The problem the NHL faces in regulating head shots in the sport is that players enjoy hitting others, they realize they are getting overpaid because of it, and that fans love watching it. The other problem is that a few bad incidents make the overall head shots seem to be bad. It is the same idea in Nagel's Moral Luck argument, where the ends justify the original actions. It really isn't fair to generalize hard hits. They have to be taken as separate tasks, not grouped together. if the player gets injured there is something expected to be done, while if the player is not hurt, the punishment should not be severe.
I think the NHL has proven that they know how to handle the issue, by keeping it as part of the game and not going to the extremes, leaving it up to the referees or by removing it from the game. The game in itself does not provide a high level of excitement except for the endings of close games (as in all sports), and taking enjoyable hits from fans paying to see it would be wrong and in essence robbing fans from the chance to see a good ol' slug-fest. Players should not be suspended on a large scale except if the hit is deemed unfair, not if the player is hurt, or dies or whatsoever.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/
No comments:
Post a Comment