Fighting in Hockey

[dbleber]

Sorry, my daughter clicked the submit button so I had to drop the gloves. By allowing fighting - what are we teaching the next generation - that's OK son you don't have strike to be as good just tougher Here endeth the sermon

dbleber:
Give me a break. Half are problems with todays youth are that they are a bunch of wimps who think the world owes them everything. This touchy feely crap is what's ruining the teachings of generations past. If you don't want your kids to see fighting in hockey don't let them watch it! Your the parent, don't change hockey because you can't say no to your kids. But let me guess it's the TV's fault that little Jonny punched that kid at school, not the parents who let them watch what ever show they want voilence and all. We should be teaching are next generation that hard work and sacrifice is what counts not rap music and video games.
Denny

[LobWedge]

Hockey, by it's very nature, is an instinctive and reactionary sport. Fighting is going to happen one way or another. I worked as an on-ice official for 15 years up to Tier 2 Junior "A" and CIAU men's. The goal of any official is to let the players, as much as possible, decide the outcome of the game. They call what they feel needs to be called within the context of that game in order to maintain the flow. Do things sometimes get out of hand? Yes. Officials are only human, and it is impossible to call a penalty before it actually happens, no matter who you are.

Players, Coaches, Management and Ownership bear the responsibilty of minimizing fighting in hockey. The league bears the responsibility of enforcing the rules and taking appropriate preventative action to curtail the likelyhood of a major incident occurring.

Two recent examples come to mind. The Ottawa/Philadelphia brawl, and the Bertuzzi incident. The league should have fined or suspended Hitch immediately after his statement about getting revenge on Havlat. Instead all hell broke loose the next time they met. And, Marc Crawford should have been suspended for his reaction following the Naslund hit. The league failed miserably on both counts.

If you want to minimize fighting (face it folks, you'll never get rid of it entirely) eliminate at least 5 teams from the league, and shorten the bench by 2 players. The game will change when you eliminate spots for marginal players and goons, and the quality of the hockey will improve.

[em69]

So, instead of spending your time trying to make me look like an idiot, I'd suggest taking a more productive approach and addressing the actual question that was asked to start the thread.

I don't need to try very hard...trust me.

[faldo]

OK back on topic.

I think most of us would agree the best hockey game in the last 20 years was the Can-USA gold medal game. Not a single European playing but not a single fight either

Fighting in European Hockey leagues (& the Olympics) is strictly verbotten with a minimum automatic one-game suspension.
The refs over there have no trouble penalizing one player if he tries to pick a fight. Most commonly with the border-line North Americans who can't quite make it in the NHL. They learn quick to curb their approach if they want a paycheck!!

I also have 18+ years spent as a minor-league official in many, many sports. I was just getting out of Broomball as t-grey was arriving. We had no problem identifying the problem players & for the most part the various league executives were totally supportive of our recommendations of additional penalites.

The common thread in amateur sports is:
"We've all got to get up & go to work tomorrow"

It's too bad the pro's can't. It should be easier for them being one big happy union!!!

C'mon lock-out. That might be the best way to lose a couple of teams..

[broken27]

And this from a big fan of European Hockey!!!

Hey Big Duck, I hope you were being sarcastic in the reference to my post. I'm a HUGE fan of Euro hockey, but also played a lot (up until midget, then tried out for various levels of junior hockey up to CJHL but was not big enough to endure tryouts) in Canada since I was born and raised here.

I'm totally behind improving the game of hockey, as my journalistic pursuits should make obvious to those who have read my columns. But I think it's attitudes that are changing, and that makes people look at the inate violence of hockey more closely. Maybe you didn't realize you liked fighting before, but you can't say it wasn't there. If you've been "fighting against fighting" for a long time, then I can respect that, but if it's a new thing because of the Bertuzzi incident, then I'd suggest your sudden hatred of the game is an over-reaction to a very ugly thing.

Cheers,
Dan

[broken27]

I don't need to try very hard...trust me.

:shake

I think most of us would agree the best hockey game in the last 20 years was the Can-USA gold medal game. Not a single European playing but not a single fight either.

Fighting in European Hockey leagues (& the Olympics) is strictly verbotten with a minimum automatic one-game suspension.
The refs over there have no trouble penalizing one player if he tries to pick a fight. Most commonly with the border-line North Americans who can't quite make it in the NHL. They learn quick to curb their approach if they want a paycheck!!

Which was my point about it being a part of the game. Certainly in the NHL, fighting is allowed within reason, as outlined in the NHL Rulebook. It's always a penalty, although the rules clearly dictate discretion to the official as to whether to assess a penalty, minor or major.

It's a shame that it always seems to end up personal in these discussions.

Dan

[chipandput]

There's much less fighting in hockey now than there was even 10 years ago, not to mention the 70s.... How is it possible that you USED to be a big hockey fan when there was more fighting, then use fighting as the reason you're no longer a fan?

I agree with you that Olympic hockey (well, really European hockey) is the best.

Dan

I didn't like the violence in hockey back in the 70s but at least there was talent and there was less dirty cheap shots . Im still saying that there should'n be any fights in hockey and peoples that like fights would like it better after they get use to see good plays and nice goals..............chip

[broken27]

I didn't like the violence in hockey back in the 70s but at least there was talent and there was less dirty cheap shots . Im still saying that there should'n be any fights in hockey and peoples that like fights would like it better after they get use to see good plays and nice goals..............chip

Wasn't intended as a shot or anything... Good explanation for an otherwise very ironic situation.

Cheers,
Dan

[el tigre]

I'd suggest that as people get more and more whiny because of "political correctness" and such, people are perceiving fighting in hockey as a bad thing... Wasn't a big deal in the 70s, 80s, 90s....

Oh no, not the "I'm a victim of political correctness" rant again. Sorry, fighting in hockey has ALWAYS been a big deal.

I think it's great that hockey has a pugilistic element to it. None of the other major sports have it and boxing is just plain silly (you wanna fight, take the gloves off).

Boxing is fighting done by professionals. If Lennox Lewis hit Tie Domi with the gloves off, Tie wouldn't get up off the ice for a LONG, LONG time. In fact, boxing used to be without gloves a long, long time but too many people were getting seriously hurt and even killed. Oh, those silly boxers!

[el tigre]

dbleber:
Poor guy, still bitter that he could never make the "A" team. Sorry el tigre that you barely understand the game of hockey and believe it should be a bunch of fancy boys skating around and always making the pretty moves. What ever happened to the grind lines and mucking it on the boards.

What kind of an idiotic, juvenile response is that? Couldn't think a rational, logical argument so you had to resort to calling people names? Grow up!

The "A" team is made up of all the players that can skate, pass and shoot. That's what hockey fans want to see. The grind lines are the guys that barely made the team. You think people pay $150 a game to see them "mucking it on the boards"? Hardly.

[broken27]

Oh no, not the "I'm a victim of political correctness" rant again. Sorry, fighting in hockey has ALWAYS been a big deal.

Boxing is fighting done by professionals. If Lennox Lewis hit Tie Domi with the gloves off, Tie wouldn't get up off the ice for a LONG, LONG time. In fact, boxing used to be without gloves a long, long time but too many people were getting seriously hurt and even killed. Oh, those silly boxers!

Perhaps fighting in hockey has always been a big deal to you, that's fine. But the issue of eliminating it from the game has never been more prevalent in terms of actualizing the idea than it is now.

I am very much aware of what boxing is, and know that there is and has always been "gloves off" boxing being done. My point wasn't that they aren't tough (Domi's a wimp IMHO though), it's just I find that sport silly. I can handle it in limited doses (hockey), where it has a contextual validity, but watching two guys just beat the crap out of each other for money is barbaric.

Dan

[broken27]

[el tigre]

Hockey, by it's very nature, is an instinctive and reactionary sport. Fighting is going to happen one way or another. I worked as an on-ice official for 15 years up to Tier 2 Junior "A" and CIAU men's. The goal of any official is to let the players, as much as possible, decide the outcome of the game. They call what they feel needs to be called within the context of that game in order to maintain the flow. Do things sometimes get out of hand? Yes. Officials are only human, and it is impossible to call a penalty before it actually happens, no matter who you are.

Players, Coaches, Management and Ownership bear the responsibilty of minimizing fighting in hockey. The league bears the responsibility of enforcing the rules and taking appropriate preventative action to curtail the likelyhood of a major incident occurring.

Two recent examples come to mind. The Ottawa/Philadelphia brawl, and the Bertuzzi incident. The league should have fined or suspended Hitch immediately after his statement about getting revenge on Havlat. Instead all hell broke loose the next time they met. And, Marc Crawford should have been suspended for his reaction following the Naslund hit. The league failed miserably on both counts.

If you want to minimize fighting (face it folks, you'll never get rid of it entirely) eliminate at least 5 teams from the league, and shorten the bench by 2 players. The game will change when you eliminate spots for marginal players and goons, and the quality of the hockey will improve.

Excellent post, Lob Wedge. The only thing I would add is a crackdown on the nasty stickwork, i.e., the constant slashing and cross-checking. This is the Number One reason things get out of hand.

[dbleber]

What kind of an idiotic, juvenile response is that? Couldn't think a rational, logical argument so you had to resort to calling people names? Grow up!

The "A" team is made up of all the players that can skate, pass and shoot. That's what hockey fans want to see. The grind lines are the guys that barely made the team. You think people pay $150 a game to see them "mucking it on the boards"? Hardly.

dbleber:

I didn't call you any names . I was expressing the fact that I think you don't know jack about hockey and should stick to ringette or figure skating.

Lots of people watch hockey to see tough guys dig in the corners, fight for the puck and every now and again duke it out. Take a look at a leafs game, I see a lot of Tie Domi fans in croud. For gods sake even Wayne dropped the gloves. I think a lot of you that don't like fighting in hockey are over reacting. There aren't that many fights, every now and then a big one will break out but that's what's keeping the big rivalries still alive. A little heart and toughness in hockey is refreshing since most of these players have lost reality to what an average person makes a year. If two guys want to drop the gloves, let them for what they get paid I wish I could punch one of them for complaining about it.

Don't be so sensitive, I didn't mean to hurt your touchy feelings.
Denny

[dbleber]

I didn't like the violence in hockey back in the 70s but at least there was talent and there was less dirty cheap shots . Im still saying that there should'n be any fights in hockey and peoples that like fights would like it better after they get use to see good plays and nice goals..............chip

dbleber:
Yup, no cheap shots back them. Gordie Howe, Bobby Clark .......just a bunch of clean players.
Denny

[el tigre]

I didn't call you any names . I was expressing the fact that I think you don't know jack about hockey and should stick to ringette or figure skating...Don't be so sensitive, I didn't mean to hurt your touchy feelings.

I played hockey and broomball. In both sports I was the defenceman who went into the corners, pushed guys out of the front of the net and stood guys up at the blueline. Like to body check and was pretty good at it, but I didn't get into very many fights because I didn't hack guys across the hands, cross-check them in the back or pound them into the boards from behind. Gosh, I'm so ashamed!

Touchy feelings? Not exactly. The older I get, the less patience I have for adults who behave like children.

[Deep Woods]

I used to love the clean olympic hockey games. I don't watch hockey today, because the fighting makes it a lame sport to watch. Oddly, I like boxing, I guess because the intent is clear.

[Big_duck]

Hey Big Duck, I hope you were being sarcastic in the reference to my post. I'm a HUGE fan of Euro hockey, but also played a lot (up until midget, then tried out for various levels of junior hockey up to CJHL but was not big enough to endure tryouts) in Canada since I was born and raised here.

I'm totally behind improving the game of hockey, as my journalistic pursuits should make obvious to those who have read my columns. But I think it's attitudes that are changing, and that makes people look at the inate violence of hockey more closely. Maybe you didn't realize you liked fighting before, but you can't say it wasn't there. If you've been "fighting against fighting" for a long time, then I can respect that, but if it's a new thing because of the Bertuzzi incident, then I'd suggest your sudden hatred of the game is an over-reaction to a very ugly thing.

Cheers,
Dan

Trying to be supportive actually, we are both on the same side of this argument afterall.

I was trying to say here is a guy who likes european hockey, and yet supports fighting, thats all


Don

[broken27]

I played hockey and broomball. In both sports I was the defenceman who went into the corners, pushed guys out of the front of the net and stood guys up at the blueline. Like to body check and was pretty good at it, but I didn't get into very many fights because I didn't hack guys across the hands, cross-check them in the back or pound them into the boards from behind. Gosh, I'm so ashamed!

Touchy feelings? Not exactly. The older I get, the less patience I have for adults who behave like children.

You must be older than dirt. You seem to lack any patience at all.

BTW - Your point about being a clean player and not having to fight is fine, but sounds to me like you're not the guy who stuck up for his teammates when they were victims of slashes, crosschecks to the back etc. so while there's no need to be ashamed, there's also nothing at all to be proud of.

Dan

[LobWedge]

Let's clarify a few things here. The issue is really about the level of violence in hockey, in general, not just fighting. The majority of Canadian hockey fans don't mind seeing a dust-up between two willing participants, whether it be heavyweights, middleweights, or even lightweights. It's a concious decision between two guys to go. I have no problem with that.

The issue lies with the NHL trying to sell the game south of the border. The general thesis is that Americans don't like "fighting" in hockey, which is a load of crap. The U.S. fans that I speak to don't mind the fighting as long as it's fair (kind of ironic, but that's a discussion for another thread). They hate the same things about hockey that we do.

The instigator rule is just fine. It's there to counteract the "cowboy" effect where some yahoo decides he has to take the law into his own hands because he thinks that a teammate got screwed, or more likely that he screwed up his last shift and is just frustrated.

The NHL needs to take a proactive approach and kill these major violent incidents by fining/suspending individuals or teams who speak out of turn by issuing threats and promising payback for something that may or may not have happened.

[Big_duck]

Let's clarify a few things here. The issue is really about the level of violence in hockey, in general, not just fighting. The majority of Canadian hockey fans don't mind seeing a dust-up between two willing participants, whether it be heavyweights, middleweights, or even lightweights. It's a concious decision between two guys to go. I have no problem with that.

The issue lies with the NHL trying to sell the game south of the border. The general thesis is that Americans don't like "fighting" in hockey, which is a load of crap. The U.S. fans that I speak to don't mind the fighting as long as it's fair (kind of ironic, but that's a discussion for another thread). They hate the same things about hockey that we do.

The instigator rule is just fine. It's there to counteract the "cowboy" effect where some yahoo decides he has to take the law into his own hands because he thinks that a teammate got screwed, or more likely that he screwed up his last shift and is just frustrated.

The NHL needs to take a proactive approach and kill these major violent incidents by fining/suspending individuals or teams who speak out of turn by issuing threats and promising payback for something that may or may not have happened.

One could argue that if not for the instigator rule, the "Bertuzzi" incident would never have happened. Had there been no instigator rule, someone on Vancouver could have taken immediate action in response the the "cheap" hit on Naslund.

Of course the downside of this argument is that the "cheap" hit on Naslund wasn't .. and was blown all out of proportion by the 'Nucks.

[el tigre]

You must be older than dirt. You seem to lack any patience at all.

BTW - Your point about being a clean player and not having to fight is fine, but sounds to me like you're not the guy who stuck up for his teammates when they were victims of slashes, crosschecks to the back etc. so while there's no need to be ashamed, there's also nothing at all to be proud of.

Well, I played a lot more broomball than hockey. In broomball, fights just don't happen that often, and here's why:

1) The nasty stickwork and cheap shots are called by the officials, and called severely. Referees call majors and match penalties for the dirty stuff (when's the last time you saw a major in the NHL for anything besides fighting?). Many penalties are automatic majors in the rulebook (checking from behind, slashing above the waist, almost any penalty that causes injury). So there's a lot less of this stuff going on, and consequently there a lot fewer fights.

2) Repeat offenders get long suspensions from the leagues. When peope get too stupid too often, they're not allowed to play. They adapt or they're gone. Everyone is better for it.

I officiated about 150 games this year, including provincial championships, and I only had to call fighting maybe 3-4 times.

BTW, the instigator rule is misunderstood by a lot of people. The intent of this rule is not to stop fighting. It is a deterrant to stop goons from picking fights with skill players who don't normally fight, and in that sense it works. The penalty is rarely called, and is certainly not used when two "enforcers" square off against each other. There is no evidence at all to support the idea that this rule is somehow stopping guys like Neil and Domi from going at each other.

[broken27]

The instigator rule is just fine. It's there to counteract the "cowboy" effect where some yahoo decides he has to take the law into his own hands because he thinks that a teammate got screwed, or more likely that he screwed up his last shift and is just frustrated.

The NHL needs to take a proactive approach and kill these major violent incidents by fining/suspending individuals or teams who speak out of turn by issuing threats and promising payback for something that may or may not have happened.

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.

As Big Duck pointed out, the Bertuzzi incident likely never happens.

I'll totally agree with you about increasing the consequences for teams that publicly issue threats. My idea for this is as follows:

First offence: Team's coaching staff (or whoever issues the threat) is suspended for the next 3 games, forfeiting any salary, which is donated to children's sports.

Second offence: Team forfeits total revenue from next home game, which is donated to children's sports.

Third offence: Team is banned from NHL for a season, including all players and coaches etc.

Dan

[broken27]

BTW, the instigator rule is misunderstood by a lot of people. The intent of this rule is not to stop fighting. It is a deterrant to stop goons from picking fights with skill players who don't normally fight, and in that sense it works. The penalty is rarely called, and is certainly not used when two "enforcers" square off against each other. There is no evidence at all to support the idea that this rule is somehow stopping guys like Neil and Domi from going at each other.

I agree with the idea that the instigator rule not interfering with two goons going at it. But the spin-off effect of the rule is that instead of goons trying to fight each other, they take cheap shots at the star players. Also star players are less afraid of taking cheap shots at each other because if a goon intervenes, he'll get the instigator penalties called against him.

So while the overall level of "unfair fights" may be down, the overall level of violence goes up.

Poor, inconsistent officiating is at the root of the problem for sure.

Dan

[el tigre]

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.

No it isn't. As you pointed out in your next post, poor and inconsistant officiating is the root of the problem.

The argument that the instigator rule is the cause of dirty play and cheap shots is only valid if you think that it is up to the players to "enforce" the rules. But it isn't the player's job to mete out justice in hockey. It is the league's job to make the rules, issue the guidelines for the officials, and the referee's job to enforce those rules. And then it is up to the league to back up those rules with suspensions for the worst offenders.

The players will play whatever kind of game the league and officials let them play. I hope the Bertuzzi incident is a wake-up call for the NHL - they need to get a lot stricter on the kind of malicious stuff going on in the game or the courts will do it for them.

[broken27]

No it isn't. As you pointed out in your next post, poor and inconsistant officiating is the root of the problem.

Yes, I'll agree that poor and inconsistent officiating is why the cheap stuff is persistently there, but the instigator rule created an environment that didn't exist before, and players are reacting to it by using stickwork and other malicious acts to replace a 15 second fight.

Regardless, I've long been a proponent of accountibility for officiating, and believe that the NHL is doing a poor job in this area.

The problem is that there's always going to be complaints. Even at the Olympics, where I found the officiating to be very good in terms of strictness, people around here were complaining that there were too many marginal penalty calls. Even if it's marginal, it's still a penalty: that's my attitude.

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.

Dan

[em69]

Poor officiating is the problem and the players are taking advantage of it.

Anyone who fights has a lack of self control and unable to control emotions. To see two grown men fighting in any sport (other than boxing) is the funniest thing. When a cheap shot has occured, it is no longer funny...it is scary to see someone go that far over the edge.

[broken27]

Anyone who fights has a lack of self control and unable to control emotions. To see two grown men fighting in any sport (other than boxing) is the funniest thing. When a cheap shot has occured, it is no longer funny...it is scary to see someone go that far over the edge.

I realize that I seem to disagree with you almost arbitrarily, but I just wanted to point out one thing about this statement. In hockey, there's guys out there who are there for the express purpose of fighting (Brashear, Domi, etc...). It's got nothing to do with self-control or controlling emotions... It's their JOB.

I personally think that boxing is the "funny" sport. I respect someone who can box in terms of their ability to fight, but find the whole sport very barbaric. Maybe it's just the bloodlust it brings out in the fans who watch it, but I've had some very negative experiences watching boxing at my local sports bar.

Cheers,
Dan

[Vulcan]

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!

[em69]

In hockey, there's guys out there who are there for the express purpose of fighting (Brashear, Domi, etc...). It's got nothing to do with self-control or controlling emotions... It's their JOB.

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.