Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[habernac]

All I know is that most of the best games I've ever witnessed had no fighting in them. Playoffs, Canada Cups, Olympics... Great hockey, zero fights. Time to move forward.

[gvitaly]

I somewhat agree, since the previous lockout fighting had been slowly evolving, especially with new rules such as the instigator penalty and the players jumping off the bench suspensiona etc. Right now we see players trying to provoke the other team constantly just so that they could get the other player to drop the gloves and earn a penalty. Those same guys then proceed to cherry pick fights against the skill players instead of the heavyweights.

I personally used to love fighting when it increased the intensity of the games, created rivalries, and made the occasional regular season game seem like playoffs. Right now I mostly see staged fights and players being jumped for delivering clean hits, so for me the entertainment from fighting has vanished. Fighting stopped being influenced by honor, and is being influenced by fan and coaches demand for a show (to send a message).

The league should crack down on fighting, but should do so very carefully because people don't like change for the sake of a change. One thing I am the most worried about is the league developing a dual standard when it comes to fighting between the regular season and the playoffs, hence giving referees an even greater chance to influence a game by a mistake. Bottom line is that there can't be any grey area whatever decision is made.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by valo403

And? I've stopped and said 'holy ####' at a bar fight before, that doesn't mean they should be allowed.

And the purpose of sport is to be entertained. The simple truth is, there are three aspects of hockey that are most entertaining to the most fans: big goals, big hits and big fights.

I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by arguing anything but an insignificant number of people would stop watching hockey if they took out fighting. But fighting is entertaining and the reaction of fans in arena argues that opponents of fighting represent a vocal minority.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by valo403

Right, and fighting's not allowed in hockey either

You missed the point, something being entertaining is not an argument for it's existence. Huge hits over the middle in football are entertaining. Stadiums went wild. Should those be allowed?

Yes, they should. As long as the hitter isn't leading with his head and doesn't hit the other guy in the head, why wouldn't they be?

[Tinordi]

The clock on fighting is already ticking. It will be a relic within a decade if not for simple liability reasons.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And the purpose of sport is to be entertained. The simple truth is, there are three aspects of hockey that are most entertaining to the most fans: big goals, big hits and big fights.

I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by arguing anything but an insignificant number of people would stop watching hockey if they took out fighting. But fighting is entertaining and the reaction of fans in arena argues that opponents of fighting represent a vocal minority.

That vocal minority includes the families of debilitated (and dead) hockey players, neuroscientists, and the insurance industry.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by habernac

All I know is that most of the best games I've ever witnessed had no fighting in them. Playoffs, Canada Cups, Olympics... Great hockey, zero fights. Time to move forward.

I disagree with this. Some of the most memorable games I've seen involved big brawls. Especially in the regular season.

But as someone who now knows what fighting does to these guys' brains, I feel guilty at times for liking it. What it comes down to is that the game is entertaining enough to not need fighting.

Maybe stickwork would go up if fighting was eliminated. But the stickwork doesn't do nearly as much long term damage as being punched in the head.

[flamesfever]

I think if you started giving game penalties for fighting, there would be a lot of the less skilled players trying to goad the better players into fighting. However, referees my be able to deal with this, if it becomes obvious, by giving only the instigator player the penalty.

I think it may help to discourage those things that tend to result in heated conflict, like giving out more penalties for intentional boarding, face washing, assorted cheap shots, etc.

Also I think they should give some consideration to taking off the "armor" i.e. stiff, hard shoulder pads.

[expo2428]

The only thing I found shocking in this article is Darren Dreger is so full of himself he named something the " Dreger Report "

[mikeecho]

If I let my employees beat the day lights out of each other and allowed them to engage in activities that are inherently unsafe without the proper controls and safety measures in place, I'd more than likely see a right to refuse dangerous work claim along with a visit from the labour board and some pretty significant penalties.

Now, if I paid them $600,000-$1,000,000 a year specifically to do these things, they'd probably turn a blind eye to keep the gravy train rolling. That's what we have here. The players are sacrificing their future health and well being for a pay check. That's why you're not seeing them bring this issue to light yet.

If the league isn't going to do anything to be accountable for the players safety like any normal business needs to be, then I find myself in a place where I'm starting to believe that I should care less what happens to these players. Parros is on life support... Who cares! McGrattan can't put together a coherent thought in his mid 40's? Big whoop! They knew that was the risk going in to that role

The reality (in my mind) is that somewhere, the lawyers and insurance people are looking at this (particularly in light of the NFL law suit and settlement) and will pressure the league and the NHLPA to eliminate fighting or increase the sanctions associated with it.

I also wouldn't take the comments today from some GMs lightly. I don't doubt some are going on record like this to protect themselves in the future. If this ever becomes a legal issue, these guys are going to say that they have tried to take steps to eliminate fighting, but within the parameters of the agreement between the NHL and NHLPA, they were powerless to effect the needed change.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by valo403

Right, and fighting's not allowed in hockey either

You missed the point, something being entertaining is not an argument for it's existence. Huge hits over the middle in football are entertaining. Stadiums went wild. Should those be allowed?

While I agree with the general idea of your argument there is a pretty big counter example of fighting being allowed purely for entertainment purposes.

Boxing, MMA, etc. show that not only is fighting entertaining but there are people who go to watch sports where fighting is the only aspect of the event. At least with hockey you are there to primarily watch hockey and maybe a fight if one breaks out.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Probert recently died and the autopsy revealed brain issues that have killed more than 20 NFL players...think Yzerman isn't thinking of that when he's formulating his opinion? How about Derek Boogaard

Rick Rypien and Wade Belak committed suicide, there's Derek Boogaard passing away whilst taking heavy pain killers(with the autopsy saying he'd have dementia when he reached his middle ages). If I recall correctly Rypien and Belak's were both depression related, and brain scans showed significant damage. The cold reality of what can happen to these types of players after they retire(like in the NFL lawsuit) is forming these guys to change opinions.

I fully support eliminating fighting, in addition to the obvious player safety benefits having no enforcer on a team opens up another roster space for someone who is actually interested in playing the puck and contributing to the fluidity of play.

Both depression issues that had been going on for years and actually had nothing to do with fighting. It was and is a terrible thing but they are two totally different things. I guess it just has to do with the fact that I don't have much use for Yzerman's opinions (my own personal opinion). Also mentioning the NFL thing would support the people who agree with fighting, NFL players don't fight so something else is causing their head trauma.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

That vocal minority includes the families of debilitated (and dead) hockey players, neuroscientists, and the insurance industry.

Honestly, so what?

The Boogaards knew what they were getting into. Even to the point of hosting hockey fighting schools. Derek chose to be an NHL fighter rather than a real world nobody. It ended tragically, and the league may well be liable for failures of its substance abuse program, but the decision to be a goon was his.

The knowledge of the risks to the brain is increasing, and it is good that people have greater understanding of the risks, but that remains their choice. I think you are making assumptions with respect to the insurance industry, but yes, when it becomes unprofitable to allow fighting, that will be when it goes away.

But the truth is, if you are using the latter two to argue against fighting, you should also be arguing against any and all contact in the sport. Particularly since most concussions and head injuries are caused by bodychecking, not fighting.

[EM11]

It is time for fighting to go. The NHL will probably take 5-7 years to do the right thing, but enough is enough.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The clock on fighting is already ticking. It will be a relic within a decade if not for simple liability reasons.

This.^^^With today's relvation that the NFL may have attempted to discredit research that determined football causes brain injuries the timing has never been worse for what happened last night. It's a matter of time until all contact sports to away with any head contact wether it be a tackle, body check, or blows to the head via fist. We are going to see more and more lawsuits in the coming years as doctors find more evidence about the links between contact sports and concussions.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by habernac

All I know is that most of the best games I've ever witnessed had no fighting in them. Playoffs, Canada Cups, Olympics... Great hockey, zero fights. Time to move forward.

Good point. I've also seen plenty of great games where there was a fight, what do I remember from those games? Not the fight(s) but the hockey that was played.

I remember the fights when something big happens like an expected showdown like Probert vs McSorely, The Bertuzzi incident, the Flames vs Ducks game, and I wouldn't call them great game. In some cases very entertaining, in other cases highly controversial. Those games are not remembered for the hockey being played.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

And why did he fall over Orr while unable to protect himself with his hands?

I get that it was a freak occurrence but to think that something other than fighting was responsible for it is silly.

Was it that freak of an occurence? From what has been said today: two years ago the same combatants. Orr also slipped but that time he was the one who hit the ice and was out for the rest of the season with a concussion.

The end result is the staged fights need to go. I don't want to see a the spur of the moment two guys really just feel the need to unload on each other fight. However, I don't mind increasing the penalty for even that type of fight. Add in a 10 minute misconduct or even a double misconduct. Make it so that players really need to make the assessment if it is worth it. Guys who get into the spur of the moment fights don't get into more than a few fights a year...get into 5 fights get a suspension (loss of salary to the players) for several games and escalate the suspension for each fight. Or something. Just get rid of the stupid fights.

But you need to couple this with strict enforcement of all the other dangerous play and as we all know the NHL doesn't really care to do that either.

[Hockeyboi]

I'm a fan of a good clean fight if it is used right, (like the team is flat and needs a boost especially if the team is losing or if there is a really dirty hit). But how about letting the players themselves decide about the fighting, they are big boys that know the risk and if they want to keep fighting in or get rid if it then go with their choice. For people to say that fights are dangerous they are right but no more so than blocking pucks that are coming at over 100mph or taking a open ice hit or any hard check, it's a full contact sport and players are always going to get injured in hockey. So do we get rid of some form of contact every time a player is injured wether it be a hit, puck or skate?.... There was 4 fights in the Leaf/Habs game and only one injury which was unlucky but any player can hit his head on the ice in any game from a hit or whatever, he just happened to be in a fight at the time. No one made him or any other player drop the gloves and fight, they are big enough and old enough to know the risk so everyone should stop trying to wrap them up in cotton wool and let them make their own choices!!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I think the Iginla vs Lecavalier fights add something to the game.

I was never more pumped up about a hockey game than I was after that fight. I'm not the biggest fan of staged goon fights, but how can you remove those without impacting the fights that really do matter?

The net result may actually be an increase in the intensity and purpose of fights that would break out as part of the game action. Banning fighting might actually help to restore some meaning to fighting in hockey while simultaneously producing a elimination of the tangential, irrelevant fights that have no bearing on any aspect of the final outcome of the games.

It's time.

[Tinordi]

But the truth is, if you are using the latter two to argue against fighting, you should also be arguing against any and all contact in the sport. Particularly since most concussions and head injuries are caused by bodychecking, not fighting.

But actually this is the NHL's biggest weak spots from a liability standpoint. They have acknowledged the role of body checking on head trauma and have taken steps to eliminate head injury from body checking. They're accepting some responsibility for the health of players actually playing the game by automatic suspensions for any head contact.

It is not consistent then with its position on fighting. If the reason for eliminating head shots in checking was for player health and then if punches to the head are shown to debilitate players then why aren't they taking steps to eliminate punches to the head. It's a massive lawsuit waiting to happen. Because of which fighting will be a distant memory in not too long.