To understand why the NHL will have to ban fighting one day, read this story

[hap_leaf]

They should make on-ice incidents criminal.  I can't just ram my elbow into someone's head on the street and not expect the police to be involved.

Well it can sometimes and I think you must know the difference between actions in a sporting event and real life.

Here is a story of a Brantford hockey player charged with assault causing bodily harm:
http://www.lfpress.com/2013/07/11/brantford-hockey-player-charged-after-on-ice-fight-makes-first-court-appearance

Although the incident has garnered national attention, Richard McLaren, a professor of law at Western University specializing in sports law who?s participated as an arbitrator in five Olympic Games, said the case is unlikely to set precedent within the legal system towards minor hockey.

?The normal circumstances are, when you play a sport with a certain level of violence, like hockey, you, as a player, have agreed to play in a sport that?s physical and rough,? he said in a phone interview from New York.

?Usually the police stay out of it and let the league and club govern itself,? he said. ?At some point though, you cross the line and the state can intervene because the assault caused bodily harm.?

 

[hockeyfan1]

"If the injuries occur from actions that reasonably fall within the job he agreed
to do"

Isn't that the definition of what the players agree to in the
NFL?

While I'm not going to claim to be well versed in either the
specifics of the law or the lawsuit involving the NFL, my
understanding is that the players were arguing that the league was aware of the potential for serious brain injury and did not provide enough protection against it, which, I believe, would fall under the rather nebulous area that is negligence. Part of the duties of an employer is to create as safe a working condition as possible.

If the NFL could be accused of negligence,  then what would
be the stated negligence for the NHL? 

Not only that, but, since football in itself has it's own built-in danger for the requirements that the game itself entails
(tackling, heavy hitting, etc.), even though the players wear
protective gear (helmets, paddings, etc.),  how can the NHL
protect it's players in terms of not endangering them any further than the game has evolved as dangerous as it already is?

One of the few solutions the league sought was to place a ban on head shots with suspensions, which seems to have had some sort of wary impact but hasn't eliminated head hits completely.  It's doubtful it will ever be eliminated unless
hockey in general, and not just the NHL, take greater action. 
One can say the same thing about fighting.

I believe the only way to enhance and/or change the game of hockey would be to start at the 'grassroots' level when the
kids start learning the game, all the way to their teen years &
beyond, so the skills, skating, and speed are emphasized and
eventually body checking is properly taught.  This way,
players are ingrained with idea and the know-how of the
proper workings of the game.

 

[Bullfrog]

​

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.

No they aren't.

They absolutely are. I would say without doubt they're an integral part of the game.

But are we sure we mean the same thing when we talk about a body check? Here's how it's defined on Wikipedia: "Checking in ice hockey is any one of a number of defensive techniques, aimed at disrupting an opponent with possession of the puck, or separating them from the puck entirely." That definition includes stick-checking as well, but the intent is the same.

Was Scott Stevens' hit on Lindros's head a check? No, because the intent there was clearly to injure. Would it be integral to the game? Absolutely not.

But a genuine body-check meant as a defensive move to stop a goal or pass or to separate the player from the puck? Absolutely yes.

You've NEVER played in a non-contact league?

But aren't we really talking specifically about the NHL here?

 

[TML fan]

​

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.

No they aren't.

They absolutely are. I would say without doubt they're an integral part of the game.

But are we sure we mean the same thing when we talk about a body check? Here's how it's defined on Wikipedia: "Checking in ice hockey is any one of a number of defensive techniques, aimed at disrupting an opponent with possession of the puck, or separating them from the puck entirely." That definition includes stick-checking as well, but the intent is the same.

Was Scott Stevens' hit on Lindros's head a check? No, because the intent there was clearly to injure. Would it be integral to the game? Absolutely not.

But a genuine body-check meant as a defensive move to stop a goal or pass or to separate the player from the puck? Absolutely yes.

You've NEVER played in a non-contact league?

But aren't we really talking specifically about the NHL here?

Sure, but one might argue that fighting is as much a part of the NHL game as hitting is.

 

[Kin]

Feels more like I'm arguing that hockey might need to enforce similar rules at some point as the ones you've listed, rather than be unable to keep fighting in the game. They may decide it's not worth it though.

That seems more or less impossible considering that some of those things would be basically impossible to enforce, you can't have weigh-ins for instance, and some stretch the definition of credibility(like somehow softening the ice).

 

[Bill_Berg]

Feels more like I'm arguing that hockey might need to enforce similar rules at some point as the ones you've listed, rather than be unable to keep fighting in the game. They may decide it's not worth it though.

That seems more or less impossible considering that some of those things would be basically impossible to enforce, you can't have weigh-ins for instance, and some stretch the definition of credibility(like somehow softening the ice).

Sponge helmets. Not the same rules exactly but new rules that are appropriate for hockey. Might even be that you just can't play again after sustaining a certain degree of concussion.

As long as there's money to be made, they'll find a way.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Feels more like I'm arguing that hockey might need to enforce similar rules at some point as the ones you've listed, rather than be unable to keep fighting in the game. They may decide it's not worth it though.

That seems more or less impossible considering that some of those things would be basically impossible to enforce, you can't have weigh-ins for instance, and some stretch the definition of credibility(like somehow softening the ice).

Actually, why not weigh in? You fight someone that's more than 20 pounds lighter, big suspension.  Players could get a list of opposing players they're eligible to fight before every game.

 

[Kin]

Actually, why not weigh in? You fight someone that's more than 20 pounds lighter, big suspension.  Players could get a list of opposing players they're eligible to fight before every game.

Well, if nothing else that sort of would undercut any claim the NHL could make towards fighting being a legitimate part of the game.

 

[Bullfrog]

But aren't we really talking specifically about the NHL here?

Sure, but one might argue that fighting is as much a part of the NHL game as hitting is.

Well that's exactly what we're arguing. And I haven't heard a compelling argument yet that fighting is an integral part of the NHL game, or at least that it needs to be. I think it's much easier to argue that hitting is.

 

[ZBBM]

Aaaaaaaand this:

Hockey players who sustained concussions during a recent season experienced acute microstructural changes in their brains, according to a series of studies published in the Journal of Neurosurgery on Tuesday.

?We?ve seen evidence of chronic injuries later in life from head trauma, and now we?ve seen this in current players,? said Dr. Paul Echlin, an Ontario sports concussion specialist who conducted the study in collaboration with Dr. Martha Shenton of Brigham and Women?s Hospital and researchers from Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and Western University of Canada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/sports/hockey/study-finds-changes-in-brains-of-hockey-players-who-had-concussions.html?hpw&rref=sports&_r=0

Note that of the study group, almost 25% received a concussion diagnosis during the season.  Wow.

 

[Sanecow]

If you genuinely want to stop the fights, the easiest way is to fine the players, coach and organization for each fight. Fining the players alone was sufficient to basically eliminate fights from the AFL in Australia, but they weren't under instruction to fight.

 

[bustaheims]

http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2014/8/14/5997223/how-shawn-thornton-may-have-ended-marc-savards-career

A pretty good article that shows how little impact enforcers have on cheap shots, injuries, etc.

(For those who don't want to read it, the conclusion is basically that they have no positive impact there. In fact, they may cause a slight - though, negligible - increase their frequency.)

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Man, that Haggerty quote is amazing:

He played with a toughness and swagger that raised the confidence level of players around him, and made Boston?s skill players feel like they were protected from the league?s predators. It didn?t make the B?s bullet proof, obviously, as evidenced by the hard head shots that guys like Marc Savard, Nathan Horton, Loui Eriksson and Patrice Bergeron have taken over the years.

But it could have been worse if No. 22 wasn?t glowering at the cheap shot artists from the end of the bench.

Yes, Thornton protected all of Boston's top players, except for all those times their best players got their bells rung presumably while Thornton was on the bench. If things are going to get worse in that regard without Thornton like Haggerty suspects I can only imagine all of the Bruins will be dead by the end of the season.

 

[Bullfrog]

A logical conclusion.

 

[Kin]

And the thing of it is that Thornton might be the closest thing in the game currently to the sorts of enforcers who were in the game more in the 80's and 90's, that is a guy who's clearly on the team to fight but can skate a regular shift without embarrassing the team. A guy like Domi or Probert or McSorley. At the very least you could argue that he might be out there against said cheap shot artist and be able to actually hit them in the sort of tit for tat violence that people say is the enforcer's stock in trade.

 

[cw]

I think there's lots to consider here and I kind of have mixed feelings about various the conclusions because I'm not absolutely sure. Here's some thoughts:

One point I didn't see mentioned in the Boston article (might have missed it):
"The code" seems to suggest a heavyweight can't fight a middleweight or lightweight. So would a team then need three enforcers for each weight group?
I don't need an answer to a rhetorical question. It just underscores one more blurry aspect to the justification of an enforcer.

I had little use for Orr or McLaren in the Leafs lineup the last number of years. The Leafs coaches felt similarly playing them 5 mins per game.

Smythe maintained his quote  "If you can't beat 'em in the alley, you can't beat 'em on the ice." was misunderstood. He just felt it was important that his team be tough enough that it could not be intimidated.

Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe were pretty good fighters. We don't see much of that among the stars today in part because they learned those guys couldn't score from the penalty box and they didn't like it when a 4th liner got them in the penalty box for fighting.

One might say that the Flyers in the '70s fought their way to a couple of Stanley Cups though as Smythe said, a hunk of it was they had skill and that they intimidated other clubs through physical play as well.

I don't mind seeing a good hockey fight. I don't need to see one to appreciate a good hockey game. I'm not sure I'd miss it if it got banned but I do wonder if some US markets are ready for that. Fighting did seem to appeal to some of the US markets while they were developing. I'm not sure what the right answer on that as of today.

I'm inclined to agree with the above article in that I don't see a relationship between fighting and reducing injuries. Nor do I see one between fighting and winning games. Our Leafs were near the top of the league in fighting the last three seasons or so and it didn't help much in the won-loss columns while Detroit hasn't fought much for years and did much better in the won-loss columns.

I do strongly suspect fighting is more likely to be a casualty of the increased concern with concussions, particularly as the lawsuits heat up as the first post in this thread suggests. The lawyers will kill this debate.

 

[Frank E]

I've probably said this more than a few times around here...it's the feeling the players have, the confidence they glean, from knowing they won't be intimidated by some bruisers they're playing against that was more the reason to keep some of this muscle around.  This is more pronounced for younger players that can be easily intimidated by much bigger opponents.  It's not that the fighters specifically prevent any injuries, it's the hightening of the confidence some players get from having someone at the end of the bench that can handle "that" guy if things got out of hand.  Hockey players are a proud bunch, in general, and no one wants to have to run away from a confrontation...the muscle at the end of your bench can skate over and confront/intimidate (or even have words with) the aggravating or intimidating types of players, something along the lines of "try me on for size."  It allows your smaller player/younger player/player that wants nothing to do with confrontation to save face somewhat.

I think that many teams have guys that can "handle themselves" reasonably well, and still contribute on a regular shift.  These guys have pretty much mitigated the need for the classic enforcer, even if they aren't intimidators themselves.

I agree with cw, I think that the legal liability will force fighting out of the game for the most part.  This may very well alleviate some of that fear from some of those that are more prone to be intimidated.

 

[Kin]

I've probably said this more than a few times around here...it's the feeling the players have, the confidence they glean, from knowing they won't be intimidated by some bruisers they're playing against that was more the reason to keep some of this muscle around.  This is more pronounced for younger players that can be easily intimidated by much bigger opponents.  It's not that the fighters specifically prevent any injuries, it's the hightening of the confidence some players get from having someone at the end of the bench that can handle "that" guy if things got out of hand.  Hockey players are a proud bunch, in general, and no one wants to have to run away from a confrontation...the muscle at the end of your bench can skate over and confront/intimidate (or even have words with) the aggravating or intimidating types of players, something along the lines of "try me on for size."  It allows your smaller player/younger player/player that wants nothing to do with confrontation to save face somewhat.

If all that were true, why would so many coaches bench their enforcers come playoff time?

 

[cw]

I've probably said this more than a few times around here...it's the feeling the players have, the confidence they glean, from knowing they won't be intimidated by some bruisers they're playing against that was more the reason to keep some of this muscle around.  This is more pronounced for younger players that can be easily intimidated by much bigger opponents.  It's not that the fighters specifically prevent any injuries, it's the hightening of the confidence some players get from having someone at the end of the bench that can handle "that" guy if things got out of hand.  Hockey players are a proud bunch, in general, and no one wants to have to run away from a confrontation...the muscle at the end of your bench can skate over and confront/intimidate (or even have words with) the aggravating or intimidating types of players, something along the lines of "try me on for size."  It allows your smaller player/younger player/player that wants nothing to do with confrontation to save face somewhat.

I think that many teams have guys that can "handle themselves" reasonably well, and still contribute on a regular shift.  These guys have pretty much mitigated the need for the classic enforcer, even if they aren't intimidators themselves.

That reminded me of the Leafs '98-99 team:
5th overall in pts and +/-
1st in offence
21st in defense

They had Domi and Kris King as two respectable enforcers.

They made the conference finals against Buffalo.

Going into that series, they'd tightened up their playoff defence to 2.08 GAG - partly due to Cujo but also due to being 4th in shots against per game at the end of the playoffs.

There were hardly any fights in the playoffs that year but the Leafs led along with the Pens with 2.

The Leafs scored more goals per game against Hasek than anyone else, 3.20GPG playing run & gun. But Buffalo outscored them and won the series 4-1.

The big difference in that series in my opinion and in Pat Quinn's opinion was Buffalo physically manhandling them, particularly their forwards, in the puck battles. They had the speed but lacked the braun in a clutch and grab league. The Leafs with Domi & King as two decent enforcers couldn't overcome that.

Since then, with the new rules, the game has evolved:
- with less clutch and grab, there's a higher premium on speed and from that, youth.
- there's a trend to push for a 3rd line that contributes more scoring rather than as much focus on being a defensive shutdown line.
- A reduction in the use of enforcers.
- And recently, some of the advanced stats junkies are starting to make a somewhat reasoned case that the stay-at-home dmen might be going the way of the dinosaur as teams may shift to six puck moving dmen who can help in both ends and help more with systems that have a higher focus on puck possession.
- meanwhile, I continue to struggle some with the reliable predictability of the goaltending position since the 2005 lockout with the exception that a increase in the premium for athletic ability and reaction time is desirable in today's game

The odd thought about that '98-99 Leafs team is they might be a better contender under today's rules than they were back then, all other things being equal.

 

[ZBBM]

To understand why the NHL will have to ban fighting one day, read this story (redux):

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=461397

As many as 10,000 players formerly under NHL contracts and their family members may pursue court cases against the league, court documents say, alleging it has promoted a culture of violence over the past decades but has failed to established proper rules and protocols for preventing head injuries.