Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[dissentowner]

How about starting with staged fighting is an automatic suspension.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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.

An open ice hit that falls within the confines of the rules may cause injury, but removing it would significantly alter the makeup of the game. Fighting clearly has the potential for injury, removing it would have little to no impact on the game. It's not a coincidence that the only people who seem to argue that fighting is an inherent part of the game are guys like PJ Stock who had little ability to play the game at the NHL level if not for their willingness to get punched in the face.

[WilderPegasus]

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.

Hitting is part of the game. It happens during play. Fighting is something that happens after play. It is more or less irrelevant to the game.

Boxing and UFC are all about fighting. But in UFC if you are concussed then you are suspended from all activity for three months. How long do you think Parros will be out? I bet he's back by the end of the month.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Wolven

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.

Women's hockey is a very different game from that played in the NHL, and not just due to the size, speed and skill of the players. The wholesale removal of hitting would significantly alter the game. It would still be entertaining, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the same product.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zevo

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.

I might agree with some of these measures, but on the condition that fighting still serves some useful purpose to the game. So far as I can see, it no longer does. If it no longer serves a purpose, then why not a total crackdown complete with severe penalties? If there is no good reason to provide for fighting in hockey, then what good reason can there be to not eliminate it?

[Coach]

I know people probably wont like this idea, but why not just give referees discretion? There are two of them on the ice, generally the cause of a fight is quite obvious. If the refs deem it to be a staged fight, or a response to a clean hit. Ejection.

I know people don't like giving refs more subjectivity (myself included), but that IS why they're on the ice in the first place. Let them make the call to eject the player and leave it up to the league review to decide if the single ejection is appropriate or if more discipline is needed (repeat offenders, attacking helpless players, etc..)

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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

Now I am just starting to think that he has me blocked. /hurtfeelings

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

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.

Increasing the number of players in the pressbox will not get the NHLPA support. And really, I would rather see the NHL continue to play with 4 full lines of players.

Exponential suspensions & fines for players (and teams) that fight is the better way to eliminate goons while still trying to give some breathing room for the occasional fight to take place. It also protects the star players from being targetted for a fight in order to try to trigger the automatic suspension.

[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.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

How about starting with staged fighting is an automatic suspension.

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.

[Coach]

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.

While this is true and I made thaty point in the Kessel slash thread, if you want to deter fighting, the penalty currently received for doing so is, quite frankly, a joke. Both players leave regardless, and its generally people who will spend the next 5-10 min on the bench anyways.

yes it's against the rule, but it's tough to argue that the penatly is deterring much.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But actually this is the NHL's biggest weak spots from a liability standpoint. They have acknowledged the role of body checking on head trauma and have taken steps to eliminate head injury from body checking. They're accepting some responsibility for the health of players actually playing the game by automatic suspensions for any head contact.

A couple points. First, no there are not automatic suspensions for any head contact. There are, in fact, no automatic suspensions at all for any contact. Suspension is a potential outcome for certain types of head contact, yes, but it remains subjective. Second, whether you want to admit it or not, fighting is part of the game. You can champion its removal, that is a fair opinion that I obviously disagree with, but don't pretend it isn't part of the game.

It is not consistent then with its position on fighting. If the reason for eliminating head shots in checking was for player health and then if punches to the head are shown to debilitate players then why aren't they taking steps to eliminate punches to the head. It's a massive lawsuit waiting to happen. Because of which fighting will be a distant memory in not too long.

Like I said, the players themselves choose it. One of the stats going around today is a recent (2011-12) poll that had 98% of players opposing a ban on fighting. Players oppose removal and fans love it. The truth is, until the bottom line is affected, the vocal minority is not going to change it.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I might agree with some of these measures, but on the condition that fighting still serves some useful purpose to the game. So far as I can see, it no longer does. If it no longer serves a purpose, then why not a total crackdown complete with severe penalties? If there is no good reason to provide for fighting in hockey, then what good reason can there be to not eliminate it?

I guess that's where we disagree then. I think when a guy like Iginla drops the gloves, it fires up the team just like a big hit can. I think that can change the momentum of a game so in my mind, it does serve a purpose.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Now I am just starting to think that he has me blocked. /hurtfeelings

Who? Me?

I find myself agreeing with almost everything you have said.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...whether you want to admit it or not, fighting is part of the game. You can champion its removal, that is a fair opinion that I obviously disagree with, but don't pretend it isn't part of the game...

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?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by valo403

Women's hockey is a very different game from that played in the NHL, and not just due to the size, speed and skill of the players. The wholesale removal of hitting would significantly alter the game. It would still be entertaining, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the same product.

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.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zevo

I guess that's where we disagree then. I think when a guy like Iginla drops the gloves, it fires up the team just like a big hit can. I think that can change the momentum of a game so in my mind, it does serve a purpose.

This is where I find myself perplexed. I agree with you in as much as these sorts of fights appear meaningful, but I am not convinced that there is any viable way to have my cake and eat it too.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who? Me?

I find myself agreeing with almost everything you have said.

Oh, it looked like you were asking the question I thought I had answered half a page before you and then replied to Zevo who made a similar suggestion afterward.

Nevermind! Carry on!

[Ped]

Originally Posted by fotze

Has CP ever done a fighting poll in the past. Would be curious to see if prevailing thought has changed.

If not how about a poll?

a. Always liked fighting, still do.
b. Always liked fighting, now hate it.

b. Always hated fighting, now like it.
c. Always hated fighting, now like it.

How about e) still enjoy it but can no longer ignore the obvious health and long term risk factors to those involved.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is where I find myself perplexed. I agree with you in as much as these sorts of fights appear meaningful, but I am not convinced that there is any viable way to have my cake and eat it too.

Maybe not, and if they really look at it and think they can improve the game with an outright ban, I'm sure I can live with it. I just hope it's hockey players and hockey people that make whatever decision they do.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like I said, the players themselves choose it. One of the stats going around today is a recent (2011-12) poll that had 98% of players opposing a ban on fighting. Players oppose removal and fans love it. The truth is, until the bottom line is affected, the vocal minority is not going to change it.

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?