No more fighting in junior hockey?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

What about the opinion of medical professionals? What about what we know about concussions and brain injuries?

Are you that heartless that you'd rather a person suffer through his old age so you can be entertained?

Clean hits can result in concussions and brain injuries. Just ask Chris Pronger or Eric Lindros.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Scooter

Emotions never run higher than in the Olympics and current NHL playoffs and I don't see a whole lot of fighting. Explain that with respect to the NHL playoffs. I didn't see St. Louis going after Seabrook with vengeance.

First thought after reading this was: He plays for the Rangers and would be the last guy to enforce anyway

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

First thought after reading this was: He plays for the Rangers and would be the last guy to enforce anyway

Hint for your second thought: BLUES

[Fire]

Originally Posted by kevman

If the three major safety concerns are fighting, hitting and pucks to the face wouldn't it make sense to eliminate fighting first? Here's my logic:

• There were 508 fights in the regular season last year. Let's say 10 resulted in concussions (very conservative) then we would have a serious incident frequency of 2%.

• There were 49,200 hits in the regular season (assuming 20 per game per team) and lets say each team lost 10 players to concussion during the season there would be 300 concussions resulting in a serious incident frequency of 0.6%

• There were 73,800 shots last season (assuming 30 per game per team) and if each player got hit in the face once that's 600 pucks to the face or a serious incident frequency of 0.8%

So, exaggerations of removing hitting from hockey and forcing players to wear cages aside would you not agree that in the name of player safety fighting should be the first to go? After all it has the highest injury frequency out of all other "plays" in hockey. Plays in quotes because a fight is not a hockey play.

Why should frequency of injury matter? Body checking and getting hit by the puck results in a lot more injuries to NHL players. If it's truly about reducing injuries for insurance purposes then the NHL needs look at those first. Picking on fighting is ridiculous.

[Phil Russell]

Good. I have no interest in watching seventeen year olds beat the crap out of each other with their fists. Got that out of my system in high school. Another domino falls in the slow and inevitable elimination of fighting from hockey.

[Steve Bozek]

The purpose of a fight is to inflict a significant hurt on your opponent. In hockey the punches are almost always limited to blows to the head, in order to inflict a head injury serious enough to knock the opponent down or out (i.e. a concussiion). This is allowed and even condoned in a league that professes to want to eliminate head shots and concussions. It amazes me that no one in the big leagues of hockey sees anything contradictory in this state of affairs.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by theoforever

And the cooke's of hockey will multiply.
My point is that if you remove fighting there will be more cheap shots in the game.

The career of Matt Cooke is compelling evidence that the threat of enforcers does not deter vicious cheap shots.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The career of Matt Cooke is compelling evidence that the threat of enforcers does not deter vicious cheap shots.

There are always exceptions to the rule, Cooke is not the only one.
Nothing in life is absolute. We have prisons yet people commit crimes, should we abolish them? It is more than possible that without the threat of retaliation there would be more nut jobs. In fact I can guarantee that if you remove police from our streets, the streets will be covered in blood. Hockey is no different.

[Matty81]

I love junior hockey but a part of me knows it's wrong when I see bitter old men in their 40s and 50s screaming at two 16 year olds to knock each others heads in.

Also the policing argument is such a pile of drivel with no evidence at all. Lots of leagues have no fighting like the NCAA and all over europe. Things escalate way worse in the NHL... I don't remember the last time I heard of a guy in the NCAA getting jumped from behind and having his neck broken or getting hit in the head with a baseball swing by a stick.

Dinosaur argument with no proof at all.

[PeteMoss]

People who are pro fighting should just admit it's because they like it. The it keeps the rats away stuff is false. There has been rats in hockey forever... Before the instigator rule, after the instigator rule... There's always been rats.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by theoforever

There are always exceptions to the rule, Cooke is not the only one.
Nothing in life is absolute. We have prisons yet people commit crimes, should we abolish them? It is more than possible that without the threat of retaliation there would be more nut jobs. In fact I can guarantee that if you remove police from our streets, the streets will be covered in blood. Hockey is no different.

Terrible comparison. Hockey fights are vigilante justice. There's already police in hockey, there called referees

[Francis's Hairpiece]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The career of Matt Cooke is compelling evidence that the threat of enforcers does not deter vicious cheap shots.

The Instigator Rule saw to that.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Terrible comparison. Hockey fights are vigilante justice. There's already police in hockey, there called referees

The same referees that keep a blind eye to the crap by Lucic and Keith?


Do I want to see kids fighting or coaches telling kids to become fighters - no. Do I believe that fighting has place in the game - yes.

Long time ago my friend plastered Gretzky on the boards. He was very proud of himself, so he tried again on the next shift. Well, he missed and separated his shoulder, at the same time he was jumped by two guys and got his ass kicked. After this incident he said he never felt like taking an extra shot at Gretzky again.

Like I said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
We are just lucky that we live in a paradise, and we can apply very enlighten standards.
But nothing is funnier than the non-fighting coalition pretending to be holly, and somehow better for having such noble believes.

[Stay Golden]

No excuses no apologies if 2 players are willing to drop the gloves I'm all for it.
I have never seen fans in the stands cheer during a fight and stand when it is a good tilt. Oh that is right fans get jacked up watching 2 players go at and that is the absolute truth.

[Derek Sutton]

Something we have seen more of in Jr hockey, and it is a trend that will likely grow are ht eLinsmen stepping in and preventing a fight when two players square off, before any punches are thrown. I don't know why this hasn't always happened, doing this alone, everytime would cut the fighting in half.

I've really turned the corner on fighting over the years at the junior level, as many have said , there's something nit right about grown men cheering over two kids fighting. The current WHL rules are the same as the NHL, three fights before you are kicked out of the game. Three. Why? The WHL is certainly not against fighting in the game, this nees to change.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

No excuses no apologies if 2 players are willing to drop the gloves I'm all for it.
I have never seen fans in the stands cheer during a fight and stand when it is a good tilt. Oh that is right fans get jacked up watching 2 players go at and that is the absolute truth.

Not one person here would argue it isn't exciting.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

No excuses no apologies if 2 players are willing to drop the gloves I'm all for it.
I have never seen fans in the stands cheer during a fight and stand when it is a good tilt. Oh that is right fans get jacked up watching 2 players go at and that is the absolute truth.

I deliberately do not stand and cheer during a fight. It is my version of silent protest to the league ban in the hope they ban fighting. I've seen others do the same.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Francis's Hairpiece

The Instigator Rule saw to that.

Clearly, because before the instigator rule there were no cheap shots or Matt Cookes in the league. All was just and righteous, I mean look at hockey in the 70s and 80s.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

People who are pro fighting should just admit it's because they like it. The it keeps the rats away stuff is false. There has been rats in hockey forever... Before the instigator rule, after the instigator rule... There's always been rats.

Speaking of rats, what about Kenny "The Rat" Linesman?

He was a dirty, chirping little son of a bitch (and did you notice his nickname is "The Rat"?) and over 860 games, got 1700 penalty minutes, and only fought 23 times.

23 fights! That's about twice a season, in the wild 80's. That's before the instigator rule, btw, so if you want to blame it on that, you can't!

I remember Linseman and I know he did something dirty more than twice a season. Probably twice a game. But he never had to pay for it. He wasn't scared.

Seems to me that The Rats will do rat things whether they have to fight or not. It certainly didn't deter him.

Now of course HockeyDB doesn't tell me how many times Dave Brown, Dave Semenko, Kevin Mclelland, Lyndon Byers... or the many other tough guys he played with had to fight for him, but it no doubt happened often.

Hey, you could say that the fighters and fighting actually allowed him to play dirty, because he knew there'd be someone there to fight his battles. Could be you know. Could be that fighting increases dirty play!

[kehatch]

If you want to get rid of cheap shots than implement harsher penalties for cheap shots. Putting goons on the ice to scowl as a deterrent is ridiculous and archaic.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk