So long fighting

[OHLTG]

Maybe it's time to start looking at other factors contributing to the injuries, and not just fighting. Players are training constantly throughout the season and off-season. They're bigger, they're faster, and they're more skilled than 10-years ago. Guys now can get run over with a good, clean hit and still have a head injury. Why not look at equipment changes, which could benefit both the player and the opposition, or even different styles of boards? If the boards were made of a new material, one that absorbed more, you may see injuries drop.

 

[OMG67]

This new fighting rule is ridiculous, either allow fighting or ban it, adopt the OJHL rule where fighting get's you kicked out of the game.

I can't wait for all the pushy glove in your face stuff that happens after every whistle in Euro and NCAA

So we have 3 different national Jr leagues all under 1 Commisioner with 3 different
sets of rules.

Currently the OHL for the last 4 seasons have more games suspensions than the Q and W combined, all in the guise of player safety. Well from the amount of suspensions this tact isn't working.

Why is a player allowed to stay on the ice after getting cranked but the player doing the cranking gets a 5 min major, kicked out and suspended. I have seen it many a times, If a player is hit hard enough by the aforementioned player then he should at least under go off ice evaluation back in the dressing room and not a "you OK .. ya good get back out there."

Somebody mentioned earlier about full cages well the last NCAA games I've watched they all wear full cages. That is another way to stop fights, remember there is already a rule in the OHL about removing ones helmet.

Some real data for last year OHL suspensions
Total Games 426
Occurrences 115
Games per Occur 3.7

People need to stop trying to draw comparisons or rationalizing it in some way.

The bottom line is the leagues ALL NEED to curb it in some way. It isn't necessarily about getting rid of it entirely (yet). It is about the appearance of change.

It is appeasing the courts. We are already in a situation in the United States where Congress is looking at forcing changes in sports. Do we want bodies like the US Congress to institute changes or are we more willing to accept small changes in an effort to keep external bodies away from mandating changes in a vacuum?

We all need to get on board and tackle the issues as they happen. Will there be more face washes and rabbit punches? Maybe. If there are and it is a nuisance, can officials call minor penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct or roughing or hitting to the head? Yes.

Will there be more stick infractions? Maybe. If there are can an official call the appropriate penalty? Yes.

The game is changing and it isn't because the leagues want to change, it's because they NEED to change to survive. How will it look if we bury our heads in the sand and Congress makes an amendment to the battery laws where the police are mandated to arrest and prosecute fights in hockey games in an effort to eliminate it? That would be great! NOT. Don't kid yourself. You think this is far fetched? It's not. There are loads of factions out there that don't understand fighting in hockey.

Reducing it to three fights is reasonable IF WE CONSIDER the number of fights that NEED TO HAPPEN in a season. The NHL Fights are way down. They will continue to trend down. Same goes with Junior Hockey.

 

[OMG67]

Maybe it's time to start looking at other factors contributing to the injuries, and not just fighting. Players are training constantly throughout the season and off-season. They're bigger, they're faster, and they're more skilled than 10-years ago. Guys now can get run over with a good, clean hit and still have a head injury. Why not look at equipment changes, which could benefit both the player and the opposition, or even different styles of boards? If the boards were made of a new material, one that absorbed more, you may see injuries drop.

That's the biggest problem and it has nothing to do with equipment and boards. A player skating down the ice gets hit blind side and the head whiplashes. The brain bounces off the inside of the skull. This issue is wayyyy worse than the typical fight.

Boarding is called when a player is hit excessively hard into the boards. We jsut need to expand that rule to be "excessively hard" in general. Do I like that? No. But, the reality of what you are saying is just that, the reality. Players are bigger, stronger, faster and they will continue to improve in those areas.

Guy runs up the middle after a hand off from the QB and gets levelled by the middle linebacker. Now imagine both players are on skates going two to three times as fast! That is the guy getting run over blind side in the NHL...CLEAN

Contact sports are becoming extremely dangerous with long term effects that we are now able to properly measure. Loads of lawyers in the United States looking for Tort cases. Contact Sports are RIPE for Tort cases. All you need is proof of knowledge. Consider the fact that they now have the knowledge that head injuries have long lasting effects. Imagine 10 years from now what a Tort lawyer could do in a United States court if the NHL and lower leagues don't make changes? OH MY! HORROR SHOW!

 

[Whalers Fan]

Maybe it's time to start looking at other factors contributing to the injuries, and not just fighting. Players are training constantly throughout the season and off-season. They're bigger, they're faster, and they're more skilled than 10-years ago. Guys now can get run over with a good, clean hit and still have a head injury. Why not look at equipment changes, which could benefit both the player and the opposition, or even different styles of boards? If the boards were made of a new material, one that absorbed more, you may see injuries drop.

Hockey is encountering the same issue plaguing football -- the human body is not meant to endure the abuse it gets in contact sports as players continue to get bigger and faster. The rules in football are evolving to deal with this, and it is reasonable to expect the same in hockey.

As for different boards, there is are economic realities that have to be dealt with there. The cost to install new boards can be prohibitive for smaller venues -- for example, USA Hockey Arena in Plymouth (formerly Compuware Arena) just spent $1 million this summer replacing the boards and protective glass in the main rink.Such an expense would be difficult to absorb in many OHL franchise budgets.

There are no easy solutions, but it's inevitable that fighting will be weaned out of the game due to liability issues. Honestly, after a season of watching the US NTDP with no fighting after years of watching the Whalers in the OHL, I did not miss the fighting at all, and its absence did not diminish the entertainment value of the product on the ice.

 

[BenchedGuy]

Didn't read all pages but something else that should be brought up in the same discussion with the fight reduction is the new penalty for a blind side hit. I feel this was brought in with the reduction to TRY to take a bit of the self policing out of the game.

Personally,there still is a place in the game for fighting but happy to see staged fights go.

 

[cujoflutie]

I don’t subscribe to the theory that fighting keeps the extremely dirty play down. We’ve seen leagues tinker with fighting rules (typically increasing the penalties) and I don’t seem to notice cheap shots going up or down.

There are two areas where I think fighting has it’s benefits
1) What would be classified as dirty minors. Example tapping a goalie after the whistle or taking physical liberties with star players. You can’t put this on the refs, all they can do is call the penalties but it is a sad state in some leagues where teams watch their stars or even goaltenders fighting for themselves for fear of the fighting rules
2) The rats. Rats have been in hockey for a long time but fighting has kept them in check. We’ve seen countless examples of rats being affected by fighting; many people believe the beginning of the end of Patrick Kaleta was Colton Orr slapping him silly, Matthew Barnaby changed his game when Rob Ray stopped protecting him. I’d certainly rather watch back and forth hockey than fights but I’d rather watch a fight than a bunch of trolls taking over the game.

The KHL is likely the top league which disallows fighting and we see a lot of bizarre antics there that are not in the NHL. Maybe it’s the culture but many people who’ve been in both leagues will say the sticks come up a lot more in the KHL as does the chirping between the whistles.


I have no interest seeing goons play 2-5 minutes a game and bring nothing to their table other than the ability to drop the gloves but I feel if the leagues did more to curb the ‘trolling’, the necessity for fighting would go down on its own.

 

[OMG67]

I don’t subscribe to the theory that fighting keeps the extremely dirty play down. We’ve seen leagues tinker with fighting rules (typically increasing the penalties) and I don’t seem to notice cheap shots going up or down.

There are two areas where I think fighting has it’s benefits
1) What would be classified as dirty minors. Example tapping a goalie after the whistle or taking physical liberties with star players. You can’t put this on the refs, all they can do is call the penalties but it is a sad state in some leagues where teams watch their stars or even goaltenders fighting for themselves for fear of the fighting rules
2) The rats. Rats have been in hockey for a long time but fighting has kept them in check. We’ve seen countless examples of rats being affected by fighting; many people believe the beginning of the end of Patrick Kaleta was Colton Orr slapping him silly, Matthew Barnaby changed his game when Rob Ray stopped protecting him. I’d certainly rather watch back and forth hockey than fights but I’d rather watch a fight than a bunch of trolls taking over the game.

The KHL is likely the top league which disallows fighting and we see a lot of bizarre antics there that are not in the NHL. Maybe it’s the culture but many people who’ve been in both leagues will say the sticks come up a lot more in the KHL as does the chirping between the whistles.


I have no interest seeing goons play 2-5 minutes a game and bring nothing to their table other than the ability to drop the gloves but I feel if the leagues did more to curb the ‘trolling’, the necessity for fighting would go down on its own.

Like anything else, it requires an investment. Remember when the leagues started calling interference with more seal in an effort to speed up the game? It took time for players to stop taking their hands off their sticks and tugging at opposing players.

If the leagues decide to get rid of the "rats" they will call the late slashes on goalies, the face washes, and mouthy antics accordingly. Sooner or later players will adjust. Game will just need to be called tighter, especially after the whistle.

 

[Finster8]

We have come along way when you think of how many fights we had seen in the 70's and 80's. I remember as a kid seeing the Red Army team not come out for the 2nd period against the Flyers. It was an exhibition game. The days of the goon are gone and i am glad. It is still part of the game however we have to change with the times and l get that but I still like a good through down when it is called for.

 

[bobber]

You have to think there will be coaches that take advantage of the games when opposing teams cannot defend them selves. I can think of at least one coach that will thrive on it. If you think the refs are going to keep fans happy when chippy , dirty players are out there causing havoc think again. People hate the refs now just wait until you see a few players get a stick in the mouth and nothing is done. There are teams that keep their sticks high the whole game. It will become a circus.

 

[cujoflutie]

Like anything else, it requires an investment. Remember when the leagues started calling interference with more seal in an effort to speed up the game? It took time for players to stop taking their hands off their sticks and tugging at opposing players.

If the leagues decide to get rid of the "rats" they will call the late slashes on goalies, the face washes, and mouthy antics accordingly. Sooner or later players will adjust. Game will just need to be called tighter, especially after the whistle.

Oh absolutely it would be a process instead of something a few rule changes could solve overnight. I just feel that eliminating rats should be more of an emphasis before eliminating fight. Eliminate trolling and fights will go down on their own.

You have to think there will be coaches that take advantage of the games when opposing teams cannot defend them selves. I can think of at least one coach that will thrive on it. If you think the refs are going to keep fans happy when chippy , dirty players are out there causing havoc think again. People hate the refs now just wait until you see a few players get a stick in the mouth and nothing is done. There are teams that keep their sticks high the whole game. It will become a circus.

This is what I worry about. Imagine if the league makes fighting a 10 game suspension and some team sends out a goon to fight a star (think John Scott on Kessel in the exhibition game a few years back) then what? Kessel has to choose between taking a 10 game suspension or turtling and his teammates need to decide whether it's worth it or not to jump in and take a suspension of their own. And the presence of the instigator rule solves nothing, players have no idea whether the refs will call it properly or not. I guarantee if anti-fighting rules were heavy, guys like Avery and Maxim Lapierre would be going out trying to fight stars all the time, especially in the playoffs.

 

[OMG67]

You have to think there will be coaches that take advantage of the games when opposing teams cannot defend them selves. I can think of at least one coach that will thrive on it. If you think the refs are going to keep fans happy when chippy , dirty players are out there causing havoc think again. People hate the refs now just wait until you see a few players get a stick in the mouth and nothing is done. There are teams that keep their sticks high the whole game. It will become a circus.

Right now, games are "managed" not officiated. We'd like to think there is no game management going on but it does. In many cases, game management is the right thing. However, if we take fighting out of the game and that is to say if you get into a fight you are ejected with a game misconduct and appropriate suspensions are handed out, fighting is "out of the game," we'd see less game management. We would then see more penalties called regardless of score or penalty differential.

Officials would need to call all non-hockey related contact. IF a player uses his stick for anything other than puck handling, it is a penalty. If a player places a hand on another player in an aggressive manner, they will be called for a foul of some kind.

The more time the "rats" spend in the box for slashes and face washes and shoves after the whistle, the more power plays the other teams get. Sooner or later, even "rats" learn.

It is really very simple. Rules and interpretations of rules have changes over the course of hockey's evolution. As I mentioned previously, when the league instituted its new policy on how obstruction would be called, we saw a parade to the penalty boxes for about half a season until the players learned what they could and could not get away with. There would be no difference here.

I say all of this but we also need to consider the fact that what I have said may never be needed. We don't know what the results of less fighting will be. We are jsut assuming that more stick play and dirty shots will happen. We don't really have any hard evidence of that being true. All we have are some trends in other amateur and lower level pro leagues on other continents.

 

[OMG67]

Oh absolutely it would be a process instead of something a few rule changes could solve overnight. I just feel that eliminating rats should be more of an emphasis before eliminating fight. Eliminate trolling and fights will go down on their own.



This is what I worry about. Imagine if the league makes fighting a 10 game suspension and some team sends out a goon to fight a star (think John Scott on Kessel in the exhibition game a few years back) then what? Kessel has to choose between taking a 10 game suspension or turtling and his teammates need to decide whether it's worth it or not to jump in and take a suspension of their own. And the presence of the instigator rule solves nothing, players have no idea whether the refs will call it properly or not. I guarantee if anti-fighting rules were heavy, guys like Avery and Maxim Lapierre would be going out trying to fight stars all the time, especially in the playoffs.

We need to first realize that your examples are NHL examples. The NHL has not really done anything from a rules perspective other than institute the instigator rule to curb fighting. Personally, I think that if the amateur leagues effectively eliminate fighting and place an emphasis on skill and speed, that will gradually grandfather its way to the NHL. IF kids can't fight until they get to the NHL, how likely are they to fight when they get there? It will die a slow death.

Let's see what happens this season in the OHL. The 10 fight limit eliminated the silly staged fights. I can tell you this, we will see less guys jumping opposing players for clean aggressive hits. We can argue the merits of eliminating hits that are now deemed to be clean as these can be a significant cause of head trauma over time another time.

What we will see is much more yapping. That is for sure. Sticks and stones etc is my rebuttal for that. Just skate away. In my experience when you skate away giving the opposing player no response sooner or later they give up. IF no one ever responded to Avery, he would have stopped yapping. The only two reasons to yap are to goad the opposing player to take a stupid penalty or to mentally get the player off his game. Either way the tapper wins, regardless of whether someone tunes him up in a fight, which rarely happens anyway.

 

[bobber]

Right now, games are "managed" not officiated. We'd like to think there is no game management going on but it does. In many cases, game management is the right thing. However, if we take fighting out of the game and that is to say if you get into a fight you are ejected with a game misconduct and appropriate suspensions are handed out, fighting is "out of the game," we'd see less game management. We would then see more penalties called regardless of score or penalty differential.

Officials would need to call all non-hockey related contact. IF a player uses his stick for anything other than puck handling, it is a penalty. If a player places a hand on another player in an aggressive manner, they will be called for a foul of some kind.

The more time the "rats" spend in the box for slashes and face washes and shoves after the whistle, the more power plays the other teams get. Sooner or later, even "rats" learn.

It is really very simple. Rules and interpretations of rules have changes over the course of hockey's evolution. As I mentioned previously, when the league instituted its new policy on how obstruction would be called, we saw a parade to the penalty boxes for about half a season until the players learned what they could and could not get away with. There would be no difference here.

I say all of this but we also need to consider the fact that what I have said may never be needed. We don't know what the results of less fighting will be. We are jsut assuming that more stick play and dirty shots will happen. We don't really have any hard evidence of that being true. All we have are some trends in other amateur and lower level pro leagues on other continents.

Its nice to think that the refs will follow every rule and crack down on players that continually instigate every time they are on the ice. What you will really see is fans being pissed at the refs for calling retaliation on the player getting hacked or ran and the instigator sitting on the bench watching the power play he just earned for his team. Refs in the OHL watch more for retaliation than the original infraction. We all know players that play on the edge every time they are on the ice. These kind will become a huge asset to teams when they take fighting away because of what they will be allowed to get away with IMO.

 

[OMG67]

We need to first realize that your examples are NHL examples. The NHL has not really done anything from a rules perspective other than institute the instigator rule to curb fighting. Personally, I think that if the amateur leagues effectively eliminate fighting and place an emphasis on skill and speed, that will gradually grandfather its way to the NHL. IF kids can't fight until they get to the NHL, how likely are they to fight when they get there? It will die a slow death.

Let's see what happens this season in the OHL. The 10 fight limit eliminated the silly staged fights. I can tell you this, we will see less guys jumping opposing players for clean aggressive hits. We can argue the merits of eliminating hits that are now deemed to be clean as these can be a significant cause of head trauma over time another time.

What we will see is much more yapping. That is for sure. Sticks and stones etc is my rebuttal for that. Just skate away. In my experience when you skate away giving the opposing player no response sooner or later they give up. IF no one ever responded to Avery, he would have stopped yapping. The only two reasons to yap are to goad the opposing player to take a stupid penalty or to mentally get the player off his game. Either way the tapper wins, regardless of whether someone tunes him up in a fight, which rarely happens anyway.

Its nice to think that the refs will follow every rule and crack down on players that continually instigate every time they are on the ice. What you will really see is fans being pissed at the refs for calling retaliation on the player getting hacked or ran and the instigator sitting on the bench watching the power play he just earned for his team. Refs in the OHL watch more for retaliation than the original infraction. We all know players that play on the edge every time they are on the ice. These kind will become a huge asset to teams when they take fighting away because of what they will be allowed to get away with IMO.

We've seen a lot less of that since they instituted the 2 referee system but I know what you mean. I was more referring to after the whistle stuff.

All the power to the player that can "instigate" without getting caught. The problem is the retaliating player still goes to the box REGARDLESS of the fighting rule. If they retaliate with a fight, they get an instigator. Nothing really changes.

 

[bobber]

We've seen a lot less of that since they instituted the 2 referee system but I know what you mean. I was more referring to after the whistle stuff.

All the power to the player that can "instigate" without getting caught. The problem is the retaliating player still goes to the box REGARDLESS of the fighting rule. If they retaliate with a fight, they get an instigator. Nothing really changes.

OMG67 when you look at the game now we really don't see that much fighting. There seems to be a place though for gritty players. Look at the Knights last season. They had at least four guys that played on the edge or over in a couple of instances. Heffernan lead the league in penalty minutes and Hunter brought him in to look after anyone taking advantage of his high end guys. I think its good for the league to see players with a gritty style that aggravate the other teams because it gets the fans into the games instead of sitting on their hands. Whether we like fighting in hockey which I do or dislike it it's going the way of the Dodo bird. As an example we can see teams are not afraid to bring in smaller skilled players now.

 

[Ward Cornell]

A by-product of this rule is that clean hits may come back now without any of the BS retaliation for it!
As for fighting itself...I use to really enjoy it but with all the reports about brain injuries, my enjoyment has become next to nil.

 

[aresknights]

A by-product of this rule is that clean hits may come back now without any of the BS retaliation for it!
As for fighting itself...I use to really enjoy it but with all the reports about brain injuries, my enjoyment has become next to nil.

Agreed, on both points.

 

[may know]

You have to think there will be coaches that take advantage of the games when opposing teams cannot defend them selves. I can think of at least one coach that will thrive on it. If you think the refs are going to keep fans happy when chippy , dirty players are out there causing havoc think again. People hate the refs now just wait until you see a few players get a stick in the mouth and nothing is done. There are teams that keep their sticks high the whole game. It will become a circus.

Hunter?

 

[MisterDB]

A lot of rules the past couple of years have been done for player safety.

The CHL being a development organization and as far as Branch is concerned an amateur one.

The CHL can have players from age 15 to 21 a wide range of age for young players, which is a huge difference in young men developing physically.

Here comes the big question why is the CHL the only organization that allows a player that is below the age of 18 to not wear full head gear, the proponent of IIHF WJC will note that any player under the age of 18 must wear these.

 

[OHLTG]

To be fair with the age issue, I've seen 16-year-olds who were more than able to handle themselves physically against 20-year-olds, and 20-year-olds who were smaller than 16-year-olds.