| Author |
 Topic  |
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
 Posted - 10/02/2013 : 15:35:27
|
As the NHL season kicks off, fighting is a huge topic after the Parros - Orr fight in the first Leafs vs. Habs tilt of the year. Even as I got ready for work this morning, it's all they were talking about on the CBC morning show I listen to. Now I'm reading an article saying some GM's are saying it's time to ban fighting, which is a fairly big step forward in the conversation I think.
So I'm curious, what do you guys think?
The article:
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=433262
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2013 : 08:48:37
|
Ban fighting?? No. You can't simply ban something that has been tolerated by the league for decades. It would like like saying any NFL with a personal foul will get kicked out of the game immediately. You can't find a way to simply ban it.
However, I am a strong supporter of the 5 min and a game for a fight. No suspension for multiple fights, but 5 and a game for any fight.
I would also argue to anyone who is a believe that fighting has value to the NHL I provide two piece of evidence.
1 - The most successful teams over the past 20-30 years (Detroit, New Jersey, Dallas, et al) rarely if every have a 'heavyweight' and are often the teams in the NHL with the least number of fighting majors.
2 - If fighting is so important to the game, why does it all but disappear in the most important games which are the playoffs??
Fighting is a side show at best. The code is gone and the players have not policed themselves in a very long time. You can't simply cut it from the game completely, but 5 min and a game misconduct for fighting is the right way to reduce it.
Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!
|
 |
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2013 : 12:08:43
|
I can think of a few heavyweights from the 3 successful teams you talked about (Detroit, Probert the first that comes to mind). Go a step further and add Chicago, Boston, Pittsburg and LA to that list and look at the roster. You will find all kinds of players on successful teams which are fighters. Then again the successful team don't throw out the enforcer's in critical games. I think most of the successful teams have employed hard checkers and agitators who fight, more often than true heavyweights. The role of a heavy weight, but otherwise unskilled player maybe is what needs to go away, but fighting in a fast moving physical game like hockey will never truly go away. It shouldn't, as the players and coaches will want to police the game and remove the dirty players. As fans of the sport I want to see a dirty player be rewarded with a knuckle sandwich. If the offender ducks retribution or if the officials don't punish or see the offender, you will see dirty plays returned by the receiver. This will lead to an increase in injuries. Sometimes a team plays dirty in a situation or against a team they cannot beat any other way and the only way to settledown a game is to send out a heavy weight. I seen it in 2 playoff series in the last few years with my team against Montreal and New York. I am certain other series and teams were much like that, as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ban fighting?? No. You can't simply ban something that has been tolerated by the league for decades. It would like like saying any NFL with a personal foul will get kicked out of the game immediately. You can't find a way to simply ban it.
However, I am a strong supporter of the 5 min and a game for a fight. No suspension for multiple fights, but 5 and a game for any fight.
I would also argue to anyone who is a believe that fighting has value to the NHL I provide two piece of evidence.
1 - The most successful teams over the past 20-30 years (Detroit, New Jersey, Dallas, et al) rarely if every have a 'heavyweight' and are often the teams in the NHL with the least number of fighting majors.
2 - If fighting is so important to the game, why does it all but disappear in the most important games which are the playoffs??
Fighting is a side show at best. The code is gone and the players have not policed themselves in a very long time. You can't simply cut it from the game completely, but 5 min and a game misconduct for fighting is the right way to reduce it.
Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2013 : 14:39:38
|
Well, to each their own. I can think of the times Probert played on Detroit too. How many Cup rings did he win again??
There was a time before the early 90's when fighting as a deterrent and that reckless players were policed by the code. Today you would be hard pressed to find a single players that was considered reckless at one time, was beaten up in hockey fights, then straighted up his game.
Have you ever seen a game settle down after a fight?? C'mon! That's ridiculous! They usually get MORE animated after a fight.
The purpose for fighting is gone. Has been for a long time. At least in my opinion.
If I want to want a fight, I'll watch a fight.
I also think it bollocks to say that hockey is such a fast and dangerous sport that it's impossible to not have fights. Poppycock!! Football, rugby, even lacrosse has rules in place where fighting will result in automatic ejection. Lacrosse is a bit of an enigma where the ref has latitude, but the definition of the rule states the intention is for the ref to give a major and match penalty to an agressor or instigator of a fight.
All of the other sports that allow hitting have more significant rules in place for fighting. The excuse that hockey shouldn't because it's too fast and physical is not logicial to me.
I also never said it should go away, fights happen in other sports too. The difference is if players fights in virtually every other sport in the world they get tossed out of the game.
Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2013 : 22:01:07
|
I used to be a supporter of fighting and had the opinion that "you can't just take it out of the game", etc. Well, times have changed. I really think it's time it's banned. No Beans, by banned, I mean as you propose. Game misconducts for fights.
Here's the thing. I'm sick of hearing about "the code". The league needs to step up and fine/suspend/etc players they deem reckless. The NFL does it with hits to the head and protecting quarterbacks. These fines need to be hefty and suspensions BIG! That way, guys will think twice about taking liberties on other guys.
Fighting has played it's course. There's not really a need for it now. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 06:24:00
|
Well, first off - and we all know there is going to be a long thread here - let's get the terms straight.
You can't technically "ban" fighting.
Looking at the big 4, in the NFL, NBA and MLB, fighting DOES occasionally happen . . . it just isn't tolerated very well. There are heavy consequences for fighting in the NBA (long-term suspensions); slightly shorter suspensions (relative for each season length) for the MLB and NFL. So basically, fighting in those leagues means a suspension of games, and potentially also fines. All those leagues also speak strongly against it; and there is certainly nothing in any promo for any of those leagues that would closely resemble a fight.
The NHL currently, despite rhetoric to the contrary from Bettman et al, fully supports and endorses fighting - something that takes place when no hockey is actually being played!*
* I think this is an important point to remember at all times . . . for every single fight, the whistle is blown and play stops dead . . . in essence, fighting always takes place OUTSIDE of the game of hockey.
Fighting is in NHL promo videos; in commercials; the players who are designated as "enforcers" are often front and center for team community events, public appearances, etc, and they are often at the front line of charity work with young kids; the sideshow of fighting doesn't receive any sort of proper disciplinary action from the league.
Let's face it . . . having to stop the game because two guys want to fight in the middle of a hockey game . . . something for which, on the street, one would get charges for . . . seems totally and utterly ridiculous to simply condone.
And I disagree with many who say it would take forever, a long time to change . . . because I think, that it would take one or two seasons. That's it.
Next summer - they have GM meetings, opt for changes, and the NHLPA approves it - ok, now there is an automatic 1 game suspension for an instigator fighting major, and both participants in a fight are reviewed for longer suspension (for the instigator, especially in situations where he sought out a star player or totally unwilling combatant) and the other combatant (if it appears he was also a willing combatant, he gets a game too).
Done.
After a season of that . . . bye bye goons, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Fighting cut by at least a third, probably closer to half.
Then the season after, they instill a system of cumulative game suspensions for players racking them up for fighting, and after 3, you are gone for the season. If you get a second season ban, you are done, gone from the league.
Season after that, ALL goons gone. Buh-bye!
Fighting then happens rarely . . . it still happens, but not more than once or twice in a season for any player.
And as fans, we reap the rewards by seeing more skilled hockey players. Period.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 11:42:36
|
Fighting still happens a lot in junior hockey (at least from what I can recall) and players got tossed after their fights. I'm not sure how much that deters people, but it must to a degree.
The thing with fighting at this point is that it's basically two big guys punching each other's helmets. Soon everyone will have visors and this year you can't take off your helmet without additional penalties... going and punching someone's helmet and visor seems incredibly ridiculous.
As for getting tossed out of the game, it's probably what will happen next, but this also eliminates the "real" fights from the game. I think back to the Tampa - Calgary finals about a decade ago, when Lecavalier and Iginla decided to go. They took off their helmets and went at it. That kind of thing is great I think, it's not the premeditated, stupid goon fighting we have now. But that wouldn't happen if they couldn't play the rest of the game...
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 13:47:12
|
I would agree completely with fighting if it actually was a deterrent of some kind. But it isn't. There is zero correlation between fighting and anything other than, as Slozo said, it stops the game from being played for a few minutes.
I have no beef if people want to say the like fighting for the entertainment value. I would personally disagree but others can love fights as much as they want. Just don't try to make excuses for why fighting should be in the NHL from any kind of deterrence angle. It's simple not true.
|
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 15:21:26
|
Simple question, will taking fighting out of the game (or having heavier disciplinary consequences to the fighters) result in having more dirty plays in the NHL?
Another point, you can't compare hockey with any other of the big 4 professional sports in North America. It's not like football where there is a stoppage every 7 seconds or so. It's not like baseball where they don't touch each other and it's not like Basketball where well you know.... So please don't use that argument, well the other sports doesn't have fighting.
Something else is I don't see a problem with the enforcers that actually have a job to fight the other heavyweights in the NHL. The goons to me are the dirty players that gives dirty shots, that will hit somebody from behind, hit with their elbows way up and so on... I think the point of fighting, or the argument that somebody could use is that the enforcers are there as a presence to maintain those type of dirty players. But by puting the instigator rule, it took that out of the equation and now the enforcers are just there for the show and for the culture.
Another question Is there more reckless plays now that enforcers can't jump on a dirty player? Is there more injuries because of it?
Because this is what it all comes down to. Injuries, what can we do to keep our players safe, and I agree. It's true, fighting is dangerous, they can fall on the ice, break their hands, get a concussion, but so does anything else in hockey. They can't start taking away everything.
For instance, the took away the hooking, and holding and all that. Good the game is now faster and better to watch, but there is also more collisions at high speed, and body checks to kill. So what is better?
I'm not saying I'm all for fighting or totally against the instigator rule (because like we saw with Scott dropping the gloves on Kessel) there is no room for that in hockey, and like we saw with Parros, fighting is dangerous.
For the instigator rule, I think there should be a controle on it where the reff would make the decision. Sometimes say, well you got the instigator because that was uncalled for. Or hey Lucic you ran Ryan Miller, you totally deserve for someone to jump on you. |
|
|
|
Traveller
Top Prospect
Canada
22 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 15:53:36
|
I think something else that changed is that, in the past, there was usually only 1 (or maybe 2) guys on the team that were "fighters" and they fought each other and were there to police and protect your superstars.
Now, every guy is north of 6' and 220lbs and they all fight. It has decreased the value of that enforcer because there is less fear.
In the 80's, no one touched Gretzky (partly cause they couldn't catch him) because they were afraid of the retribution of Semenko. Now, that no one is afraid of the enforcer because they will stand and fight themselves, there is less deterent to taking a run at a talented guy. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2013 : 17:10:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
....Just don't try to make excuses for why fighting should be in the NHL from any kind of deterrence angle. It's simple not true.
Do you have some statistics to substantiate this? The way you have written it, it sounds a lot like conjecture. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2013 : 08:06:08
|
I read an article from 2 of my teams player agitators who fight there own battles. The game with open ice body checks is a physical and punishing game. In the heat of the battle tempers flair. If a guy with a 100mph slapshot wisses one by your head after the whistle or a less skilled player is reckless with his stick, what you gonna do if fighting is removed from the game? A lot of players are just as worried about the high speed bodychecks as they are about falling after or during a fight. No amount of visor, helmet, neck guard or kevlar sock is gonna protect you when colliding with another player at high speed. However a 6-4 250 pound knucklesandwich shortly after may deter the cheapest of shots from becoming common place in game. For the ones it doesn't deter, the NHL is suppose to be there to protect the players from the worst offenders.
Again I think harsher penalties for fighting and better protective equipment is the way to go, but what really needs to go from the game is the unskilled heavyweight goons. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2013 : 22:14:20
|
I don't see the issue or importance of "the whistle blowing" when there's a fight? Same goes for the debate about whether or not you can "ban" fighting. By "ban", i'm pretty sure the OP meant "make it illegal to the point it is in other sports". If that's not a ban, then what is?
Anyway, I still don't think that fighting is a deterrent to chippy / dirty play. When is the last time a goon went after a guy like Marchand or Burrows for a questionable hit on a star player? It doesn't happen. If nothing else, the goon from the hittee's team will fight the goon from the hitters team! At best, a guy near to the hitters size will challenge him, and sometimes lose!!! A great example is the Steve Moore hit on Naslund that resulted in Matt Cooke challenging Moore to a fight. In this fight, Moore actually got the better of Cooke. It was then that Bertuzzi felt Moore still needed punishing? I often wonder had Cooke pummelled him if Bertuzzi would have done what he did? Anyway, that's another issue......
I keep going back to the NFL. Guys can take cheap shots at players, QB's in particular. The NFL deals with these things. The NHL needs to do the same and come up with harsher penalties for dirty plays. Until they take some of these cheap shots more seriously (something which they have improved on I will concede), then reckless play will continue to occur as frequently as it does. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2013 : 07:36:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
....Just don't try to make excuses for why fighting should be in the NHL from any kind of deterrence angle. It's simple not true.
Do you have some statistics to substantiate this? The way you have written it, it sounds a lot like conjecture.
Quite simple - from a non-statistician's viewpoint, at least.
FACT: Fighting is currently encouraged in the NHL. It happens with regularity. And the league has almost one pure "goon" per team (give or take a few teams with zero/2 on their team).
FACT: Dirty plays continue to happen on star players.
Isn't fighting supposed to police the game? Then, why isn't the game being policed properly?
And how is it possible for any goon fighter to police the game, when they only ever fight other goons and fighters?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2013 : 08:43:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
....Just don't try to make excuses for why fighting should be in the NHL from any kind of deterrence angle. It's simple not true.
Do you have some statistics to substantiate this? The way you have written it, it sounds a lot like conjecture.
Quite simple - from a non-statistician's viewpoint, at least.
FACT: Fighting is currently encouraged in the NHL. It happens with regularity. And the league has almost one pure "goon" per team (give or take a few teams with zero/2 on their team).
FACT: Dirty plays continue to happen on star players.
Isn't fighting supposed to police the game? Then, why isn't the game being policed properly?
And how is it possible for any goon fighter to police the game, when they only ever fight other goons and fighters?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I agree, the goons fighting goon sideshow is not effective. However, when a player like more is injured because of a dirty play on freak retaliation, everybody jumps on the bandwagon that fighting should be banned. Had Moore not turned and turtled on Bertuzzi he would never have received the blindsided shot. And has been said by many it was the pile up that caused the majority of the injuries not fighting with Bertuzzi. Who is to say had Moore not turtled as stood and fought Bertuzzi the whole situation would have blown over. Moore was less likely to be injured had he fought a fight than he would have had he continue to be targeted. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2013 : 13:58:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I agree, the goons fighting goon sideshow is not effective. However, when a player like more is injured because of a dirty play on freak retaliation, everybody jumps on the bandwagon that fighting should be banned. Had Moore not turned and turtled on Bertuzzi he would never have received the blindsided shot. And has been said by many it was the pile up that caused the majority of the injuries not fighting with Bertuzzi. Who is to say had Moore not turtled as stood and fought Bertuzzi the whole situation would have blown over. Moore was less likely to be injured had he fought a fight than he would have had he continue to be targeted.
Don't wanna get way off topic here Joshua, but that argument that Moore should have fought Bertuzzi has been played out and simply put, Moore had already been challenged and fought Matt Cooke and actually won the fight. Is that Moores fault that Cooke was the one who went after him? What if he pummelled Bertuzzi? Would Moore then be expected to take on Brad May or Wade Brookbank, both of whom where in the lineup? I mean, where does it end. |
Edited by - Alex116 on 10/07/2013 21:04:32 |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2013 : 15:11:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I agree, the goons fighting goon sideshow is not effective. However, when a player like more is injured because of a dirty play on freak retaliation, everybody jumps on the bandwagon that fighting should be banned. Had Moore not turned and turtled on Bertuzzi he would never have received the blindsided shot. And has been said by many it was the pile up that caused the majority of the injuries not fighting with Bertuzzi. Who is to say had Moore not turtled as stood and fought Bertuzzi the whole situation would have blown over. Moore was less likely to be injured had he fought a fight than he would have had he continue to be targeted.
Don't wanna get way off topic here Joshua, but that argument that Moore should have fought Bertuzzi has been played out and simply put, Moore had already been challenged and fought Matt Cooke and actually won the fight. Is that Moores fault that Cooke was the one who went after him? What if he pummelled Bertuzzi? Would Moore then be expected to take on Brad May or Wade Brookbank, both of whom where in the lineup? I mean, where does it end.
[/quote]
I guess, but the point was fighting wasn't the cause of the massive injuries. It was the blindshot dogpile which caused the majority of injuries. Just because guys can no longer drop the gloves for a fight doesn't mean a shot to the head wont happen. I might be in the minority, but I feel the cheap shots will actually go up. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2013 : 04:32:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I agree, the goons fighting goon sideshow is not effective. However, when a player like more is injured because of a dirty play on freak retaliation, everybody jumps on the bandwagon that fighting should be banned. Had Moore not turned and turtled on Bertuzzi he would never have received the blindsided shot. And has been said by many it was the pile up that caused the majority of the injuries not fighting with Bertuzzi. Who is to say had Moore not turtled as stood and fought Bertuzzi the whole situation would have blown over. Moore was less likely to be injured had he fought a fight than he would have had he continue to be targeted.
Don't wanna get way off topic here Joshua, but that argument that Moore should have fought Bertuzzi has been played out and simply put, Moore had already been challenged and fought Matt Cooke and actually won the fight. Is that Moores fault that Cooke was the one who went after him? What if he pummelled Bertuzzi? Would Moore then be expected to take on Brad May or Wade Brookbank, both of whom where in the lineup? I mean, where does it end.
I guess, but the point was fighting wasn't the cause of the massive injuries. It was the blindshot dogpile which caused the majority of injuries. Just because guys can no longer drop the gloves for a fight doesn't mean a shot to the head wont happen. I might be in the minority, but I feel the cheap shots will actually go up.
[/quote]
I can't begin to describe how wrong-headed your opinion is. You actually have the BALLS to blame the victim of a blind-side attack for . . . skating away from a fight he absolutely doesn't need to or want to take part in?!? Are you for real?
That is brutal. Give your head a shake, bud! Seriously . . . if you are in blame the victim mode, you may have officially negated every single valid opinion you may have ever had.
There is zero correlation between cheap shots and fighting, period. Look at the Olympics, and look the NHL playoffs . . . both have the same NHL players, both have either next to no fighting, or drastically reduced fighting with no goons . . . and the cheap shots remain about even, probably a bit less I'd argue (although that could be more owing to what's at stake).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2013 : 13:48:19
|
Hey I am not blaming the victim. I do think if Moore had turned he would have had his hands up to protect himself if he still received the cheap shot from Bertuzzi. The fact he turned his back on a guy chirping at him was part of what caused the accident. I was told at a young age you never turn your back against an opponent/combatant, but I don't think Bertuzzi meant to do a 1 hit knockout on Moore and he definitely made the wrong call by falling on the player after the punch. I don't want it to seem like I am blaming Moore, because I would never wish his situation upon an enemy.
I still don't think this accident is the be all and end all of ending fights in the NHL. Take the goons out sure, make the penalties sever, suspend cheap plays and intent to injure harsher, but don't take the ability of one team to defend star players away by a meaningless fight which is less likely to injure, than cheap shot plays with elbows, knee's, sticks and open ice shots.
I also disagree with your assessment of goons dressing in the playoffs. The first round of playoffs especially you see goalies run and stars targeted. The next day like clockwork you will see a goon dress for reprecussions from both sides. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 10/08/2013 14:05:36 |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2013 : 14:01:00
|
| Hey actually, how does my response that fighting doesn't cause the majority of injuries become me vs Moore in this debate. I have an opinion regarding how Moore got injured, but agree the blindshot shouldn't have happened. Why do I become the bad guy in this scenario. I never said Bertuzzi was justified and Moore getting injured was ok. I just stated I would never turn on an opponent who was chirping and looking to scrap. I would have kept my front to them and my guard up. I know from experience that a person mad gets madder when you turn your back to them and walk away. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2013 : 05:24:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Hey actually, how does my response that fighting doesn't cause the majority of injuries become me vs Moore in this debate. I have an opinion regarding how Moore got injured, but agree the blindshot shouldn't have happened. Why do I become the bad guy in this scenario. I never said Bertuzzi was justified and Moore getting injured was ok. I just stated I would never turn on an opponent who was chirping and looking to scrap. I would have kept my front to them and my guard up. I know from experience that a person mad gets madder when you turn your back to them and walk away.
You might not have turned on Bertuzzi? I'd like to see that in real life, bub. Seriously. Big Bert would have you with some crackers and caviar, you'd be a light snack with tea for him.
All joking aside on how tough every is on the internet . . . it's totally Moore's right to turn away from the Bertuzzi fight invitation - even by the hockey code, I might add! - because: a) he already fought (happened to win it, actually) and b) he doesn't have to fight if he doesn't want to!
That's why I took offense . . . it seemed to be an attitude from you that you were saying Moore didn't do something correctly somehow . . .
. . . which ties in with the whole fighting debate. There is just so much silly reasoning around an activity which STOPS THE HOCKEY GAME and is OUTSIDE THE RULES OF HOCKEY. We need to police it better, not condone it . . . or hell, if you all love hockey fights so much, and want to justify it . . .
. . . make your hockey fights legal! Then they don't have to stop the game, and it really WOULD be a part of hockey!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2013 : 08:38:31
|
I don't think they should be legal either. I think a game misconduct and a matched penalty should it cause an injury. I don't want to see a player go all game dropping the gloves either. Gotta be a happy medium somewhere.
My brother played hockey in Winnipeg when I was younger and he was big and talented. Because of his size and talent, he was constantly targeted by players on the other bench with cheap shots and slashes. Seemed there was always another player wanting to take a round out of him. He was raised never to fight and was constantly walking away from the fights because of how he was raised. He was ready to quit hockey altogether. Finally my mother says to him, I know you were raised not to fight but you gotta defend yourself and in some cases you gotta drop the gloves. Well it turns out he was as good a fighter as a player. Few years later his girlfriend tells him either her or hockey due to the fighting, cheap shots and injuries. So I have heard my whole life how fighting is bad, but in some cases necessary and have a different perspective on it. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2013 : 05:28:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I don't think they should be legal either. I think a game misconduct and a matched penalty should it cause an injury. I don't want to see a player go all game dropping the gloves either. Gotta be a happy medium somewhere.
My brother played hockey in Winnipeg when I was younger and he was big and talented. Because of his size and talent, he was constantly targeted by players on the other bench with cheap shots and slashes. Seemed there was always another player wanting to take a round out of him. He was raised never to fight and was constantly walking away from the fights because of how he was raised. He was ready to quit hockey altogether. Finally my mother says to him, I know you were raised not to fight but you gotta defend yourself and in some cases you gotta drop the gloves. Well it turns out he was as good a fighter as a player. Few years later his girlfriend tells him either her or hockey due to the fighting, cheap shots and injuries. So I have heard my whole life how fighting is bad, but in some cases necessary and have a different perspective on it.
Fair enough, and thanks for sharing.
And that's exactly the culture and mindset we should be changing for our kids . . . and starts at the top, and it trickles down. If the NHLers at the top of this pyramid as saying how "fighting is a part of hockey", condoning "street level violence" as a sort of vigilante justice (which very rarely works, btw, just like in real life) . . . then yeah, the kids will mirror it - as will their coaching staff, who have all been through the same system. What are we teaching our children? What is the precedent we want to set?
Cheap shots, as you describe, happen right now with regularity, on the skill players. There is no deterrence at the NHL level, and no evidence to suggest that it's nothing but a constant linear thing - it will happen as often as it is allowed. So while I think that many forms of "cheap shots" should be better policed (especially the interference ones, and those involving stick-work), it really doesn't havea lt to do with fighting, so I think they are seperate issues.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2013 : 12:25:55
|
| See the reason I shared the tidbit I did about my brother is he had no recourse against the cheapshots except to hope the refs caught and called them. In his circumstance he was less targeted when it got around that not only would he respond, but he was tough enough to generally take on anybody. Guys like Iginla aren't targeted even though they are skilled players because if he has to he will drop the gloves. Guys like Crosby are targeted more, but aren't tough enough to take on the larger instigators. So a large player who is more of a fighter will save a guy like Crosby from every cheap shot he receives. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2013 : 13:41:43
|
Personally I think the whole notion of "tough guys prevent star players from cheap shots" is a joke. First of all, "cheap shots" are not as common as some of us seem to make out. I think the whole theory has somehow evolved from what the actual thinking was in the past. It wasn't "cheap shots" that so called "goons" were protecting the stars from, it was more just physical play. Gretzky wasn't a target of cheap shots back in the day, and before you credit Semenko for this, as much as he may have been basic physical play. It's the physical play, the body checks, the bumps, etc that "goons" were there for back in the day. I don't care who the player is, if a guy receives a cheap shot nowadays, the guy delivering it is targeted by someone. Usually this happens immediately and is handled by someone on the ice as the time of the incident!!!
Joshua.....Here's a great example. Scenario 1, Daniel Sedin throws a huge stand up body check (clean) against Zach Parise. Scenario 2, Daniel Sedin cross checks Mikko Koivu in the face. Now, tell me, in which scenario should Daniel Sedin be wary of Zenon Konopka pummelling him on his next shift??? Answer? Neither! Scenario 1, well, it obviously doesn't happen. And scenario 2? Konopka still wouldn't bother. Is Konopka really gonna go after Sedin? No. Bottom line is, goons don't protect ANYONE from cheap shots. They may make some guys think twice about a good physical play against a star, but cheap shots, I'd argue NO. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2013 : 15:01:11
|
| See that's where we differ. I'f someone thru a hard open ice check on one of the Sedin's, I would almost certainly guarantee the next shift a tougher player on the Canucks would stand up for him, whether it was the player who through the check or another from his team. I have seen this escalate to all out brawls because of clean, but hard checks in todays NHL. Would you rather see a fight or stick swinging incidents. If it isn't a penalty play but a play with intent to be overly physical on one of your star players and you don't react, whats to stop these type of players from constantly run with clean yet hard checks. It isn't in the NHLPA's handbook, but if you take a poll, the players want the fighters or enforcers in uniform to allow the skilled players play. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2013 : 07:20:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
See that's where we differ. I'f someone thru a hard open ice check on one of the Sedin's, I would almost certainly guarantee the next shift a tougher player on the Canucks would stand up for him, whether it was the player who through the check or another from his team. I have seen this escalate to all out brawls because of clean, but hard checks in todays NHL. Would you rather see a fight or stick swinging incidents. If it isn't a penalty play but a play with intent to be overly physical on one of your star players and you don't react, whats to stop these type of players from constantly run with clean yet hard checks. It isn't in the NHLPA's handbook, but if you take a poll, the players want the fighters or enforcers in uniform to allow the skilled players play.
Anything outside of the rules in your scenario should be punished appropriately. Then you don't need vigilante justice.
Which, as I pointed out, never results in any justice of any kind.
So first off,
Every good checker tries to check the Sedins EVERY SINGLE GAME with good clean hard checks. Do you think that they don't, out of fear of some kind of retribution?!? You make me laugh, dude . . . seriously?
This isn't the 50s and Howe's era is LONG gone. Every star player has a target on him every single game . . . especially the supposedly "softer" stars (my boy Kessel is one of them, same as the Sedins). Players are ALWAYS gunning for them.
And if they are on the receiving end of a legal check, and the idiots on his team try to exact retribution and get a penalty . . . that's his stupidity, his error. And if it escalates after that . . . it's the error of whoever else is doing something stupid like a blatant slash or crosscheck into the boards.
Obviously, the refs have the responsibility to control those situations by calling appropriate penalties, talking to the players, warning captains and coaches, etc. And for the most part, I think they do that.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2013 : 09:27:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
See that's where we differ. I'f someone thru a hard open ice check on one of the Sedin's, I would almost certainly guarantee the next shift a tougher player on the Canucks would stand up for him, whether it was the player who through the check or another from his team.
Sure, a tougher player on the Canucks "might" do something. First off, as Slozo has mentioned, it'll likely cost his team in the way of a penalty and PP against. Second, this "tougher player" would likely be a Bieksa type guy, not a GOON! Lastly, i'm pretty sure the Bertuzzi incident has changed the way many guys play the game. So, lets say Bieksa decides to go after the player in your scenario. What are his options? Cheap shot him and risk a suspension? Give him a clean body check when opportunity arises? Challenge him to a fight? Well, let's say the guy doensn't want anything to do with a fight with Bieksa so he turns him down? Now Bieksa is left with a cheap shot (and likely suspension) which hurts his team more than even a fight likely would, or a hard check.
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
If it isn't a penalty play but a play with intent to be overly physical on one of your star players and you don't react, whats to stop these type of players from constantly run with clean yet hard checks.
Easiest question to answer, maybe ever, thanks to you including the word "clean"! The answer is NOTHING! THAT, unlike fighting, is within the rules and you're not penalized for it. Star players need to learn to play with their head on a swivel and avoid these hits where they can. Guys like Marty St. Louis are not still performing at the levels they are because of goons, it's because of the way they've learned to play. Don't try to tell me for a second that he's not a target to be hit at any point because (insert TB goon's name here) will jump the next guy to lay him out???
My biggest pet peeve today in hockey is having to fight after you throw a CLEAN check. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a star player you hit anymore, it's ANY clean, hard body check! Instantly, one of the nearest teammates of the guy who's been "floored" has his gloves off going after the hitter. THIS, should be an instant game misconduct IMO. THIS action, needs to be taken out of the game. Rarely do we ever see a good fight out of this sort of thing as well as the hitter usually doesn't even have much of a chance to fight and is just piled on, often because the guy jumping him really doesn't wanna fight to begin with, moreso he's just "doing what has become expected of team mates". This really needs to change. Imagine an NFL linebacker stopping a RB dead in his tracks crossing the line of scrimmage with a huge tackle and then having an O-lineman jump him for doing so? How about a baserunner, going full steam, barrelling into the catcher at home plate, jarring the ball loose and scoring the all important run? How often do you see the 3rd baseman come running in throwing haymakers??? YOU DON'T!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2013 : 11:30:23
|
| This does not even come close to answering illegal plays against a team, where the only repercussion for the offender is a few days of no play for (attempting or successfully) knocking a star player out of the lineup. Whether or not the ref's or NHL catch the play to discipline it, these plays have a huge sway on the in game results. I still don't see how fighting, which again causes less injuries than clean physical play, is a bad way to respond to the other team targeting your star players. So if its clean great! But if its excessive, cheap or targeted what do you do if the ref doesn't catch it. BTW a good portion of not clean hits are the results of a player not protecting himself, good timing/poor timing or excessive force. Sometimes a player aims high and other times he uses excessive force, there have been tonnes of discussion on what is and isn't excessive force. I think you would have more players on your side to dropping fighting, if checking was taken out of the game, than you would if you took fighting completely out, but left checking. I know, most people are gonna say, no way! Nobody seems to have a problem with checking, which overall causes way more injuries than fighting. Think about it, hard checking with what amounts to a weapon in your hands and a puck whizzing by your head at 100mph. Hard checking is viscous and is one of the highest causes of injuries, I don't hear anybody talking about taking that physical element out of the game. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2013 : 18:36:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
This does not even come close to answering illegal plays against a team, where the only repercussion for the offender is a few days of no play for (attempting or successfully) knocking a star player out of the lineup. Whether or not the ref's or NHL catch the play to discipline it, these plays have a huge sway on the in game results. I still don't see how fighting, which again causes less injuries than clean physical play, is a bad way to respond to the other team targeting your star players. So if its clean great! But if its excessive, cheap or targeted what do you do if the ref doesn't catch it. BTW a good portion of not clean hits are the results of a player not protecting himself, good timing/poor timing or excessive force. Sometimes a player aims high and other times he uses excessive force, there have been tonnes of discussion on what is and isn't excessive force. I think you would have more players on your side to dropping fighting, if checking was taken out of the game, than you would if you took fighting completely out, but left checking. I know, most people are gonna say, no way! Nobody seems to have a problem with checking, which overall causes way more injuries than fighting. Think about it, hard checking with what amounts to a weapon in your hands and a puck whizzing by your head at 100mph. Hard checking is viscous and is one of the highest causes of injuries, I don't hear anybody talking about taking that physical element out of the game.
That's because checks are legal.
A legal check doesn't stop the game of hockey - in fact, it's part of the rules of hockey.
Fighting, on the other hand, is the opposite of that: it stops play, it's illegal, it's not in the rule book of hockey. Hence, it's not a part of hockey.
I've repeated this ad nauseum with little response to this vital argument to any other talk (and misdirection) of other "dangerous" activities.
Fighting is illegal in hockey.
Checking is legal.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2013 : 19:56:31
|
| Again I am quoting players responses to taking fighting out of the game, nothing more. The responses have varied, but some have said checking causes more injuries than fighting. Some would avocate taking checking out if fighting is removed. You want violence outta the game you gotta look at all aspects. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2013 : 16:35:56
|
Sure, checking likely DOES cause more injuries. However, keep in mind the ratio. There are prob (total guess here) 50 hits per game. Yes, some harder than others, but hits nonetheless. Now, it's not every game there's a serious injury. What i'm getting at is that if you do the math, i'm sure there are more injuries, or at least a very similar ratio, from fighting if you take into account the frequency of both!
Either way, the question here is whether or not it's time to get rid of fighting, and not what causes more injuries. Sure, I get it that you're using the fighting as a comparison and a deterent for the hitting, etc, but personally I don't care what the players think about it. Unless one or more of them is here on PUH and wants to discuss his reasoning?  |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2013 : 18:52:04
|
| I agree with that. Checking is not discussed and this is about fighting. Thats the problem, everyone wants to come down on something that happens infrequently, which causes less injuries, but does not want to discuss what actually causes the majority of the violence and injuries in the sport. I am not advocating removal of checking from the sport, just defending why fighting is more or less tolerated in the game. Wish all you want about the removal of fighting in a game, but if a players travelling at 30+ mph collide with another player, clean check or not, I understand why one of them might lose his temper and drop the gloves. Same with high sticks, and cheap shots. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2013 : 22:22:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I agree with that. Checking is not discussed and this is about fighting. Thats the problem, everyone wants to come down on something that happens infrequently, which causes less injuries, but does not want to discuss what actually causes the majority of the violence and injuries in the sport.
There are countless threads that touch on the body checking. I just started one on the Edler suspension and stated I don't like that hits like he dished out are being punished like they are and how the "hittee" needs to take some responsibility. We discussed the Kassian suspension / check that resulted in a high stick. Heck, pretty much every big hit that leads to an injury is discussed at length!!! So, I don't think it's fair to claim that no one wants to discuss the hitting end of things?
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA I am not advocating removal of checking from the sport, just defending why fighting is more or less tolerated in the game. Wish all you want about the removal of fighting in a game, but if a players travelling at 30+ mph collide with another player, clean check or not, I understand why one of them might lose his temper and drop the gloves. Same with high sticks, and cheap shots.
Well, i can "understand" a guy losing his temper after being hit, but the bottom line is, if it was clean, it should be accepted. And, if he still feels he must drop the mitts, i feel he should be penalized far more harshly than they do (ie. game misconduct at the very least). What good does dropping the mitts do as a retaliation vs a cheap shot? Think about it, half the time the guy who gets challenged ends up winning the fight anyway! Not to mention, the instigator often gets the extra penalty, hurting his team with either a short handed situation OR negating what would have been a power play!
Beans has touched on something that rings very true. IF fighting deters all these big hits and cheap shots, WHY DO WE STILL SEE THEM ALMOST DAILY???? Face it, the tough guys don't go around beating on anyone except for other tough guys!!! |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2013 : 10:27:08
|
Never ban fighting from hockey. Its a huge part of the game always has been always will be.. you ban fighting from hockey and the fan base of hockey will go down alot. Fighting isnt the problem. its high sticks, head shots and dirty hits they need to worry about
...And the LEAFS Win the CUP |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2013 : 09:18:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I agree with that. Checking is not discussed and this is about fighting. Thats the problem, everyone wants to come down on something that happens infrequently, which causes less injuries, but does not want to discuss what actually causes the majority of the violence and injuries in the sport.
There are countless threads that touch on the body checking. I just started one on the Edler suspension and stated I don't like that hits like he dished out are being punished like they are and how the "hittee" needs to take some responsibility. We discussed the Kassian suspension / check that resulted in a high stick. Heck, pretty much every big hit that leads to an injury is discussed at length!!! So, I don't think it's fair to claim that no one wants to discuss the hitting end of things?
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA I am not advocating removal of checking from the sport, just defending why fighting is more or less tolerated in the game. Wish all you want about the removal of fighting in a game, but if a players travelling at 30+ mph collide with another player, clean check or not, I understand why one of them might lose his temper and drop the gloves. Same with high sticks, and cheap shots.
Well, i can "understand" a guy losing his temper after being hit, but the bottom line is, if it was clean, it should be accepted. And, if he still feels he must drop the mitts, i feel he should be penalized far more harshly than they do (ie. game misconduct at the very least). What good does dropping the mitts do as a retaliation vs a cheap shot? Think about it, half the time the guy who gets challenged ends up winning the fight anyway! Not to mention, the instigator often gets the extra penalty, hurting his team with either a short handed situation OR negating what would have been a power play!
Looks like the NHL has a system in place to deter fighting already, with the instigator penalty. I just understand a player who would be upset by a hard check and wanting to drop the gloves. Game misconduct would be fine, but I don't want to see a repeat offender penalty for fighting and multiple games lost. Its the fights for no purpose that I have a problem with, except as an excuse for 2 heavyweights to determine who is the better fighter.
Beans has touched on something that rings very true. IF fighting deters all these big hits and cheap shots, WHY DO WE STILL SEE THEM ALMOST DAILY???? Face it, the tough guys don't go around beating on anyone except for other tough guys!!!
Agreed, that's why I have said the unskilled heavy weights need to go.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2013 : 20:04:50
|
Patrick Kaleta has just been suspended for 10 games. The hit to Johnson was high and to the head and this is Kaleta's fourth suspension.
On the ice at the time of the incident was Jared Boll, the tough guy for the Blue Jackets. Directly after the hit, Kaleta and Boll fought and I would suggest Boll won the fight.
Two questions:
If fighting is such a deterrent to dirty plays, why did this happen?
Do you think that although being suspended three time previously that Kaleta will turn over a new leaf now that Boll gave him a beating?
If you like fighting in hockey, that's fine. But there is no examples that any has ( or can IMHO) that will show that fighting has any kind of value as a deterrent for dirty play or that players clean up their dirty play once they get in a fight. It's simply not true.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2013 : 22:57:23
|
Beans, good example. Apparently max Lapierre ran Dan Boyle from behind tonight as well. He was given a game misconduct for it and fought someone (not sure who likely jumped him after the fact). I guess the fact someone fought him will probably deter him from doing such a thing ever again, right?
BTW, do you write for the Sharks? Check out this bit from "fearthefin" (a Sharks blog I believe?)......
Players like Lapierre have no place in the game and it's laughable that some believe the existence of fighting keeps them out of it. It clearly doesn't. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2013 : 10:48:39
|
So you think fighting isn't a deterrent for these plays, but acknowledge the team on the receiving end dropped the gloves. Was anybody injured in those fights? Did the fights change the tempo of the game? Did the game get cheaper or dirtier after the teammate stood up for the other teammate? Did the receiving team play with more energy and confidence post the fight?
If the fight causes no major injury and the team on the receiving end plays with more energy and confidence because a teammate stood up for another teammate, I don't see how you can say that fighting has no positive effect on a game. Fans like it and expect it, because it is suppose to be a release for the team on the receiving end and there fans.
Fighting does not deter the intial cheapshot physical play but it is suppose to be a deterrent for it to continue. The only time the animosity doesn't go away is if the fight doesn't go the way of the receiver. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2013 : 14:14:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
So you think fighting isn't a deterrent for these plays, but acknowledge the team on the receiving end dropped the gloves. Was anybody injured in those fights? Did the fights change the tempo of the game? Did the game get cheaper or dirtier after the teammate stood up for the other teammate? Did the receiving team play with more energy and confidence post the fight?
Joshua, what exactly is your point about me acknowledging "the team on the receiving end dropped the gloves??? I don't get it? Feel free to explain. As for the rest of the game, i don't know the answers to your questions as i didn't see the game, however, i did hear that Brent Burns was called for running B. Morrow into the boards from behind not too long after the Lapierre hit?
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
If the fight causes no major injury and the team on the receiving end plays with more energy and confidence because a teammate stood up for another teammate, I don't see how you can say that fighting has no positive effect on a game. Fans like it and expect it, because it is suppose to be a release for the team on the receiving end and there fans.
Fighting does not deter the intial cheapshot physical play but it is suppose to be a deterrent for it to continue. The only time the animosity doesn't go away is if the fight doesn't go the way of the receiver.
So, let's face it, a fight is pretty much a 50/50 outcome. So, if animosity doesn't go away if the guy who's team mate got cheap shotted loses the fight, it's safe to say this happens half the time, no? So, half the time, there's still need for some justice?
As far as teams getting a boost from a fight or a guy standing up for his team mates, i get it. Trust me, until recently, i loved the fighting! I actually still do enjoy seeing them drop the gloves now and then, but at the same time, i wouldn't care, and would prob prefer, if they took fighting out of the game. It would not render me a non hockey fan one single bit in fact.
Your comments about whether or not the fight caused any injury is a good one. You are somewhat correct in saying that most fights end with neither guy being injured significantly. I say somewhat, because to get the truth, you have to look over a long period of time. Part of the reason many people are "done" with fighting in the game is due to the long term affects it can and does have on many of the so called "goons". Just ask the families of Wade Belak, Derek Boogaard, Rick Rypien, John Kordic and Bob Probert. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fighting in the NHL 
