Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[MissTeeks]

Brian Burke wrote a guest column today for USA Today about fighing in hockey, in case anyone wanted to read it:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...olumn/3320245/

Reduced to its simplest truth, fighting is one of the mechanisms that regulates the level of violence in our game. Players who break the rules are held accountable by other players. The instigator rule has reduced accountability. Eliminating fighting would render it extinct.
Hockey is a game played on the edge. Large men with tempers explode around an enclosed surface carrying carbon-fiber instruments. They are legally permitted — in fact, encouraged — to collide with each other at high speeds. We all want this physicality, adrenaline and contact. We all treasure it.

Ninety-eight percent of NHL players voted to keep fighting in the game, yet somehow members of the news media take it upon themselves to try to convince the players that the scribes know what is best for them. They don't write about the times a heavyweight skates by his opponent's bench to say, "Settle down, or I'll settle you down," and it works. They don't notice a tough guy warning an opponent at a faceoff. They've never heard a star player march into their office, slam the door and demand the team get tougher because he's getting killed out there by opponents playing without fear. They've never seen a chippy game on the edge settle down after a good fight.

The NHL has three levels to protect its players. The third level is the Player Safety Department that punishes players who cross the line. They are essential; the last line of player protection. The second is the Officiating Department, the absolute best in the world.
But the first level, on every pond and outdoor rink in North America, is peer accountability. This was the first level of protection when we opened our doors more than 100 years ago. It still is. And that is as it should be. The first line of defense against players crossing the line is players.

[Fire]

Good job Burkie!

[rohara66]

"Ninety-eight percent of NHL players voted to keep fighting in the game, yet somehow members of the news media take it upon themselves to try to convince the players that the scribes know what is best for them."

Sums it up for me. Let the players decide.

[codynw]

I agree with this, but staged fights are still stupid. That is my useless contribution to the thread.

[GreenLantern]

Agreed. Staged fights can go by the way side, but accountability is very important. You run our 18 year old rookie, you better be ready to answer the bell type of stuff has a good place in this league still.

You want to protect the star players? Keep fighting in hockey. Chippy players will play chippy no matter what, but imagine if they have no fear of getting their face caved in. Good job Burke.

[Table 5]

I guess Im just not sure how a goon going out to fight another goon protects the superstar (or anyone) on the team from a guy like Cooke or Max Lapierre. Go pound the crap out of those guys, not the other meathead on the team.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I guess Im just not sure how a goon going out to fight another goon protects the superstar (or anyone) on the team from a guy like Cooke or Max Lapierre.

You beat me to it. The only thing that changed Cooke was his owner threatening to basically fire him. The policing thing is hogwash. It does nothing.

[Resolute 14]

USA Today actually ran a multi-article series on fighting today.

There is also a guest column opposing it:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...olumn/3319957/

[Igottago]

Why would the media have an agenda to eliminate fighting? I hear that often -- "its the media". No, the media reports a story that is developing on the radar of the sport. Yzerman and Bowman were not members of the media when they made their comments. There's a discussion to be had about the place of fighting in the game, you can't just sum it up as a media conspiracy.

[troutman]

He hints at but does not mention the word "concussion".

We need to know more about the risk of concussions from hockey fights, and the long-term impacts of concussions for players.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I guess Im just not sure how a goon going out to fight another goon protects the superstar (or anyone) on the team from a guy like Cooke or Max Lapierre. Go pound the crap out of those guys, not the other meathead on the team.

Appeal to extremes.

There will always be a few guys like Cooke who will run opponents with dirty hits, then run away from on-ice consequences. Can't be stopped any more than you can stop players like Taylor Hall from skating with their chins glued to their chests. But their existence is not evidence that fighting's role in the sport is ineffective.

[codynw]

Yesterday when Smith got thrown into the boards and O'Brien bloodied the guy who did it is a perfect example of when a player should fight.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I guess Im just not sure how a goon going out to fight another goon protects the superstar (or anyone) on the team from a guy like Cooke or Max Lapierre. Go pound the crap out of those guys, not the other meathead on the team.

So you don't think McGrattan laying an absolute beat down on that guy last night and then staring at the leaf bench does anything? I would say it does. Hell, I pooped a little.

Sure there's the odd guy that it won't deter, but the players and coaches all seem to think it helps. Surely that means something.

[indes]

It's the instigator rule that allows players like Cooke and Lapierre to play dirty without paying the piper. Take that out and those players will either have to answer the bell or be ridiculed by opponents and teammates alike.

[drewtastic]

It's time to put this "fighting regulates the game" argument to bed, for once and for all. The NHL has to stop looking to old-time 'guardians' of the game like Burke for future direction. Keeping roster spots open for fighters simply dilutes the talent available on each team that does so.

Two separate Flames players were checked from behind into the boards by two separate Leaf players last night. These were both clear penalties and were called. After the first, Shane O'Brien stepped in to do what Burke presumably wants: players keeping players accountable. Yet later on in the game, it happened again. Was not a "message" sent to the Leafs by O'Brien earlier in the game? Should O'Brien have stepped in after the second penalty as well? And is he, or someone else, to step in each and every time a different player commits an eggregious foul?

By following Burke's advice, O'Brien took a powerplay away from the Flames, and took himself off the ice for 10 additional minutes. Although some may argue that 10 less minutes of O'Brien was a bonus for the Flames, losing the powerplay certainly was not. (I would argue that it was bad Kadri/Phaneuf defensive zone coverage and extra effort from Stajan that resulted in the immediate Stajan goal. It certainly wasn't O'Brien's efforts).

In all of this discussion, no one ever seems to point out the obvious: despite the fact that players have gotten bigger, faster and stronger, (bigger and tougher equipment too), the ice surface itself has remained the same. What might one expect when "large men with tempers explode" around that small confined space? If the NHL would commit to building new arenas with expanded ice surfaces, many of these issues would be rectified because (1) slower, "tougher" players would no longer be able to keep up with the play, clearing room for more skilled players and (2) random collisions, or, at least, collisions at high speeds, would be reduced, as there would be more space and time to make plays and avoid checks.

The notion that "peer accountability" rectifies Burke's complaint about stick fouls is also ridiculous. Peer accountability enables subjective response to perceived fouls, potentially allowing any player to seek retribution. There already exists an objective standard, as Burke alludes to, called the NHL rule book and the "officiating department--the absolute best in the world".

If, as Burke says, the NHL officiating department is "the absolute best in the world", then the OBJECTIVE standards it sets out for stick fouls and other penalties should be enough for players to abide by. The reason it isn't enough is because the application of those fouls remains wildly subjective, game to game and ref to ref.

This lack of consistency, however, is still not a justification for fighting or 'peer accountability'; rather, it is an argument in favour of holding NHL officiating to a higher standard, and probably means calling more penalties. Yet guys like Burke don't want that either, because it wrecks the 'flow of the game'!

People argue that stick fouls are issues of "respect", or, more appropriately labeled, issues of "disrespect". If this is true, then it's up to teams to hold their own players accountable. Since this is hard to enforce (and since some teams seem to encourage that behaviour <insert cheap Canucks insult here>), then calling all stick fouls is the only way to discourage that behaviour. If fighting were so effective in a regulatory role, why do so many of these disrespectful behaviours continue to plague the game? Perhaps if the NHL weren't so lenient and inconsistent in its applications of suspensions, the "absolute best in the world" officiating department would be taken more seriously, and would be able to deter players from committing these types of fouls.

Fighting is an NHL relic. It provides little added value to the game, including in the economic sense. Toughness, on the other hand, is an entirely separate attribute. Blocking shots, making solid bodychecks, or challenging shoulder to shoulder are all elements of toughness. The two are not necssarily equitible.

[Zarley]

I'm glad our president of hockey ops has the same opinion as I do on the subject.

Also, the instigator rule is garbage - as demonstrated last night.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I can honestly say that I love fights. I even think that the big 'staged' fights add not only to the excitement of the game, but impact the players on the ice. Enforcers have their place in the game today, just like they had it in years past (though, to a bit less of a degree - some of these enforcers in years past were what I call absolute goons who went around gooning as many players as possible - that doesn't happen in today's NHL. One incident, and you get a very lengthy suspension).

With that being said, I believe fighting is on the way out. GMs are starting to figure out how to remove it, scientific and medical studies show the repercussions, and the substance abuse issues that often plague enforcers are something to be looked at.

It will be a sad day for me as a fan when fighting is eliminated, when enforcers are no longer part of the show and experience (and the impact that they do have on the ice, regardless of what some people feel), but it will also be a bit of a relief.

As for the on-ice policing, well.. the NHL will have to police illegal hits much more. They will have to toss players out of the game more. They will need to treat these dirty rat players like they treat an enforcer - force them to go extinct. If the NHL is going to remove fighting (which is scientifically proven to be detrimental to a person's health) then they also better go remove headshots and other dirty plays that have also proven to be detrimental to a person's health.

It will happen, only a question of when they NHL will remove the fighting, and when they are going to decide to penalize players more harshly for causing other bodily injuries.

[nik-]

The policing part is hogwash. It also ruins the game, in my opinion, when the play has to be blown dead so two goons can punch each other a bit to justify their existence.

Get rid of it already.

[puffnstuff]

So I read the anti-fighting column too. And what stuck out to me is their argument that
'The recent emphasis on rule enforcement and player suspensions will prove to be effective deterrents' The problem with that is it is after something happens on the ice, a bad hit, an injury, etc. It doesn't stop it from happening which is something that having someone, like Big Ern, watching from the other bench, from the face off circle...standing right next to you...looking at you, and knowing what he will do, should you cross that line.
Obviously, that doesnt stop everything..nothing will. But the players think that it does, which is where this all lies...with the players.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Zevo

So you don't think McGrattan laying an absolute beat down on that guy last night and then staring at the leaf bench does anything? I would say it does. Hell, I pooped a little.

No, I don't think McGrattan giving a death stare has much effect on what an agitator like Lapierre does, because the goons never go after these guys. They only go after fellow goons. When a goon goes after a smaller player, everyone loses their sh*t, and starts talking about some stupid code.

What makes sense is what we saw last night... Ashton hits someone from behind, and then immediately a Flames player going after him to punish him. That makes sense because you are punishing the guy who did wrong. But a goon going after another goon, to teach some 3rd party, a lesson? That seems downright silly.