Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[HUSKER4FLAMES]

I have never been in an ice hockey locker room but I seriously doubt when the other players saw Mcgratton in the locker room after the fight they ignored him or told him he was a blemish on the sport.

I also doubt they were mad and told SOB that he was a useless meathead who cost them the powerplay.

All of the medias discussions, all of the fans discussions, are mute until the players and managements opinion goes from 98 percent approval to something significantly lower.

And if and when that happens will the fans still pay to see the same sport?

[TurdFerguson]

I support fighting in hockey but I don't support fighters. Altercations steming from battles and competition are what help separate the passion, emotion and physical nature of hockey from other sports. That said, the emotionless and seemingly staged act of designated fighters predicatively squaring off is simply not needed.

I would love to see a TOI/fighting majors or TOI/PIM ratio applied to teams that would punish or prevent teams for dressing low minute goons. Have a 2:1 TOI to fighting PIM ratio...well, bad news, your team just got fined. Thereby incenting teams to dress hockey players, not fighters. - a concept that the PA would never agree to mind you.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HUSKER4FLAMES

And if and when that happens will the fans still pay to see the same sport?

I would gladly pay the same if not more to eliminate staged fighting completely and curtail fighting generally. Slapping massive suspensions/fines for garbage hockey hits the individual player in the wallet. Hit franchises with penalties for repeat offenders too. Much more than one 5 minute/game plug fighting his counterpart to "set the tone" or to answer for something that happened between two separate players.

Hockey needs to protect itself and take lessons from what the NFL is going through right now and be proactive.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

No, I don't think McGrattan giving a death stare has much effect on what an agitator like Lapierre does, because the goons never go after these guys. They only go after fellow goons. When a goon goes after a smaller player, everyone loses their sh*t, and starts talking about some stupid code.

What makes sense is what we saw last night... Ashton hits someone from behind, and then immediately a Flames player going after him to punish him. That makes sense because you are punishing the guy who did wrong. But a goon going after another goon, to teach some 3rd party, a lesson? That seems downright silly.

I think it does. I haven't seen anyone taking liberties with Monahan or Baerstchi this year. Sure Mcgrattan's not going to go after skill guys but if an agitator or role player starts trying to intimidate one of our rookies I have no doubt that McGrattan or O'brien will let them them know it's not okay. They may not drop the gloves right away but like Burke says in the article, a few words in the faceoff or a skate by the bench might be all that's needed.

I'm not a fan of goons who can't play like Scott but I like McGrattan. I think he can skate and hit if given the chance. If he was on a fourth line with Bouma and a defensively responsible gritty centre, I would have no problems giving them some more minutes.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Why would the media have an agenda to eliminate fighting? I hear that often -- "its the media". No, the media reports a story that is developing on the radar of the sport. Yzerman and Bowman were not members of the media when they made their comments. There's a discussion to be had about the place of fighting in the game, you can't just sum it up as a media conspiracy.

And if Yzerman and Bowman take the position that fighting ought to be removed from the NHL, then they are both hypocrites.

#Probert #Staged fighting #Joe Paterson #Tiger Williams #Colin Campbell #Joey Kocur #Claude Loiselle #Randy Ladouceur #John Barrett #Lane Lambert #Harold Snepsts #Basil McRae #Steve Martinson #Lee Norwood #Wendell Clark #Kris King #Rick Zombo #Kevin McClelland #Brendan Shanahan #Chris Chelios #Darren McCarty #Sean Avery #Stu Grimson #Keith Primeau #Bob Halkidis #Jim Cummins #Troy Crowder #Randy McKay #Marc Potvin

All scrappers that rode shotgun for Yzerman so he could get some room and score.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

It will happen, only a question of when they NHL will remove the fighting, and when they are going to decide to penalize players more harshly for causing other bodily injuries.

As long as the mandate is to sell the game better down south it will never happen. Fighting will always be in the NHL.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

And if Yzerman and Bowman take the position that fighting ought to be removed from the NHL, then they are both hypocrites.

#Probert #Staged fighting #Joe Paterson #Tiger Williams #Colin Campbell #Joey Kocur #Claude Loiselle #Randy Ladouceur #John Barrett #Lane Lambert #Harold Snepsts #Basil McRae #Steve Martinson #Lee Norwood #Wendell Clark #Kris King #Rick Zombo #Kevin McClelland #Brendan Shanahan #Chris Chelios #Darren McCarty #Sean Avery #Stu Grimson #Keith Primeau #Bob Halkidis #Jim Cummins #Troy Crowder #Randy McKay #Marc Potvin

All scrappers that rode shotgun for Yzerman so he could get some room and score.

The fact that Yzerman had enforcers protecting him years ago is irrelevant. More is known about the long term effects of concussions now than ever before.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by codynw

The fact that Yzerman had enforcers protecting him years ago is irrelevant. More is known about the long term effects of concussions now than ever before.

Sounds like something someone who is pretending to be previously ignorant would say to get their point across without be labelled a hypocrite.

[#-3]

All I can say is I have never sat there watching international hockey, thinking to myself "I sure wish the play would stop, so a fight can break out".

So I feel I would not miss fighting at all.

[JiriHrdina]

I fundamentally disagree with this:

Reduced to its simplest truth, fighting is one of the mechanisms that regulates the level of violence in our game. Players who break the rules are held accountable by other players. The instigator rule has reduced accountability. Eliminating fighting would render it extinct.

First – the league is the party that regulates the game. No other sport puts this in the hands of the players, except for baseball with its equally foolish practice of guys throwing pitches at each other.
Second – If this was an effective deterrent – where is the evidence? There are dirty players in virtually every game. If this is the purpose of fighting – it is doing a piss poor job of achieving it

In short the same tired arguments that have no real basis.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by #-3

All I can say is I have never sat there watching international hockey, thinking to myself "I sure wish the play would stop, so a fight can break out".

So I feel I would not miss fighting at all.

Most of the international hockey Canadians watch involves Canada or a couple of teams playing to see who gets to play Canada, and it's usually at the Olympic level or the WJHC. There is plenty of talent there and enough excitement to keep a fan interested.

Try sitting down watching Belarus play Latvia without turning it off or changing the channel; I bet if there was a fight you wouldn't change the channel or turn it off.

[clancy]

Originally Posted by drewtastic

It's time to put this "fighting regulates the game" argument to bed, for once and for all. The NHL has to stop looking to old-time 'guardians' of the game like Burke for future direction. Keeping roster spots open for fighters simply dilutes the talent available on each team that does so.

Two separate Flames players were checked from behind into the boards by two separate Leaf players last night. These were both clear penalties and were called. After the first, Shane O'Brien stepped in to do what Burke presumably wants: players keeping players accountable. Yet later on in the game, it happened again. Was not a "message" sent to the Leafs by O'Brien earlier in the game? Should O'Brien have stepped in after the second penalty as well? And is he, or someone else, to step in each and every time a different player commits an eggregious foul?

By following Burke's advice, O'Brien took a powerplay away from the Flames, and took himself off the ice for 10 additional minutes. Although some may argue that 10 less minutes of O'Brien was a bonus for the Flames, losing the powerplay certainly was not. (I would argue that it was bad Kadri/Phaneuf defensive zone coverage and extra effort from Stajan that resulted in the immediate Stajan goal. It certainly wasn't O'Brien's efforts).

In all of this discussion, no one ever seems to point out the obvious: despite the fact that players have gotten bigger, faster and stronger, (bigger and tougher equipment too), the ice surface itself has remained the same. What might one expect when "large men with tempers explode" around that small confined space? If the NHL would commit to building new arenas with expanded ice surfaces, many of these issues would be rectified because (1) slower, "tougher" players would no longer be able to keep up with the play, clearing room for more skilled players and (2) random collisions, or, at least, collisions at high speeds, would be reduced, as there would be more space and time to make plays and avoid checks.

The notion that "peer accountability" rectifies Burke's complaint about stick fouls is also ridiculous. Peer accountability enables subjective response to perceived fouls, potentially allowing any player to seek retribution. There already exists an objective standard, as Burke alludes to, called the NHL rule book and the "officiating department--the absolute best in the world".

If, as Burke says, the NHL officiating department is "the absolute best in the world", then the OBJECTIVE standards it sets out for stick fouls and other penalties should be enough for players to abide by. The reason it isn't enough is because the application of those fouls remains wildly subjective, game to game and ref to ref.

This lack of consistency, however, is still not a justification for fighting or 'peer accountability'; rather, it is an argument in favour of holding NHL officiating to a higher standard, and probably means calling more penalties. Yet guys like Burke don't want that either, because it wrecks the 'flow of the game'!

People argue that stick fouls are issues of "respect", or, more appropriately labeled, issues of "disrespect". If this is true, then it's up to teams to hold their own players accountable. Since this is hard to enforce (and since some teams seem to encourage that behaviour <insert cheap Canucks insult here>), then calling all stick fouls is the only way to discourage that behaviour. If fighting were so effective in a regulatory role, why do so many of these disrespectful behaviours continue to plague the game? Perhaps if the NHL weren't so lenient and inconsistent in its applications of suspensions, the "absolute best in the world" officiating department would be taken more seriously, and would be able to deter players from committing these types of fouls.

Fighting is an NHL relic. It provides little added value to the game, including in the economic sense. Toughness, on the other hand, is an entirely separate attribute. Blocking shots, making solid bodychecks, or challenging shoulder to shoulder are all elements of toughness. The two are not necssarily equitible.

Time will tell, but I will bet Carter Ashton's freshly broken beak will make him more careful when he has an opponent in a vulnerable position.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I fundamentally disagree with this:

Reduced to its simplest truth, fighting is one of the mechanisms that regulates the level of violence in our game. Players who break the rules are held accountable by other players. The instigator rule has reduced accountability. Eliminating fighting would render it extinct.

First – the league is the party that regulates the game. No other sport puts this in the hands of the players, except for baseball with its equally foolish practice of guys throwing pitches at each other.
Second – If this was an effective deterrent – where is the evidence? There are dirty players in virtually every game. If this is the purpose of fighting – it is doing a piss poor job of achieving it

In short the same tired arguments that have no real basis.

Not to be abrasive, but there will never be evidence either way and using other sports and other leagues as evidence to support your opinion are folly because they are not the NHL and they do not have the same culture. I respect your opinion, but to state it as fact because the other side of the debate has no evidence either puts both sides in the same position; neither one is right or wrong.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by clancy

Time will tell, but I will bet Carter Ashton's freshly broken beak will make him more careful when he has an opponent in a vulnerable position.

I cannot say that it wouldn't, but might not an appropriately stiff penalty/suspension/fine do the same?

The argument presented by Burke is that fighting regulates plays like that. Yet those plays still happen. How long do we wait for Burke and his ilk to be proven right? Fighting's been around forever and those cheap hits keep occurring. Maybe it's time to find a more effective solution.

And, FWIW, the announcers said he had broken it in a previous fight, so it didn't dissuade him the first time.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Table 5

No, I don't think McGrattan giving a death stare has much effect on what an agitator like Lapierre does, because the goons never go after these guys. They only go after fellow goons. When a goon goes after a smaller player, everyone loses their sh*t, and starts talking about some stupid code.

What makes sense is what we saw last night... Ashton hits someone from behind, and then immediately a Flames player going after him to punish him. That makes sense because you are punishing the guy who did wrong. But a goon going after another goon, to teach some 3rd party, a lesson? That seems downright silly.

I completely agree. I don't think Ern's fight had any impact on the Leafs, but it did look to fire up Cammalleri. He looked psyched.

I think the point some have tried making is that if Big Ern is willing, and able, to beat up the other team's toughest guy, he will have no problem doing the same against anyone who takes a run at Sven or Sean. I personally don't think this is the case, as Lapierre or Bieksa wouldn't have to answer directly to McGattan. If they did there would be unwarranted backlash that they shouldn't have to fight a 4th liner, which Kesler has publicly stated. A number of people defended Kessel for protecting himself against John Scott.

[Rocky Raccoon]

To supplement my statements in this thread, I would like to make it clear that I want fighting in the NHL and the principle reason is because I like it and I'm not ashamed that I do. I really don't care whether it is a deterrent or not.

If the NHL decided to remove fighting completely, I would be satisfied with that providing that suspensions for dirty plays were increased tenfold; seriously. In fact, I want that now.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I completely agree. I don't think Ern's fight had any impact on the Leafs, but it did look to fire up Cammalleri. He looked psyched.

I think the point some have tried making is that if Big Ern is willing, and able, to beat up the other team's toughest guy, he will have no problem doing the same against anyone who takes a run at Sven or Sean. I personally don't think this is the case, as Lapierre or Bieksa wouldn't have to answer directly to McGattan. If they did there would be unwarranted backlash that they shouldn't have to fight a 4th liner, which Kesler has publicly stated. A number of people defended Kessel for protecting himself against John Scott.

Kessel didn't do anything to deserve getting jumped though. If Kessel had given a cheap shot to someone then I wouldn't have defended him at all.

[Sgrath]

It seems to me to be that people are putting the proverbial cart before the horse with respect to removing fighting. Just increasing the penalties for fighting to include a game misconduct and/or a suspension will more than likely increase the number of 'enforcers' employed by clubs, not lessen them. Back to back games with teams with known 'rats' will need more enfocers if the clubs first enforcer is suspended after the first game. More enforcers probably will lead to more not less fighting. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is all about incentives. Change the incentives so that owners, GM's etc see little to negative value on keeping the 'rats' employed. There will then be very little need to employ enforcers either. This has to go hand in hand with much more consistent officiating. No matter how humorous it was to watch Marchand on Sedin in the cup, that should have been penalised as unsportsmanlike conduct at the very least. Bostons cup win followed by LA's win the next year pretty much guranteed jobs for enforcers for the next few years.

Possible changes that could be made to change incentives:
1) Have a 2 minute major penalty for offenses that could cause injury such as high sticking, boarding, slashing etc. Keep the minor ones for the technicality offenses delay of game etc.
- Has the potential to influence the games outcome. Teams with good PP could get 2 - 3 goals in those 2 minutes instead of just one.
2) Team owners and PA must put up a good behaviour bond each year. They lose a % as soon as the first player is suspended. 20 total player games lost across the league and the bond is forfiet. Any subsequent suspensions will cost teams 2 points per suspension.
- Hit teams where it hurts in the pocket book and the standings. First team missing the playoffs because of a dumb play getting a suspension will focus minds rather quickly.
3) Allow teams to report opposition behaviour to Player Safety for review if no on penalty was assessed during the game. Would need some sanction for frivolous complains as well.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by codynw

Kessel didn't do anything to deserve getting jumped though. If Kessel had given a cheap shot to someone then I wouldn't have defended him at all.

Yeah, that was a poor example by me. I wouldn't have fought Scott if I was Kessel, but I couldn't think of a better example off hand.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

Not to be abrasive, but there will never be evidence either way and using other sports and other leagues as evidence to support your opinion are folly because they are not the NHL and they do not have the same culture. I respect your opinion, but to state it as fact because the other side of the debate has no evidence either puts both sides in the same position; neither one is right or wrong.

Easy answer - take it out for a period of time and see if there is more/less dirty play.