I'm a bit surprised nobody has posted about this yet, though that could be for a number of reasons. But it's a discussion that we're clearly seeing needs to be had.
So far we've seen a number of stories on the conduct of Mike Babcock, Bill Peters, and now Marc Crawford has been placed on leave. I'm not going to even try to compare the situations as they are not equal (Babcock asking Marner to rate the effort levels of the veterans, then sharing that info with them is NOT the same as Peters using the N-word and physically abusing players in Carolina) but that doesn't mean they all come from the same general mindset - that it's okay to use your power to physically or emotionally abuse players. And this is by no means an NHL problem, either, though I put it in the NHL section because let's be honest, that's what's making the news right now.
It's a huge shift in what is acceptable conduct in hockey, from the top levels of the NHL, all the way down to the guys coaching squirt or pee-wee.
My first thought is "screw them all", but then I think about where does that line actually get drawn? Are we going to hear about every single time a coach physically abused a player in a sport where getting angry at an opponent gives you almost free reign to do things that would be assault anywhere else? Do we give coaches who have passed away a free pass from bad press? Do we take into consideration that "things were different back then", even referring to more recent examples? Is every complaint from a former player about being punched or being hazed going to result in a firing? I hope there is some middle ground in there somewhere.
I don't want to sound like I'm defending any of these guys either, I just think some common sense needs to come into play but I don't have any answers as far as what common sense even is in this case.
One more thing I want to mention - for those who are saying things like "why did it take 10 years to say something?"... keep in mind that in many cases these are fringe pros and the coach can literally make or break somebody's entire career. They have THAT much power. And again, that's power they hold over players starting from a very young age group. It's fair to say some of these guys decided that they would probably be ignored and even worse have their careers destroyed. Though, in some cases I'm sure it's going to be a valid question.
I don't know... it's obviously an extremely complex situation with a lot of nuances. I'm curious to see where it goes, and whether we as a society of hockey players, fans, coaches, and parents can make improvements on the way the game is handled moving forward.