Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[Joborule]

I disagree with Burke on the basis that he's saying if there's no hockey, there's no way to keep the game in check, which means there isn't any other options, which simply is not true.

His suggestions of why fighting should be kept in the game could be addressed with added/sterner league rules. If a big guy wants to intimidate a small guy by ushering threats, he can go right ahead. If his threats means smashing the player into the boards, well that's in the rules and allowed. There's no reason to fight for that, nor is fighting going to prevent that anyway. Just because there's another big player on the other team isn't going to stop a player from using his body against smaller players. That's what he's paid to do.

Saying that fighting keeps the cheap stuff out of the game and removing it will let the savages run wild is specious. There are ways to keep tabs on the cheap actions without having to rely on fighting. Officials are there for a reason and suspensions are in place to take action on players that go out of line. Adjustments can be made there to keep the game clean and safe as possible.

[CaramonLS]

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.

Ancedotally speaking...

It was pretty clear that teams knew they could take liberties with some of our better players during the last few seasons. I know you sat there and watched Kiprusoff get run numerous games with our players "turning the other way". When teams saw that they could go to the front of the net against the Flames unimpeded or rough up our goalie, it became part of the strategy. But the Flames got a pretty good taste of what happens when you don't goon it up against these cheapshot artists.

Stuff like what Shane O'Brien did last night is exactly what the Flames needed - a guy like Ashton is going to think twice about doing what he did against this team.

Is it going to eliminate it? Probably not. Will it reduce it? Absolutely.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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

To satisfy the 2%, dream on

Sorry my friend but you'll need a lot more the 2% to ever make any headway. Until then game on

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Zevo

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.

Uh huh, I didn't see McGrattan do squat against Carcillo when he was running Ramo and Elbowing Hudler.

Frankly, I think the instigator rule shouldn't be left to the decretion of the official... I think they should automatically be assigned whenever there's a fight. That way If you want to fight go ahead, but it had better be worth the risk of putting your team down a man. That'll get rid of the staged crap post-haste I figure.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Uh huh, I didn't see McGrattan do squat against Carcillo when he was running Ramo and Elbowing Hudler.

Frankly, I think the instigator rule shouldn't be left to the decretion of the official... I think they should automatically be assigned whenever there's a fight. That way If you want to fight go ahead, but it had better be worth the risk of putting your team down a man. That'll get rid of the staged crap post-haste I figure.

When it comes to a fight off the faceoff who gets the instigator? This might help eliminate them (staged fights), but you can't really say who instigated the fight in a case like that, can you?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by codynw

When it comes to a fight off the faceoff who gets the instigator? This might help eliminate them (staged fights), but you can't really say who instigated the fight in a case like that, can you?

Sure you can, the guy who says "want to go?" or the guy that drops the gloves first, and failing that it's a case where you give the officials decretion on assigning the instigator. Anyway you look at the best case scenario leaves you with a 50% chance of having to play shorthanded.

The way I figure it if what you're fighting over isn't worth even just risking having to eat the two minute PP then it isn't worth fighting over in the first place.

[GirlySports]

saying you can't fight you be like saying pitchers can't throw at batters heads.

There has to be this mechanism.. especially after running goalies.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

like saying pitchers can't throw at batters heads.

Personally I think telling people to not throw a solid object 87-99mph at someones skull is kind of a good thing.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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

Or examine leagues - not tournaments - who have a zero tolerance on fighting and see if there is an increase in stickwork, cheap shots, and the like. How does US college hockey compare? The KHL?
You don't need to muck with the NHL game to do your experiment.


The way this is going to get out of the NHL though is over a long span by eliminating it in junior hockey. Less goons will be developed and it will organically reduce the uber-goon from the NHL roster.

[strombad]

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.

To be fair, don't you think that an executive who is terribly close to the game knows more about whether or not it actually deters interactions than you, a guy who just watches the game?

I have to imagine that most people who say it isn't a deterrent have never actually had a chat with the players about whether or not it is. Pretty easy to say it isn't when you're sitting on your couch, I imagine it's a bit more difficult when you're on the ice or in the locker room.

You might find his arguments tired, good for you, but if they have no real basis, then essentially every comment you dare to make is without basis or merit. Burke has 100x more basis for hockey related comments than you, so reign it in a little.

Honestly, if his comments have no basis, where does the basis for your comments come from?

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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

That experiment is not going to happen because it would require the blessing of the NHLPA, and I am reasonably convinced they won't give it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

Not to be abrasive, but there will never be evidence either way

This is probably because it's so hard to prove a negative. If a connection between fights and injuries existed, it would have surfaced in the statistics by now, with so many people looking into statistics these days and so much data being available.

Also of note;
Even if we make the dubious claim that players are able to objectively look at the issue, there are plenty of examples of so generally accepted expert beliefs being proved wrong by actual research and statistics.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Personally I think telling people to not throw a solid object 87-99mph at someones skull is kind of a good thing.

This is why batters don't cheat. A pitcher throws at a batter's head and gets into a fight, he's suspended just for 1 game.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Itse, with that said, I still want fighting in the NHL because I enjoy it.

I don't need I hide behind the "players policing themselves" side of the debate because I'm concerned what people will think of me for liking fighting.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by strombad

To be fair, don't you think that an executive who is terribly close to the game knows more about whether or not it actually deters interactions than you, a guy who just watches the game?
?

Probably - but as an ex-player who was known for his tough play, he also isn't objective here.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Probably - but as an ex-player who was known for his tough play, he also isn't objective here.

Kay Whitemore reducing the size of goalie equipment disagrees with you

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

Itse, with that said, I still want fighting in the NHL because I enjoy it.

I don't need I hide behind the "players policing themselves" side of the debate because I'm concerned what people will think of me for liking fighting.

That's fair of course.

But since it is the most common pro-fighting argument these days, the claim that players policing themselves actually serves a purpose can not IMO be taken at face value. It should be backed up by data of some kind.

For comparison we could use the numerous other hockey leagues in the world, with varying penalties on fighting. Comparisons like that are never perfect, but I'm sure something should turn up if the connection exists.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Probably - but as an ex-player who was known for his tough play, he also isn't objective here.

Huh? So because he played 72 games in the AHL back in the 70's and got around 60 PIM, he's incapable of being objective about how things work in the NHL in 2013?

Riiiiight.

[habernac]

Football is a contact sport. Why aren't there 3 fights per game there?

[Rocky Raccoon]

I'm not so sure of that Itse and the reason I feel that way is because of the difference in NHL culture; however, I am not discounting your hypothesis.

The players should just shoot straight if they want fighting in the game and say that they want it because they like it. That could effectively end the debate.