When Did Anti-Playing Attitude Start in the NHL?

NHL has always been a physical and intense sport. But there seems to be a change in how players are now perceived by fans and the media. A recent study on the history of anti-playing attitude in the NHL found that it started to become more prevalent since around 2006.

The study, conducted by Stéphane Guénette, looked at media coverage of NHL players from 1982 to 2017. He used a method called “content analysis”, which is a way of systematically examining written or spoken communication. The study found that negative perceptions of players increased significantly after the lockout in 2004-05.

One reason for this may be the introduction of new rules after the lockout, such as the “Zero Tolerance” policy. This policy aimed to crack down on violence and dirty play in the NHL. However, some players felt that it went too far, and led to them being unfairly targeted by the officials.

animosity towards nhl players has been increasing in recent years was originally published on

The Origin of the Anti-Playing Attitude in Hockey

The origin of the anti-playing attitude in hockey is a contentious issue with many possible explanations. One theory is that the modern rules of hockey, which emphasize player safety and penalize aggressive play, have led to a decline in the sport’s popularity. As a result, some fans and players have developed an anti-playing attitude in an effort to preserve the sport’s “traditional” values.

Others argue that the anti-playing attitude is simply a reflection of the fans’ ignorance of the game. Unlike sports like football or basketball, hockey is a complex sport that requires time and practice to understand. Consequently, many fans are quick to criticize players who make mistakes or don’t seem to be playing “the right way.”

Whatever its origins may be, the anti-playing attitude has had a negative impact on the development of hockey as a sport. By criticizing players for trying new things or making mistakes, fans are discouraging innovation and creativity. This not only hampers the development of young players, but also hurts the sport as a whole.

How Did the Anti-Playing Attitude Emerge in Hockey?

The game of hockey has been around for centuries, with many different versions of the game being played in various parts of the world. However, the modern game of ice hockey as we know it today originated in Canada in the late 1800s.

From its inception, hockey was a physically demanding and highly competitive sport. In order to be successful, teams needed players who were tough and could take punishment without getting bogged down by the physical play. This attitude led to a certain level of physicality and aggression being tolerated in the game, which was seen as an essential part of playing hockey.

As the sport grew in popularity, however, a new type of player began to emerge. These players were smaller and less aggressive than their predecessors, and they preferred to use their speed and skill to make plays rather than relying on physicality. This new breed of player was not well-received by the old-school hockey establishment, who saw them as soft and unwilling to play the game the way it was meant to be played.

It wasn’t long before this attitude began to permeate throughout the sport, with referees started calling more penalties for roughness and players began exchanging more dirty hits. This eventually led to the development of the modern day “enforcer” player, who is essentially a designated hitter whose only job is to fight or intimidate opposing players.

While there is no one answer for why this change occurred, there are a number of possible explanations. Some believe that it’s simply a natural progression that occurs in all sports as society changes and new generations of players come along. Others suggest that it has more to do with economics, with teams looking for ways to cut costs and employing cheaper players who are less likely to cause problems.

Whatever the reason may be, it’s clear that hockey has become a much more violent and unpleasant sport in recent years. While there are still some fans who enjoy watching this type of play, many others have grown tired of all the violence and would prefer to see a return to the old-school style of hockey where skill and finesse were more important than brute force.

When Did Complaining About Playing Time Become a Thing in Professional Hockey?

It seems like every time you open up a hockey article these days, particularly around playoff time, there’s bound to be a discussion about ice time. Player X only played 12 minutes tonight. What’s wrong with the coach? Why isn’t he playing his best players more?

Complaining about playing time is nothing new in professional hockey. But it seems to have become more of a thing in recent years for some reason. Ryder LeBlanc of The Hockey News did a great job of tracing the history of this phenomenon in a recent article.

LeBlanc points to the 2004-2005 NHL season as the beginning of the complaints about ice time becoming more commonplace. That was the season that Vincent Lecavalier led the Tampa Bay Lightning to their only Stanley Cup championship. Lecavalier averaged just over 20 minutes of ice time per game during the playoffs, which was significantly less than some of his high-profile teammates like Martin St. Louis and Brad Richards.

When asked about his limited ice time, Lecavalier responded by saying, “I don’t think about it at all. I just go out there and play my game and try not to think about how much ice time I get or anything like that.”

Lecavalier’s attitude caught on with other players, and soon enough it became commonplace to see players downplay their minutes played when asked in post-game interviews.

Fast forward to today and you still see players doing this, even though there are now social media platforms like Twitter where they can easily share their thoughts on playing time with fans and reporters. Just recently, Nashville Predators forward Ryan Johansen tweeted out “Thank you coaches for having confidence in me!! Appreciate every minute #Playoffs” after he was benched for most of Game 3 against the Colorado Avalanche.

Johansen’s tweet is a perfect example of how players have learned to cope with limited ice time – by thanking the coaching staff for giving them an opportunity to play at all. It’s also a good way to avoid any controversy or backlash from fans who may feel that a player is being unfairly benched.

Overall, it seems that complaining about playing time has become an accepted part of professional hockey culture. Players accept their minutes as they come and try not to make too big of deal out of it publicly. Coaches continue to make decisions based on what they feel is best for their team, and spectators continue to debate whether or not those decisions are right or wrong.

A History of the Anti-Playing Attitude in Ice Hockey

Ice hockey is a physical and punishing sport. It’s not a game for the faint of heart. And over the years, the NHL has done its best to protect its players from themselves by implementing rules that prevent them from playing the game aggressively.

The first rule change that limited player aggression was the introduction of the blue line in 1923. This rule prohibited players from leaving the playing surface and passing or shooting the puck across the blue line.

In 1927, goaltender interference was introduced, which prevented goaltenders from being bumped or harassed by opposing players.

In 1949,the penalty shot was added to give teams a chance to score when they were denied an opportunity to score by an opposing player who had possession of the puck in their defensive zone and violated one of the existing rules.

The next significant rule change that restricted player aggression was the introduction of Rule 48 in 2010. This rule banned lateral hits to the head delivered by an open ice check.

While some people may complain that these rules make the game less exciting, they are necessary to protect players from serious injury. Ice hockey is a physical sport, and without these rules in place, players would be at risk of serious injury every time they stepped on the ice.