Fighting in Hockey

[broken27]

Their job is to bring physical strength and weight to a team.
If it was their job to fight, then it would be part of the game, there would be no penalties for it and it would occur more frequently then it already does.

Okay man, if you want to believe that, that's your right. But quite frankly I don't think anyone will agree with you about that. Pete Worrell is in the league for one reason only, and that is to fight.

Dan

[broken27]

In the NHL, if you skate down the ice and purposely drop your gloves and punch someone in the face when the puck is nowhere near you, you will probably get 5 minute major for fighting and possible an instigator. When was the last time someone got an intent to injure match penalty for fighting? What i the purpose of the fight?

The only contact with a stick that is allowed is stick to stick contact.

Should they call the rules according to the rulebook? Yes, but get used to 3on3!

The purpose of the fight (before instigator rules) is to tell the other player "I'm not going to stand for you beating on our skill player". It's not intent to injure, and the numbers bear that out. Other than the Bertuzzi incident, and the occasional broken nose or jaw, most hockey fights do NOT result in injury. You want to hurt the guy a bit, but not kill him.

Stick on stick contact is not allowed if there is any slashing motion precipitating it.

You could have 5 pairs of guys fighting and still end up 5-on-5, because offsetting major penalties do not create a loss of player for either team.

Dan

[el tigre]

Another good example of poor quality officiating is the diving penalty. I fail to see how an official can call offsetting penalties for diving and hooking. Was it a hook? If so, then it's not a dive.

I couldn't agree more. Dumbest call I've ever seen. In most cases all you've done is let a player get away with hooking.

If it really was a dive, call the unsportsmanlike penalty only. That'll put an end to diving pretty quick. Of course, then the coach will scream and the media will howl and afterwards the league office will have a quiet word with the director of officiating...

...so they call both hooking and diving, and ruffle fewer feathers.

[Vulcan]

Broken,

You say that it isn't intent to injure and you say that you are trying to hurt the guy a bit but not kill him. Which is it?

Why not leave your gloves on and protect your own hands. Then you can still possibly hurt the guy but not kill him and you won't hurt yourself.

Bottom line is fighting is not necessary. Yes it is part of the game, but not a required part. It could easily be eliminated.

If you fight, you are gone.
If you high stick in the head, gone.
If you knee, gone.

Players will make adjustments if they know the consequences. Plain and simple. There are no set consequences because there is too much grey area.

[broken27]

Broken,

You say that it isn't intent to injure and you say that you are trying to hurt the guy a bit but not kill him. Which is it?

Why not leave your gloves on and protect your own hands. Then you can still possibly hurt the guy but not kill him and you won't hurt yourself.

Bottom line is fighting is not necessary. Yes it is part of the game, but not a required part. It could easily be eliminated.

If you fight, you are gone.
If you high stick in the head, gone.
If you knee, gone.

Players will make adjustments if they know the consequences. Plain and simple. There are no set consequences because there is too much grey area.

Hurting someone and injuring them are different in sports terms. Injuring someone means you've caused enough damage that the "victim" misses playing time as a result.

You are not allowed to fight with gloves on because the risk of serious injury goes up. You will be ejected from a game for fighting with gloves on.

I agree that fighting is not necessary, but currently it serves a purpose (no matter how trivial that purpose may be in the grand scheme of things). To get rid of it, you'd have to make the game more like the European leagues currently have it.

Cheers,
Dan

[dbleber]

Since there seem to be so many experts n fighting...

Explain this:

In the NHL, if you skate down the ice and purposely slash someone in the head when the puck is nowhere near you, the result will most likely be a 5 minute major for high sticking and a match penalty for intent to injure which also means a review by the league.

Does that make sense? I think yes.

In the NHL, if you skate down the ice and purposely drop your gloves and punch someone in the face when the puck is nowhere near you, you will probably get 5 minute major for fighting and possible an instigator. When was the last time someone got an intent to injure match penalty for fighting? What i the purpose of the fight?

Does that make sense? I think not.

If the game was called based on the rulebook, the entire game would be 3on3. There is supposed to be a penalty anytime you make contact with an opponent with your stick. (hooking, slashing, tripping, high-sticking, cross-checking etc) The only contact with a stick that is allowed is stick to stick contact.

Should there be fighting? Who cares.
Should they call the rules according to the rulebook? Yes, but get used to 3on3!

dbleber:
If you just drop your golves and hammer someone when the puck is nowhere near them you will get alot more than just 5mins! I think we all have seen or heard of the media hype on the Bertuzzi Incident. Now if 2 guys square off and fight it's 5 mins each. Why should it be anymore? Fighting IS apart of hockey and has been since the beginning. If you don't like it or just don't agree withit then start another sport of just don't watch.
Denny

[Big_duck]

dbleber:
If you just drop your golves and hammer someone when the puck is nowhere near them you will get alot more than just 5mins! I think we all have seen or heard of the media hype on the Bertuzzi Incident. Now if 2 guys square off and fight it's 5 mins each. Why should it be anymore? Fighting IS apart of hockey and has been since the beginning. If you don't like it or just don't agree withit then start another sport of just don't watch.
Denny

I agree with you but; part of the problem with Bertuzzi, is that he didn't 'drop the gloves' he threw a punch with the glove on thus causing an injury plus it was from behind .....

[el tigre]

If you don't like it or just don't agree withit then start another sport of just don't watch.

Yeah, well that's kinda like saying if you think there's too much crime in the city, then move.

Sure, that's one option. Another is to try to bring about some changes so there's less crime in the city.

I think it's fair to say we're all hockey fans or we wouldn't be talking about it so much. Some of us would like to see some changes to the game to make it even better.

[broken27]

Some of us would like to see some changes to the game to make it even better.

Nothing wrong with that. The problem with debating issues of any kind on the internet is that "print" media is impossible for conveying voice intonation, and thus tends to spiral out of control into a personal-attack thing....

I don't think anyone who has replied to this thread can say they don't want some degree of change in hockey.

Dan

[em69]

Agreed.

[LobWedge]

The instigator rule is not just fine. It's behind a lot of the stickwork and malicious violence that is happening in the game today. Like you said, nobody minds it when two willing participants duke it out. But now, because of the instigator rule, Marty Turco gets suspended for 4 games for nailing someone in the neck/face with his stick because no enforcer will intervene to protect his goalie.

Your argument is flawed. Marty Turco was suspended for four games because he made a conscious decision to to highstick another player in the face. He knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. The last thing that a teammate is thinking is "oh geez, I'd better not do anything because I'll get an extra 2 minute penalty and get kicked out." If he thinks that it's serious enough, he'll do something about it. Turco lost his cool because he'd been having a crappy season.

The same with Bertuzzi. The league reviewed the tape of the Naslund hit and said it was clean. Bertuzzi made a conscious decision to take matters in to his own hands based on the reaction of Crawford. The only way that situation doesn't happen is if Crawford gets sanctioned for his comments and Bertuzzi uses his head.

[broken27]

Your argument is flawed. Marty Turco was suspended for four games because he made a conscious decision to to highstick another player in the face. He knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. The last thing that a teammate is thinking is "oh geez, I'd better not do anything because I'll get an extra 2 minute penalty and get kicked out." If he thinks that it's serious enough, he'll do something about it. Turco lost his cool because he'd been having a crappy season.

The same with Bertuzzi. The league reviewed the tape of the Naslund hit and said it was clean. Bertuzzi made a conscious decision to take matters in to his own hands based on the reaction of Crawford. The only way that situation doesn't happen is if Crawford gets sanctioned for his comments and Bertuzzi uses his head.

My argument isn't flawed, but you're correct in saying my examples may not be very good in this case. I watched the game Turco was suspended in, and while it was entirely his decision to do what he did, I'd argue that 10 years ago, the crease-crashers would have been dealt with by enforcers well before the point of frustration that cause Turco to lash out.

Bertuzzi incident to me was inexcusable, and I view it more as a crime than as a hockey incident.

Dan

[Tiger Junior]

I was watching "The Practice" last night and they had a case about fighting in hockey. Just wanted your opinions as to see if you feel fighting belongs in hockey, yes a good ol' fashion hit/body check is good, but does fighting belong in hockey? Why (except for boxing) is fighting allowed? Could you imagine John McEnroe fighting with Borris Becker? Or Lance Armstrong getting off his bike, fighting, and get back on his bike? Can you imagine Tiger dropping his club and fighting Phil Mickelson? Just curious?

Without fighting there would be more incidents like the bertuzzi and mcsorely ones. Fighting is a somewhat safer way to settle things on the ice without getting out of control.

[em69]

With or without fighting those incidences will continue to happen as long as there are dumb asses playing the game who feel they are unstoppable. They have no self control and are not able to think of the consequences until after.

It makes me sick to see the instigators on TV after the occurance crying and trying to apologize, meanwhile the victim is in a hospital bed. This is not hockey...this is assault. I compare incidences like this to drunk drivers..."I thought it was a smart thing to do at the time". duh

[broken27]

With or without fighting those incidences will continue to happen as long as there are dumb asses playing the game who feel they are unstoppable. They have no self control and are not able to think of the consequences until after.

It makes me sick to see the instigators on TV after the occurance crying and trying to apologize, meanwhile the victim is in a hospital bed. This is not hockey...this is assault. I compare incidences like this to drunk drivers..."I thought it was a smart thing to do at the time". duh

[jonf]

Yeah, well that's kinda like saying if you think there's too much crime in the city, then move.

Sure, that's one option. Another is to try to bring about some changes so there's less crime in the city.

I think it's fair to say we're all hockey fans or we wouldn't be talking about it so much. Some of us would like to see some changes to the game to make it even better.

I fail to see how removing fighting would make the game better. I have read every post in this thread, and I haven't seen a post that actually suggests a good reason for removing fighting, other than "some people don't like violence." If you don't like violence, put your skirt back on and practise your ballet.

[em69]

I fail to see how removing fighting would make the game better. I have read every post in this thread, and I haven't seen a post that actually suggests a good reason for removing fighting, other than "some people don't like violence." If you don't like violence, put your skirt back on and practise your ballet.

So what your saying is you like violence? Interesting. Violence solves everything...I get it now. Very disturbing words jonf.

[broken27]

So what your saying is you like violence? Interesting. Violence solves everything...I get it now. Very disturbing words jonf.

Doesn't solve everything, only some things, and can make for some very entertaining hockey!!

Quite frankly, if you want to get violence out of hockey, you'd have to start with checking. Far more people are injured each year as a result of bodychecks than from fights, and it isn't even close!! What we're hearing now is still part of the backlash from an isolated incident (Bertuzzi) that wouldn't shock me to find out was roid-fuelled.

Go back to enjoying the terrible officiating of the playoffs.

Dan

[jonf]

So what your saying is you like violence? Interesting. Violence solves everything...I get it now. Very disturbing words jonf.

Yes, I do enjoy the controlled violence that I can currently enjoy in the National Hockey League, as do the majority of hockey fans. This doesn't mean however, as you imply with this assanine remark, that I, or other hockey fans, think violence should be used to solve problems outside of the hockey rink.

[mr shank]

So what your saying is you like violence? Interesting. Violence solves everything...I get it now. Very disturbing words jonf.

I agree with jon on this one. Violence doesn't solve everything, but history will show that is a very effective way of getting people's attention.
I don't know anyone who would condone what Bertuzzi did, but there's nothing wrong with a good knuckler between two guys who are mutually agreeable to it.

[em69]

Yes, I do enjoy the controlled violence

"Controlled violence"??? I don't believe there is such a thing.

This doesn't mean however, as you imply with this assanine remark, that I, or other hockey fans, think violence should be used to solve problems outside of the hockey rink.

If it's ok in the rink, then why is not ok outside the rink? How do you explain that to the kids in the minor leagues? If violence is used to solve problems in the rink, then doesn't it makes sense that it would help solve some problems outside the rink?

Please be consistent.

[The Shtick]

Violence doesn't solve everything, but history will show that is a very effective way of getting people's attention.

I think that it's probably the only reason people still watch Pittsburgh or Washington play!!

[mr shank]

"Controlled violence"??? I don't believe there is such a thing.



If it's ok in the rink, then why is not ok outside the rink? How do you explain that to the kids in the minor leagues? If violence is used to solve problems in the rink, then doesn't it makes sense that it would help solve some problems outside the rink?

Please be consistent.

It is okay inside the rink and not outside the rink because there is something called implied consent. Basically, by stepping on the ice an NHL player has given implied consent as the player knows there is a possibility of injury before he begins play & by entering the game has given implied consent. This is why there isn't a court case every time someone throws a check, hooks, slashes, etc. and also why the "if it's okay inside the rink, why isn't it okay outside the rink?" argument is flawed.

This is why Bertuzzi will likely be charged, Moore certainly didn't consent to being attacked from behind, but this is totally different than two guys who agree to fight with each other.

Unfortunately violence does aid in solving problems outside the rink.

As far as how to explain to kids in the minors?? I don't really know, that's a tough one.

[broken27]

"Controlled violence"??? I don't believe there is such a thing.



If it's ok in the rink, then why is not ok outside the rink? How do you explain that to the kids in the minor leagues? If violence is used to solve problems in the rink, then doesn't it makes sense that it would help solve some problems outside the rink?

Please be consistent.

Regardless of whether you believe there's such a thing or not, violence in hockey is controlled. How, you ask? Because there are referees, security staff, doctors and trainers, and millions of dollars at stake in ensuring a degree of control.

It's okay in the rink for the reasons pointed out above, namely "implied consent". You've obviously never played hockey at a high level, because if you had, you'd know about the paper work you have to file in order to be insured, essentially a liability waiver form.

How do you explain it to kids? Well, you teach them that everything has a context and a place. It's up to you as a parent, not the NHL as a league. If you don't think you're able to teach this to your kids, I'd suggest you never let them watch anything on TV, because none of it is particularly real.

Weren't you one of the people advocating boxing?

Dan

[em69]

Regardless of whether you believe there's such a thing or not, violence in hockey is controlled. How, you ask? Because there are referees, security staff, doctors and trainers, and millions of dollars at stake in ensuring a degree of control.

It's okay in the rink for the reasons pointed out above, namely "implied consent". You've obviously never played hockey at a high level, because if you had, you'd know about the paper work you have to file in order to be insured, essentially a liability waiver form.

How do you explain it to kids? Well, you teach them that everything has a context and a place. It's up to you as a parent, not the NHL as a league. If you don't think you're able to teach this to your kids, I'd suggest you never let them watch anything on TV, because none of it is particularly real.

Weren't you one of the people advocating boxing?

Dan

I would never, ever teach my kids it's ok to fight in the rink. As for boxing...it's not my thing, but I do understand the sport for what it is.

[jonf]

I would never, ever teach my kids it's ok to fight in the rink. As for boxing...it's not my thing, but I do understand the sport for what it is.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is appropriate to teach your kids to fight. I believe what broken27 is saying is that it is necessary to teach your kids the difference between a PROFESSIONAL hockey player fighting on the rink, and a kid playing peewee hockey.

[broken27]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is appropriate to teach your kids to fight. I believe what broken27 is saying is that it is necessary to teach your kids the difference between a PROFESSIONAL hockey player fighting on the rink, and a kid playing peewee hockey.

Bingo.

Dan

[em69]

To try and teach your kids it's ok for others but not ok for you is difficult. The kids look up to these players and they do want to imitate them in every way. It's just a hunch but it sounds like a response from someone who does not have kids.

Any who, I'm done with this dicussion...it would go on for ever.

[jonf]

To try and teach your kids it's ok for others but not ok for you is difficult. The kids look up to these players and they do want to imitate them in every way. It's just a hunch but it sounds like a response from someone who does not have kids.

Any who, I'm done with this dicussion...it would go on for ever.

I see what you're saying, but you can't go expecting leagues, or corporations, or celebrities, or whomever to change their behaviour in order to set a good example. The NHL's job isn't to teach morality, or to bring up the youth of the country, it is to provide entertainment, and ultimately, someday, hopefully, maybe, just one of these days, possibly in my lifetime, make a profit.

Today's society is becoming one where everything is someone else's fault, and no one takes responsibility for their actions. We're going in a downward spiral and don't seem to be coming out of it. Whether it be blaming video games or hockey players for violence, or suing mcdonalds because their coffee is to hot, or their fries make us fat, society is becoming a group of whiners who can't deal with their own failures, and quite frankly, it disgusts me.
Well, that was quite off topic, but I had to get that out at some point.

[broken27]

To try and teach your kids it's ok for others but not ok for you is difficult. The kids look up to these players and they do want to imitate them in every way. It's just a hunch but it sounds like a response from someone who does not have kids.

Any who, I'm done with this dicussion...it would go on for ever.

Well, I have young twins, so your hunch is wrong.

To me it is likely the most important part of parenting, to be able to teach your kids what is okay to watch as opposed what is okay to do.

Dan