McGrattan ko'ed in the AHL

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Don't you think it is a little self serving to argue that checking is "key" while also noting that there are numerous levels that do not allow it?

Maybe, but I also think that checking should be introduced at a younger age in hockey on a gradual/graduating basis, but that is a different discussion.


At no point is fighting taught in hockey.


But as young as Atom, and certainly PeeWee players are taught to take away ice along the boards, which eventually leads into checking.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

So the NHL is taking depressed guys who otherwise couldnt make it in the NHL and offering them a chance to get their brains bashed in? I guess who cares as they'd be hurting themselves elsewhere.

pick a side, do you want fighting out of the game, or goons out of the game?

There are plenty of fantastic players in the league who also fight (we were lucky enough to have one of the very best captain our team for years here).

The league is no longer swimming with goons who can't play - those days are all but gone.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

10 games first time you fight, 20 games the third, 40 games the forth and 82 games for the fourth fight within say a two year window. After a team gets its second fighting suspension, the coach gets suspended for 5 games and then the coaching suspension increases by 5 games for each subsequent fight.
Fighting will be gone quick.

Do you change the channel when a fight comes on, or boo if you are at the game? Does it raelly bug you that much you want to suspend a guy for 82 games if he drops the mitts?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Don't you think it is a little self serving to argue that checking is "key" while also noting that there are numerous levels that do not allow it?

Within Minor Hockey its starts at Bantam, concussions are also really common within Bantam and Midget....

Body contact is an issue, there is a reason checking was eliminated within Peewee Hockey

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

pick a side, do you want fighting out of the game, or goons out of the game?

There are plenty of fantastic players in the league who also fight (we were lucky enough to have one of the very best captain our team for years here).

The league is no longer swimming with goons who can't play - those days are all but gone.

NHLPA I doubt will ever agree to eliminate fighting......

Quicker the game progresses, less "goons" the game will have.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Maybe, but I also think that checking should be introduced at a younger age in hockey on a gradual/graduating basis, but that is a different discussion.


At no point is fighting taught in hockey.


But as young as Atom, and certainly PeeWee players are taught to take away ice along the boards, which eventually leads into checking.

Originally Posted by flambers

Within Minor Hockey its starts at Bantam, concussions are also really common within Bantam and Midget....

Body contact is an issue, there is a reason checking was eliminated within Peewee Hockey

You guys are looking at it too narrowly. Non-checking leagues exist at all levels, right up to adult rec. The women's game doesn't allow it at any level.

So how can you argue that fighting is unnecessary on the one hand, but argue that bodychecking is necessary on the other? Numerous organizations have demonstrated that bodychecking isn't necessary or "key" to hockey. The difference, as I see it, really comes down to the fact that you like bodychecking and dislike fighting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You guys are looking at it too narrowly. Non-checking leagues exist at all levels, right up to adult rec. The women's game doesn't allow it at any level.

So how can you argue that fighting is unnecessary on the one hand, but argue that bodychecking is necessary on the other? Numerous organizations have demonstrated that bodychecking isn't necessary or "key" to hockey. The difference, as I see it, really comes down to the fact that you like bodychecking and dislike fighting.

Resolute 14, I dislike that checking was taken out of the women's game. I believe it should be brought back in.

Bodychecking to me is a part of the game, while fighting isn't. It fundamentally comes down to that.

It is easy to say fighting is unnecessary, I think the argument is harder to make that it is necessary.

At the end of the day for me, it is a key component to the sport. It doesn't put the puck in the other teams net, nor does it keep the puck out of your own net.

Look I get it, you like fighting. That's fine, good for you. But I can't see how it is a necessary part of hockey.

I like physical, fast skilled hockey. There are enough way within the confines of the rules of hockey to demonstrate your displeasure with the opposition that you don't need fighting.

I am not anti-physical hockey.

[Resolute 14]

That's the point, UCB. You *want* bodychecking, so you simply decree that it is "key" to the sport, despite evidence to the otherwise.

I would argue that this is the core argument for most people on both sides of the debate. I like fighting, I think it is important to the sport. People who hate fighting argue it is not simply because they hate fighting. It's an emotionally motivated circular argument on both sides.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's the point, UCB. You *want* bodychecking, so you simply decree that it is "key" to the sport, despite evidence to the otherwise.

I would argue that this is the core argument for most people on both sides of the debate. I like fighting, I think it is important to the sport. People who hate fighting argue it is not simply because they hate fighting. It's an emotionally motivated circular argument on both sides.

100%, this is a circular argument, we can move onto Left Twix Right Twix afterwards.


I might "want" bodychecking, but that is because it is part of the game. It is legal, it is allowed with in the rules. I don't "want" clutching, hooking "dead" hockey like the NHL in the mid 90's (for example). The hooking, holding, interference isn't apart of the game and as such should I don't "want" it. Just like I don't "want" fighting because it isn't part of the game.

How many people are smashing faces in beer league. I got a game tonight, and I highly doubt there will be any punches thrown.

If we want to have a discussion about changing the rules of the sport we could do that as well.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's the point, UCB. You *want* bodychecking, so you simply decree that it is "key" to the sport, despite evidence to the otherwise.

I would argue that this is the core argument for most people on both sides of the debate. I like fighting, I think it is important to the sport. People who hate fighting argue it is not simply because they hate fighting. It's an emotionally motivated circular argument on both sides.

That's not true at all. It's risks vs benefit. Most of us love a good scrap, especially between two combatants in the heart of the battle (most people could do without the contrived heavyweight crap). The difference in opinion is: do the risks of fighting outweigh it's benefit to the sport?

This "you just hate it" argument is dumb. That's not why anyone is opposed

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I might "want" bodychecking, but that is because it is part of the game. It is legal, it is allowed with in the rules. I don't "want" clutching, hooking "dead" hockey like the NHL in the mid 90's (for example). The hooking, holding, interference isn't apart of the game and as such should I don't "want" it. Just like I don't "want" fighting because it isn't part of the game.

I dislike that argument as well. The fact that something is against the rules doesn't mean it is part of the game. Hooking, holding, diving and all other infractions are part of the game. They happen, they impact the result - both positively and negatively. Say they are against the rules, sure, but don't pretend they aren't part of the game. That includes fighting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I dislike that argument as well. The fact that something is against the rules doesn't mean it is part of the game. Hooking, holding, diving and all other infractions are part of the game. They happen, they impact the result - both positively and negatively. Say they are against the rules, sure, but don't pretend they aren't part of the game. That includes fighting.

So do you regularly get into fights at beer league?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So do you regularly get into fights at beer league?

No, but I don't throw massive bodychecks in beer league either. So what point do you actually think you are making, other than to return us to the circular argument that argues both fighting and bodychecking are not key/important components of the sport?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but I don't throw massive bodychecks in beer league either. So what point do you actually think you are making, other than to return us to the circular argument that argues both fighting and bodychecking are not key/important components of the sport?

Just wondering that's all.


Clearly we will never get this decided.


I look forward to Hockey Canada including fighting in their skill development pyramid.

[JiriHrdina]

I think even body checking is an interesting debate. In my view, body checking needs to evolve to be only about separating puck from player - and no more. Anything more than that should be a penalaty.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think even body checking is an interesting debate. In my view, body checking needs to evolve to be only about separating puck from player - and no more. Anything more than that should be a penalaty.

This would be a big change, I don't really see it happening for decades at best It would fundamentally change the game for many, many people to the point where revenues and TV ratings would be impacted. Would it be for the greater good? Probably. I just don't see the NHL ever doing something like this unless they are forced down that road. The NHL is just like any other corporation: profits before anything else. It would take a great deal of incentive (ie litigation) for them to ever consider this. I know it would definitely cause me to lose interest in the sport to a degree.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think people are kidding themselves if they don't believe fighting will be gone entirely within 10 years, if not much sooner.
Concussions will be the main reason.
I don't buy into the argument that fighting has ever been a successful deterrent. There have been dirty players and dirty plays as long as hockey has existed, and I don't see any proof that scraps have any impact on that.

I disagree and I do not think I am kidding myself. But I will suggest an alternate theory for why fighting is still in the game today and not going anywhere soon.

Whether you like it or not, North American society is in love with paying big dollars to witness violence in the form of sport.

The professional sport of hockey cannot afford to lose the entertainment value (and revenue dollars) of fighting. And I think the league and the players are sophisticated enough to know and understand that.

As a measure of what Canadian society thinks, the Criminal Code of Canada makes it illegal to engage in a "Prize Fight"...and then proceeds to list numerous examples of "combative sport with fists hands or feet" plus boxing, plus MMA which, if the province gives permission to a match, are therefore not a "Prize Fight."

So literally, if a province sanctions two people bare-fist beating the hell out of each other (for the sake of it itself...not just incidental to a dynamic full-contact sport) then it is entirely lawful. Consensual fights in the parking lot outside the bar are also still lawful (though some municipalities hand out tickets for fighting). Go figure.

In 10 years if we still have boxing and MMA as government-sanctioned violence events then what principled basis is there to remove fighting entirely from the sport of hockey? Especially when as was pointed out earlier in this thread, fighting is already not allowed by the rules and is penalized?

Would it not seem silly to have NHL Hockey in the Dome one night with automatic career expulsion should two players throw a few punches and then the next night fill the same building to watch numerous guys who are actually called "fighters" pounding each other as the object of the event?

Now, maybe you will say that we should also end boxing and MMA, but as reflected by norms codified in criminal law and the popularity of such events in current society, I do not think you will see boxing or MMA disappear...well...ever.

We regulate the events, and license and monitor them...and then consume the entertainment value of those events at extraordinary levels.

Forbes says the value of just the UFC brand name was US$460 million in 2015. The previous year the value of the UFC as a business was pegged at US$1.65 billion.

If you think those in the business of pro hockey never discuss how much fighting brings to their overall take of North American entertainment dollars then it is you who I think is kidding himself.

UFC 149 – the company’s only event thus far in Alberta – was a huge box-office success, drawing a sellout of more than 16,000 fans paying a live gate of $4.1 million in July 2012.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/sports...853/story.html

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/ufc-pla...list-1.2595642

Fighting is just right where I expect it will stay in hockey for possibly...well...ever.

The exclusive goon is all but eliminated. Instigator and aggressor rules operate to significantly reduce instances of unsafe beatings. Rules prevent taking off the helmet as part of an overt show-fight. Players themselves are much more alive to concerns of long-term health risks. And for many many fans (I know, not all fans) hockey fights remain one of the most exciting events in a game that is second to none for its intensity.

Now, full disclosure, I fought a fair bit on the ice from 18-21. I assure you I did not always win. And I will not lie and say if my son one day plays the way I did that it will not make me nervous and even scared at times.

When players get hurt fighting it makes me cringe. But no more or less than when they get hit from behind or an elbow to the head or a puck to the teeth (which I have also experienced).

If players are not constantly pushing the limits of what their bones can take before breaking, or their muscles can take before tearing, or their heads can take before concussing, then the game is not what it is. Fighting is certainly not necessary in hockey. But a fight can change the entire dynamic on the ice and get a team a win they would otherwise not get. A fight (or the threat of one) can prevent a player from getting hurt by rough or dirty plays. I know I took different liberties in games depending on who was dressed for my opposition.

Puck speeds over 100 mph are also not necessary in hockey. Get rid of carbon graphite and other materials in sticks and the game would be materially safer. And less exciting.

In fact why allow bodychecks or slap-shots at all? Player longevity would skyrocket to all-time highs.

Right, because it would be old-guy no-hit no-fight beer league and last I checked nobody will pay to come watch that.

[PeteMoss]

Fighting has been way down these past two year. Are ticket sales declining?

I'd be willing to bet there is zero correlation between teams that hit and ticket sales. Winning brings out fans, not hitting or fighting.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Fighting has been way down these past two year. Are ticket sales declining?

I don't know...I will assume you asked because you looked it up and they are not.

I suppose I can respond by saying fighting is still in the game.

Will ticket sales go up and down tied literally to how many fighting majors occur in a season? I suspect a statistician can explain why that is an absurd suggestion. One which I am not making.

Eliminate all fighting and even non-puck separating bodychecking as is now being suggested? Wow. I am not a huge gambler, but I would take the bet that NHL revenues tank after that. I hope we never get to find out.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think even body checking is an interesting debate. In my view, body checking needs to evolve to be only about separating puck from player - and no more. Anything more than that should be a penalaty.

This is actually the type of consistency that I appreciate in someone that is anti-fighting. People are usually anti-fighting because they don't want to see guys hurt - especially hurt badly with career ending and/or life altering injuries.

I think people should either accept that hockey is just a fairly violent sport like MMA, Lacrosse, Boxing and whatever else there is (though safeguards have to be put into place to limit such injuries as best as possible as all these sports have in place or continually modify for the betterment of the athletes), or accept that hockey is a sport that has to evolve into a non-violent one where player safety is paramount, and any type of actions that have the intentional or even unintentional consequences of such injuries are completely eliminated.