Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Calgary4LIfe · 11-01-2013, 03:19 PM

This is a very charged and polarizing issue in the NHL. People will continue to bicker back and forth, and both sides have points that neither side cares to admit.

Let's try to separate the 'facts' from the 'opinions'.

Facts:

- Fighting DOES provide entertainment, and sports are an entertainment. Players love it, fans love it.

- Fighting has proven detrimental to the health of players (duh) - both short-term effects, and the long-term effects that are only now becoming more known.

I think these are the only facts that both sides can claim to support their cases.

Now, all the other major sports do not condone or allow fighting. Baseball, Football, Soccer and Basketball have all made it illegal. However, is it that simple as following the other 'traditional' sports? Hockey has its' own roots, history and culture. It has evolved on its own. It really shouldn't matter that the other major sports don't allow fighting - there are fighting sports in North America that make money purely from fighting (Boxing, MMA, etc).

Every person that chooses to enter the NHL (or boxing, or MMA) understands that there is risk associated with that undertaking. Not every player is expected to fight. The way that the NHL regulates it, I bet far fewer fights happen now than in the past, to a far fewer number of players. They are willing participants out there - and if fighting is part of hockey, and players choose to fight (as the overwhelming majority want) than why should people question it?

Instigator penalty - This is a tough one. I used to hate it (and more often than not, still do). Why does such a majority of players in the NHL want fighting to remain part of the game, but a smaller majority (I forget what the last poll was - 55%? 65%?) don't want to eradicate the instigator penalty? I think it stops players from 'jumping' other players and not be penalized for it. It helps provide a choice on the ice whether you want to fight or not, instead of being forced into one.

What is interesting is how much of the spotlight is on this 'barbaric' side of the game that 'forces' gladiators to beat each other half to death on the ice, but how much fewer careers it is causing the untimely end of than other aspects of the game.

Don Cherry (yes, he is an idiot 95% of the time) called it years ago - give the players more protection out there, and they respect each other less and less. Now, I am not going to say that it would be a positive step in removing helmets and pads (obviously not - that would be a huge backwards step) but there is some sense in what Cherry kept insisting on. Pads need to be modified (get rid of the hard stuff - wasn't there a movement to get rid of some of those types and force players to use padding that was a bit softer and less likely to cause injuries?).

Also, the game changed. Once the NHL removed the center line, players started moving through the zones much faster, and thus, crashing into one another with much greater velocities. Players are bigger, stronger (due to the training regimes you see now in the NHL vs 20 years ago and earlier) and now they are decked out in harder body armor and encouraged to move faster through the ice by rule changes (red-line makes 2-line pass obsolete, and no clutching and grabbing slowing down the plays).

The rule changes were done to promote the entertainment level of the game - and they were absolutely right about it. However, it definitely promotes concussions too, right? I wonder if anyone has access to numbers for the following:

How many serious injuries occur from:

1) Fighting
2) Dirty hits / Cheap shots
3) Clean hits
4) Players just tripping or losing an edge without reason or just any other factor.

Removing fighting altogether would be a little bit of a disingenuous act at protecting players if the NHL is still going to promote the speed of the game. I bet most injuries in the NHL happen during 'clean plays' than not. At the end of the day, isn't this what the aim of eliminating fighting is about? I might be wrong (as it was a long time ago), but I don't remember Pat Lafontaine getting into many scraps. Granted, that was a straw-man argument picking a star player to 'prove' a point, but it was more about just illustrating the point, not proving it (I fully admit I have NO IDEA what the rates are for different injuries).

I will both be disappointed and relieved when (probably not if, but when) fighting is eliminated. Disappointed because I enjoy fighting (both 'staged' - which I think is a terrible word for it, as I don't see how it is really staged - and 'in the heat of the moment'), as I enjoy watching boxing and MMA. I will be relieved because I won't be hearing about a player I really liked having substance abuse issues, clinical depression or suicide. Those are very real problems - and are very real problems for some players who aren't fighters but have battled repetitive concussion issues.

If the league is going to ban fighting, then they better step up and remove other areas - not because fighting necessarily adequately polices it - but because if you are going to remove a source of entertainment and history of the game in the name of player safety, then you better make it safe for all players.

I really believe that neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. Someone may not enjoy fighting, but they are few and far between in the stands even when two big 'goons' have a 'staged' fight. I get why the NHL is looking at removing it (and even though I love it, I do feel it is over-due), but I don't get why the NHL has encouraged other aspects of the game that SEEMINGLY (once again, I don't have the statistical evidence and I may indeed be wrong here) increased severe injuries (including concussions).

In today's day and age, players know some of the potential physical consequences stemming from fighting, and also know that there is potential 'unknown' long-term consequences. The majority of players feel they want that in the game, they want the instigator penalty to remain for their protection in helping them allow when they choose to fight, but are willing (and often, eager) participants just like you have in MMA or Boxing.

On a different note, why on earth do they allow fighting in junior? I wouldn't want my 15 or 16 year old kid having to fight to make a living. That choice should be removed for kids (and let's see what the effect is for the long-term in the NHL!).

Sorry for the essay.

11-01-2013, 03:19 PM	#144
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	This is a very charged and polarizing issue in the NHL. People will continue to bicker back and forth, and both sides have points that neither side cares to admit. Let's try to separate the 'facts' from the 'opinions'. Facts: - Fighting DOES provide entertainment, and sports are an entertainment. Players love it, fans love it. - Fighting has proven detrimental to the health of players (duh) - both short-term effects, and the long-term effects that are only now becoming more known. I think these are the only facts that both sides can claim to support their cases. Now, all the other major sports do not condone or allow fighting. Baseball, Football, Soccer and Basketball have all made it illegal. However, is it that simple as following the other 'traditional' sports? Hockey has its' own roots, history and culture. It has evolved on its own. It really shouldn't matter that the other major sports don't allow fighting - there are fighting sports in North America that make money purely from fighting (Boxing, MMA, etc). Every person that chooses to enter the NHL (or boxing, or MMA) understands that there is risk associated with that undertaking. Not every player is expected to fight. The way that the NHL regulates it, I bet far fewer fights happen now than in the past, to a far fewer number of players. They are willing participants out there - and if fighting is part of hockey, and players choose to fight (as the overwhelming majority want) than why should people question it? Instigator penalty - This is a tough one. I used to hate it (and more often than not, still do). Why does such a majority of players in the NHL want fighting to remain part of the game, but a smaller majority (I forget what the last poll was - 55%? 65%?) don't want to eradicate the instigator penalty? I think it stops players from 'jumping' other players and not be penalized for it. It helps provide a choice on the ice whether you want to fight or not, instead of being forced into one. What is interesting is how much of the spotlight is on this 'barbaric' side of the game that 'forces' gladiators to beat each other half to death on the ice, but how much fewer careers it is causing the untimely end of than other aspects of the game. Don Cherry (yes, he is an idiot 95% of the time) called it years ago - give the players more protection out there, and they respect each other less and less. Now, I am not going to say that it would be a positive step in removing helmets and pads (obviously not - that would be a huge backwards step) but there is some sense in what Cherry kept insisting on. Pads need to be modified (get rid of the hard stuff - wasn't there a movement to get rid of some of those types and force players to use padding that was a bit softer and less likely to cause injuries?). Also, the game changed. Once the NHL removed the center line, players started moving through the zones much faster, and thus, crashing into one another with much greater velocities. Players are bigger, stronger (due to the training regimes you see now in the NHL vs 20 years ago and earlier) and now they are decked out in harder body armor and encouraged to move faster through the ice by rule changes (red-line makes 2-line pass obsolete, and no clutching and grabbing slowing down the plays). The rule changes were done to promote the entertainment level of the game - and they were absolutely right about it. However, it definitely promotes concussions too, right? I wonder if anyone has access to numbers for the following: How many serious injuries occur from: 1) Fighting 2) Dirty hits / Cheap shots 3) Clean hits 4) Players just tripping or losing an edge without reason or just any other factor. Removing fighting altogether would be a little bit of a disingenuous act at protecting players if the NHL is still going to promote the speed of the game. I bet most injuries in the NHL happen during 'clean plays' than not. At the end of the day, isn't this what the aim of eliminating fighting is about? I might be wrong (as it was a long time ago), but I don't remember Pat Lafontaine getting into many scraps. Granted, that was a straw-man argument picking a star player to 'prove' a point, but it was more about just illustrating the point, not proving it (I fully admit I have NO IDEA what the rates are for different injuries). I will both be disappointed and relieved when (probably not if, but when) fighting is eliminated. Disappointed because I enjoy fighting (both 'staged' - which I think is a terrible word for it, as I don't see how it is really staged - and 'in the heat of the moment'), as I enjoy watching boxing and MMA. I will be relieved because I won't be hearing about a player I really liked having substance abuse issues, clinical depression or suicide. Those are very real problems - and are very real problems for some players who aren't fighters but have battled repetitive concussion issues. If the league is going to ban fighting, then they better step up and remove other areas - not because fighting necessarily adequately polices it - but because if you are going to remove a source of entertainment and history of the game in the name of player safety, then you better make it safe for all players. I really believe that neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. Someone may not enjoy fighting, but they are few and far between in the stands even when two big 'goons' have a 'staged' fight. I get why the NHL is looking at removing it (and even though I love it, I do feel it is over-due), but I don't get why the NHL has encouraged other aspects of the game that SEEMINGLY (once again, I don't have the statistical evidence and I may indeed be wrong here) increased severe injuries (including concussions). In today's day and age, players know some of the potential physical consequences stemming from fighting, and also know that there is potential 'unknown' long-term consequences. The majority of players feel they want that in the game, they want the instigator penalty to remain for their protection in helping them allow when they choose to fight, but are willing (and often, eager) participants just like you have in MMA or Boxing. On a different note, why on earth do they allow fighting in junior? I wouldn't want my 15 or 16 year old kid having to fight to make a living. That choice should be removed for kids (and let's see what the effect is for the long-term in the NHL!). Sorry for the essay.