Interesting article in the Globe and Mail from former player and current majority owner of the Halifax Mooseheads Bobby Smith 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/end-to-fighting-would-not-make-hockey-a-safer-game/article29300049/

He basically says fighting causes less concussions per game played than body checking and elbows. 

Further he says fighting is needed as a deterrent to the above mentioned reckless plays that cause concussions and that players need to police themselves. 

If true, isn't this a failure on the direction given to the referees on how they call the game?  Isn't this really a refs job?

No other sport needs fighting for self policing.  Why hockey?

2 minutes ago, Rich said:

Interesting article in the Globe and Mail from former player and current majority owner of the Halifax Mooseheads Bobby Smith 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/end-to-fighting-would-not-make-hockey-a-safer-game/article29300049/

He basically says fighting causes less concussions per game played than body checking and elbows. 

Further he says fighting is needed as a deterrent to the above mentioned reckless plays that cause concussions and that players need to police themselves. 

If true, isn't this a failure on the direction given to the referees on how they call the game?  Isn't this really a refs job?

No other sport needs fighting for self policing.  Why hockey?

I hate the argument that its self-policing.  That's such a silly argument.  In the real world, if someone robs me, I should track him down and beat him up so that he thinks twice about doing it again.

I find the fights entertaining like most people.  Sometimes, when a Jet is hit with a dirty check or a non-call, I want Peluso to throttle him.  But realistically, fighting serves no usual purpose.  The idea that less concussions result from fighting then regular physical contact is probably true because there are far less fights than body checks.

MMA will tell you that fighting isnt a major cause of concussion.  But I always argue if the NHL is serious about concussions (and I dont think they are), then they cant allow fighting to continue.  The blows struck by a fairly slow moving fist that rarely lands might result in little to no damage, but the idea that an organization would say "we are serious about reducing concussions" would also endorse fighting as "part of the game" doesn't compute.

Some will argue that players choose to fight.  But there have been players that will say it isnt true.  That a "goon" knows his role but he's obligated to serve that role if he wants to play in the NHL.  I believe George Laroque has spoken out about this many times.  Its sort of like, in wrestling, when WWE said "we dont make anyone do steroids, that's their choice" but the guys getting pushed, and thus getting more opportunities and money were the ones who looked freakish due to steroids.

It wouldnt bother me if they eliminated fighting.  And the argument that it would result in cheap shots is silly.  If you fine/suspend players, cheap shots will stop.  No one wants to lose money. 

when your carrying around a potential weapon all game, and with so many ways to "play dirty" its a physical consequence to inappropriate actions.  Like if I got 5 mins in the box for taking out your star player,  big whoop.  but if I was looking at getting my chicklets knocked out for playing dirty, i might reconsider

Fighting has been part of the game forever tho, i mean they even have penalties specifically for it.  IMO refs should let them fight more often,  nothing is more boring then the little pushing and shoving after the whistle with nothing transpiring 

Edited March 21, 20169 yr by Taynted_Fayth

4 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

when your carrying around a potential weapon all game, and with so many ways to "play dirty" its a physical consequence to inappropriate actions.  Like if I got 5 mins in the box for taking out your star player,  big whoop.  but if I was looking at getting my chicklets knocked out for playing dirty, i might reconsider

Fighting has been part of the game forever tho, i mean they even have penalties specifically for it.  IMO refs should let them fight more often,  nothing is more boring then the little pushing and shoving after the whistle with nothing transpiring 

Fighting is way down though.  I think a better consideration for someone committing a dirty infraction is greater degrees of fines/suspensions.  I guarantee that if you're a little prick, watching your good fight their good is less a deterrent than losing tens of thousands of dollars serving a suspension.

And I would say not to eliminate fighting 100% but to make it an automatic game misconduct with suspensions tied to repeated game misconducts.  That preserves the "right" of a team to gain revenge on a dirty player/team in extreme cases.

Bobby held his own in that debate against Lawless and brought up some good points.......

I am happy with the amount/lack? of fighting in the game right now and there are bigger issues like consistent calling and larger penalties for hits to the head.

 

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Some will argue that players choose to fight.  But there have been players that will say it isnt true.  That a "goon" knows his role but he's obligated to serve that role if he wants to play in the NHL.  I believe George Laroque has spoken out about this many times. 

I find it disingenuous for guys who made a good living fighting to complain about it now.  If you didn't want to fight, quit. Do something else for a living that is less dangerous. None of them were owed a career in hockey, especially when most of the guys complaining weren't good enough to play if they didn't fight.

 

 

Fighting is disappearing without having to legislate it out. NHL player safety isn't perfect by any means, but stiffer penalties for cheap/dirty plays are finally starting to clean up the game. The game is getting faster and the one dimensional fighter can't keep up anymore.

I like to watch a good fight. I think planned fights between two guys who can barely skate are nonsense, but fights that happen naturally between two guys in the heat of the moment are entertaining and not a detriment to the game. These are grown men making a conscious decision to fight. If they're fine with it, so am I. They know the risks.

I think fighting needs to be taken out of junior hockey though. Any league with players under 18 shouldn't allow it. Fights will probably happen regardless of the rules put in place, but the penalties should be stiffened to make it a less desirable decision to make.

10 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I find it disingenuous for guys who made a good living fighting to complain about it now.  If you didn't want to fight, quit. Do something else for a living that is less dangerous. None of them were owed a career in hockey, especially when most of the guys complaining weren't good enough to play if they didn't fight.

 

 

But that doesnt change the fact that they felt pressure.  Its far too simplistic to say if one "goon" didnt want to fight, he could have quit.  Ofcourse he could have.  But if he also saw an opportunity to look after his family, the choice isnt so clear.  It doesnt minimize the culture around fighting.

I'm sure more careers were cut short for other reasons than fighting.

When two people fight in hockey it's almost always mutual. If it wasn't I could see it being an issue.

Give me a good reason why it should be banned and I'll give ya two why it shouldn't.

59 minutes ago, Blueballz said:

I'm sure more careers were cut short for other reasons than fighting.

When two people fight in hockey it's almost always mutual. If it wasn't I could see it being an issue.

Give me a good reason why it should be banned and I'll give ya two why it shouldn't.

Mutual fighting is even a worse reason. How about you start by giving two good reasons why fighting is necessary...and neither can be that it prevents dirty plays because that's not true. 

32 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Mutual fighting is even a worse reason. How about you start by giving two good reasons why fighting is necessary...and neither can be that it prevents dirty plays because that's not true. 

It doesn't? I'm sure guys like Marty Mc Sorley would disagree. 

And how is that worse? You'd rather guys go fight someone that isn't a fighter...talk about worse.

Maybe "necessary" is a bad term. 

from what I can tell, fighting does a few positive things,

1. shows your support sticking up for a teammate that im sure doesnt go unappreciated thus making the locker room tighter.

2. it fires up the teams, especially when you need a spark trailing.

3. it excites the fans, which sometimes is needed when the home side is losing,  get the fans back into it.

 

18 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

But that doesnt change the fact that they felt pressure.  Its far too simplistic to say if one "goon" didnt want to fight, he could have quit.  Ofcourse he could have.  But if he also saw an opportunity to look after his family, the choice isnt so clear.  It doesnt minimize the culture around fighting.

So what? That's his problem, not the game's. It's a life lesson to work harder in school so you don't have to take a job getting punched in the head.

 

10 hours ago, Blueballz said:

It doesn't? I'm sure guys like Marty Mc Sorley would disagree. 

And how is that worse? You'd rather guys go fight someone that isn't a fighter...talk about worse.

Maybe "necessary" is a bad term. 

Fighting worked as a deterrent until they took the instigator out. Nowadays, if you dish out a beating for a dirty play you're going to miss almost an entire period. There's a 0% chance they'll ever take the instigator penalty back out of the game.

There's an extra penalty now too for beating on a guy who isn't fighting back. Nurse got suspended for it a few weeks ago when he jumped Polak.

12 hours ago, Blueballz said:

I'm sure more careers were cut short for other reasons than fighting.

When two people fight in hockey it's almost always mutual. If it wasn't I could see it being an issue.

Give me a good reason why it should be banned and I'll give ya two why it shouldn't.

The obvious reason is the health risk. It's hard to argue that getting punched in the head isn't a concussion risk. My belief is that these guys know the risk and accept it, but the league has to be concerned about the lawsuits that are starting to come in.

10 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

So what? That's his problem, not the game's. It's a life lesson to work harder in school so you don't have to take a job getting punched in the head.

 

I think you're failing to understand the point.  Let's assume you have an office job (I have no idea what you do).  And if everyone around you wore red sweaters because the boss liked red sweaters, but you hated them, would you quit?  Maybe.  What if your job paid you a lot more money than any other job you could get?  And it was something you wanted to do and loved doing since you were 5 years old?  But to stay in your job and make that money, you had to wear a red sweater every day.  You'd do it. 

A darn silly comparison.  But to ignore the psychology and pressure of the situation, especially in past years when fighting was more prevalent is equally silly.  Again, using the WWE example from the 80's and 90's...a guy who doesnt want to do drugs can quit.  But a guy who wants to provide for his family in a pressure filled environment where he believes, probably true to a large degree, that he has no other option to make the money he can, put drugs in his body because it gave him an opportunity.  Even when the boss said "we dont want our guys doing drugs"  "We do not push guys who are on drugs", they did.  So you did what you did to have the same opportunity.

Its as easy to say "thats their problem, they can quit" as it is to throw stones in a glass house.  Its a failure to understand the entire issue. 

Why isn't fighting needed in any of the other major sports?

Yes there are altercations in football, basketball, soccer, and baseball.  These usually involve bigger brawls that quickly get diffused.  Most of these sports have immediate ejections and fines for even throwing a punch.  The NHL .. you get a coincidental 5 minute penalty.  

No other sport (other then MMA, boxing, etc) will have two people square off and hit each other with bare knuckles while everyone else stands around watching.

Football is a bigger contact sport than hockey.  Why isn't fighting needed in football to "police" the game.

Fighting is part of hockey, not because it is needed, but because it has traditionally been a part of it.  All the other sports have proven that it is possible to police the game without the players having to take things into their own hands.

13 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Fighting worked as a deterrent until they took the instigator out. Nowadays, if you dish out a beating for a dirty play you're going to miss almost an entire period. There's a 0% chance they'll ever take the instigator penalty back out of the game.

There's an extra penalty now too for beating on a guy who isn't fighting back. Nurse got suspended for it a few weeks ago when he jumped Polak.

The NHL could eliminate fighting tomorrow.  They dont.  But they could.  And they could also make the game as clean as it can be.  Consequence guys who break the rules.  If Im a dirty player, my goon fighting your goon is not a deterrent to me.  Sure, your goon jumping me and beating me up might be a deterrence, but that can still happen today.  But most fighting is one team's tough guy versus another team's tough guy.  If those two tough guys weren't there, no fight takes place, no one is the wiser.  If I'm a dirty player, the NHL should make it very very difficult for me to continue playing that way.  Hurting my pocket book and hurting my team is a much stronger deterrent.  Taking away something a player loves is a deterrent.

Its the same way in life.  When I worked in bars, threatening to beat someone up was almost never a deterrent to bad behavior.  Banning them and their friends almost always was.

Edited March 22, 20169 yr by The Unknown Poster

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its as easy to say "thats their problem, they can quit" as it is to throw stones in a glass house.  Its a failure to understand the entire issue. 

I agree with you that your analogies were terrible. You feel sorry for guys who regret their personal decisions and I don't. Agree to disagree.

 

 

11 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I agree with you that your analogies were terrible. You feel sorry for guys who regret their personal decisions and I don't. Agree to disagree.

 

 

No I dont feel sorry for them.  You understand my personal feelings as well as you do this issue.  Which is to say, not very well.  To suggest its as simple as a player choosing to do it or choosing to quit is naive.  Its very obviously not that simple.  Can you imagine being in their position?  And just quitting as a solution?  We can compare it to the concussion issue too, which is somewhat related.  We're seeing some young athletes quit.  But that's the exception to the rule.   I dont have all the answers, not at all.  But the issue isnt that simple.  If it was, we wouldnt be discussing it.

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No I dont feel sorry for them.  You understand my personal feelings as well as you do this issue.  Which is to say, not very well.  To suggest its as simple as a player choosing to do it or choosing to quit is naive.  Its very obviously not that simple.  Can you imagine being in their position?  And just quitting as a solution?  We can compare it to the concussion issue too, which is somewhat related.  We're seeing some young athletes quit.  But that's the exception to the rule.   I dont have all the answers, not at all.  But the issue isnt that simple.  If it was, we wouldnt be discussing it.

These fighters took on these roles largely because they willingly stepped up to accept them in the first place. It's not as if they were first round draft picks who mistakenly got assigned goon roles on their first day of training camp - these are the fringe guys who did what they needed to do to carve out a NHL career, they accepted the risks and felt that in the moment, it was worth it. Don't complain about it now. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have done it. It's not as if they can realistically expect people to believe they didn't know the risks of getting punched in the head.

Just now, Mike said:

These fighters took on these roles largely because they willingly stepped up to accept them in the first place. It's not as if they were first round draft picks who mistakenly got assigned goon roles on their first day of training camp - these are the fringe guys who did what they needed to do to carve out a NHL career, they accepted the risks and felt that in the moment, it was worth it. Don't complain about it now. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have done it. It's not as if they can realistically expect people to believe they didn't know the risks of getting punched in the head.

Sure, there is the personal responsibility aspect.  But again, just far too simplistic.  Its easy for us to say if we were presented with the option and pressure of having to play that role that we'd say no and walk away.  But there is human nature and psychology that plays into this. 

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Sure, there is the personal responsibility aspect.  But again, just far too simplistic.  Its easy for us to say if we were presented with the option and pressure of having to play that role that we'd say no and walk away.  But there is human nature and psychology that plays into this. 

I never said I would say no and walk away. I'm just saying I wouldn't ***** about it and blame others for my decision after the fact.

1 minute ago, Mike said:

I never said I would say no and walk away. I'm just saying I wouldn't ***** about it and blame others for my decision after the fact.

is it whining and complaining or is it, free from the politics and consequences of speaking out, a way to try and effect change or educate other players and fans?

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

is it whining and complaining or is it, free from the politics and consequences of speaking out, a way to try and effect change or educate other players and fans?

Whining and complaining.

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

is it whining and complaining or is it, free from the politics and consequences of speaking out, a way to try and effect change or educate other players and fans?

There are former players whining and complaining, and there are former players speaking out to try and have a positive impact.

I never stated otherwise.

I only have a problem with one of those. The problem is, there are far more complainers.