Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

This thread saddens me as a Hockey Fan...

I guess my real question for everyone here is, "have any of you actually played competitive hockey before?"
Because if you have, you'd realize the importance of a good scrap. Whether it'd be to send a message to another team, or to get your team emotionally involved. Fighting can be just as crucial as a goal or a big hit.

Yes, it's barbaric, yes, it can cause injuries. But it's there for a reason. Trust me, if they banned fighting, the level of stick work and yapping would increase ten-fold. To me, it's a good deterrent to keep the pesky weasels from taking to many liberties against the top line players.

Lets face it folks, the NHL isn't the Olympics. It's 82 games of hard nosed hockey. With "real" hockey players. Not just the top line players. (the ones who "actually" decide playoff series) Those heart players...

Fighting in hockey is a beautiful thing. Two opposing players, in the heat of the moment letting go and fighting for their teams pride.
I truly will be sad when it gets banned, then the pussification of the NHL will be complete.

And i'm willing to bet that the States will still not pay any attention to it.

I'm honestly shocked at just how many people on here are against fighting... Guess none of you watch UFC either, eh?

I guess Yzerman, Shero, Rutherford, and Bowman just don't have enough competitive hockey experience to share your opinion.

[Redrum]

Well, I hope somebody beats the hell out of all of them and everyone against fighting.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

Fighting in hockey is a beautiful thing. Two opposing players, in the heat of the moment letting go and fighting for their teams pride.
I truly will be sad when it gets banned, then the pussification of the NHL will be complete.

And i'm willing to bet that the States will still not pay any attention to it.

I'm honestly shocked at just how many people on here are against fighting... Guess none of you watch UFC either, eh?

First of all the problem with fighting in hockey now is that players don't fight for the pride, they fight for the paycheck. We as fans criticize players like Jackman for not fighting enough when they have a bad game. We expect fighting to happen regardless what those players feel at the moment(which could be fear as well). That is why we hear about enforcers getting addicted to pain killers too. If fights were to happen only because of pride the amount of fighting would decrease substantially.

Also I wanted to mention that I am a huge fan of MMA(and UFC in particular), but there fighters are not fighting on the ice while wearing armor. Also there are rules against grabbing gloves or shorts during a fight. Also, MMA is a game of strategy and not who can wrestle who to the ice and fall on top(like many fights in the NHL are).

One last point to consider: if players really fight for pride would they really just stand in place holding on to each other because they got tired? I know I wouldn't be just waiting for a referee to break the fight up if it was a matter of pride.

[BBQorMILDEW]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I guess Yzerman, Shero, Rutherford, and Bowman just don't have enough competitive hockey experience to share your opinion.

Touché.

Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but in my opinion, fighting in hockey is a thing of beauty.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

This thread saddens me as a Hockey Fan...

I guess my real question for everyone here is, "have any of you actually played competitive hockey before?"
Because if you have, you'd realize the importance of a good scrap. Whether it'd be to send a message to another team, or to get your team emotionally involved. Fighting can be just as crucial as a goal or a big hit.

Did you even read the title of this thread? Or did you play hockey at a more competitive level than Steve Yzerman?

[BBQorMILDEW]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Did you even read the title of this thread? Or did you play hockey at a more competitive level than Steve Yzerman?

Obviously I played at a higher level than Mr Yzerman.

The point is moot anyways, fighting is still here... For now


Hopefully next time there's a fight you close your eyes and think happy thoughts.

[Joborule]

If we're going to use the argument that it's always been in the game so it should remain in the game, then we shouldn't worry about head shots and let players be allowed to aim there as they've done throughout the whole history of the game.

Things changes over time due to circumstances. Now the head protection is a very big deal - for good reason - we need to evaluate what should remain in the game. I love hockey fights. I loved it every time Iggy dropped the mitts, but now knowing how serious blows to the head can affect someone's life after hockey, and the possibility of something going disastrously wrong in a fight takedown, the entertainment (which in whole it really is in the end) of the event doesn't outweigh the unnecessary danger of it. It has no effect into the result of the game (statiscally), so there's no need for it to remain.

Contact sports are changing their rules to adopt the new mentally of protecting the head. It seems pretty obvious that fighting has to go if we're going to protect it properly.

[H2SO4(aq)]

If you've played any competitive puck, I think you would understand why you need fighting.

If you disagree, you either had a nuclear deterrent defending you, or have been out of the action too long. Hell, I play campus rec hockey at u of a and tempers constantly are flaring, its the nature of the game, the scrums in the corners and in front of the net, and the code. This is one argument Cherry wins 11/10 times.

[Zevo]

It's one thing for a few G.M.s and posters on the internet to want to get rid of fighting, but what do the people that play the game think. Ultimately they should and hopefully will be the ones to decide.

Vincent Lecavalier - whose Philadelphia Flyers host the Toronto Maple Leafs on Wednesday night - told reporters after the morning skate that it does make him think twice about the subject, but stopped short on saying if it should be taken out altogether.

"Yes," he said when asked if the Parros-Colton Orr tussle made him question fighting. "Sure, people will be talking about it for weeks, (but) fighting is part of the game"

"I personally think you need fights in hockey to keep every one honest," said Flyers captain Claude Giroux on Wednesday. "But you get sick to your stomach seeing stuff like that."

"It definitely makes you think twice about it for sure," said Flyers defenceman Luke Schenn, who saw the fight in that game as a member of the Maple Leafs. "But at the same time it's part of it.

Some of Parros' teammates are also hesitant to conclude that the incident should reignite a debate about fighting.

"I see more players get hurt from hits, collisions, from pucks, than I do from fights," said Canadiens defenceman Josh Gorges on Tuesday. "I don't think saying because a player got hurt in a fight that now we have to talk about taking fighting away. And I bet that if you ask George (Parros), he'll be the first to agree with me on that one too."

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=433260

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zevo

It's one thing for a few G.M.s and posters on the internet to want to get rid of fighting, but what do the people that play the game think. Ultimately they should and hopefully will be the ones to decide.

This presumes incorrectly that any decision that hockey players make must be the right one. Even if most players want to keep fighting in the game at the expense of player safety and health, or at the expense of other parts of the quality of the game that will suffer, this does not on its own qualify it as a good decision.

I can't help but notice from the comments you posted from the article that the same lame arguments used by fans for keeping fighting in the game are also parroted by players:

Originally Posted by Vincent Lecavalier

"Sure, people will be talking about it for weeks, (but) fighting is part of the game".

Originally Posted by Claude Giroux

"I personally think you need fights in hockey to keep every one honest."

Originally Posted by Luke Schenn

"It definitely makes you think twice about it for sure, but at the same time it's part of it."

This brings us right back to one of the questions posed earlier: Does fighting really function as a deterrent to other forms of intentional violence in the game? A number of players and observers seem to think that as soon as fighting is eliminated, the NHL will suddenly devolve into a consequence-free, stick-swinging, charging, board-fest of cheap-shots and low blows. This is believed despite the fact, as a few posters here have pointed out, that "dirty" players have seldom suffered consequences in the form of a fight. It's a ridiculous slippery slope argument, but we will never really see how baseless it is until fighting is gone.

So, if fighting does not work as a deterrent pace Giroux, then is it enough to insist that it has a place because it has always been "part of the game"?

[Reign of Fire]

No touch icing, and now eliminate fighting...pretty soon they will be playing with foam sticks...turning the league into NBA

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fry

My opinion would be to limit the number of fights a player can have a season. For example, five fighting majors and you get suspended x number of games. This would eliminate goons and staged fights and make players think twice and the real value in their fight, while keeping teams honest.
It seems like a pretty good compromise IMO.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Five is too low, but honestly, this is probably the way things will probably go eventually. The OHL implemented such a rule, with the cut off being 10 fights, iirc, and it did result in a marked decrease in fights.

It's too many, in my opinion. I could see amnesty for one or two fights in a season, but after that, suspensions and fines should be steep and on a graduating scale: 3 fights = 1 game + cash; 4 fights = 5 games + cash x 2; 5 fights = 10 games + cash x 5. This would almost certainly see the end of goons.

[Jason14h]

An the pussicifaction of our society continues !

God forbid

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion, but we don't live in a world where the players have no say. Whether or not you feel they should have a say in this, the reality is that they do. Consequently, their opinion matters.

Admittedly I might be mistaken, but this is something the players don't have a say, imo. This isn't a "you have to wear this" that has to be agreed on by the NHLPA.

If you change the penalty for fighting from 5 minutes to something that will deter players (suspensions, fine, etc) then that's a rule change, which doesn't the NHL do all the time without NHLPA approval?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

An the pussicifaction of our society continues !

God forbid

Name calling to put down those that don't share your point of view - good one.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

A huge crushing hit is not an intergral part of the sport.

I disagree. Two of the key lessons that every kid learns is to not skate with your head down and to not make suicide passes. Without big hits, neither of those things is overly problematic. To take out big hits would be a much more fundamental change to the game than simply increasing the penalty for fighting, which is already against the rules.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I guess Yzerman, Shero, Rutherford, and Bowman just don't have enough competitive hockey experience to share your opinion.

That's 4 great hockey minds no doubt about it, but I guarantee you, if go through the rest of the league and ex-players they will be in the minority by a huge margin.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Ped

Admittedly I might be mistaken, but this is something the players don't have a say, imo. This isn't a "you have to wear this" that has to be agreed on by the NHLPA.

If you change the penalty for fighting from 5 minutes to something that will deter players (suspensions, fine, etc) then that's a rule change, which doesn't the NHL do all the time without NHLPA approval?

I'm not exactly sure but I thought they had to wait for the NHLPA approval for the hybrid icing rule so I would assume it would be the same for fighting.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ped

Admittedly I might be mistaken, but this is something the players don't have a say, imo. This isn't a "you have to wear this" that has to be agreed on by the NHLPA.

If you change the penalty for fighting from 5 minutes to something that will deter players (suspensions, fine, etc) then that's a rule change, which doesn't the NHL do all the time without NHLPA approval?

Forced visors was a rule change as well. Also, players make up half of the competition committee that discusses and proposes rule changes. I get where you're going though. Things like moving the blue lines, the trapezoid, the puck over glass penalty, etc., did not require an NHLPA vote, I don't think. But since we're talking about a major alteration to the sport itself that would be coupled with new suspensions that directly impact the salaries of players, they are going to have a say, and a big one.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

That's 4 great hockey minds no doubt about it, but I guarantee you, if go through the rest of the league and ex-players they will be in the minority by a huge margin.

I think the opinions would differ based upon if they're on or off the record.