Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by strombad

It's only irrelevant if the players don't get to decide whether fighting stays or goes. Thus, being that they ARE the ones who decide, it's quite relevant.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That depends upon what we are talking about here:

Yes, the majority opinion of NHL players is relevant with regards to whether fighting does or does not remain a part of the game.

No, the majority opinion of NHL players is irrelevant with regards to the actual function and effectiveness of fighting in the sport.

Originally Posted by strombad

How is it irrelevant in that sense either? You do realise they are the ones affected by fighting right?

I doubt you'd be so bold to walk up to an NHL player yourself and tell him that he doesn't know any better, and that his opinion on fighting is irrelevant

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's not exactly what I am saying. Let me put it this way: How fighting makes one feel as a player, and whatever positive impact he perceives it to have on the game is so far asserted in the absence of evidence. The positive impact can only be properly established with evidence, and one's perceptions (regardless of their place and stake in this discussion) are a poor substitute.

As hesitant as I am to wade into this discussion here goes: Fighting in hockey is all about effecting player emotions in a game, whether that be positive for your team or negative for the opposition. Therefore if players state that fighting has an emotional effect on them, such as Giordano did, is that not exactly the evidence you're looking for?

You seem to want something to measure by stats or science. I don't have any suggestions on how we'd go about that, unless it is to fit NHL players with special helmets that monitor their brain wave activity...


EDIT: took me a while to put ^ together and strombad already made same point in the meantime.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

basketball is very physical and if there were cheapshots smacking players onto a hardwood floor, there would be a lot of fights.

I mentioned this earlier. Football and Rugby are extremely physical but they are not dirty like hockey. And anything that is dirty like hitting a QB late or hitting defenseless receivers in the head has been addressed.

Hockey is a collision sport. There's hitting from behind, charging, boarding, slashing, elbowing, running the goalie, facewashes, snowshowing the goalie etc... none of these happen in football. It's one play at a time, a player gets tackled hard, gets up and jogs back to the huddle.

They've made hockey more dangerous by increasing it's speed. Taking out the red line and taking out obstruction. You can't hold on and nuzzle/snuggle a guy into the boards anymore, you must drill him. In comparision, football and rugby are slow sports.

Rugby can be very dirty in the scrums, which is why the guys wear those silly helmets or tape their ears down or so the other team doesn't yank them off. Lots of cauliflower ears in Rugby (shudder)...

There are of dirty plays in basketball, too, that lead to altercations between players, like the 'accidental' elbows to the jaw. I forget which guy is very good at making sure he lands on the defending players foot after jump shots. Tony Parker, maybe?

The difference between rugby and basketball, IMO, is the nature of the game simply allows for less dirtyness than hockey players can get away with. I think human competitiveness will ensure athletes will do everything they can to win if their sport allows it, whether that be face-washing in hockey, doping in cycling, or ludicrous diving in soccer.

[V]

I really don't see the point of face-punchers in the NHL. The best hockey is playoff hockey, and you don't see a whole lot of face-punchers touring the ice intimidating the other team without actually accomplishing anything.

Iginla vs. Lecavalier is great. Bashear vs. Laraque is ridiculous.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is a very charged and polarizing issue in the NHL. People will continue to bicker back and forth, and both sides have points that neither side cares to admit.

Let's try to separate the 'facts' from the 'opinions'.

Facts:

- Fighting DOES provide entertainment, and sports are an entertainment. Players love it, fans love it.

- Fighting has proven detrimental to the health of players (duh) - both short-term effects, and the long-term effects that are only now becoming more known.

I think these are the only facts that both sides can claim to support their cases.

Now, all the other major sports do not condone or allow fighting. Baseball, Football, Soccer and Basketball have all made it illegal. However, is it that simple as following the other 'traditional' sports? Hockey has its' own roots, history and culture. It has evolved on its own. It really shouldn't matter that the other major sports don't allow fighting - there are fighting sports in North America that make money purely from fighting (Boxing, MMA, etc).

Every person that chooses to enter the NHL (or boxing, or MMA) understands that there is risk associated with that undertaking. Not every player is expected to fight. The way that the NHL regulates it, I bet far fewer fights happen now than in the past, to a far fewer number of players. They are willing participants out there - and if fighting is part of hockey, and players choose to fight (as the overwhelming majority want) than why should people question it?

Instigator penalty - This is a tough one. I used to hate it (and more often than not, still do). Why does such a majority of players in the NHL want fighting to remain part of the game, but a smaller majority (I forget what the last poll was - 55%? 65%?) don't want to eradicate the instigator penalty? I think it stops players from 'jumping' other players and not be penalized for it. It helps provide a choice on the ice whether you want to fight or not, instead of being forced into one.

What is interesting is how much of the spotlight is on this 'barbaric' side of the game that 'forces' gladiators to beat each other half to death on the ice, but how much fewer careers it is causing the untimely end of than other aspects of the game.

Don Cherry (yes, he is an idiot 95% of the time) called it years ago - give the players more protection out there, and they respect each other less and less. Now, I am not going to say that it would be a positive step in removing helmets and pads (obviously not - that would be a huge backwards step) but there is some sense in what Cherry kept insisting on. Pads need to be modified (get rid of the hard stuff - wasn't there a movement to get rid of some of those types and force players to use padding that was a bit softer and less likely to cause injuries?).

Also, the game changed. Once the NHL removed the center line, players started moving through the zones much faster, and thus, crashing into one another with much greater velocities. Players are bigger, stronger (due to the training regimes you see now in the NHL vs 20 years ago and earlier) and now they are decked out in harder body armor and encouraged to move faster through the ice by rule changes (red-line makes 2-line pass obsolete, and no clutching and grabbing slowing down the plays).

The rule changes were done to promote the entertainment level of the game - and they were absolutely right about it. However, it definitely promotes concussions too, right? I wonder if anyone has access to numbers for the following:

How many serious injuries occur from:

1) Fighting
2) Dirty hits / Cheap shots
3) Clean hits
4) Players just tripping or losing an edge without reason or just any other factor.

Removing fighting altogether would be a little bit of a disingenuous act at protecting players if the NHL is still going to promote the speed of the game. I bet most injuries in the NHL happen during 'clean plays' than not. At the end of the day, isn't this what the aim of eliminating fighting is about? I might be wrong (as it was a long time ago), but I don't remember Pat Lafontaine getting into many scraps. Granted, that was a straw-man argument picking a star player to 'prove' a point, but it was more about just illustrating the point, not proving it (I fully admit I have NO IDEA what the rates are for different injuries).

I will both be disappointed and relieved when (probably not if, but when) fighting is eliminated. Disappointed because I enjoy fighting (both 'staged' - which I think is a terrible word for it, as I don't see how it is really staged - and 'in the heat of the moment'), as I enjoy watching boxing and MMA. I will be relieved because I won't be hearing about a player I really liked having substance abuse issues, clinical depression or suicide. Those are very real problems - and are very real problems for some players who aren't fighters but have battled repetitive concussion issues.

If the league is going to ban fighting, then they better step up and remove other areas - not because fighting necessarily adequately polices it - but because if you are going to remove a source of entertainment and history of the game in the name of player safety, then you better make it safe for all players.

I really believe that neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. Someone may not enjoy fighting, but they are few and far between in the stands even when two big 'goons' have a 'staged' fight. I get why the NHL is looking at removing it (and even though I love it, I do feel it is over-due), but I don't get why the NHL has encouraged other aspects of the game that SEEMINGLY (once again, I don't have the statistical evidence and I may indeed be wrong here) increased severe injuries (including concussions).

In today's day and age, players know some of the potential physical consequences stemming from fighting, and also know that there is potential 'unknown' long-term consequences. The majority of players feel they want that in the game, they want the instigator penalty to remain for their protection in helping them allow when they choose to fight, but are willing (and often, eager) participants just like you have in MMA or Boxing.

On a different note, why on earth do they allow fighting in junior? I wouldn't want my 15 or 16 year old kid having to fight to make a living. That choice should be removed for kids (and let's see what the effect is for the long-term in the NHL!).

Sorry for the essay.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

basketball is very physical and if there were cheapshots smacking players onto a hardwood floor, there would be a lot of fights.

You are kidding me right? You know what a flagrant foul is? The penalty itself was enacted to deter cheap shots. You must not watch or play basketball because if you do you would know that jersey pulling, flying elbows, and hard fouls are common occurrences. There are players who are known for intentionally giving another player the elbow, stepping on his toes, and undercutting a player so he lands awkwardly. Basketball players "take the body" almost as frequently as hockey players and are known for getting into slapping contests.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Because it's not about player safety. They say it is, but if it was they would would more concerned about hard shelled shoulder and elbow pads. They would be more concerned about the Ashton hit than any fight that happened in the game. It's more about the fact that they just personally don't like fighting in the game and think they have a better idea about it's effectiveness than the players, coaches and G.M.s, which I find astounding.

Would you mind not act like you're a telepath?

Hits are a different discussion. If you want to open up a thread about what to do about dangerous hits in hockey, feel free.

As to why hits and fights are different: Hits are in the rules, fights are not. Simple as that really.

I believe that the game would be better if the rules were followed. I think the idea that hockey should be refereed by the players themselves outside the written rules is unhealthy, and propagates an unhealthy culture of physical play that makes the game less entertaining and dangerous in an unnecessary way.

I also think the idea that players "police themselves" gives the league an excuse to not properly crack down on violent play.

[JiriHrdina]

Another fight injury tonight with Downie sent to the hospital. Utterly pointless

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Another fight injury tonight with Downie sent to the hospital. Utterly pointless

Nope. That fight saved some start from some dirty stick work

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Nope. That fight saved some start from some dirty stick work

Yup someone could have been hurt or worse yet sent to the hospital!

[strombad]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Another fight injury tonight with Downie sent to the hospital. Utterly pointless

Why don't you ask Downie if it was pointless.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by strombad

Why don't you ask Downie if it was pointless.

Because I don't care what he thinks

[Hanna Sniper]

loved the Emery fight

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's an absurdity to illustrate a point.

So far in this thread, the anti-fighting crowd has relied on:
Appeal to authority
False dichotomy
Cherry picking
Reductio ad absurdum
ad hominem (though more has gone the other way)
Probably a few red herrings and strawmen involved as well.

Or in short, this thread has been a clinic on how to turn sports into a political argument.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yup someone could have been hurt or worse yet sent to the hospital!

I don't see you crying about hitting when a guy is sent to hospital as a result of a body check.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

loved the Emery fight

Disagree. I love fighting, but as with everything, there is a line and Emery crossed it. He is going to get suspended, and rightfully so.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't see you crying about hitting when a guy is sent to hospital as a result of a body check.

Not true. I've stated my dislike for massive hits. Body checking should be about separating player from puck not obliterating the opponent. I've stated this before on this site

[Resolute 14]

Fair enough.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Not true. I've stated my dislike for massive hits. Body checking should be about separating player from puck not obliterating the opponent. I've stated this before on this site

From this standpoint then, shouldn't the league bring back clutching and grabbing and stop calling the obstruction and interference that slows down the game?

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Another fight injury tonight with Downie sent to the hospital. Utterly pointless

While we're on the point, skates keep cutting players. I say the NHL switches to rollerblades. Also when hard shots hit players the puck can break bones, they should switch to foam pucks.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Redrum

While we're on the point, skates keep cutting players. I say the NHL switches to rollerblades. Also when hard shots hit players the puck can break bones, they should switch to foam pucks.

This isn't as effective or clever as you think it is.