Attn: TSN, Sportsnet, other Media and Fans

[Trevor_deen]

3. Ban Fighting - Yeah, I don't mind a clean fight but the sport gets a black eye with the non-traditional hockey fans and now more than ever, hockey needs to attact every single person showing the least bit of interest in the game. Far too often, fights are occuring because a player couldn't allow his manhood to be questioned because he just received a punishing legal bodycheck or a teammate is trying to stickup for an injured player off a hit, clean or dirty.

Those fans who say hogwash to the elimination won't stop watching hockey. They are hockey fans, not boxing or ultimate fighting fans.

If a player instigates, jointly agrees or causes an action that creates a fight or melee on the ice, at the descretion of the referee, will receive a 10-minute major for unsportsmanlike conduct, game ejection, and automatic league review by a NHL/NHLPA appointed panel. First time offenders will receive one game suspension without pay plus fine, second offense will result in ten game suspension without pay plus a fine and third time offenders will receive a 72-game ban, loss of pay, and a panel review for possibe lifetime ban. The panel review by a unaminous vote under a special circumstance clause would be allowed to suspend a player at a higher game level or immediately ban for an act deemed violent and unbecoming of a professional hockey player.

Special cases of past events would include Claude Lemieux's rearranging of Kris Draper's face along the board, Dale Hunter's cheapshot on Pierre Turgeon in the 1992-93 playoffs, Marty McSorley's stick to the head of Donald Brashear, and Todd Bertuzzi's mugging of Steve Moore.

I don't see what those examples have to do with fighting.

Why punish the fans we have now? I have yet to see a game with a fight in it where 20,000 fans ran for the exits. Hockey fans love fighting. Instead of banning it, why not embrace it, use it as a marketing tool.

Without fighting, hockey's black eye will get worse with an increase in stick work and cheap shots.

 

[buce]

It is time someone gave the fans their voice, a direct voice to discuss their opinions of the sport, on and off the ice. I believe the fans have a right to be a voice heard because we are the ones who know what we want to see on the ice and how long we will put up with the ego games off it.

I would like to organize a fan summit televised by TSN to discuss our ideas and present the NHL and NHLPA with our ideas to fix the game, on and off the ice.

There are too many ways for the NHL and NHLPA to create an agreement suitable for the owners and players.

On top of the financial disagreements, the product on the ice needs some serious fixing up.

I have a 20 point plan for the league and players to adopt for an immediate change in the way the game is played and the level of excitement for fans in the seats and at home watching on tv.

Fans need to be seen and heard, both parties continue to use fans in their press statements but neither have done one thing to allow us to help.

I'm more than willing to go on live national television to discuss my ideas for the sport, on and off the ice. I believe there are a ton of things that have been left unsaid by many in the media, NHL and NHLPA.

Bob, TSN or any fan interested in organizing a summit, please contact me via [email protected]

Good Lord...hockey trekies.

Leave the suggestions to people who actually know the game.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

I don't see what those examples have to do with fighting.

Why punish the fans we have now? I have yet to see a game with a fight in it where 20,000 fans ran for the exits. Hockey fans love fighting. Instead of banning it, why not embrace it, use it as a marketing tool.

Without fighting, hockey's black eye will get worse with an increase in stick work and cheap shots.

There is no fighting in baseball
There is no fighting in football
There is no fighting in basketball

These sports draw ratings

There is fighting in hockey

Hockey draws less than poker and bowling, maybe the American parents are not allowing their kids to watch senseless violence

This is the only reason I'd like to see fighting treated more seriously, I think it would be a ratings booster

 

[edmontonoilers89]

There is no fighting in baseball
There is no fighting in football
There is no fighting in basketball

These sports draw ratings

There is fighting in hockey

Hockey draws less than poker and bowling, maybe the American parents are not allowing their kids to watch senseless violence

This is the only reason I'd like to see fighting treated more seriously, I think it would be a ratings booster

FORGET RATINGS! This gets on my nerves more than anything.

The people who love the game will love it to matter what. Completely changing the fabric of the game just so Bobby Joe from Idaho will start watching hockey makes no sense.

Higher ratings will mean 5 more minutes of hockey highlights on Sportcentre, and will probabaly increase ticket prices even more with the increased demand.

That's not to say I don't want hockey to become more popular, but I don't want to institute shootouts and stop fighting so some non-fan will get more interested in a game he wouldn't watch it before.

 

[Trevor_deen]

There is no fighting in baseball
There is no fighting in football
There is no fighting in basketball

These sports draw ratings

There is fighting in hockey

Hockey draws less than poker and bowling, maybe the American parents are not allowing their kids to watch senseless violence

This is the only reason I'd like to see fighting treated more seriously, I think it would be a ratings booster

Baseball, football and basketball don't get better ratings because there isn't fighting. Hockey is played on ice so does baseball, basketball and football get better ratings because they're not played on ice?

 

[MeatTornado]

I can see where you're coming from on most of these, and I like most of your suggestions, but the ones I really do not agree with are the Penalty Killing changes, and the ban on fighting. I wont bother being redundant and repeat what others have said about the penalty killing changes, but as far as fighting is concerned... well, that would NOT decrease violence in hockey, it would turn hockey into an uglier, more violent sport than it is right now. Hockey is an intense, emotional game, and when someone takes a cheap shot on one of your good players, or takes a cheap shot on you or your goalie that goes uncalled, you are going to have people wanting to exact revenge, and since they can't fight, you'll see a lot of people doing really stupid things like slashing, sucker punching, cross checking, charging, whatever. Fighting is one of the less violent ways to settle an on ice dispute. I'd rather see two guys square off with each other in a fight then see them swinging their stick at each other.

 

[Buffaloed]

The media is well represented here. We have members from TSN, Sportsnet, CBC, CTV, ABC/ESPN, Fox, MSN/NBC, SLAM/canoe, dozens of smaller outlets, and many newspapers. We're very fortunate that a few such as Bob McKenzie, Gord Miller, and Kevin Dupont have been kind enough to reveal themselves and interract with us. However, they are regular members here as far as HF is concerned. That is also the way they want it. They shouldn't be called out in thread titles or posts, just as that shouldn't be done with any other member. If you have an idea that involves them using their place of employment it should be communicated privately. That is why this thread has been edited. I've stickied this thread to insure it's seen by our members who represent the media, but cut the ones who aren't anonymous some slack and don't make demands on them. If we can do that, perhaps the anonymous ones will "come out of the closet".

 

[two out of three*]

1. 72 Game Season. 10 Games does make a difference. Fresher players would lead to even more exciting playoff action, and the exciting playoff races would still be there at the end of the season.

2. Installation of a new point system. I've expressed this one in many other threads, but I feel that this one works great.

5 Points Total:

If you win the game you get two points, but for each period you win you get an additional 1 point. I know that might sound ridiculous, but think harder at it. It makes the teams not want to sit back to try and gain more points, and if a team is losing they won't just give up. Some people might say that 5 points is a little much, but this could very easily eliminate the trap.

3. A new OT system. 10 Min 4-on-4, and if there is no winner go to a 5 min 3-on-I personally think a 3-on-3 would be even more exciting then a shootout. So much open ice, and end to end action. I know a lot of hockey fans wouldn't go for this, but IMO it would be awesome to see.

4. Bring back tag-up offsides for sure. I honestly HATE the rule thats in place right now. It disrupts the flow of the game up the ying-yang.

5. NO Hurry-up faceoff. Face-offs are a very strategic part of the game, and teams should be allowed to prepare for them. If you don't win a specific faceoff because you were "hurried" to get players out there thats ridiculous. Especially if its an important draw. OR.. install hurry up faceoffs until the last 5 minutes of each period.

6. Keep fighting, but limit it. If you get in more than 2 fights in a game, it should go down as an automatic game misconduct.

7. Checking from behind = Automatic 5 game suspension. Risking the paralization of somebody should reward a pretty hefty suspension.

8. One referee system. While I want to enforce suspensions, game misconducts, seeing 15 penalties for one team a game is quite ridiculous. 5-on-5 is "real" hockey, and thats how the majority of the game should be played.

9. Diving should just be a 2 minute minor penalty, but make sure that it is called whenever there is a clear dive.

10. Icing, and two-line pass- Same icing rules, and same two line pass rules. Having players cherry pick is ridiculous, and not the way the game should be played.

11. Goalies Are Fair Game - When the goalie comes out of the crease he is fair game. If you can't get rid of the puck before the players bear down on you, you are able to be hit.

12. No Stick Strength Standards.

13. Goalie Equipment - Put a max. on how big the goalie equipment can, but don't reduce the size.

14. Bigger Nets - Relates to #13. Just make the nets bigger, and pull them out a little bit so there is more room behind the net.

15. Penalty Shots.. - Penalty shots are penalty shots. Not penalties.

16. Two Minute Minor Penalties - If a team scores on the PP, then he gets out of the box regardless of how much time is left.

17. 4 Minute Double Minors - Now a player must serve the whole 4 minutes even if a player scores.

18. Same Roster Size.

 

[kruezer]

I agree completely with point number four, I will never understand why the stick should be allowed to be the great equalizer between players with lesser skills and those with greater skill, if a player is ahead of another, why should he be allowed to be touched with the other players stick at all? If someone has been beaten, why can he impede the progress of someone ahead of him? And what good does Cross Checking serve? Its idiotic, but I'll leave Mike Bossy to explain why it shouldn't be allowed, its just asking for back injuries.

I only ever hear 3 arguements against removing all stick infractions, one being "we don't want Basketball on ice" which is ridiculous, no one is banning contact, just plays that are already illegal. Another arguement is that it will increase diving, which I agree with, at first it will definetaly increase diving, but if your ridding the game of all stick infractions anyway, then your calling a penalty anyway, they aren't drawing anything, its a penalty whether they dive or not. The last arguement I hear is that it will increase the amount of penalties, and it definetaly will at first, but like everything else, players will adjust and just stop doing it, as long as the Refs remain vigilant in calling the plays that are illegal and they don't let the game slide back to the way it is currently.

Thats all I got.

 

[LPHabsFan]

Here's my opinion. Take it in whatever way you want. It is an opinion after all.

1 - Reducing the schedule - This is really atough issue for scheduling. They shouldn't take away any inner-divisional or inner-conference games so that means they would have to eliminate games against the other conference. The only problem is that it's really not fair to teams for many reasons. First is its fan base and not being able to see certain teams. Then it might not be fair to the teams if they play a weaker division. For the players it would be better because of less travel and stuff but it would require more looking into. I don't believe it should simply be done to reduce the players fatigue because there are other factors to consider.

2 - Reduce the team roster - In order for this to really work I think they would have to reduce the schedule to like 50 games. The 10 extra games isn't enough IMO. PLayers can get tired and overworked playing on a roster like they are now. Imagine if they take away some players as well. And despite the fact that the fourth liners play maybe 7 or 8 minutes a game if they're lucky, it's still a lot of time in hockey and it's a hell of lot more work.

3 - Ban Fighting - I honestly don't know what to do with this one because it's a double edged sword. On the one hand you can't have it like it is today because there are so so many fights that happen just for the sake of fighting. On the other hand, you have a fights like there was in the finals between Iginla and Lecavalier where there is a purpose and made a difference in the game. I can name a few more fights like that as well. The problem isn't the fighting, it's the fighting for no purpose. Get rid of the fighting for no purpose and it would be fixed but getting rid of all the fights isn't the right thing to do imo. And while I also see your little part about special cases, it's way too subjective.

4 - Stick Infraction Rules - For this to work all that's needed is to call the rules properly.

5 - Diving - Like it. Call it. Can't be more simple.

6 - No Touch Icing - Another non clear cut issue. Here's why. Game 7, SCF, down by one with a minute to go. Your teammate dumps the pucks in the offensive zone. You can get it and have a clear shot at getting the puck and tying up the game to send it in to overtime. Whistle blows and you lose because your teammate was a couple of feet short of the center red line. I know that's a little bit extreme but it's still possible. The way I understand it, the no touch icing serves two purposes. One is to speed up the game by not having the d men have to go back to touch the puck and the second and more important is to stop players getting injured chasing the puck. I just don't think that a total implementation of the rule is bad for the game because of the situation I mentioned above. Added to that, the players know what they're getting into if they go after the puck. They know there's a strong chance that they might get injured but they do it anyways. It's their choice. Even if there's only one time that they get to the puck for every 8 times they don't, it can still mean the difference between a win and a loss. I think it should be modified so that it only be called when there is a clear cut icing. I know it's subjective but it's better than nothing.

7 - Tag up-offside - While it's not known on the board but is to my friend I talk hockey with, I have been asking this to be brought back for about 4 years.

8 - Two line pass - I think it is a little bit drastic modification to the game but I guess it wouldn't hurt. The only problem I see is teams being more cautious defensively because of the possibility of a two line pass.

9 Blue Line - Ugly. But works. It gives more room for skilled players to play with the boundaries of the offside.

10 - No. Maybe. If it's a deliberate attempt to stop the game maybe. But many times there are plays where they try to make a long pass that just misses the players stick. Teams shouldn't be punished for that.

11 - Goal Line - It somewhat works but I'd have to say no. So much of the game is played in the corners and behind the net. You mentioned Gretz but I'm not sure if you realize that he glamourized playing behind the net. Which is the exact thing you want to take away.

12 - Puck shot out of play - There already are rules for this and it's called delay of game. Sometimes a player might miss the glass by accident in an attempt to hit it high off the glass. They shouldn't be penalised for that.

13 - Goalie equipment - I love this issue for the simple irony. Why is it ironic? Because the best goalie in the NHL, and in the world, has the smallest equipment in the NHL. Setting a league wide min and max doesn't work because not all goalies are the same size. It has to be based on the goalies size rather than a set size.

14 - Stick standards - Once again the players choice. However, I like it to ensure the physical integrity of the stick. The only problem is that the composites pass the strength test. It's not that the sticks are weak. It's that they become very easily breakable if there is a little crack. I'm not sure if I just contradicted myself just there though.

15 - Full two minutes - No. A minor penalty is an infraction given to a player who impedes an oponent in some shape or form ONCE. It is only fair for the team who gets the power play to have ONE opportunity to score. That's what double minors and majors are for. The more severe infractions that do more damage.

16 - Shootout - No. Ties are part of the game. There are many teams when teams have to win a game to make it to the playoffs and are thus forced to go for it in the dying minutes and overtime to get the win. With this, teams can just play to get to the shootout. As for the fan entertainment. It will die down imo. The reason penalty shots are so exciting is because they don't happen all that often. The novelty will wear off eventually. It might take a little more than a year but it will eventually wear off.

17 - Freezing the puck - There are allready rules in place for this as well. Delay of game. Goalies aren't allowed to freeze the puck if they are far away from the net and can play the puck. If this rule was in place, there would be these types of penalties all the times. You would have to expand the crease by a LOT and to even include a little aread behind the net because goalies often freeze the puck behind the line right up against the goal. Should that be a penalty?

18 - Clock - The hurry up faceoff allready works. The linesman are counting in their heads. We don't need a clock to show this.

19 - Penalty shot and PowerPlay - A goal is a goal. So no.

20 - 1 referee - For all the rules that you want called, it would be impossible for one referee to call all of them. If were talking about one referee to benefit the game, its debatable. Watching older games, there are so so many times that refs miss calls that should be made. I'm talking about really obvious calls that should be made and aren't because the ref was watching other parts of the game.

The problem with all some of these things you would like implemented is that it is simply a "if you do this no matter what you get penalized". It will just be a complete parade to the box and not a just parade to the box. Hockey rules aren't black and white and shouldn't be either. And that is essentially what your trying to do. But good work. Some of them do and will make the game better.

 

[IdiotsPickedMyName*]

As a big fan of NHL hockey i can honestly say if those changes were implemented i would never watch an nhl hockey game again. The proposals are just ludacris for the most part and if this wasn't stickied it would have died long ago.

First of all what if the nhl adopted these rule changes. Would (or could) the russian and chl leagues change their rules completely NO so players would get to the NHL with no training what so ever in these rules resulting in a lot of stupid penalties and suspensions for rookies which isn't good.

Second of all Fighting. Why should hockey have to be like every other sport?? Football and Soccer both have kicking maybe we, should let players kick pucks into the net if it will increase scoring. Fighting is not a problem if the media doesn't blow it up. Most games they're maybe 2 fights max and most of the time the reason they occur is because of refs missing calls and not controlling the game.

Points 1 and 2 are contradicting you will take out 10 games of the schedule to rest players, Then in point 2 you'll take out a line so players have to play more??? If each player has to play more every night they will be more fatigued everynight resulting in lower quality hockey for less time.

Hockey sticks are not only meant to be used for the purposes you say. Hooking and slashing shouldn't happen and are already against the rules so you just need to get the ref to call them. I question if you have ever played a game of hockey. You need to use your stick for leverage in some situations. When you're trying to move some giant in front of the net you need to put the stick to him a bit to get'em to move. Along the boards a pushing and shoving match is one of the most exciting things to do when you're playing i always loved mixing it up along the boards as a kid and a little stick here and there doesnt hurt anyone, so long as you dont hook on and and drag the guy to the blueline.

I think just about everything results in a suspension this is riduclous in football you dont get suspended for a time-clock violation why should hockey suspend for every little penalty a suspension for bad equipment come on and get real.

Why have a shoot-out to determine a team-played game?? why not have a hit-off or see who can skate around the rink fastest or maybe go goalie to goalie shoot-out lots of people would like to see that!!! These are events for the all-star game not for regular games. If the nhl ever dared put in a shoot-out they would lose fans by the truckloads its a dumb idea.

I dont know where that free-play idea came but you should cram it back in. Thats just terrible i dont even know where to begin on it.

Moving the nets back doesn't work alot of good plays start behind the net with puck control down low. Moving the nets back creates a choke point the dmen can use to more easily obtain the puck and go to the other way. This would eliminate puck possesion teams that cycle using good passing which is the best hokcey out there.

Even with all the equipment goalies have i wouldn't stand in a net while people rifle 90+mph pieces of rubber at me. The padding is psychlogiocal protection as well as used to stop shots. There are lots of teams in the nhl that have no problem scoring a properly managed team not in a rebuilding phase should have players that can score on the goalies. Look at lacrosse they have no problems scoring and the goalies cover the whole net goalies with bigger pads is a newer idea as this filters down to the minor leagues players will learn how to score on them.



The problem with Hockey (the cba aside) is simple ref's not calling the games as they should be called. It is a very difficult job to be a ref and maybe re-training/testing every couple of years while they are reffing minor leagues would help. The NHL has a lack of qualified officals. I think the refs are more afraid of putting someone in the box that shouldnt be there, then not punishing someone that should be in the box, so many calls are overlooked. With your idea of the never-ending power-play refs would be even more reluctant to call anything because it nows means instead of 1 goal a team could go down 2 or 3 goals and the coaches, fans and media will tear that ref apart like a fat kid would a cake.

 

[PredsFan77*]

So how's that summit going?

 

[skellart]

I have an idea for overtime and a coment about fighting. First the fighting.

If baseball, basketball and football are truely more popular because of the lack of fighting, then how do you explain boxing or wrestling. What makes a boring 0 to 0 game with no action in the 3rd period more exciting than sudden scoring or a great fight. Also keep in mind that this isn't a couple of guys beating the crap out of each other with their skates or spearing each other in the ribs with their sticks. It's 2 willing participants that drop their sticks, drop their gloves and swing for the head. When done they step apart and head for the box. Tradition. It's bbeen done the same way for a long time. A contest within a contest. Don't try to make the game more drab than Bettman already has.

Now for Overtime

I think what you should do is start the overtime with 5 on 5. One minute in Line change and only 4 come out. One minute later same thing but only 3 come out. By the time you're done you're done you 1 on 1 and the goalies. Over whenever someone scores. Tell me what you think.

 

[edmontonoilers89]

Now for Overtime

I think what you should do is start the overtime with 5 on 5. One minute in Line change and only 4 come out. One minute later same thing but only 3 come out. By the time you're done you're done you 1 on 1 and the goalies. Over whenever someone scores. Tell me what you think.

It will cause too much controversy. Imagine a situation with a two-on-one and the clock passes the solid minute line when one of those players should come off. What happens next? The guy with the puck just drops it and skates off?

No way this happens.

 

[bleedgreen]

just a point on the goalie equipment issue - how is reducing the width of the pad reducing protection? isnt the depth of the pad the same? i just dont get how 10 inch pads are any less protective.

 

[skellart]

It will cause too much controversy. Imagine a situation with a two-on-one and the clock passes the solid minute line when one of those players should come off. What happens next? The guy with the puck just drops it and skates off?

No way this happens.

Good point. However maybe they could do a 10 second window for getting off the ice. All I know is that the most exciting overtime I've ever seen wasn't at an nhl game, it was a U14 Indoor soccer game using this format. It would eliminate ties. The 1 on 1 just keeps going until one scores.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

There is no fighting in baseball
There is no fighting in football
There is no fighting in basketball

These sports draw ratings

There is fighting in hockey

Hockey draws less than poker and bowling, maybe the American parents are not allowing their kids to watch senseless violence

This is the only reason I'd like to see fighting treated more seriously, I think it would be a ratings booster

I'm against getting rid of fighting, but I don't have a huge problem with those that argue that it should be gone from the game.

However I completely disagree with the fact that because the NHL has fighting that it's keeping people away from watching the game.

IMO it's just the easiest available excuse for people to use, when asked why they don't watch hockey. Those are the same people that think there are 2-3 fights per game, and they be shocked to find out there is less than half a fight a game.


Also about a year ago their was a spon poll done in Philadelphia, and hockey finished #1 among women. When those same women asked why ..... fighting/rough stuff was the overwhelming answer.

 

[PecaFan]

IMO it's just the easiest available excuse for people to use, when asked why they don't watch hockey. Those are the same people that think there are 2-3 fights per game, and they be shocked to find out there is less than half a fight a game.

But that's exactly it. The *perception* colours the reaction. By condoning fighting, the NHL gives those fans the wrong perception, and it turns them off the game. They think it's not a real sport.

Most of you are too young to remember, but fighting was *never* a big part of the game. In the fifties and sixties when I first started watching, a fight was *rare*. There was only one fight every five or six games. As a fan, you'd see only ten fights or so in the entire year. And of course, you didn't see all the other games around the league, and you didn't see every single fight on SportsNight on tv.

Nope, the NHL condoned fighting during the formative tv years, and it caused irreparable damage to their reputation. Now, they need to at least demonstrate they take it seriously. Implement the same rules as in other sports, if you fight, you're out of the game. It won't eliminate fighting, but it at least looks like you're major league.

 

[Big Cat Davo]

In the 50's Rockett Richard broke two sticks over a mans head, and Gordie Howe beat Lou Fontinato so badly he had to have his face rebuilt. These are hockey's greatest icons. Violence has always been a part of the NHL. The league should stop pandering to the causual fan and allow the game to be what it was. The real fans, die hard fans, will come because they love the game, not because it has been PC'd or the puck glows.

Dave

 

[John Flyers Fan]

But that's exactly it. The *perception* colours the reaction. By condoning fighting, the NHL gives those fans the wrong perception, and it turns them off the game. They think it's not a real sport.

So then you change the game trying to attract those viewers, and they still aren't going to come and watch. Now you've gone a aleineted some of yoru core audience and done nothing to attract new viewers.

Bottom line is that to attract new viewers, you have to do one of two things:

1. Get them to play the sport, or have their children play the sport.

or

2. Get them to a game in person.


Without doing one of the two things above, chances are slim that they'll become a serious hockey fan.

 

[PecaFan]

So then you change the game trying to attract those viewers, and they still aren't going to come and watch. Now you've gone a aleineted some of yoru core audience and done nothing to attract new viewers.

Bottom line is that to attract new viewers, you have to do one of two things:

1. Get them to play the sport, or have their children play the sport.
or
2. Get them to a game in person.

Without doing one of the two things above, chances are slim that they'll become a serious hockey fan.

I guess it depends on your perspective. What you call "changing the game", I call "restoring the game back to what it was". Again, since most of you grew up with goons and fighting, you think getting rid of it would be changing the game. I grew up before that was part of the game, so to me it's simply going back to the way it was.

It's the same as the tag up rule. Young fans think "Change it back to the way it was", while us old fogies know that now *is* the way it was, and the tag up rule was a short term thing.

As for alienating your viewers, frankly if someone stops watching hockey because their goon gets thrown out of the game after a fight, I say good riddance. They're not hockey fans. They're fight fans. They probably go home and badmouth the game because there weren't any fights that night.

I don't agree at all on there being only two things to create fans. Lots of people become fans of a sport without ever playing the sport, or attending in person. I personally growing up liked tennis and the CFL, and that was solely from television. Exposure is what's important, and that can be from tv, as well as your two items.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I guess it depends on your perspective. What you call "changing the game", I call "restoring the game back to what it was". Again, since most of you grew up with goons and fighting, you think getting rid of it would be changing the game. I grew up before that was part of the game, so to me it's simply going back to the way it was.

It's the same as the tag up rule. Young fans think "Change it back to the way it was", while us old fogies know that now *is* the way it was, and the tag up rule was a short term thing.

As for alienating your viewers, frankly if someone stops watching hockey because their goon gets thrown out of the game after a fight, I say good riddance. They're not hockey fans. They're fight fans. They probably go home and badmouth the game because there weren't any fights that night.

I don't agree at all on there being only two things to create fans. Lots of people become fans of a sport without ever playing the sport, or attending in person. I personally growing up liked tennis and the CFL, and that was solely from television. Exposure is what's important, and that can be from tv, as well as your two items.

#1. I agree witht he tag-up rule, I'm one of the few that likes it the way it is. Puts more of a premium on having skilled defenseman instead of just throwing the puck back into the coreners, and letting the forwards cycle in and out.

#2. Fighting has always been apart of the game. If it was outlawed I'd wouldn't miss a beat, and would certainly continue to watch, but the game is nothing like it was in the 70's and early 80's. Goons that can play the game have been eliminated for the most part.

#3. When you take a poll of the players one thing most ask for is the elimination of the instigator. The players feel like it would clean up the game. These are non-fighters like Yzerman, Modano etc.

I'm more inclined to listen to the players than marketing suits in the NHL office, that have done a poor job as it is.