Mike boone against fighting

Analyzer*

Guest
No, I won't go somewhere else, and I do enjoy other sports. But thanks for that suggestion I guess..

Fighting makes the cheer go ''Yay''...wow...Solid, Solid argument..:facepalm:

So you're happy we weren't intimidated yesterday? Me too. I'm glad we had guys beat on the Leafs for a change. That was neat.
Unfortunately though, Prust still got hit from behind twice, MaxPac got injured by a goon, Parros left on a stretcher (granted, accidental), Subban was a target all night, and MOST IMPORTANTLY we lost.

But ya, thanks for proving that fighting changes so much..:laugh:

Fighting is there for entertainment value only. That's it that's all. We're in 2013, use your brain a little.

And suspensions do not work. They shouldn't remove them, they should make them harsher.

You mean when Prust dove into the boards to draw a penalty ? Orr's hit was clean, which, according to many if a clean hit results in an injury it's ok. Subban is a star, of course he's going to be targeted. Was he hurt in some capacity that I missed ?

Even if you throw everything away say fighting has no real defining moment on an outcome of a come. Fighting is what the fans want to see. I'm sure you've been to a game. When there was a fight, did you (well, you probably did) and everyone else just say seated and calm and acted like nothing was happening ? Or did some of them move to the edge of their seats, or even stand and start cheering ?

Isn't it neat how you can tell a fight is happening, or going to happen while at home and the camera isn't even close to it ? You hear the crowd getting loud in anticipation.

Fans love it. Fans pay money to see it.

Not sure if it was this thread, or on the main board, but I posted examples of where fighting changed not only a game, but a series around for teams.
 

habsfanatics*

Registered User
May 20, 2012
5,051
1
The only true deterrence is losing. If cheapshots were penalized such that they significantly hurt your chances to win the game then players would either stop or coaches would no longer play them. Make the punishment actually punishing and it will work as a deterrent. For example, let's say for every game that a player is suspended for, his team loses 1 point in the standings. Do you think guys like Cooke/Kaleta will still go around throwing cheap shots if it was the difference between making the playoffs and not. And if they didn't adapt, do you think GMs would still sign them or coaches would play them. They would either clean up their act or be out of the NHL.

I don't think there is a problem severe enough to punish the collective based on the actions of one, but I do like your out-of-the-box style of thinking, something like this is probably the only true solution. PP's don't do it, a good pp team only scores 1/4 of the time and I really don't see the NHL ever adopting a policy like you suggested.

I like it, but don't think it has a realistic chance of ever happening.
 

Gally11

Registered User
Sep 20, 2010
2,602
1,448
Toronto
sorry thats just dumb, things dont have to change. NOt everything changes..

steak is still steak it won change

Back in the 60's and 70's before legislation started to creep in on safety for employees in the workplace, thousands of people died every year in mines and other types of construction areas across North America. It was considered the cost of doing business and part of the job.

After the numbers became staggering and people started to realize most of it was preventable, that's when Government got involved and legislated almost every aspect of these jobs (fall protection, confined spaces, respiratory masks) to the point where companies now spend thousands and sometimes millions of dollars a year making sure every procedure is followed and every employee is certified for the job at hand. If they don't they can pay pretty hefty fines or even get their projects shutdown.

The point is, if companies were more proactive in their approach instead of reactive they could have saved lives and money in the long-term instead of focusing on short-term gains and seeing things as just the cost of doing business.

I don't really have a position on fighting but I will say I'm not completely opposed to phasing it out in safe way, which means finding more effective ways to officiate the game to protect the players. It's stupid to say that we need fighting to protect the players, no other sport needs it, we're just blinded by our own stupidity and can only look to the past instead of being able to envision a better, safer sport.

At the end of the day the NHL wants to be the one deciding how it's product is shown, they don't want the Government to step in... And if you think this can't happen, Harper already hinted at it before after the Pacioretty incident.

And yes over time everything changes, even steaks have changed in method of preparation for shelving lol.

Anyways you can disagree with me that's fine, but I feel pretty confident in my assessment.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
This is not for sure, injuries still happen and the game continues on, no one ever suggested otherwise and it was never the intention of enforcers to prevent hockey from happening.

I get a kick out of the anti-fighting crowd, they want fighting gone under the guise of player safety, yet 99% of them don't give two ***** about Mr. Parros, most prefer he were gone and they certainly don't give a **** about his well-being, pulling on peoples heart strings to get what you want.

You don't give a **** about george, lets stop the charade.

So you agree then, fighting doesn't prevent anything, injuries/dirty hits/intimidation still happens whether you have fighters or not. Not sure where we disagree..

I'm not anti-fighting. I used to be because I think it sends the wrong message to kids, and because I find it useless to the actual game. You're right, I really don't care about Parros other than him being a Habs. I mean, I wish harm or injury to no one, but essentially I don't know the guy, so how could I really care about him? Pretty sure he doesn't give two craps about you and me either other than us cheering for his team.

So what charade am I playing?? I'm not the one arguing fighting is somehow essential to the game. It's useless. I've repeated many times before too, if they remove it, you won't even notice it gone, if they keep it, then you have to adapt and bring some fighters in. I'm not pretending to be saying it's for safety, players have proven over and over how little they care about their safety, so why should I be concerned about it.
I just responded to people that like to claim that fighting can actually change the outcome of a game.


Hitting players without the puck is lower than its been, Scott Stevens wouldn't make it through the season, ever, if he were playing under todays rules.

Hitting has always been about trying to hurt the guy. You're hugely naive if you think otherwise.

Not sure what I'm naive of. At the root, checking is to knock a guy off the puck. That's why they made checking legal. It wasn't so that you can go hurt the player. Over time it has transformed into that. Not sure what you proved there..

Do you miss the thousands of players who say x fighting x really gave us some energy? Or are they lying for entertainment?

Do you expect Plekanec or PK or anybody on the Habs to say that George Parros does absolutely nothing for them?? Ya, I'm sure their teammate would be thrilled to hear that.
Imagine your co-worker called you useless and said they didn't need you, how would that make you feel??

You know, we won every fight yesterday. Did it give us all the momentum? Nope. Did it give us more energy? Nope. Did he pump us up more? Nope, well, maybe for a second or two, but when the puck drops again and we're back to playing actual hockey, and the Leafs control it, then no, it changes nothing.

You mean when Prust dove into the boards to draw a penalty ? Orr's hit was clean, which, according to many if a clean hit results in an injury it's ok. Subban is a star, of course he's going to be targeted. Was he hurt in some capacity that I missed ?

Even if you throw everything away say fighting has no real defining moment on an outcome of a come. Fighting is what the fans want to see. I'm sure you've been to a game. When there was a fight, did you (well, you probably did) and everyone else just say seated and calm and acted like nothing was happening ? Or did some of them move to the edge of their seats, or even stand and start cheering ?

Isn't it neat how you can tell a fight is happening, or going to happen while at home and the camera isn't even close to it ? You hear the crowd getting loud in anticipation.

Fans love it. Fans pay money to see it.

Not sure if it was this thread, or on the main board, but I posted examples of where fighting changed not only a game, but a series around for teams.

That's my whole point, it's simply for entertainment value. And no, I have no issues watching Parros beat Orr, I'm all for it. But I'm not naive enough to think two guys that barely know how to play at the NHL level actually influence their team's play by punching each other in the face for a minute or two. It's not going to make Gionta suddenly develop more creativity or harder shot. It won't make Markov any faster.
It does nothing 99% of the time.

As for a fight changing a series, in modern times, that's a ridiculous assumption.
 

Habset

Registered User
Feb 21, 2008
1,474
255
Montreal
I'm the ignorant one yet you say 6'8 enforcer fights 5'7 skilled player would lead to nothing...
Wow, way to make a case.

And wasn't it clear in my post?? I don't even care about injuries.
What I'm saying is comparing hits to fights is Pejorative Slured, and that fighting does not change a thing to hockey.

There are many instances were the smaller guy can actually come out on top.

What happens if Scott fights Gionta really? A punch to the face, Gionta falls and the fight stops. Wowwwww big deal these are professional athletes who have trained their whole lives and your telling me they can't make it through a fight.
 

hockeyfan2k11

Registered User
Jun 11, 2011
12,150
6
Yes it is.

I'll admit that Gwynn, Carter and Riviera are a bit of a stretch, but Bird and Magic (and to a lesser extent Jordan and Lebron) are very good examples. The NBA of the 70's & 80's was not the NBA you know today. Fights were common (not as common as NHL fights mind you, but common) and probably more dangerous (since it's harder to put power in a punch on skates than it is on foot). Guys like Bill Laimbeer were employed for much the same reason NHL teams employ guys like Orr and Parros. To beat up on the other guys.

The NBA started to change in the late 70's. A number of incidents in 1977 lead to the changes. During a Lakers-Bucs game Kareem Abdul-Jabbar got into an altercation with Kent Benson. Benson elbowed Jabbar in the stomach, and Jabbar responded by thumping Benson soundly with a blind shot, breaking Benson's jaw and his own hand. Then a few months later during a Lakers-Rockets game Jabbar and teammate Kermit Washington got into an altercation with Kevin Kunnert. Eventually it wound up with Jabbar grabbing Kunnert from behind leaving him open to repeated shots from Washington.

Enter Rudy Tomjanovich. A young, five time all-star who had a reputation as a peace maker - a guy who broke up these scuffles. He runs in. Washington sees him and does not recognize him - just sees a wrong coloured jersey on it's way in. Turns around a cracks him one. The bone structure of his face detaches from his skull, and his jaw and nose are broken. Blood and spinal fluid are leaking into his brain cavity. And he has a concussion. The doctor who did the repair work likened to to scotch taping together a broken egg shell.

That's the point at which the NBA decided to clean up its act. It took a long time, and fighting is still not totally gone. But it is a different game. To say it's silly to think that Bird, Johnson and Jordan didn't have to stick up for themselves, protect themselves and what not just shows that you don't know that much about the history of the NBA.

However if you must go down that route - Howe didn't need anyone to stick up for him. Neither did Richard or Hull. While you can find examples littered throughout the history of the NHL the enforcer we know and love today truly came into existence in Edmonton in the 1980's - when the Oilers hired Semenko to protect #99. Perhaps it is a role whose time has come and gone.

Not comparable. Sorry
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,937
5,387
Do you miss the thousands of players who say x fighting x really gave us some energy? Or are they lying for entertainment?

Studies have shown there is a very small uptick in goal scoring after a fight but that it had no bearing which team won the fight. If it's giving every player on both teams more energy then it really doesn't accomplish much does it.
 

Analyzer*

Guest
That's my whole point, it's simply for entertainment value. And no, I have no issues watching Parros beat Orr, I'm all for it. But I'm not naive enough to think two guys that barely know how to play at the NHL level actually influence their team's play by punching each other in the face for a minute or two. It's not going to make Gionta suddenly develop more creativity or harder shot. It won't make Markov any faster.
It does nothing 99% of the time.

As for a fight changing a series, in modern times, that's a ridiculous assumption.

Pittsburgh Vs. Philadelphia.



See the score ? Pittsburgh came back and won that game. They won the series and won the cup that year. Even the players pointed to that fight as the changer.

Just like Richards' hit on Krejci that broke his arm. It took out Boston's best forward and woke Philadelphia up.

Some games teams show up, they're out of sync, playing nonchalantly and then a fight (or even a big hit) suddenly wakes a team up. Teams have scoring lines, shutdown lines and energy lines for a reason.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,937
5,387
I don't think there is a problem severe enough to punish the collective based on the actions of one, but I do like your out-of-the-box style of thinking, something like this is probably the only true solution. PP's don't do it, a good pp team only scores 1/4 of the time and I really don't see the NHL ever adopting a policy like you suggested.

I like it, but don't think it has a realistic chance of ever happening.

You're right what I suggested is probably never going to happen even though it would cleanup the game. Some less out of the box ideas would be. Going back to a full 2 min on the PP. Having refs NOT try to balance penalties calls. Having a coaches challenge where the refs could watch the replays and call a penalty. A hybrid icing where you have to be above the faceoff dots/circles before being able to ice the puck on the PK would all help and have a chance of happening.

I'm not anti-fighting, I enjoy watching it but I don't believe it has an impact on winning, or even keeping the game clean. It will eventually be banned, and even cheapshots will eventually be penalized more strongly. The reason is simple, money. The NFL players recently got a huge settlement, it's only a matter of time before the NHL will end up paying money in lawsuits from the players. When that day comes, the NHL will get serious about cleaning up the game.
 

habsfanatics*

Registered User
May 20, 2012
5,051
1
So you agree then, fighting doesn't prevent anything, injuries/dirty hits/intimidation still happens whether you have fighters or not. Not sure where we disagree..

I'm not anti-fighting. I used to be because I think it sends the wrong message to kids, and because I find it useless to the actual game. You're right, I really don't care about Parros other than him being a Habs. I mean, I wish harm or injury to no one, but essentially I don't know the guy, so how could I really care about him? Pretty sure he doesn't give two craps about you and me either other than us cheering for his team.

So what charade am I playing?? I'm not the one arguing fighting is somehow essential to the game. It's useless. I've repeated many times before too, if they remove it, you won't even notice it gone, if they keep it, then you have to adapt and bring some fighters in. I'm not pretending to be saying it's for safety, players have proven over and over how little they care about their safety, so why should I be concerned about it.
I just responded to people that like to claim that fighting can actually change the outcome of a game.




Not sure what I'm naive of. At the root, checking is to knock a guy off the puck. That's why they made checking legal. It wasn't so that you can go hurt the player. Over time it has transformed into that. Not sure what you proved there..



Do you expect Plekanec or PK or anybody on the Habs to say that George Parros does absolutely nothing for them?? Ya, I'm sure their teammate would be thrilled to hear that.
Imagine your co-worker called you useless and said they didn't need you, how would that make you feel??

You know, we won every fight yesterday. Did it give us all the momentum? Nope. Did it give us more energy? Nope. Did he pump us up more? Nope, well, maybe for a second or two, but when the puck drops again and we're back to playing actual hockey, and the Leafs control it, then no, it changes nothing.



That's my whole point, it's simply for entertainment value. And no, I have no issues watching Parros beat Orr, I'm all for it. But I'm not naive enough to think two guys that barely know how to play at the NHL level actually influence their team's play by punching each other in the face for a minute or two. It's not going to make Gionta suddenly develop more creativity or harder shot. It won't make Markov any faster.
It does nothing 99% of the time.

As for a fight changing a series, in modern times, that's a ridiculous assumption.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here or what, the point is, players have always hit other players with poor intentions, it isn't a new phenomenon, the reason it seems worse now is that shoulder pads are now made of Kevlar, and the pace in which the game moves, they've inadvertently sped the game up too much with the removing of obstruction and the redline, but they also have bigger men, with more refs on the same size ice surface. There are plenty of things at play here, none of which are involve players increasingly not hitting to separate from the puck. Most plays are bang bang and there is very little time to think about the consequences and the overwhelming amount of injuries result from incidental conduct, not from dirty plays.

Where did I agree that fighting doesn't prevent anything? I don't know for sure if it does, I suspect that it helps in other ways whether it does or not. Morale, bonding, chemistry, but just because there are still disrespectful pukes and the odd blindside hit doesn't disprove anything. There are all sorts of societal rules in place to reduce or eliminate certain behaviours, are they 100% effective, of course not, but it's better than not having anything in place.

Your charade is and always has been, for the sake of player safety we need to remove fighting, but you don't give a **** about the players safety, you certainly don't give a **** about Parros, Rypien, boogaard who had their misfortunes exploited for the sake of promoting an agenda.

It's sickening, we'd have a more honest debate if you just came out and said, I don't like fighting and think it should be removed. Then we can debate the merits of your arguments, but most people don't do that, they wait for the one or two times a year **** gets ****ed up and rant and rave about player safety. Not one of these anti-fighting guys gives a **** about George, or George's health, and it's about time they tell the truth. Most anti-fighting folk would rather George just disappear.

I still think fighting can serve a purpose, we won the fights and lost the game, but over the long haul, going to war with each other will allow us to win the war.

I don't mind an honest conversation, but these conversations are anything but honest. Almost entirely agenda driven.
 
Last edited:

habsfanatics*

Registered User
May 20, 2012
5,051
1
You're right what I suggested is probably never going to happen even though it would cleanup the game. Some less out of the box ideas would be. Going back to a full 2 min on the PP. Having refs NOT try to balance penalties calls. Having a coaches challenge where the refs could watch the replays and call a penalty. A hybrid icing where you have to be above the faceoff dots/circles before being able to ice the puck on the PK would all help and have a chance of happening.

I'm not anti-fighting, I enjoy watching it but I don't believe it has an impact on winning, or even keeping the game clean. It will eventually be banned, and even cheapshots will eventually be penalized more strongly. The reason is simple, money. The NFL players recently got a huge settlement, it's only a matter of time before the NHL will end up paying money in lawsuits from the players. When that day comes, the NHL will get serious about cleaning up the game.

I agree with this, but at least it's honest and you're not pretending to be all worried about the goons safety. Those arguing that they care about the goons safety are completely full of ****.
 

The n00b King

Kingin' since 2003
Feb 10, 2008
1,966
0
Singapore
Something just occurred to me... Ultimately, shouldn't it be the players themselves that decide whether or not fighting should be taken out? If they want to keep it in, shouldn't that put the issue at rest? They are the ones being paid to entertain us. If they wish to bust themselves up while doing it, who are we to change that?
 

TheGoalJudge

Registered User
Feb 12, 2007
3,470
361
Fighting is the biggest joke in professional sports. Everyone stops to watch two people literally assault each other. I have no idea how this still exists and it will eventually be banned, no doubt.

If you want to eliminate stick incidents and what not all you have to do is simply increase the penalties and suspensions. Fighting doesn't deter anyone from doing anything. That is one of the biggest myths I see everywhere.
 

Hoople

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
16,193
121
How do you figure?

I mean watching the game last night I saw one of our guys (Prust) get spiked head first into the boards twice from behind (Phaneuf and Fraser). Phaneuf I guess you can explain away - he hadn't met the new look, fighting mad Habs. But Fraser had already had his lunch fed to him by Moen. He had also seen Orr and Ashton get beaten. It didn't stop him from making a dirty, dangerous play.

I'm sorry. Last night, even after all the beatings we laid upon the Maple Leafs they still hacked, slashed, high-sticked and boarded their way to victory. They even sent their goons (Orr) after our skilled guys (Subban) despite all the "code" hubris they and half the league were whinging about about a week ago. It cost us a roster player.

I'm not one of those anti-fighting zealots who thinks that fighting is the complete opposite of hockey. But I'm not blind enough to believe that dirty play is in any way related to how many fighters you have on your team. Where were the big bad Bruins a few years back when Savard and Bergeron got injured? Where were Neil and Kassian last season when Cooke took out Karlsson?

The reason for your angst is that you have bought the strawman argument about fighting.

It is the argument forwarded by every non-fighting fan out there. That somehow fighting will prevent injuries or stick work or any of the other straw stuffed in that ignorant argument.

The reality is that fighting in hockey is for retribution or intimidation.

You take liberties, you fight. Just like Parros going after Orr for his check against the boards that hurt Pacioretty. Did it stop Orr? No, but he had to eat a few fists for his effort.

The other is intimidation. Boston plays this game very well and have a Cup to show for it as they turned the Canucks into a team of kittycats who were too scared to stand up to Marchand slapping their most skilled player.

The preventing injuries and preventing anything is just some bull **** cooked up by people like Boone.
 

Istvan

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,458
98
SoCal
Visit site
The ultimate victory in a fight is the knockout which is the same as saying loss of consciousness due to significant brain trauma with likely micro-hemorrhage and probable contribution to chronic brain injury. I don't find this entertainint. I suspect the parents, siblings or children of the concussed/injured player also do not find this entertaining. The ingrained macho culture of the game requires players to mumble their support of fighting. It's professionally harmful to "take on" the "establishment" and also to be seen as "non- macho". Unfortunately the establishment includes too many Don Cherries and too few Ken Dryden's. The meme that fighting is a part of the game is somewhat similar to saying that slavery is a part of North American culture. Thankfully our species tends to evolve as we learn about ourselves. I would be curious to know how many avid proponents of fighting are enrolling their kids in hockey programs. What's truly unfortunate is that the game itself is so terrific without fighting and already carries inherent risks of injury which are, in fact, a part of the game. This is my opinion. If you decide to flame away please note that I won't care.
 

habsfanatics*

Registered User
May 20, 2012
5,051
1
The ultimate victory in a fight is the knockout which is the same as saying loss of consciousness due to significant brain trauma with likely micro-hemorrhage and probable contribution to chronic brain injury. I don't find this entertainint. I suspect the parents, siblings or children of the concussed/injured player also do not find this entertaining. The ingrained macho culture of the game requires players to mumble their support of fighting. It's professionally harmful to "take on" the "establishment" and also to be seen as "non- macho". Unfortunately the establishment includes too many Don Cherries and too few Ken Dryden's. The meme that fighting is a part of the game is somewhat similar to saying that slavery is a part of North American culture. Thankfully our species tends to evolve as we learn about ourselves. I would be curious to know how many avid proponents of fighting are enrolling their kids in hockey programs. What's truly unfortunate is that the game itself is so terrific without fighting and already carries inherent risks of injury which are, in fact, a part of the game. This is my opinion. If you decide to flame away please note that I won't care.

Another phony. We gotta protect the players, bs artist.
 

Hoople

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
16,193
121
The ultimate victory in a fight is the knockout which is the same as saying loss of consciousness due to significant brain trauma with likely micro-hemorrhage and probable contribution to chronic brain injury. I don't find this entertainint. I suspect the parents, siblings or children of the concussed/injured player also do not find this entertaining. The ingrained macho culture of the game requires players to mumble their support of fighting. It's professionally harmful to "take on" the "establishment" and also to be seen as "non- macho". Unfortunately the establishment includes too many Don Cherries and too few Ken Dryden's. The meme that fighting is a part of the game is somewhat similar to saying that slavery is a part of North American culture. Thankfully our species tends to evolve as we learn about ourselves. I would be curious to know how many avid proponents of fighting are enrolling their kids in hockey programs. What's truly unfortunate is that the game itself is so terrific without fighting and already carries inherent risks of injury which are, in fact, a part of the game. This is my opinion. If you decide to flame away please note that I won't care.


Slavery card? I'm surprised that you didnt go for the win and throw in the Nazis as well.
 

HCH

Registered User
Dec 17, 2003
5,642
1
The Wild West
Visit site
Something just occurred to me... Ultimately, shouldn't it be the players themselves that decide whether or not fighting should be taken out? If they want to keep it in, shouldn't that put the issue at rest? They are the ones being paid to entertain us. If they wish to bust themselves up while doing it, who are we to change that?

You might want to ask an owner or GM who is handing out big salaries whether or not they want their employees fighting
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
I always thought that fighting would stop "organically" -- as in, mainly because of a lack of face-punchers at some point or another. That belief mainly come from the fact there's been a significant drop in fighting in junior hockey.


But I don'T know --- I look at our division and think the era of facepunchers isn't quite about to stop...
 

HCH

Registered User
Dec 17, 2003
5,642
1
The Wild West
Visit site
The reason for your angst is that you have bought the strawman argument about fighting.

It is the argument forwarded by every non-fighting fan out there. That somehow fighting will prevent injuries or stick work or any of the other straw stuffed in that ignorant argument.

The reality is that fighting in hockey is for retribution or intimidation.

You take liberties, you fight. Just like Parros going after Orr for his check against the boards that hurt Pacioretty. Did it stop Orr? No, but he had to eat a few fists for his effort.

The other is intimidation. Boston plays this game very well and have a Cup to show for it as they turned the Canucks into a team of kittycats who were too scared to stand up to Marchand slapping their most skilled player.

The preventing injuries and preventing anything is just some bull **** cooked up by people like Boone.

It is the responsibility of the officials to control the level of stickwork and illegal hits in the game. As for preventing injuries, I agree... banning fighting won't help that situation and it won't hurt it either.

So why is it in the game? In the rules of hockey it is deemed to be a major violation so why are you trumpeting the merits of fighting? Because it intimidates?

If that is the case, then as one team muscles up, the next team follows suit and so on. Then it has to be taken to the next level in order to increase your level of intimidation over your opponent and the entire situation escalates.

Eventually roster space is taken up by the likes of John Scott and Colton Orr... players who are there for one reason, and it has nothing to do with playing hockey. Skill is forgotten in the pursuit of bloodlust.

I seriously wonder how many advocates of fighting have ever laced on a pair of skates and been in a hockey fight.
 

HankyZetts

Twi2ted
Mar 16, 2004
3,341
371
Sure, but another instance of grasping at straws is saying hockey needs fighting because of cheap shots and emotions.
Hockey needs fighting because it is an ultrafast paced, physical game with scrums and constant action. Football you can vent by smashing someone legally every 20 seconds. It's very different in hockey and if you couldn't fight anymore, after a few borderline hits and some net crashing, you'd have guys running all over the ice looking for retribution in the form of "clean hits" which would be madness. There's not always a hit or "vent" available in hockey so it'd get dangerous so fast. That would lead to way more injuries and ugly incidents imo. You'd either have created a ticking time-bomb or totally neutered the game.

I'm all for increased disciplinary action for cheapshots and rules to limit staged or unnecessary fights, but couldn't get behind a ban to fighting.
Wrong. Finishing your checks is a saying coaches have come up with. Matter of fact, there are rules in place that will penalize you from hitting someone without the puck.
The only reason it is sometimes permitted is because they judge that the player was already engaged in checking the player that got rid of the puck. That's the only reason.

Hockey being a physical sport, and guys being competitive and aggressive, hitting has turned into ''I wanna hurt the guy''. It turned into a kind of strategy where you try to hit the opponent as hard and as often as you can as it'll make them tired.
But at the root of it, the point of a check is to knock someone off the puck.

No.
Fact: if you are in position to hit someone, you are also in position to stick check him. Hitting to hurt has and always will be the goal. You want to beat them up and wear them down! That's hockey and football, always has been dude. You never hit to injure, obviously, but you hit him to make him feel it. Have them thinking twice about coming across the middle or carrying the ball/puck in general.

Football is walking a fine line right now with all the rules they're trying hard to enforce. Guys are getting their knees blown out from an increase in low hits since it's a big money fine(50,000$+ i think) for hitting "defenseless" players high. The defense has now been put at a complete disadvantage and yet offensive players such as hall of fame TE Tony Gonzalez are speaking out about the crackdowns. They've got helmets for a reason, and guys would much rather be separated from the ball with a hit to the helmet or shoulder pads than to a leg planted in the ground, which can literally end a career. Be careful what you wish for.
 

Hoople

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
16,193
121
It is the responsibility of the officials to control the level of stickwork and illegal hits in the game. As for preventing injuries, I agree... banning fighting won't help that situation and it won't hurt it either.

So why is it in the game? In the rules of hockey it is deemed to be a major violation so why are you trumpeting the merits of fighting? Because it intimidates?

If that is the case, then as one team muscles up, the next team follows suit and so on. Then it has to be taken to the next level in order to increase your level of intimidation over your opponent and the entire situation escalates.

Eventually roster space is taken up by the likes of John Scott and Colton Orr... players who are there for one reason, and it has nothing to do with playing hockey. Skill is forgotten in the pursuit of bloodlust.

I seriously wonder how many advocates of fighting have ever laced on a pair of skates and been in a hockey fight.

Regarding what I bolded in your response.

No, what you end up with is what you saw with the Leafs and the Bruins in their playoff series. Both teams were full of people who can/could beat the crap out of every other player.

When you reach that point, mutually assured ass kicking, the need to fight becomes moot because there is no intimidation and its no longer a weapon. So they resorted to playing hockey without a need to fight.
 

Beendair Donedat

Punk in Drublic
Dec 29, 2010
5,650
6,183
Truth or Consequences, NM
I'm slowly sliding to the "anti-fighting" crowd.

How many cheap shots do we see in the NFL exactly? American football is one of the toughest contact sport out there, and a lot of the players in that league (I'm trying to be politically correct here) come from some "harsh" neighborhood. And yet... You don't see fights all that often out there, nor cheapshots. It's about the culture of the sport.

I think the NHL should make a move sooner than later to ban the fighting out of this game.

The comparison between hockey and football is ridiculous... In football you play 16 games a year. In the NHL you play 82 games. Already you're going to have more chances of fights/conflicts just on numbers alone... Secondly NFL players only play exclusively on offense or defense, meaning their smaller playing window is decreased even more. NHL players don't have that issue although playing time varies between players.

The speed in the NHL is much higher than the NFL and it's played on a tougher surface. NFL players, while fast, don't have the speed at which contact occurs in the NHL.

NHL players play with sticks that are often used as weapons. NFL players don't have that in their game.

Finally you say cheap shots aren't prevalent in the NFL. I disagree but say you're right - Who is more likely to be involved in shootings, off field/ice violence in the off season? Hockey players or Football players? I think we all know the answer to that one.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->