Fighting in the NHL - Discussion

[Hal Johnson]

I know we've had this discussion before, but now that there's been a death and a seizure caused by fighting, do you think it's on it's way out?

[rubberdinghy]

Bettman didn't seem to think so at the all-star game.

But he's still an idiot.

I hate interviews between him and McLean...Bettman seems to always want to start an argument with Ron.

[badams]

A death or seizure can be caused from any fall during a hockey game. It could be from a hit a fight or someone just tripping over their own skates. These were fluke incidents and even though they are important the amount of times they happen are so small compared to the amount of hockey played.

I think it needs to be looked at from the perspective of how does it change the game? Does it make it better or worse? Will stick infractions become more common? Will players take cheap shots at more skilled opponents?

Personaly I don't think fighting is needed in hockey at all. If they create a penalty system that REALLY deters it they could have it out of the game in no time. I am talking something like a 20 game suspension. If they want it out don't pussy foot around it.

I love fast paced and tough hockey. I get more excitement from a big CLEAN hit than any fight.

Just my 2 cents.

[badams]

Bettman seems to always want to start an argument with Ron.

So does Cherry...

Actually I have drank with him twice and we argued both times... though that may have been me

[Hal Johnson]

Which one did you drink with?!? Cherry, Bettman, or Ron?

[Hal Johnson]

I can see them out-lawing it, but I can't see it stopping alltogether. Even if you penalize the guy for 20 games. Elbows to the head and hits from behind get emotions flaring and there's too much emotion/testosterone for no-one to do anything about it.

I can see rules being imposed however, that say a player can't remove his helmet during a fight maybe.

[peipunk]

Personaly I don't think fighting is needed in hockey at all.

I love fast paced and tough hockey. I get more excitement from a big CLEAN hit than any fight.

I agree with you.

This may be pussy footing, but would an automatic toss from the game for fighting make any difference? I guess that might only slow down guys like Iginla and Lecavalier who have their team very dependant on them.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Guest

[Basher]

The NHL should treat fighting the way the NBA does (LONG suspensions and HUGE fines).

I really don't see how it has ANY place in the game.

People say it brings entertainment value - so would a moat filled with sharks with freaking lazers on their heads in the place of boards - but that doesn't make it a good choice.

[Esau.]

I agree with most of what badams said, only I personally don't have a problem with fighting in the NHL. Thats not to say I'm "pro" fighting, but its part of the game, always has been.

Personally, I think badams idea (20 game suspension) is a bit extreme, thats just my opinion. But, thats not to say I'm not open to changes that may or will reduce serious shit like deaths for example, due to fighting. Guys can die or be just as seriously hurt without fighting.

I can't really say what would be the best solution, but one thought I've had in the past was to enforce a mandatory face mask rule, not just a visor but a full out face mask/cage.

With that in mind, add a penalty/suspension/fine (aside from just fighting) for removing your mask or the other players. One similar to dropping your gloves type deal, but harsher. I imagine players would be less likely to start dropping gloves and swinging at each other if they were looking at punching a cage.

Plus, there wouldn't be the number of serious facial injuries (eye injuries come to mind) that we have seen over recent years.

Regardless if they did what badams suggested, or what I've suggested there is always going to be fights, simple fact its just part of the game.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Guest
clarity

[Davey Boy 2.0]

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that jaimoe is a pugilist and could whip anyone who posts on this board

[Hal Johnson]

Naturally.

[Thorgnor]

I've had couple of ideas about this.

First I've got to say that I don't really think there's a place for fighting in hockey. Wanna fight? Join the UFC, or better yet be a boxer if you like to stand and fight. There used to be fighting in basketball, people got crippled because the size and strength of the players was so great. Hockey has gone in the same direction (Chara, etc.).

The first measure I think they need to go towards is expanded ice, similar to the international game. It makes for more exciting breakaways and a quicker less choppy game. IMO it's a far more graceful style. Or maybe take a man off the ice and make it a 4-on-4 game with goalies?

I thought about a type of foam/rubber/padded under-helmet/hood that might stabilize the neck and pad the back and sides of the head a little better should the helmets come off, but it may only incite more aggressive hits.

I also though about a huge supension and I think that works best but I don't think bumping guys for twenty games is gonna deter the team aspect of the violence. The team needs players willing to sacrifice themselves for the defense of the best so somebody's always gonna want to be the "martyr".

What if the penalty was more akin to soccer/football/rugby stayle rules where a team is put a player down for the duration of the game for certain infractions? In rugby no one may be "marked" and a ref who catches a retribution shot is supposed to exit the player caught doing so. Likewise for fighting, and we all know how important being a player down can be for a football team... mismatches are a bitch and in hockey, it could spell the end of instigation and retribution as it would probably mean the loss of the game having to play on your heels for the rest of it. A rest-of-game power play is not a very attractive prospect for a coach.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

"A rest-of-game power play is not a very attractive prospect for a coach."

I can't imagine how this could work without people immediately switching off their TVs

[Thorgnor]

people still watch footabll

[Hal Johnson]

But what about when I stick my knee out at your bretheren and sideline him for the rest of the season and most of the next one? What are you gonna do about it? Huh, ninny-boy (just trying to illustrate a point )

It's there because the players need to police themsleves, because, I guess, the rules for nearly killing someone during the course of regular play (elboy to the face, for example), barely seem to deter anyone at all from doing so.

Stiffer penalties for fighting would likely deter the pre-conceived fights, but I dont think it would help for the rest of the game. Little guys would get murdered....and they can, within the rules...if no one was there to step in.

Weird issue.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

numbers are the key here... the more people on the playing field the less impact there is losing a man

[Booche]

Whatever the WNBA does is what the NHL should do.

I think the next step we are going to see is the pre-conceived fight getting more penalized even though I have no idea where they can begin with that one. In the case of the kid who had the seizure, keep in mind that these two blokes went at it on the puck drop to start the game.

There's absolutely no need for that crap.

As long as there isnt a knee-jerk reaction right now or that fighting isnt completely abolished until all avenues are exhausted, I will figure the NHL is doing their job at finding a solution because once it is out of the game for good it aint coming back. That much I believe.

[badams]

I really don't mind if fighting stays or not. The reason I suggest the 20 game suspension is IF the NHL WANTS to STOP it. An in game suspension won't do it. A 1 game suspension won't do it. They would need to show how serious they were about stopping fighting, they have a long history to overcome.

[AD]

There are penalties for fighting - it's against the rules. I think that's good enough for me. If people fight, fine. If they don't, fine.

[Esau.]

It seems as if some folks would be happier with not only banning fighting, but making the game non-contact.

No matter what, some guys are going be tougher, bigger and hit harder and some guys will be capable of taking the hits while others won't. Shit, my hockey career ended at 20 playing Jr. C and Jr.B hockey due to getting hit and fracturing my lower vertebrae (L1-L3), it was a clean hit I just went down in a bad way, no ones fault. Its a fast game and its contact, injuires will happen.

Maybe there should be weight-classes /sarcasm.

I think they have made enough changes to the game, eg: 4vs4 OT, shoot out and no red line etc. I've never cared for this. As for making a bigger ice surface as has been suggested many times over the years, sure it would spread things out, but really it'll just mean faster game, in turn much harder hits and in the end no difference in injuries. In my opinion.

I like to watch a good grinded out game. Thats what has always appealed to me. Personally, I still prefer 5vs5 OT and no shoot out, end the game in a tie. Save for playoffs where I would be fine with 4vs4 OT > shoot-out opposed to sudden death continous OT.

I know the reasons for the shoot-out and 4vs4 were to speed the game up and make it more "exciting", shit, why not make baseball only 5 innings.

[Thorgnor]

I like clean hits, but there's no fighting in American football and sometimes little guys get nailed and there's no one to stand up and be bigger and tougher than the guy who nailed him, and then that team looses the game because they have inadequate personnel. I think durability should play more of a role than knee-jerk bravado.

If they've got a cheap shot giving, annoying Avery type busting your stars balls, why stand up one-on-one in a clean fight against him? Why not break his neck legally or at least during play and take a "penalty" instead of a suspension? Seems like the game would benefit from players knowing that clean play makes for clean play, dirty play being answered by tough guy stuff that doesn't get you the win doesn't really stop them from hitting your sensitive stars.

(shrugs shoulders)

[Hal Johnson]

Personally, I enjoy myself a good tilt. That being said, I'm annoyed by the automatic fight that seems to come with good clean, albeit sometimes vicious, checks. Also, the fights right after the draw can be annoying (however, it's always intrigueing to think of the dialogue that must go on - Chris Nilan stories come to mind - right before hand)

I'd be lying though if I said I dont think it's time is up. The media and concerned parents are starting to choose the side of "no fighting" more and more.

It's just a matter of time before we see major lawsuits and criminal charges laid. Nothing I would condone, but it's bound to happen.

[Booche]

Theo, football doesnt allow its players to carry a weapon. Biiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.

[Hal Johnson]

I like clean hits, but there's no fighting in American football and sometimes little guys get nailed and there's no one to stand up and be bigger and tougher than the guy who nailed him, and then that team looses the game because they have inadequate personnel. I think durability should play more of a role than knee-jerk bravado.

If they've got a cheap shot giving, annoying Avery type busting your stars balls, why stand up one-on-one in a clean fight against him? Why not break his neck legally or at least during play and take a "penalty" instead of a suspension? Seems like the game would benefit from players knowing that clean play makes for clean play, dirty play being answered by tough guy stuff that doesn't get you the win doesn't really stop them from hitting your sensitive stars.

(shrugs shoulders)

I agree with you. Maybe it's the grassroots levels that need to be re-evaluated. Fighting is ingrained at such a young age.

It's a fraternity though...the guys coaching the kids/running the leagues are usually the first to promote the fisticuffs.

[Esau.]

Ian, I'm not one to quote-break down posts, so I'll do my best to reply without drifting off topic.

I like clean hits, but there's no fighting in American football and sometimes little guys get nailed and there's no one to stand up and be bigger and tougher than the guy who nailed him, and then that team looses the game because they have inadequate personnel. I think durability should play more of a role than knee-jerk bravado.

Thats just part of the game and it's goin happen and does happen in all levels of the game, from high-school to pro. Not getting around it really. As for the knee-jerk bravado, well I dunno what to say, in many cases I think its just pure emotion that drives certian actions/behaviors, be them good or bad. Ultimately, that's up to individual player to take responsibilty for. In any sport.

I don't believe football is any cleaner of a game then hockey is, only that hockey has less players on the ice, then football on the field so its considerably more noticeable. I'll admit football doesn't have fights, at least not like hockey. But to me, its apples and oranges. I much rather compare LAX to hockey then hockey to football.

Dirty play is dirty play, regardless if its fighting, cheaping shotting a sensitve star gouging an eye, or "fish" hooking a mouth. I don't condone it but I realize that sometimes emotions and passion take over and at other times, the player is just a jerk/dirty player. I really don't see anyway to curb it entirely. They can ban, suspend, or fine players as much as they want, but I don't think that will stop some other guy's emotions from taking over at one point or another, in my opinion anyway.

Off-topic, hope your doin well buddy, been a really long time since we crossed paths.