and that the league would be better off with a less dangerous product. And maybe it would. Maybe two potential fans are turned off by the fighting for every one fan who would stop attending a less violent game.

That’s the case Tator should be trying to make – that over the long run, the NHL is better off selling hockey rather than violence – because it is the only case that will influence Gary Bettman and his buddies who own the league. They don’t really care about Reggie Fleming or any other ex-player. They don’t really care about injuries given the fact that the players bear the financial as well as the physical burden. They care about money.

As long as we roar with every big hit and as long as we stand and cheer for every fight, Don Cherry – or someone else – will carry the flag for violence. It is apparently what we want. Nothing will change until the belief that violence sells tickets is changed. I’d like to see that happen, but I’m not holding my breath.