|
Does rink rage mean turning the other
cheek?
November 18, 2003
Story by: Suzannah
M. Archibald
A case of intimidation and overzealous
parenting in Windsor made headlines around
the province this previous September. Remember
the case? Nine-year-old Casey Dockus, after
committing no larger an error than fumbling
a pass, was angrily bawled out by her father
while sitting with the rest of her team
on the bench. Her father, eventually forcibly
restrained and barred from contacting his
daughter (or her team), may have fallen
prey to the beast: Rink rage.
Young players, and their parents, losing
themselves in a love of the game of hockey
is nothing new in our sport-obsessed culture.
What is new is our perception of all that
has become synonymous with the less than
untarnished image hockey officials would
like to uphold. The fact is, some people
in hockey circles have changed, and leagues
and officials are scrambling to keep up
with those changes.
The term, "rink rage," has only
been coined in the late 1990s, and was given
huge prominence in the media particularly
over the widely reported story of Thomas
Junta, a Massachusetts hockey dad who in
1998 was convicted of involuntary manslaughter
when an after-game tussle with a volunteer
ref took a turn towards tragedy.
While this unique phenomenon may have been
around for a lot longer than most are willing
to admit, it does seem that swift action
has only come with increased tragedy. Like
a horrific train wreck or accident, observers
are stuck watching the fallout as a few
overly excitable people take the fun out
of hockey.
Criminal Lawyer, David Alan Harris, based
in the Halton Region, sees the problem of
rink rage tantamount with all that is wrong
with the game of hockey today. He agrees
rink rage has always been around and the
recent severity of these isolated events
have not only gotten worse, but he believes
are representative of society's diminished
respect for one another.
"The problem," says Harris, "is
that sporting events seem to have far fewer
controls on them than there were in the
past, which has only added to the problem
of increased violence and aggression in
sports (like hockey)."
But according to the Canadian Hockey Association,
in order to curb incidents of spectator
violence and aggression, these kind of violence-fuelled
incidents will not happen on their watch.
They have outlined a sort-of "zero
tolerance" model for hockey spectators
and parents, for the kind of behaviours
that "will not be tolerated at the
developmental hockey level."
Harris points out a contract model has
taken off in various areas of North America,
as many minor hockey leagues and associations
have asked parents to sign a contract at
the beginning of each season outlining the
kind of behaviour they will have to bring
to every game.
Many sports psychologists say that rink
range is here to stay. And these incidents
may be due to what they call the "cultural
spill over theory", which essentially
means that because of an increased tendency
towards violence in the media and in our
general culture, it's simply more acceptable
to use violence as an end means than it
once was.
Harris says that it is far from uncommon
now for concerned in-house officials to
call the police immediately on unruly or
boisterous spectators.
In fact in a recent 2002 Macleans' study
on hockey violence, a coach in Drummondville,
QC, said it was not unusual to have regular
police patrols at weekend hockey tournaments
simply because the rivalries from spectators
for both teams had become so heated.
Let's hope that everyone approaches this
season with an open mind, and a willingness
to head to anger-management classes, if
they are warranted.
Author's note: David Alan Harris, LLB,
is a criminal lawyer and attorney based
in Oakville, Ontario. He has published numerous
articles on criminal law for the Burlington
Post. For more information on Mr. Harris,
please visit his website at http://www.lawyers.ca/dharris
Next week: We'll look at the
psychology behind rink rage, and organized
youth sports. Why are the numbers down?
|
