Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So you are saying more people get hurt from fights in hockey than body checking? Ya, ok.

Where did I even hint at that?

What I'm saying that an argument that relies on a slippery slope premise, with absolutely no basis for that belief, is a bad one.

Body contact is a part of hockey. Body contact that is dangerous and poses undue risk to the health of players is illegal. Players who partake in that behavior are penalized and suspended. Why shouldn't fighting be treated the same way?

[Textcritic]

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?

Yes. I can honestly say that when a fight breaks out in a hockey game, I get up and grab a snack, or skip it on my PVR. I already know the outcome; why would I watch?

I once relished hockey fights, but have become repulsed by them. It's barbaric and pointless.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Personally I could care less if fighting stays or not but somebody has to argue the other side.

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

So you're just trolling then?

His post is confusing for a number of reasons? Could he care less, or has he reached his limit of caring?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Had the debate on Twitter with Comix already, but feel it's time to eliminate fighting since the risk outweigh the gains in keeping it. It isn't necessary since it isn't part of the play of hockey, and would get rid of the players that are only in the league because they fight; not because they're good NHL players.

I still say don't eliminate it. Make it an immediate game misconduct? I'm on board with that idea - but don't make it an instant suspension or fine or anything.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

So you're just trolling then?

No but arguing to get rid of fighting for player safety reasons is ridiculous! Those guys know what they do for a living. Are you going to ban boxing? How about UFC? You want to take fighting out of the game because it impedes the flow, ok, I can see that. Saying it has to go for player safety reasons in a game that has multiple big injuries every season from big hits, is a physical game, and those guys know their role is just weak and ridiculous. The "player safety" card in this argument is pure b.s.

[undercoverbrother]

I honestly wonder why fight is so accepted in hockey. Are there other contact sports where it is so readily accepted? Lacrosse maybe?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. I can honestly say that when a fight breaks out in a hockey game, I get up and grab a snack, or skip it on my PVR. I already know the outcome; why would I watch?

I once relished hockey fights, but have become repulsed by them. It's barbaric and pointless.

I'm pretty much the same way. I used to run back into the room if I heard that a fight had broken out, now it's reason to stare into the fridge longer. I'll watch replays here and there, but it's not because I enjoy the fighting, it's because I want to know what took place.

[Oil Stain]

I like fighting in hockey. They should just get rid of the "designated fighters".

Limit the roster to 16 skaters in the regular season. That makes it a pretty tough decision for a coach to dress a goon if he only has 3 lines plus an extra forward.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No but arguing to get rid of fighting for player safety reasons is ridiculous! Those guys know what they do for a living. Are you going to ban boxing? How about UFC? You want to take fighting out of the game because it impedes the flow, ok, I can see that. Saying it has to go for player safety reasons in a game that has multiple big injuries every season from big hits, is a physical game, and those guys know their role is just weak and ridiculous. The "player safety" card in this argument is pure b.s.

Hockey isn't boxing or MMA. Not sure what relevance that has.

I don't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that removing the element of getting punched in the face does not make a game safer.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Define a "knee-jerk reaction". My way of approaching this issue is to question the value and purpose of fighting in hockey. Can anyone actually make a convincing case for fighting as a useful deterrent to sickwork and other in-game intended acts of violence? I have yet to see one. If its only purpose is to entertain fans, is this enough of a reason to risk players safety and long-term quality of life? I say no. If it serves no purpose, then what possible reason is there to delay its removal altogether?

What I mean by that is there isn't a reaction until an incident like with Perros, which sickened me to watch, and then the immediate reaction is an outright ban. I would like to see the dedicated goon out of hockey, but I don't think we need to get rid of the spontaneous fights that start in the heat of battle. I do think those kind of fights can influence the outcome of a game. Just like huge, thundering(but legal) hits can. They can change the momentum.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

Hockey isn't boxing or MMA. Not sure what relevance that has.

I don't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that removing the element of getting punched in the face does not make a game safer.

Lol, you either don't get it or you are purposely being obtuse.
I can do that too. I can't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that removing the element of the big open ice hit does not make the game safer.

[Igottago]

This thread is actually pretty compelling evidence that the tide is turning against fighting. Seems like a lot of seasoned hockey fans have realized the downside of it, myself included. This same thread 5 years ago probably has far less people on board with what Yzerman and co are suggesting. I think a lot of modern hockey fans are ready for the game without fighting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Zevo

What I mean by that is there isn't a reaction until an incident like with Perros, which sickened me to watch, and then the immediate reaction is an outright ban. I would like to see the dedicated goon out of hockey, but I don't think we need to get rid of the spontaneous fights that start in the heat of battle. I do think those kind of fights can influence the outcome of a game. Just like huge, thundering(but legal) hits can. They can change the momentum.

I would rather see the game turn on a big legal hit than two dudes, which has been sitting on the bench for the first 2 periods, smash each other in the face.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Cool, and people can watch that "hockey" along with their WWE, UFC, boxing, etc.



I think the fix to that is to pick a number of fights and start suspensions after that.

Fights 1-5 = no suspension
Fight 5 = 1 game suspension
Fight 6 = 2 game suspension
Fight 7 = 4 game suspension
Fight 8 = 8 game suspension
Fight 9 = 16 game suspension
Fight 10 = 32 game suspension
etc.

Reset the meter with every season and see what happens.

There should also be a measurement of fights per team so that you do not simply bring up a fighter for 5 games and then swap him for another fighter.

This is what I support. I think if you get rid of the useless fights and it becomes much more rare you can leave it in the game. The roster limit idea works as well but the PA would never support that. You just need to get rid of the guys who are there only to fight.

Those are the guys who end up with the concussion and brain issues... particularly since those guys are getting bigger all the time.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zevo

What I mean by that is there isn't a reaction until an incident like with Perros, which sickened me to watch, and then the immediate reaction is an outright ban. I would like to see the dedicated goon out of hockey, but I don't think we need to get rid of the spontaneous fights that start in the heat of battle. I do think those kind of fights can influence the outcome of a game. Just like huge, thundering(but legal) hits can. They can change the momentum.

How does the League go about eliminating the goon without at minimum a massive crackdown on fighting?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

This is what I support. I think if you get rid of the useless fights and it becomes much more rare you can leave it in the game. The roster limit idea works as well but the PA would never support that. You just need to get rid of the guys who are there only to fight.

Those are the guys who end up with the concussion and brain issues... particularly since those guys are getting bigger all the time.

Don't limit the roster. Hell, increase the roster if it means NHLPA support.

Just limit the amount of players that can dress every game.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I would rather see the game turn on a big legal hit than two dudes, which has been sitting on the bench for the first 2 periods, smash each other in the face.

Did you read the part where I said I would like to see the dedicated goon out of hockey? I'm speaking more about the Iginlas, Ferlands(if he proves he can play a regular shift), Sarichs, etc

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by gargamel

You can take out fighting without fundamentally changing the game, but you can't do that with big hits. It all comes down to risk/reward, and the reward for allowing fighting just doesn't seem to be worth it any more.

Women's hockey disagrees with you. Taking out big hits does alter the game but fundamentally it remains the same. You can still have scrums along the boards, pinning players, rubbing them out, cutting them off and otherwise using your body to impede the other players without trying to turn it into a massive body check that attempts to send the other player flying through the air.

I personally would rather the NHL focuses on one thing at a time. First, clean up headshots via body checks. Second, clean up headshots via fighting. Third, ...

Originally Posted by Textcritic

My way of approaching this issue is to question the value and purpose of fighting in hockey. Can anyone actually make a convincing case for fighting as a useful deterrent to sickwork and other in-game intended acts of violence? I have yet to see one.

Outside of entertaining fans the only thing I can think of is the origin of fighting in hockey. I imagine it largely resulted from players coming to their teammate's defense, honor, etc. If a guy gets hit in a dirty way or some dirty plays take place (or someone runs a goalie) then it would result in a fight that could literally consume both teams.

The problem is that fighting in the NHL evolved to the point of having dedicated players for it and a formula for when fights take place. Fighting became a tool instead of a display of passion. There are still examples of that passion that fuels fighting, like Iginla in the 04 playoffs.

Is fighting actually a deterrent to anything anymore? Even when it is a display of passion instead of the scripted goon fight, it doesn't really deter guys from doing what they do. If you have a guy who is a pest, he is getting paid big dollars to keep doing what he is doing. That's his job. Taking the beating that comes with doing what he is doing would also be a part of that job and if he stops doing it then he potentially loses his job.

The money prevents the fighting from being a real deterrent because after the fight is over the guy will come back and continue to try to earn his own paycheque.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How does the League go about eliminating the goon without at minimum a massive crackdown on fighting?

I don't know. That's why I stated I don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction to just an automatic ban without some thought. Maybe minimum icetime for all players dressed? If you are on the bench a player has to see x amount of minutes in a game? Maybe after 3 fights in a season a player gets a 10 game suspension. Just saying I hope they look at it thoroughly before they do anything.

[Arsonist22]

I don't see how just a game misconduct for fighting will remove the goons from hockey, as does it matter if they miss one of their three shifts a game because they've been kick out?
They've already done what they've been paid for at that point.

Another idea to stop goons in the nhl would be to reduce the number of players to 9 forwards and 6 d- sure, you can have a goon but good luck icing a competitive team.