SteenIsThaFuture Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Seeing as how this is a hot topic of late, I thought a poll//thread should be dedicated to the subject. I for one think that fighting should be banned, I think its stupid and barbaric but what does everyone else here think. Here is a great video of Mike Milbury and Pierre McGuire going into a heated and very emotional debate, there were even some physicality as Mike Milbury shoves Pierre, but it was edited out. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/28721200#28721200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsolute-pp1 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Fighting is a part of the game, take or leave it, it's not going anywhere.... My only problem is these take downs they do at the end of the fight, I think that is where most of the injuries probably occur... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Fighting is a part of the game and I love it because it adds to the entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtl1010 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 That was a good debate. I think fighting should stay in the game but I think fighting has to be born out passion, not "staged" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Fighting is a part of the game, take or leave it, it's not going anywhere.... My only problem is these take downs they do at the end of the fight, I think that is where most of the injuries probably occur... Just because something is "part of the game", doesn't mean it can't be altered or abolished, hooking was "part of the game", shootouts are "part of the game". In theory, fighting already isn't allowed because you're penalized for it, so the question is should there be stricter penalties for fighting and I think the answer is yes, a game misconduct atleast. Some people say it adds to the entertainment, but I'd really like to know how? Most hockey fights are staged and irrelevant, most aren't really fights anyway just wrestling/take down matches, I find they upset the flow of the game big time. Some people say that it attracts viewers, which is garbage. No one is paying 100$ for a ticket to a hockey game hoping to see a fight breakout, they'll watch UFC or boxing if they want their fighting fix. On top of that, one could argue that it's given hockey an unnecessary stigma of being an overly violent sport, which was probably reduced participation and viewership in some nontraditional hockey markets. I'm totally with Coach Carbo on this one, get rid of fighting. That was a good debate. I think fighting should stay in the game but I think fighting has to be born out passion, not "staged" How do you eliminate that? Politely asking isn't going to work, it's gotten to the point where people are taking it to far, it's not a natural part of the game anymore it's 2 goons, playing 4 minutes a night figthing the other team's goon because that's the only way he's going to make a paycheque. With the instigator, it's not really detering anyone from taking cheapshots, so don't tell me that's the reason it belongs and eliminating the instigator is stupid too because then a guy like Komisarek will have to fight every teams goon after throwing a clean hit on a star player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtl1010 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 How do you eliminate that? Politely asking isn't going to work, it's gotten to the point where people are taking it to far, it's not a natural part of the game anymore it's 2 goons, playing 4 minutes a night figthing the other team's goon because that's the only way he's going to make a paycheque. With the instigator, it's not really detering anyone from taking cheapshots, so don't tell me that's the reason it belongs and eliminating the instigator is stupid too because then a guy like Komisarek will have to fight every teams goon after throwing a clean hit on a star player. I have no idea, lol, that's why I didn't state any. But what i did state was that I just don't like it "staged" and I would agree that there should be no fighting but hockey is such a fast physical game that it's almost impossible for players not to get fustrated. And we're all humans, some react more physically and that leads to fighting which is why I said it should be born out of passion. BTW, I never said it belonged in the game, I just said it should stay in the game. I agree with the goons thing though, but that goes back to the staged fights where I have no suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteenIsThaFuture Posted January 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Just because something is "part of the game", doesn't mean it can't be altered or abolished, hooking was "part of the game", shootouts are "part of the game". In theory, fighting already isn't allowed because you're penalized for it, so the question is should there be stricter penalties for fighting and I think the answer is yes, a game misconduct atleast. Some people say it adds to the entertainment, but I'd really like to know how? Most hockey fights are staged and irrelevant, most aren't really fights anyway just wrestling/take down matches, I find they upset the flow of the game big time. Some people say that it attracts viewers, which is garbage. No one is paying 100$ for a ticket to a hockey game hoping to see a fight breakout, they'll watch UFC or boxing if they want their fighting fix. On top of that, one could argue that it's given hockey an unnecessary stigma of being an overly violent sport, which was probably reduced participation and viewership in some nontraditional hockey markets. I'm totally with Coach Carbo on this one, get rid of fighting. How do you eliminate that? Politely asking isn't going to work, it's gotten to the point where people are taking it to far, it's not a natural part of the game anymore it's 2 goons, playing 4 minutes a night figthing the other team's goon because that's the only way he's going to make a paycheque. With the instigator, it's not really detering anyone from taking cheapshots, so don't tell me that's the reason it belongs and eliminating the instigator is stupid too because then a guy like Komisarek will have to fight every teams goon after throwing a clean hit on a star player. I've played hockey for 15 years, and not once ever was I motivated or given a spark by my teammates fighting. I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why football/rugby doesn't allow a bare-knuckle boxing match that stops the game while everyone watched and hockey does. I'm with you, if you want to be entertained by a fight go to UFC, if you want to see the great game that is hockey, go to a hockey game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchabbymeal Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 How do you eliminate that? Politely asking isn't going to work, it's gotten to the point where people are taking it to far, it's not a natural part of the game anymore it's 2 goons, playing 4 minutes a night figthing the other team's goon because that's the only way he's going to make a paycheque. With the instigator, it's not really detering anyone from taking cheapshots, so don't tell me that's the reason it belongs and eliminating the instigator is stupid too because then a guy like Komisarek will have to fight every teams goon after throwing a clean hit on a star player. IMO... I think that fighting is, has been, and always will be a "part" of the game. I also think that the "staged" fighting, between two heavyweight " goons " has to come to an end. (sorry BGL) according to the " heavyweight code " the big boys don't go after smaller or skilled players anyway. So how do we eliminate the " two goons squaring off in a staged bout" ? ( for argument sake, we'll assume that the nhl is serious about eliminating fighting ) First you'd have to eliminate the goons, to do this, you'd have to eliminate 1 roster spot, going from 23 players per team to 22. ( Of course you'd have to have the blessing of the NHLPA, and that may not be so easy ) I suppose, teams could still carry a "goon" but the team would suffer as a result. If over time, say a couple of years to gauge the effect of a 22 man roster, they could try a 21 man roster. If this worked, it would at least stop the usual " Thrilla in Manilla " type fight. It would however, still leave the spur of the moment bout between smaller guy's with an axe to grind over a hit etc. How you eliminate this, is beyond me. Bob McCowan on Prime time sports, has a convoluted system of suspensions that he has been promoting. Not sure of the details, but it's like, 1 fight = 1 game suspension, then on a progressive sliding scale, the suspensions increase. And the suspensions increase severely, however, his idea also has a " resetting " clause, if you will, so if a suspended player goes a certain length of time without a fight, be backs up a step, to clear his slate. the problem with this kind of soloution, is having superstars being targeted or goaded into fights, next thing you know, the komis or markovs, crosbys are facing a suspension. These are just some ideas i've heard out there, do i think it could or will work? no i don't. imo a step in the right direction w/b to start with the "goons" I could live with the pests/little guys puttin up the dukes on occasion. But it's an interesting debate, for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicochetII Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Unless you can find a safer way for players to take out their frustration on another, then I have to defend the pro fighting stance. If a player makes a bad hit on your star player and you aren't allowed to fight him, that player will be in danger of being on the receiving end of a bad hit every time he steps onto the ice. That is if they even bother to hit him, they could also spear, cross check, trip, knee, elbow, slash, etc. You would be exchanging fighting for headhunting. Instead of carrying a goon, teams would carry a player who is willing to sacrifice his career, in order to do some serious damage to another player. Don't tell me the idea is ludicrous or you won't find a player willing to do that. You can't tell me there aren't players with no hope of ever playing in the NHL who would not jump at the opportunity to earn a $550K paycheck to sit and watch the games from the bench until such a time as they are asked to go out and break their stick over someone's head. Don't tell me teams will not resort to doing it either. There have always been players who have less respect for others than they should. Without the prospect of getting your head beat in, these players will become worse. Knowing there is a guy on the opposing bench that has one purpose, to cause serious harm to an unruly opponent, would go a long way toward curtailing such behavior. It would begin with intimidation, but eventually, someone is going to give the order or that player is going to take it into his own hands, in the heat of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Unless you can find a safer way for players to take out their frustration on another, then I have to defend the pro fighting stance. If a player makes a bad hit on your star player and you aren't allowed to fight him, that player will be in danger of being on the receiving end of a bad hit every time he steps onto the ice. That is if they even bother to hit him, they could also spear, cross check, trip, knee, elbow, slash, etc. You would be exchanging fighting for headhunting. Instead of carrying a goon, teams would carry a player who is willing to sacrifice his career, in order to do some serious damage to another player. Don't tell me the idea is ludicrous or you won't find a player willing to do that. You can't tell me there aren't players with no hope of ever playing in the NHL who would not jump at the opportunity to earn a $550K paycheck to sit and watch the games from the bench until such a time as they are asked to go out and break their stick over someone's head. Don't tell me teams will not resort to doing it either. There have always been players who have less respect for others than they should. Without the prospect of getting your head beat in, these players will become worse. Knowing there is a guy on the opposing bench that has one purpose, to cause serious harm to an unruly opponent, would go a long way toward curtailing such behavior. It would begin with intimidation, but eventually, someone is going to give the order or that player is going to take it into his own hands, in the heat of the moment. This whole argument bothers me, first of all everyone around hockey talks about how "our boys" are the best, classiest pro athletes in the world well if what you're saying is true than they're the worst. In football you don't see that kind of immaturity. But here's where the argument falls apart, why is a guy like an Avery or a Ruutu scared of Laraque, Georges can't touch him, if he does he gets an instigator and puts our team at a MAJOR disadvantage (those types of pests would LOVE that) and those guys will just turtle and the refs will break it up. So you're honestly telling me that a coach will employ a guy who sits on the bench then goes and slashes a guy in the head? That's absurd, first of all he could possibly be held criminally liable (so can the team) and the guy will certainly face charges and end his NHL career. Right now, if a player makes a dangerous hit you aren't allowed to fight him. What happened to Sauer when he get Andrei K? Yeah BGL did his little skate around but Sauer just said "nope". Fighting isn't detering anything. The NFL does it right, they protect the skill guys, players don't have to. The idea that vigilante justice is absolutely needed to have a "clean, safe" game is laughable. If a guy breaks the rules with the intent to injure then he serves a major penalty and faces a suspension, if the guy throws a clean hit that hurts someone then that's just tough. This argument just frustrates me, because it's that kind of thinking that has given hockey the bad perception it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubby31 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 I have no problem with fighting remaining in the game. I grew up as a child watching fighting in the game then,and never yanged & cried about it then,why should i do it now. I will always accept it ,as it was always part of the game,the game we all came to love. Here's my two beefs about the fighting today:1. It really pee's me off when there's a clean hit,which we see game in and game out. Then,we see some idot decide that that player commencing the clean hit needs to get payback,and then srumbs develope into fights.Man,that is so dumb. 2. I am ok when two players go at it unrehearsed. Hockey is a game of passion,and things happen in a game.This is a very physical contact sport.Thers's gonna be contact out there. What i would'nt mind seeing somehow is the typical labled GOON eliminated.The one that sits and plays a couple of minutes,his job being there only for one purpose,we all know what that is. An unplaned,unreheared fight ,let them go. Anyways,IN MY OPINION Fighting belongs in the game,would hate to see it eliminated.Eliminate the goons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicochetII Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 This whole argument bothers me, first of all everyone around hockey talks about how "our boys" are the best, classiest pro athletes in the world well if what you're saying is true than they're the worst. In football you don't see that kind of immaturity. But here's where the argument falls apart, why is a guy like an Avery or a Ruutu scared of Laraque, Georges can't touch him, if he does he gets an instigator and puts our team at a MAJOR disadvantage (those types of pests would LOVE that) and those guys will just turtle and the refs will break it up. So you're honestly telling me that a coach will employ a guy who sits on the bench then goes and slashes a guy in the head? That's absurd, first of all he could possibly be held criminally liable (so can the team) and the guy will certainly face charges and end his NHL career. Right now, if a player makes a dangerous hit you aren't allowed to fight him. What happened to Sauer when he get Andrei K? Yeah BGL did his little skate around but Sauer just said "nope". Fighting isn't detering anything. The NFL does it right, they protect the skill guys, players don't have to. The idea that vigilante justice is absolutely needed to have a "clean, safe" game is laughable. If a guy breaks the rules with the intent to injure then he serves a major penalty and faces a suspension, if the guy throws a clean hit that hurts someone then that's just tough. This argument just frustrates me, because it's that kind of thinking that has given hockey the bad perception it has. Sorry, we have to get away from generalizations. Yes, there are people who will employ these tactics, but I may have made it sound more extreme than it would actually be in illustrating my point. The largest consideration would be what the players themselves end up doing. They will be subject to "crimes of passion", moments of frustration or "road rage". These are all elements of humanity, not hockey players. You will see more Perezhogin type incidents occur if players are not given an outlet. With fighting, these incidents are thankfully less frequent, but they still occur. If you remove fighting, you risk increasing the frequency of these incidents. If I am going to be punished for a glove off punch or a glove on punch, why would I bother taking my glove off? If a player determines he is going to do something to another player, I would rather he decided to fight that player than decide to resort to other means. If fighting is an accepted part of the game, the player is more likely to use the accepted method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 I think it would help to divide fights into two categories: the "heat of the moment" attack and two guys actually squaring off. All the clips Mad Mike showed were guys jumping in after a dirty hit. I don't mind this so much. But I find it just stupid when you have two guys look at each other, drop the gloves and eveyone else just stands around. In other words: the refs could just hold them back. The heat of the moment "fight" would be incredibly tough to get rid of (but half the time the refs don't consider this a fight anyways), but you could certainly get rid of two guys squaring off without any real differences. If the refs were to just stop every fight at the first chance they got, you would still have guys sticking up for each other but remove the ridiculous aspect of it. And Ricochet, that wouldn't happen. There is nothing to stop teams from doing that now, and chopping him over the head with a stick would have taught Sauer much more of a "lesson" than having Laraque skate around him. If it would be more effective than what we have now, and it's so easy, why aren't teams doing it? Well probably because you hope there is some humanity among the players and coaches, and also that not only would careers (including possibly the coaches) end, but if the intent was proven like this, on top of the player and possibly coach going to jail, that "500k" you talk about would go to lawyers and probably the victim in a civil lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 The largest consideration would be what the players themselves end up doing. They will be subject to "crimes of passion", moments of frustration or "road rage". These are all elements of humanity, not hockey players. You will see more Perezhogin type incidents occur if players are not given an outlet. With fighting, these incidents are thankfully less frequent, but they still occur. If you remove fighting, you risk increasing the frequency of these incidents. If I am going to be punished for a glove off punch or a glove on punch, why would I bother taking my glove off? If a player determines he is going to do something to another player, I would rather he decided to fight that player than decide to resort to other means. If fighting is an accepted part of the game, the player is more likely to use the accepted method. These crimes of passion you speak of, where are they in football? To be fair also, you can't really "remove" fighting, it's already against the rules, that's why you get penalized. What about a harsher penalty for it? That way if you're so angry that you have to fight you can but you live with the consequences like a game misconduct and 1 game (sliding scale) suspension. I can't stand these road rage arguments, like I said it doesn't happen in the NFL why would it absolutely happen in the NHL? The NHL would be incharge of discipline and they'd have to protect skill players the way the NFL does. If someone does something with an intent to injure he will be dealt with severely on the ice and off it by the league office, if it's a clean hit that a team doesn't like well that's just too bad, it's part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franck5890 Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 This whole argument bothers me, first of all everyone around hockey talks about how "our boys" are the best, classiest pro athletes in the world well if what you're saying is true than they're the worst. In football you don't see that kind of immaturity. But here's where the argument falls apart, why is a guy like an Avery or a Ruutu scared of Laraque, Georges can't touch him, if he does he gets an instigator and puts our team at a MAJOR disadvantage (those types of pests would LOVE that) and those guys will just turtle and the refs will break it up. So you're honestly telling me that a coach will employ a guy who sits on the bench then goes and slashes a guy in the head? That's absurd, first of all he could possibly be held criminally liable (so can the team) and the guy will certainly face charges and end his NHL career. Right now, if a player makes a dangerous hit you aren't allowed to fight him. What happened to Sauer when he get Andrei K? Yeah BGL did his little skate around but Sauer just said "nope". Fighting isn't detering anything. The NFL does it right, they protect the skill guys, players don't have to. The idea that vigilante justice is absolutely needed to have a "clean, safe" game is laughable. If a guy breaks the rules with the intent to injure then he serves a major penalty and faces a suspension, if the guy throws a clean hit that hurts someone then that's just tough. This argument just frustrates me, because it's that kind of thinking that has given hockey the bad perception it has. This is generally my thought on the whole "fighting as a means of protection" thing as well. I'd say a majority of the fights out there AREN'T over dirty hits or cheap shots -- most are done to try and spark something, or because these guys are simply don't cut it in terms of pure skill. Very few are actually a result of something serious it seems, and those that are usually involve multiple-player scrums. Another thing I have never liked is having to "own up" to something that you shouldn't have to respond to; too many fans think that a huge hit on one of their players needs some sort of retaliatory effort even if the hit is 100% legit. Players shouldn't have to fear facing consequences if they've gone and done something totally within the legal boundaries of the game. I also like the point that fights really disrupt the flow of the game, never really thought of it that way before. I still do enjoy a good hockey scrap, but I don't think they're a necessary aspect of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteenIsThaFuture Posted January 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 This is generally my thought on the whole "fighting as a means of protection" thing as well. I'd say a majority of the fights out there AREN'T over dirty hits or cheap shots -- most are done to try and spark something, or because these guys are simply don't cut it in terms of pure skill. Very few are actually a result of something serious it seems, and those that are usually involve multiple-player scrums. Another thing I have never liked is having to "own up" to something that you shouldn't have to respond to; too many fans think that a huge hit on one of their players needs some sort of retaliatory effort even if the hit is 100% legit. Players shouldn't have to fear facing consequences if they've gone and done something totally within the legal boundaries of the game. I also like the point that fights really disrupt the flow of the game, never really thought of it that way before. I still do enjoy a good hockey scrap, but I don't think they're a necessary aspect of the game. The point of owning up is to implant some sort of fear into the opponent, but when we put fear into people to stop playing the game the way its supposed to be played, we in turn begin to take away from the pure essencse that is hockey. It would also help if the officials called cheapshots, headshots etc. properly so the players don't have to take things into their own hands and the Players Association has to wise up to this, they have to start allowing larger suspensions, because its their represntatives whose lives are in danger. Hit from behind to the head=10-15 games no discussion Fight= 2 games (as a start) Heck make the suspensions with pay, who cares just get it out of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteenIsThaFuture Posted January 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I actually remember in Tie Domi's first year on TSN (that worked well by the way), he was asked about fighting, and he the enforcer said it was stupid and hoped they got rid of it, because (and he was right) that somebody was going to die from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicochetII Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 The example of hitting someone over the head is a little extreme, but what about the slewfoot? What about Grabovski spearing Price with the butt of his stick? Would Lecavalier have been spearing Plekanec in the faceoff circle if it were Laraque standing there? It's easier to speak about holding your composure when you aren't having your face rubbed, ribs butted or legs kicked out from underneath you. WARNING : Graphic Content / Hockey Violence (Vicious actions by hockey players) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ljqgCMtqWvA Sorry about the quality, but there are more to be found if you care to search. I think my concerns are legitimate. I'm sorry if you disagree. I'm not against a hockey game without fighting, I just feel it is a necessary evil. I also won't deny that I enjoy the occasional scrap, but that isn't why I watch. If these events occur when fighting is accepted as part of the game, what happens when fighting is prohibited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 The example of hitting someone over the head is a little extreme, but what about the slewfoot? What about Grabovski spearing Price with the butt of his stick? Would Lecavalier have been spearing Plekanec in the faceoff circle if it were Laraque standing there? It's easier to speak about holding your composure when you aren't having your face rubbed, ribs butted or legs kicked out from underneath you. WARNING : Graphic Content / Hockey Violence (Vicious actions by hockey players) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ljqgCMtqWvA Sorry about the quality, but there are more to be found if you care to search. I think my concerns are legitimate. I'm sorry if you disagree. I'm not against a hockey game without fighting, I just feel it is a necessary evil. I also won't deny that I enjoy the occasional scrap, but that isn't why I watch. If these events occur when fighting is accepted as part of the game, what happens when fighting is prohibited? I don't get it: if these things are occurring in a league where fighting is allowed, what's your point exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CareyPrice31 Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Fighting is a part of the game, take or leave it, it's not going anywhere.... My only problem is these take downs they do at the end of the fight, I think that is where most of the injuries probably occur... Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreekHockeyCoach Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I'm old school and therefore I agree that fighting is part of the game and should always be part of the game. I've also read a bunch of very valid arguments from both sides in this thread. However, times have changed. Hockey is big business nowadays and the players that play the game are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires. I rarely see the passion that the old players possessed. I rarely see the team unity that existed when I started watching hockey in the seventies. The old rivalries don't exist, teams don't hate each other, fans don't possess the hatred they once did. The game has changed. Whether it's changed for the better, that's another debate in itself but as far as fighting goes, there is no need for it anymore. There are only a handful of players that drop the gloves anyways and like someone else mentioned, it's mostly wrestling. In the old days, players fought for a reason, they fought to defend their teammates, they fought to defend team honour and they fought because they wanted to win. Why do players fight nowadays, to earn a paycheck. Just look back and see how many superstars in the sixties, seventies and eighties fought on a regular basis. Who fights today, guys like Laraque, Parros etc. These guys shouldn't even be in the NHL, they don't possess the skill level that is required to play in this league. What happens when these guys fight, nothing, absolutely nothing, the team is not motivated by it, if you look over at the team bench you'll see players yawning or not even looking in the direction of the fighters. Remember in the old days, when a fight would break out, players would stand up on their bench and scream at the other bench challenging the other team's players as the fans were going crazy. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with fighting, I've just become accustomed to it. To me, it's as much a part of the game as a stick and a puck. For those that make the argument that hockey doesn't have the viewership or the fan base of football or baseball because it's too barbaric, I say that's a bunch of baloney. Hockey is not as popular as other sports because it was never marketed properly. Fighting will never be abolished, but given the way the game has evolved it probably should be because it no longer serves a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicochetII Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I don't get it: if these things are occurring in a league where fighting is allowed, what's your point exactly? Players will take out their frustration somehow. I would prefer they fight than allow it to build to the point where they pull of one of these maneuvers. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Players will take out their frustration somehow. I would prefer they fight than allow it to build to the point where they pull of one of these maneuvers. Does that make sense? But fighting obviously hasn't deterred these actions, they still happen on a regular basis. Plus I don't know about your premise that players need to be able to take their frustration out somehow. If the league cracks down on players, I'm sure they are able to keep their emotions in check if millions of dollars depend on it (a.k.a. not getting suspended). Why is it in football after a star player gets face masked or some other dirty play they don't need "revenge" the way we do in hockey? I think it's because the NHL has implicitly said "it's okay" by not cracking down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 For those that make the argument that hockey doesn't have the viewership or the fan base of football or baseball because it's too barbaric, I say that's a bunch of baloney. Hockey is not as popular as other sports because it was never marketed properly. Fighting will never be abolished, but given the way the game has evolved it probably should be because it no longer serves a purpose. If you're referring to me (I made a point that could possibly be taken that way) that's not how I meant it. People were saying that fighting brings viewership to hockey and I dispute that for a few reasons, first of all if someone wanted to see a fight they'd watch boxing, UFC or any of the other numerous ways to get their fighting fill and second, the point you're referring to, I think in some less tradition markets hockey has the perception of an overly barbaric sport and not that it directly effects ratings but it certainly could have an effect on whether or not young boys are allowed to play hockey in some of these nontraditional markets, and we all know the best way to fall inlove with a game is to play it and live it growing up. I don't even mean it as fact, just speculative theory as another reason why fighting doesn't help hockey at the gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 But fighting obviously hasn't deterred these actions, they still happen on a regular basis. Plus I don't know about your premise that players need to be able to take their frustration out somehow. If the league cracks down on players, I'm sure they are able to keep their emotions in check if millions of dollars depend on it (a.k.a. not getting suspended). Why is it in football after a star player gets face masked or some other dirty play they don't need "revenge" the way we do in hockey? I think it's because the NHL has implicitly said "it's okay" by not cracking down. You hit the nail on the head, in the NFL they protect skill players and that's what the NHL would need to do. Intent to injure should be a double minor - major penalty and result in an automatic suspension. That will put a quick end to it. I think this whole issue though is a matter of (like Greek said) what people are used to and willing to accept as part of the game. If fighting had never been apart of hockey and I came here and posted a thread saying "SHould the NHL allow fighting since the UFC is so popular" I'd be seen as an idiot. If the shootout had been part of hockey for 100 years, no one would complain about it, it would just be "part of the game". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.