Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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:


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"?

I am mostly with you in the sense that fighting should certainly be curbed and that I believe implementing suspensions on players who offend X# of times per season is the best way to do that (as I don't believe you see fighting get taken out without it being a terribly long process).

However, I take big issue with your assertion that you, or anybody else, might know more about the role of fighting in the NHL than actual NHL players. It's ridiculous and borderline inane to believe that if players believe things like "it keeps people honest" that they probably don't know what they're talking about. They're players, they KNOW, you don't. You guess and hum and hah and think 'well there's no proof it does' but you're simply wrong. Skill guys are essentially saying that fighting makes the game safer for them, and you're saying 'it probably doesn't'. That's delusional for you to think there's better proof than actual players.
It's like going up to a police offer and questioning their need for a gun, they then say "well it acts as both a deterrent and protection" but you just turn around and say "you don't know best, there's no proof of that, let me take away your gun and we'll see."
I just don't see how you can't see the absolute delusion it takes to seriously make a comment like "players believe this, but posters on CP have said it's not true".... come on bro, get a hold of yourself.

Again, I don't think staged fighting is valuable, and I think there should be methods in place to curb the idea of having one "goon" on your team. The Lupul/Schenn fight last night? That's what fighting should be. No question. But to suggest that anyone but the players know best the value of fighting in the NHL is delusional. They are the ones being protected, and conversely, they are the ones being kept honest. Not you or anyone else.
For proof you don't need to look much further than the Flames before they picked up Grats, and directly after. They were being pushed around, and liberties were being taken that were going over the top. They acquired McGrattan, and that stopped immediately. Fighting works as a deterrent, it keeps guys honest, it's been proven when you compare teams that have enforcers and teams that don't have any guys really willing to drop the gloves. It's been proven, and players have said as much. That's more than enough for me, but I generally don't question first-hand accounts and actual evidence, so I'm not sure if it's enough for you.

[SuperMatt18]

I mentioned earlier in the thread but the goal for the NHL should be playoff hockey in the regular season, in the playoffs fighting pretty much stops because the goons are out of the lineup so teams can actually roll 4 line. The only fights that happen are spur of the moment, emotion driven fights that actually serve to change the game.

The goal shouldn't be to completely eliminate fighting but to remove the need of the "goon" or "enforcer" in the regular season, much like it is removed during the playoffs.

Maybe you just need stricter penalties and some "fighting accumulation" penalties.

In Game Penalties:

First fight: 10 minute major for fighting-5 minutes really is nothing. A player misses 2 shifts during a 5 minute major.

Second Fight : Game misconduct

Player Fight Accumulation Penalties: Does not punish the spontaneous fights but the goons.
0-5 fights: no suspension
6th fight: 1 game suspension
8th fight: 4 game suspension
10th fight: 6 game suspension
12th fight: 10 game suspension
15th fight: 15 game suspension

Team Fight Accumulation Penalties:
10th fight: 25k fine
15th fight: 50k fine
20th fight: 100k fine
25th fight: 200k fine & 1 game coach suspension
30th fight: 400k fine
35th fight: 600k fine
40th fight: 1M fine & 2 game coach suspension.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by strombad

However, I take big issue with your assertion that you, or anybody else, might know more about the role of fighting in the NHL than actual NHL players. It's ridiculous and borderline inane to believe that if players believe things like "it keeps people honest" that they probably don't know what they're talking about. They're players, they KNOW, you don't. You guess and hum and hah and think 'well there's no proof it does' but you're simply wrong. Skill guys are essentially saying that fighting makes the game safer for them, and you're saying 'it probably doesn't'. That's delusional for you to think there's better proof than actual players.

Read the title of the thread.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Read the title of the thread.

Read it, read my post.

As well, how relevant are the opinions of two guys who haven't played a game since the 80's and now have desk jobs on how fighting actually affects players?
Certainly more than anything you or I could come up with.
But more than current players?
Hardly.

Read, think, post.
Try it.

[LouCypher]

Im all for preventing injuries and not having needless fights. Part of the reason fighting does exist still in hockey though is to keep guys honest. The refs wont catch every cheap shot and when someone is taking major liberties there should be something in place to keep guys from getting out of hand, penalties are not always effective as they are intended to be. Tough debate but I see other issues they would also have to figure out if they did eliminate fighting.

[Resolute 14]

SuperMatt18 - There's really no other way to put this: Your proposal is asinine.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

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

Perhaps but regardless it would still overwelmingly be in favor of keeping fighting in the game.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

SuperMatt18 - There's really no other way to put this: Your proposal is asinine.

Why? We have this built in idea that we need "goons" and "enforcers" to keep hockey players honest but fail to acknowledge that the best hockey of the season (playoffs) features no goons or enforcers and rarely has fights.

The goal should be to have fighting at the same frequency as the playoffs, when the fights actually have meaning. If fighting is so important to the game of hockey why does it disappear when the games matter the most.

The exact punishment would need to be tweaked of course, I don't think numbers I threw out in 5 minutes would be perfect but why not be increased penalties for guys who fight frequently.

I agree that we want to keep stuff like the Lupul-Schenn fight from last night in the game and the rules that I put above would not impact those guys since they are lucky to have another fight this year.

The fights we should try to get rid of are the Orr vs Parros fights of the world that take place between two guys who play 5 shifts per game.

[Coach]

I really don't see why you can't crack down on fighting the same way they have done with headshots. Instead of taking it right out of the game, give the refs discretion on the fight. Was it a spur of the moment battle or response to a dirty play? 5 min major. Was it a goon staged-fight, a response to a clean check, or an all out random attack? Game ejection and possible further review by the league for suspensions (repeat offender, severity of what happened, etc..).

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

SuperMatt18 - There's really no other way to put this: Your proposal is asinine.

Kettle. Pot. Black?

Originally Posted by strombad

However, I take big issue with your assertion that you, or anybody else, might know more about the role of fighting in the NHL than actual NHL players. It's ridiculous and borderline inane to believe that if players believe things like "it keeps people honest" that they probably don't know what they're talking about. They're players, they KNOW, you don't. You guess and hum and hah and think 'well there's no proof it does' but you're simply wrong. Skill guys are essentially saying that fighting makes the game safer for them, and you're saying 'it probably doesn't'. That's delusional for you to think there's better proof than actual players.

Aside from the obvious reply about Yzerman being one of the guys looking to abolish fighting I think one thin I would do is question the motivation of these guys to say these things.

If you take out fighting, what happens? Goons all lose their jobs. What else happens? More soft, skilled players would potentially make it into the NHL if the game shifts more toward speed / skill and less away from being "big".

The question keeps coming up about the reality of fighting "keeping people honest". When you look at Cooke, I do not think fighting ever kept him from doing the stupid stuff he has done over his career. If Cooke did something, and somebody fought him afterward, he would probably take that as a sign that he is doing his job right.

When you are getting paid millions of dollars to do a job a certain way, what is a couple punches to the face actually going to do to keep you honest? The money trumps the potential violence.

The players might not see it that way because they are so deeply immersed in the culture of hockey that they might still believe the notion that fighting and "the code" keeps people behaving correctly. However, I think the truth of that thinking has become increasingly less true in the last couple of decades as the $$ has skyrocketed.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by strombad

Read it, read my post.

As well, how relevant are the opinions of two guys who haven't played a game since the 80's and now have desk jobs on how fighting actually affects players?
Certainly more than anything you or I could come up with.
But more than current players?
Hardly.

Read, think, post.
Try it.

They would actually have the best insights, they can see both sides of the coin.

Players will never come out against fighting while they are still playing and there is a big reason for that: they have teammates that they are good friends with who are only in the NHL because they are fighting.

It is quite often stated that "fighters" are the most well liked guys in the room. Do you think anybody on the Flames is going to speak out on something that means Brian Mcgrattan is out of a job? or any Montreal players with Parros? or any Leafs players with Orr?

Former players are the best source of information that we have in this field because they can look at things clearly with no bias.

[bubbsy]

My thoughts:
- staged fights are dumb, look dumb, and i would be happy to see them gone

- hockey fights (thinking back to the cup run and iginla's bouts each round, that came from scrappy play) should be the only thing argued for.

- i love hockey fights, however, must say they should be considered a guilty pleasure.

i just don't see how fighting should be part of the games rules. watching that habs/leafs game and the parros incident made me sick to my stomach, i had to turn away (can't imagine what parros' parent/wife/children must have gone thru during those moments).

I realize all these players know what type of risk they are taking when they enter the arena, but getting hurt from a slapshot, from a skate blade, from a hit (heck, legal or not) are injuries related to the game of hockey. I just can't see a justification that when someone has a substancial life changing outcome due to a fight. I have heard folks on the radio here in TO saying that "it was a bad luck, one-off incident". i agree with that, however, the scenario that brought up this incident has no place in hockey.

I think once we get over the initial stigma of removing fighting from the game, it will make the game better. energy lines will still exist, but will be faster and more goal driven. "messages" need to be sent through the scoreboard, not by dressing a goon.

Love hockey fights, but put me down as a guy ready to vote against allowing fighting to continue to be allowed in the sport.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by strombad

Read it, read my post.

As well, how relevant are the opinions of two guys who haven't played a game since the 80's and now have desk jobs on how fighting actually affects players?
Certainly more than anything you or I could come up with.
But more than current players?
Hardly.

I did read it. It was a waste of time. A bad comparison with cops and guns. You're so out to lunch that you think Yzerman retired in the 80's.

I think retired players opinion would be more valid because current players still have teammates to think about. Who is going to say he wants to get rid of fighting when he's got an enforcer for a teammate who would lose his job if that happened?

Why is it that you never hear players complaining about cheap shots and stick work at the World Championships and Olympics? Or do they have enforcers on their rosters during those games?

Read, think, post.
Try it.

Try using your own advice before passing it along to others.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

They would actually have the best insights, they can see both sides of the coin.

Players will never come out against fighting while they are still playing and there is a big reason for that: they have teammates that they are good friends with who are only in the NHL because they are fighting.

It is quite often stated that "fighters" are the most well liked guys in the room. Do you think anybody on the Flames is going to speak out on something that means Brian Mcgrattan is out of a job? or any Montreal players with Parros? or any Leafs players with Orr?

Former players are the best source of information that we have in this field because they can look at things clearly with no bias.

Disagree entirely, you're wrong. Former players don't have the relevant experience required. Yes, they played hockey, 10-30 years ago, but they don't have any recent experience. As for having no bias? RIDICULOUS. Every one of those guys have money invested in players. No bias? Please, give your head a shake. They pay these players. It also happens to come from three of the softest teams in the league.

Your entire argument is silly. Former players know as much about relevant NHL on-ice issues as any swingin' dick in a NHL executive office. If you're not playing, your opinion holds less value. That's just the way it is.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I really don't see why you can't crack down on fighting the same way they have done with headshots. Instead of taking it right out of the game, give the refs discretion on the fight. Was it a spur of the moment battle or response to a dirty play? 5 min major. Was it a goon staged-fight, a response to a clean check, or an all out random attack? Game ejection and possible further review by the league for suspensions (repeat offender, severity of what happened, etc..).

I am definitely not a fan of adding more things to the ref's discretion. Referees are fallible. They are open to making mistakes, being biased, and simply having a bad day where they are not on their game. They can miss things and they can make assumptions that may or may not be true.

It would be better to have a hard-coded process for dealing with fighting than to give the referee or the NHL discipline review committee another thing to screw up.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

I did read it. It was a waste of time. A bad comparison with cops and guns. You're so out to lunch that you think Yzerman retired in the 80's.

I think retired players opinion would be more valid because current players still have teammates to think about. Who is going to say he wants to get rid of fighting when he's got an enforcer for a teammate who would lose his job if that happened?

Why is it that you never hear players complaining about cheap shots and stick work at the World Championships and Olympics? Or do they have enforcers on their rosters during those games?



Try using your own advice before passing it along to others.

I said "two guys who retired in the 80's", if you passed math, you'd see that there were three names, 3 minus 2 equals 1, that leaves 1 player who didn't retire in the 80's.

Read. Think. Post.

You're comparing a tournament with the most skilled players in the world versus a league with hundreds of players of varying skill levels and questioning why one doesn't use deterrents against the actions of less skilled players who take liberties with highly skilled guys?
Right, because players like Burrows definitely get Olympic invites.

Don't embarrass yourself any further, please.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by strombad

Disagree entirely, you're wrong. Former players don't have the relevant experience required. Yes, they played hockey, 10-30 years ago, but they don't have any recent experience. As for having no bias? RIDICULOUS. Every one of those guys have money invested in players. No bias? Please, give your head a shake. They pay these players. It also happens to come from three of the softest teams in the league.

Your entire argument is silly. Former players know as much about relevant NHL on-ice issues as any swingin' dick in a NHL executive office. If you're not playing, your opinion holds less value. That's just the way it is.

Those former players are much more in tune with the consequences of fighting. They get front row seats for witnessing their friends and former teammates enjoy their retirement after being goons in the NHL.

The current players are young, dumb and probably still think they are indestructible. They haven’t gotten to the point yet where someone they have known for years dies and donates his brain to science. By the time they gain that wisdom, they will be the old guy that is no longer in the trenches playing the sport and some other young dumb kid will be saying something about how fighting is good.

Edit: In short what I am saying is that the opposite of what you are claiming is true. It is the young guys that do not (yet) have the relevant experience to fully understand the impact of the situation.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by strombad

Disagree entirely, you're wrong. Former players don't have the relevant experience required. Yes, they played hockey, 10-30 years ago, but they don't have any recent experience. As for having no bias? RIDICULOUS. Every one of those guys have money invested in players. No bias? Please, give your head a shake. They pay these players. It also happens to come from three of the softest teams in the league.

Your entire argument is silly. Former players know as much about relevant NHL on-ice issues as any swingin' dick in a NHL executive office. If you're not playing, your opinion holds less value. That's just the way it is.

I never said GMs don't have bias, I stated that former players in general don't have bias. You stated that former players are not relevant because they haven't played for a while that was the fact that I was arguing.

The argument that you need to be playing for your opinion to hold value is just wrong.

According to your theory the opinion of a rookie like Seth Jones who is still playing hockey, should hold more value then a guy like Nik Lidstrom who played in the league 20 years and has multiple cups and Norris trophies.

In what world does that make any sense?

Former players opinions is the best source of info we have in this situation, especially with fighting, and especially guys who have retired in the last 10 seasons. These guys were in the trenches with their teammates but no longer have to worry about their teammate losing a job and can see both sides of the issue, hence they have the best input onto the issue.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by strombad

I said "two guys who retired in the 80's", if you passed math, you'd see that there were three names, 3 minus 2 equals 1, that leaves 1 player who didn't retire in the 80's.

Only two of those names played in the NHL. 2 minus 2 equals 0.

Read. Think. Post.

You're one for three on that list. It's too bad it's the last one instead of the first one.

You're comparing tournaments with the most skilled players in the world versus a league with hundreds of players of varying skill levels and questioning why one doesn't use deterrents against the actions of less skilled players who take liberties with highly skilled guys?
Right, because players like Burrows definitely get Olympic invites.

Burrows has played at the World Championships. Funny how none of the other teams had goons to keep him honest.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Those former players are much more in tune with the consequences of fighting. They get front row seats for witnessing their friends and former teammates enjoy their retirement after being goons in the NHL.

The current players are young, dumb and probably still think they are indestructible. They haven’t gotten to the point yet where someone they have known for years dies and donates his brain to science. By the time they gain that wisdom, they will be the old guy that is no longer in the trenches playing the sport and some other young dumb kid will be saying something about how fighting is good.

Edit: In short what I am saying is that the opposite of what you are claiming is true. It is the young guys that do not (yet) have the relevant experience to fully understand the impact of the situation.

That's regarding the consequences of fighting which those who fight willingly take on. Players aren't idiots, it's very clear and obvious that brain damage occurs, you can't bet they all know that. I would never deny that fighting may not be worth it in the long run, but my argument is that it keeps people honest, and polices hockey in a way that referees can't. If your point is that it's dangerous down the road, then we're having two different conversations. If you want to ask a former player if fighting has negative health effects over the long term, then you absolutely should, their opinion is the best one to have. If you want to ask a former player if fighting has a valuable place in hockey today, then you're asking the wrong person.

You're trying to prove a different point than the one I'm making and pretending they're the same. Obviously former players know more about the long term health effects of fighting than current players, what idiot would make an argument against that?