Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[valo403]

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

Haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone brought up the point that technically fighting is already not allowed? You get a penalty for fighting.

Even sports like football, where if you throw a punch you're supposed to be thrown out of the game, still have fights. I don't think it's feasible to eliminate fighting entirely, no matter what the rules say.

FWIW I am slowly beginning to think that fighting doesn't have much of a place in hockey. Except line brawls, need more line brawls.

If you get caught throwing a punch, and not a in the midst of a play punch, in the NCAA you're almost certain to be gone. If you aren't it would only be due to officiating error. The NFL seems to let it go a bit more, but even that's changing. There's also the fact that punching someone in a football helmet is kind of difficult.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Wolven

If you tried to turn hockey into ... tennis, then you would fundamentally change the game. However, turning contact hockey into non-contact hockey leaves the game fundamentally the same. Also, most high level non-contact hockey stills allow a fair amount of physical contact. You can still clear guys from in front of the net, you can still scrum/pin players against the boards, you can still rub someone out in a footrace along the boards.

The only difference is that you take out the jaw dropping body checks where one player tries to run through another player in order to bring him to a crashing halt.

Yes, the game would be slightly different but I doubt most peole would really notice the change after a few years.

Sorry, it doesn't. Watch a shinny game with high level players, it's not the same game at all.

[doctajones428]

"You have to fight with helmets on? SO STUPID!!!! IT'S UP TO THE PLAYERS TO RISK THEIR LIVES!!!!"

"Parros fell face first on the ice? BAN FIGHTING! FIGHTING IS BAD AND WRONG AND DANGEROUS!"

How quickly people change

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Can you explain it? I agree that fighting in hockey is beholden to a long tradition, but that does not in any way provide for its continued usefulness. What is the purpose of fighting in hockey?

There is only a tenuous relevance to my point here, and like it or not, fighting is not "beholden to a long tradition". It is every bit a part of hockey as shooting, hitting and blocking shots are.

But many of the arguments have already been put forward in this thread. It can act as a deterrent. It can act as an outlet to vent aggression. It can change momentum. It can give a team a boost of energy. It can excite the crowd, which can excite the players in turn. Do many people believe that removing fighting will impact the game in other, negative ways? yes. Rick Tocchet is among the former players on Twitter today who have predicted a rise in stick work if you remove it.

Some fights will fail to accomplish any of these things, much like some hits fail to separate a player from the puck or take them out of the play, or some shots fail to score. But there are legitimate roles within the sport.

[strombad]

I wouldn't be opposed to some extreme penalties being included, just to curb the amount of goons.

Something like "If you fight 3 times in a season you're suspended for the remainder of the season"

Just SOMETHING. I'm not all for getting of it, but it obviously needs to be curbed.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

While we can all recognise a "staged fight", I'm not at all convinced that distinguishing them from fights that erupt as a part of the game and treating them differently is at all possible. I think the only way this works is a hard crack-down.

Do you consider the suggestion of the automatic suspensions a hard crack-down?

The difference between a staged fighter and the spontaneous fight is the frequency. Everyone knows who the staged fighters are because all they do is get on the ice and throw down. They will have 15+(?) fights per season?

The passionate fighter who is sticking up for his teammate or defending his goalie is likely only going to have a couple of fights per year because it is not a primary function of his game.

If you find the line to specifically penalize the dedicated fighters for being dedicated to fighting AND start to penalize the team for carrying such frequent fighters on their roster then what you will end up with is just the spontaneous fighters that only fight when needed as opposed to doing so as a primary function of their job.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ped

What the players want is hardly a barometer. Players didn't want mandatory helmet rules. They didn't want mandatory visor rules either.

How many players lost eye sight before they started changing their minds?

In short, the rules did not change until players changed their minds?

Thank you for successfully arguing that what players want most certainly is a barometer. And a very important one at that.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

"You have to fight with helmets on? SO STUPID!!!! IT'S UP TO THE PLAYERS TO RISK THEIR LIVES!!!!"

"Parros fell face first on the ice? BAN FIGHTING! FIGHTING IS BAD AND WRONG AND DANGEROUS!"

How quickly people change

I hate the helmet rule. However, I also think that something should be done to control the amount of fights that happen.

I don't want an outright ban but I would be okay seeing staged fights and dedicated enforcers removed. I feel like a game misconduct and potentially suspensions following multiple repeat offences would help.

I see the purpose fighting can serve in hockey (and I'd be lying if I said they don't entertain me), I just don't think a large majority of the fights in this era of the NHL serve a purpose whatsoever and risks players safety for no reason.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by valo403

Sorry, it doesn't. Watch a shinny game with high level players, it's not the same game at all.

Go watch a high tier rec hockey game. Aside from the fact that there is nobody in the stands and the level of talent is significantly lower than the NHL, there isn't a dramatic difference in the game.

Shinny is never the same because it doesn't have the structure of the game to it. Its basically a glorified practice where everyone is probably from the same team and they just split up into two squads for a workout.

When you go watch a regulation game with two opposing teams, referees and all that and the only difference is that there are no bone-crushing body checks then I stand by what I said about the difference in the game not being very significant.

[You Need a Thneed]

I don't see why body checking will ever need to be eliminated from the game. There are probably a hundred times more hits in hockey than fights, but I doubt that the ratio of injuries related to fights to injuries related to hits is anywhere even close to that far apart.

Plus, the NHL is actively trying to reduce the worst types of hits in terms of causing injuries - hits from behind, hits to the head, etc.

Injuries are always going to be part of the game, but injuries to the head/brain will have to be significantly reduced. Fighting nearly solely targets the head, whereas body checking for the most part does not target the head. The rules on body checking can be changed to reduce head injuries, and have been. The rules for fighting cannot be similarly changed to reduce head injuries, and that's why fighting will have to be removed.

The league cannot be serious about trying to eliminate head injuries while fighting is still part of the game.

[Igster]

Fighting has been part of the game forever. Personally I think it is stupid to take it out of the game. I love fighting in a game. But I'm not going to bother fighting it because if they want to take it out, it will be out. I still think shootouts are an abomination and ruin the game, but they are there because people wanted it.

Just wish they would quit changing the game we love.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't see why body checking will ever need to be eliminated from the game. There are probably a hundred times more hits in hockey than fights, but I doubt that the ratio of injuries related to fights to injuries related to hits is anywhere even close to that far apart.

That seems a convenient excuse. The objective fact is that bodychecking results in injuries. It results in head injuries. It results in a not insignificant number of head injuries.

Both carry the risk of head injuries. It is absurd to favour the removal of one because of the risk while supporting the retention of the other.

[JiriHrdina]

Lacrosse fights are ten times better. If I want to see a fight in sports - I'll get it from Lacrosse.

I say that with tongue only half in cheek - two grow men fighting in skates is silly and dumb. I don't need to have it in the game and it isn't why I watch sports. Eliminate fighting, and get rid of the oafs who are only in the game because of its presence.

I watch hockey because of the speed, skill and intensity. None of that goes way when fighting goes away. And rest assured it will at some point. Only a matter of when.

Glad to hear the conversation to eliminate it is ramping up.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Come on, are you guys in this thread that are against fighting honestly saying you don't enjoy watching Grats beat the living hell out of some Oiler or Canuck that desperately deserves it?

Not when the Flames are down 5-1 in the game. That's part of the problem - it holds very little relevance to who wins or loses. Maybe there is a short-term emotional charge, but overall it is meaningless.

Nothing worse than seeing the team I root for goon it up and start a bunch of fights when the other team has schooled them on the scoreboard.

The point of hockey is to score more goals than the other team, not win fights. Winning fights doesn't get you anything in the standings.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That seems a convenient excuse. The objective fact is that bodychecking results in injuries. It results in head injuries. It results in a not insignificant number of head injuries.

Both carry the risk of head injuries. It is absurd to favour the removal of one because of the risk while supporting the retention of the other.

There is no way to completely eliminate injuries, even head injuries. If the goal was to have zero, no pro sports would be played, ever.

Bodychecking can be regulated to minimize the most dangerous hits - it's being done. Players are learning.

We have learned in the past few years that fighting causes significant head/brain injury. It is clear from all of professional sports that these types of injuires will not allowed to continue at the same rate, and that something must be done about it. Eliminating fighting is one very important step if the NHL wants to be serious about eliminating brain injuries. Very soon, the NHLwill no longer have a choice. Sure, there might not be a complete ban right away. The NHL may "regulate" fighting so that it will happen less, and then over time, it will completely disappear from the game.

Frankly, this isn't something that the NHL has a choice about. Fighting will be eliminated, no matter what anyone in the NHL office or any of the players want at this moment. However, over the next few years player support for fighting will drop, just like the number of players not wearing shields has dropped rapidly.

[dissentowner]

But..but...there will never be another Gordie Howe hat trick!

[Bourque's Twin]

One thing to consider is the economics of the AHL, ECHL and not as much the WHL.

I assume that the AHL and ECHL would eliminate fighting simultaneously with the NHL because their main purpose is to groom players for the NHL. A high percentage of AHL and ECHL fans go to the games because of the drinking and the fighting. Those teams already struggle to put fans in the seats and would certainly see a decrease in attendance if fighting were eliminated. You could kiss a lot of AHL and ECHL teams goodbye.

I'm not saying that the economies of the AHL and ECHL play a significant role in determining NHL rules, but they shouldn't be overlooked.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Lacrosse fights are ten times better. If I want to see a fight in sports - I'll get it from Lacrosse.

I say that with tongue only half in cheek - two grow men fighting in skates is silly and dumb. I don't need to have it in the game and it isn't why I watch sports. Eliminate fighting, and get rid of the oafs who are only in the game because of its presence.

I watch hockey because of the speed, skill and intensity. None of that goes way when fighting goes away. And rest assured it will at some point. Only a matter of when.

Glad to hear the conversation to eliminate it is ramping up.

At least you are presenting the only truly honest argument for removing fighting: You simply don't like it.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

Haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone brought up the point that technically fighting is already not allowed? You get a penalty for fighting.

Even sports like football, where if you throw a punch you're supposed to be thrown out of the game, still have fights. I don't think it's feasible to eliminate fighting entirely, no matter what the rules say.

It's like in baseball. Fights do occasionally break out. But you don't see two guys dropping their glove in between innings to start throwing punches at each other to prevent pitchers from throwing at batters.

[bzoo02]

CP is split down the middle, either for fighting or want it eliminated.
Why couldnt there be some kind of middle ground?

What if fighting was made safer and penalties/suspensions were given out to players who chose to make the fight unsafe.

I know you'll all say "Fighting is always unsafe blah blah blah" But...

Examples:

Fight with gloves on (Dog Fight)- 5 minute major
Fight with gloves off - 10 Minute misonduct
Fight with Helmet off - Game Misconduct and/or supension for repeat offenders

I think this would help eliminate some of the staged fights between goons but still keep the "heat of the moment" scraps as part of the game.

The Parros incident was brutal, but imagine how bad it would be if he didnt have the helmet on.

JMO