Fighting in NHL

[Kin]

It is so tiring to continually have the "its time to talk about it" messages from the media whenever they think its a great time to renew the discussions.  Its no better to talk abut gun violence, for example, the day after a mass shooting than the day before it happened.  If its worth talking about and worth doing anything about it, just do it.  Like today, not the day after some event to help sell it.

I think that discounts the intransigence of a large population and people's(and especially organization's) resistance to change. So long as a problem isn't staring people in the face there's a tremendous urge to ignore it. Large scale evidence of that problem provide rallying points and mandates. It's easy to say that widescale changes in policy should occur before tragedies but that requires a ton of foresight. Australia, for instance, didn't have the impoetus to change their gun laws until the worst mass shooting in that country's history. After it, they did, they changed things and they haven't had one in the almost 20 years since.

 

[Kin]

Get rid of fighting in hockey? How? Suspend players for doing it? Great, we'll have lots of players serving suspensions, and by we I mean every team in the NHL. Hockey is an emotional sport and as long as there are players, there will be dirty players ala: Avery, Tucker, Fleury (man I hate putting Tucker and Fleury beside that...whatever). When they do dirty things other players are going to get angry and a fight will happen. Dirty hits will exist with/without fighting. A dirty hit increases negative emotion. What do you do with it? Fight (not a suspension yet) or dirty hit back (probably a suspension)...Skate away? Thats not going to happen in the majority of cases in my opinion.

I've made this argument before but if you read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball he devotes quite a bit of time to the fact that in the 1970's, Basketball had a fighting problem. Basketball is also a physical game, basketball players also do dirty things and in the 70's players fought a lot. Teams even kept guys around in what was, more or less, an enforcers role. Fighting was as much "a part of the game" in basketball as it was in hockey.

So what changed? Well, spurred on by things like serious injuries to players as a result of those fights, rules changed. Fighting wasn't just more seriously punished but so were the dirty plays that led to fights. The idea being that you make fighting, and other physical infractions, have such a negative consequence that players don't want to do it and teams don't want to employ players who do.

There's nothing about fighting that's intrinsic to hockey. We see that every year in the playoffs. The idea that fighting becomes crucial when winning is less important doesn't conform to even basic logic.

 

[jdh1]

I have a issue with the media types who are always bringing up about the wrongs of fighting in hockey.

They don't have a problem (airing for profit) the caged fighting with participants that do extensive physical damage to each other...Are there no concussions in that blood sport?

Sorry, when you say media types....who are you talking about? The presidents of media companies? Because I don't hear them talk about fighting too often. Columnists? Because they don't decide what the networks that employ them air. Who do you think decries fighting in hockey and then makes a decision to broadcast cage fighting?

I don't know how many networks carry cage fighting,but I know that it's either Sportsnet or TSN that broadcast their fights.The way I see it,if any broadcaster regardless of what sport they cover ,if they are against fighting in hockey and they are employed by either of the afore mentioned networks,they should be including cage fighting as well in there condemnation.

 

[Kin]

I don't know how many networks carry cage fighting,but I know that it's either Sportsnet or TSN that broadcast their fights.The way I see it,if any broadcaster regardless of what sport they cover ,if they are against fighting in hockey and they are employed by either of the afore mentioned networks,they should be including cage fighting as well in there condemnation.

But that doesn't make any sense. As people have pointed out the existence of fighting in hockey is a separate issue from the existence of fighting as it's own sport. You can dislike both, and I'm sure some do, but a criticism of one is not a criticism of the other by itself. I think it would be ridiculous if hockey games were interrupted for a bake-off but I don't have a fundamental problem with baking.

 

[TML fan]

I don't know how many networks carry cage fighting,but I know that it's either Sportsnet or TSN that broadcast their fights.The way I see it,if any broadcaster regardless of what sport they cover ,if they are against fighting in hockey and they are employed by either of the afore mentioned networks,they should be including cage fighting as well in there condemnation.

But that doesn't make any sense. As people have pointed out the existence of fighting in hockey is a separate issue from the existence of fighting as it's own sport. You can dislike both, and I'm sure some do, but a criticism of one is not a criticism of the other by itself. I think it would be ridiculous if hockey games were interrupted for a bake-off but I don't have a fundamental problem with baking.

I doubt enough people would find a bake-off entertaining.

 

[Kin]

I doubt enough people would find a bake-off entertaining.

Finding the lowest common denominator is what they teach you in 3rd grade math, not Intro to Logic.

 

[TML fan]

I doubt enough people would find a bake-off entertaining.

Finding the lowest common denominator is what they teach you in 3rd grade math, not Intro to Logic.

"Whoever said the human race was logical?"

- Gillian Taylor, Star Trek IV

 

[jdh1]

I don't know how many networks carry cage fighting,but I know that it's either Sportsnet or TSN that broadcast their fights.The way I see it,if any broadcaster regardless of what sport they cover ,if they are against fighting in hockey and they are employed by either of the afore mentioned networks,they should be including cage fighting as well in there condemnation.

But that doesn't make any sense. As people have pointed out the existence of fighting in hockey is a separate issue from the existence of fighting as it's own sport. You can dislike both, and I'm sure some do, but a criticism of one is not a criticism of the other by itself. I think it would be ridiculous if hockey games were interrupted for a bake-off but I don't have a fundamental problem with baking.

I'm not against fighting in hockey,that's part of the nature of the game.I've got a problem with those in the media who say fighting is wrong in hockey,but keep silent on the cage fighting.Because a kick to the head that causes a concussion is the same as a hockey player that concussed in a fight.

Why is it alright in cage fighting and not in hockey?
After all the safety of the participant is the grounds for the fighting ban.

 

[Kin]

I'm not against fighting in hockey,that's part of the nature of the game.I've got a problem with those in the media who say fighting is wrong in hockey,but keep silent on the cage fighting.Because a kick to the head that causes a concussion is the same as a hockey player that concussed in a fight.

Why is it alright in cage fighting and not in hockey?

Because they don't cover MMA for the most part, I'm assuming. I'm sure if you asked a lot of them they'd agree that cage fighting shouldn't exist. But that doesn't make it a requirement of the comment. That's like saying that before a political writer could say that a government is ineffective he also has to list every other government that was ineffective.

Commentary can be specific and pointed without being hypocritical for a lack of mentioning everything else in the world that is also wrong.

 

[jdh1]

I'm not against fighting in hockey,that's part of the nature of the game.I've got a problem with those in the media who say fighting is wrong in hockey,but keep silent on the cage fighting.Because a kick to the head that causes a concussion is the same as a hockey player that concussed in a fight.

Why is it alright in cage fighting and not in hockey?

Because they don't cover MMA for the most part, I'm assuming. I'm sure if you asked a lot of them they'd agree that cage fighting shouldn't exist. But that doesn't make it a requirement of the comment. That's like saying that before a political writer could say that a government is ineffective he also has to list every other government that was ineffective.

Commentary can be specific and pointed without being hypocritical for a lack of mentioning everything else in the world that is also wrong.

We don't need to bring up everything that's wrong in the world to prove our point.Opponent safety should be important in any sport.

 

[Kin]

We don't need to bring up everything that's wrong in the world to prove our point.Opponent safety should be important in any sport.

And it is. That's why MMA fights have innumerable safety precautions that the NHL doesn't with regards to fighting. From things as fundamental as the relative give of a mat vs. ice or padded gloves vs. a bare fist to things as important as a doctor at ringside or strictly limiting who is allowed to fight in very tightly controlled weight classes and, perhaps most importantly, only letting fighters fight a handful of times a year. There's a reason why everywhere that allows fighting has it governed by a boxing or MMA commission.

As I said, you're confusing two separate issues but to the extent that fighting needs to be governed by safety precautions to make it acceptable MMA does a much better job of it than hockey does.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Is there a way to make your rules a defined situation or is all based on how 'the referee' saw it? I can almost guarantee we'd have an issue with losing one of our players because the referee deemed it to fall into one of those categories. I get what you're trying to do, I just don't see how you make such a change without it being black and white!

Well, most of these situations are pretty clear. Guys talk, drop the gloves and go. Really, I just don't want teams to lose players in situations where guys like Scott go after guys like Kessel - that what I mean by one guy clearly going after the other. If a guy gets involved just for self defence, he shouldn't get the boot. Outside of that, kick 'em both out.

Like I said, I get what you're saying and I agree. I just think it opens too much debate.


I'm not sure when I changed my stance on fighting. I believe it coincides with my 5 year old daughter starting to watch.

 

[hap_leaf]

It is so tiring to continually have the "its time to talk about it" messages from the media whenever they think its a great time to renew the discussions.  Its no better to talk abut gun violence, for example, the day after a mass shooting than the day before it happened.  If its worth talking about and worth doing anything about it, just do it.  Like today, not the day after some event to help sell it.

I think that discounts the intransigence of a large population and people's(and especially organization's) resistance to change. So long as a problem isn't staring people in the face there's a tremendous urge to ignore it. Large scale evidence of that problem provide rallying points and mandates. It's easy to say that widescale changes in policy should occur before tragedies but that requires a ton of foresight. Australia, for instance, didn't have the impoetus to change their gun laws until the worst mass shooting in that country's history. After it, they did, they changed things and they haven't had one in the almost 20 years since.

How many GM meetings have there been that this has been a hot issue and nothing has been resolved, changed or even put forth as an agenda?  Surely they discuss this and nothing - not even a statement on the idea of removing fighting.  The only thing I can recall is the Instigator Rule and fighting still exists.
Its not going to be social change to remove fighting - its going to be internal.  As stated, too many fans, including me, enjoy a spirited and meaningful fight that can change the momentum of a game or protect a star player.  So its going to be the GM's and Rule Change Committees that bring the change.  So far, there's nothing stated so I will take that as a fact that they like it as it is - status quo.

Let's be honest - here is what the announcers in the game feared and what everyone fears - a death on the ice.
Parros could have died there on national televsion so if that's not a rallying cry for the NHL to make a decision one way or the other on the subject, I don't know what is.

Time after time, this media-talk comes up after some incident and no comment from the NHL.  Just a few Execs that were prodded by Dreger for a commment.

 

[moon111]

Hockey players should have to wear full masks.  Removal should be suspensions.

 

[TML fan]

I think as long as the league makes players aware of the consequences of fighting, then that is the extent of their responsibility and it should be up to the players to decide if they want to fight or not.

Fighting is already against the rules. It is a 5 minute penalty. Players who fight know that and accept that. They accept the dangers of it just as they accept the dangers of body checking. As long as they are made aware of what he dangers are, then I think that's enough. This is why the league will never move away from fighting until the worst happens. They have no reason to. The majority of NHL fights are between two willing combatants. Enough people like it and don't view it as a detraction. Those who don't like it have the option of turning the game off and refusing to participate. Until that number outweighs the number who stand up and cheer, or until someone pays the ultimate price, nothing will change.

I'm in favour of a suspension and fine for removing helmets during fights. The 2 minute penalty does nothing to deter players. If it starts hitting them in the wallet they might think twice.

 

[Peter D.]

I've been ready to see fighting out of the game for a while now.  The days of good ol' fashioned fights are long gone.  The majority now are staged between two guys who wouldn't see a NHL ice surface otherwise.  I'd love to see these stiffs out of the league once and for all.  I personally view these guys as a waste of a roster spot.

I find it hard to believe, quite frankly, that fighting is what draws new viewers in the U.S. in.  I really hope that's not the case.  If they can't appreciate the skill, speed and beauty of the game without these pointless instances, I'd rather not have them as fans of the game.

 

[Kin]

How many GM meetings have there been that this has been a hot issue and nothing has been resolved, changed or even put forth as an agenda?  Surely they discuss this and nothing - not even a statement on the idea of removing fighting.  The only thing I can recall is the Instigator Rule and fighting still exists.

When McKenzie talked about it last night he mentioned a few years ago that GMs did, in fact, have momentum to eliminate the staged fights but that it got shot down by the players so this isn't completely true and, honestly, highlights not only my point about people being resistant to change but also the fundamental problem that can exist in expecting entrenched cultures to change from the inside.

 

[Kin]

I think as long as the league makes players aware of the consequences of fighting, then that is the extent of their responsibility and it should be up to the players to decide if they want to fight or not.

I think there are two problems with that. The first is that we're learning that the science behind "the consequences of fighting" aren't really known to anyone to the idea that players could make the decision to enter into a fight with fully informed consent may not be possible regardless of the NHL's efforts. The second is that simply saying "Hey, this might be dangerous" and then detailing the ways it could be dangerous doesn't actually exempt an employer from creating a safe work environment. From a liability standpoint it's the easiest thing in the world to argue that the 5 minute penalty from fighting hasn't constituted a legitimate effort by the NHL to eliminate fighting and that quite a few players still earn their livings specifically because they fight.

Enough people like it and don't view it as a detraction. Those who don't like it have the option of turning the game off and refusing to participate. Until that number outweighs the number who stand up and cheer, or until someone pays the ultimate price, nothing will change.

That would only really be the equation if we assume that the NHL's only concern from a business perspective is retaining the fans they already have and we know that's not true. They want to grow the game. The real balance sheet, and why I think there's push to change things, is between people who already aren't watching the game because fighting vs. not the people who stand and cheer but the people who are such casual fans that they would stop watching if fighting were eliminated.

 

[Crucialness Key]

Idea to cut down on fighting

Each time a player gets a fighting major:

• 1-game suspension
  
• That player's cap hit goes up by $1 million

The additional cap hit can be buried in the minor leagues.

 

[bustaheims]

Like I said, I get what you're saying and I agree. I just think it opens too much debate.

And, like I said, I just don't see that many instances where it isn't pretty clear. You generally don't see fighters go after guys that don't fight and such.

I'm not sure when I changed my stance on fighting. I believe it coincides with my 5 year old daughter starting to watch.

I've always kind of disliked the staged fight. I've never really thought that they actually contributed anything to the game whatsoever. They get the crowd into it momentarily, and, within a shift or two, even the crowd has usually lost any semblance of being impacted by it. I guess, in terms of the rest of the fights, I've started to lean away from supporting them as I've matured. It's sort of the same thing with wrestling and such - they have their strongest appeal to most people when they're younger, but, as people get older, their interest in that kind of stuff fades.