News Article: OHL's New Fight Rules & What it Means For the NHL?

[scott99]

They are cracking down on high hits. Just like football, some of the roughness (some would say toughness) is disappearing. It's unfortunate that the players seem to not have respect for the game anymore, though I think hockey in the 70's-90's was a more vicious game. This so called hitting from behind was normal procedure back then. But, I think the bigger issue is the players are MUCH bigger, faster and stronger now, yet the ice surface is still the same size as it was back in the 1930's. So there is less room to maneuver, therefore more injuries are occurring. Of course the owners will never change the size of the ice surface because they will lose money by losing seats. I guarantee you if a study was done, there are way less injuries in Europe due to the larger ice surfaces.

 

[Renbarg]

I understand what your saying and your right about the product on the ice being much better without fighting....all im saying is if your the best player on the other team and im on defense and I don't have to answer for my actions...you bet your a** im gonna hit you high and hard all series because with you out of the series, my team has a better chance to win....the point of an enforcer would be so that doesn't happen. I deliver one high hit and then i have to fight some ape like the boogie man, maybe id rather just try to play hockey the rest of the series. Thats all im saying.

But you wont have to fight their ape! Their ape will fight our ape. For the **** cooke has done, how many fights has he been in?

 

[LeapOnOver]

OMG! You guys are totally missing the point about fighting. If it weren't for fighting you know our girlfriends/wives would NEVER go to the games. Now if you are fine with that okay, but every Islanders game will be too much of a meat party without fighting. You absolutely have to keep it in the game unless you are content with just staring at the Ice Girls from afar.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Ok, here's my position.

1) First and foremost, I'm not anti-fighting. I'm anti-goonery. I feel the guy who plays 3 minutes a game, just to fight serves no purpose.

2) The goons, get almost no time in the playoffs, when the hockey actually matters. The game is about who scores more, when the coaches have their backs to the wall, they forget about all the "old-time" hockey ********, and send out a lineup that gets them more goals and keeps the other team from scoring.

3) There is no such thing as a deterrent factor. Why? Twofold. First, these guys are all huge and in shape, ultra-competitive, type A personalities, with huge egos (that's just the way most high-end athletes are, that's part of what it takes to be a pro-athlete). They're not scared of other guys, it goes against their nature. Secondly goons can't deter anyone because they're never on the ice, and when they are on the ice they can't (and don't) jump other non-fighters (it really happens so ****ing rarely). A random player is more likely to be a victim of a dirty/huge hit then a victim of a fist, how then does a the potential of that fist exactly deter him?

4) Tavares and Crosby are still knocked around plenty. They've also gotten older and smarter, they know where they can and can't go. On top of this both have a tendency to diva it up on the ice which, I hope, they are maturing out of. There is no doubt that in mind that Clutterbuck never even had one thought about who was on the Pens bench when he lines up Crosby, and if he knew it would cause someone to stupidly hunt him, he would make sure he hits Crosby.

1) I actually agree with this. But many people who fight DO serve a purpose on teams.

2) Agreed once again.

3) This This is purely you're opinion and ideas. It's not substantiated with any proof or evidence.

4) Tavares and Crosby are not knocked around the way they used to be when they first came into the league. The same thing happened with Gretzky before they began to protect him.

Players on opposing teams go for the star players of their opponents. It happens. It's hockey. That's the way it goes. You need to protect your players. Once again I found it pathetic that Okposo had to be the one to stand up for JT years ago.

 

[ScaredStreit]

But you wont have to fight their ape! Their ape will fight our ape. For the **** cooke has done, how many fights has he been in?

Answer honestly: In 2002 when Tucker took out Peca did you not really want Webb to beat the living crap out of Tucker?

 

[Renbarg]

Answer honestly: In 2002 when Tucker took out Peca did you not really want Webb to beat the living crap out of Tucker?

No, Webb was never a fighter. I wanted Cairns to take care of him, or Cummings. But who fought him? Shawn f'ing Bates (to be fair it was an organic fight and not a retribution fight). Why? Because Tucker didn't want to fight Cairns, or Cummings, or even Webb. He didn't want to, therefore he didn't, so how can he possibly be deterred from attacking Peca's knee when he has no obligation to fight?

 

[Renbarg]

1) I actually agree with this. But many people who fight DO serve a purpose on teams.

2) Agreed once again.

3) This This is purely you're opinion and ideas. It's not substantiated with any proof or evidence.

4) Tavares and Crosby are not knocked around the way they used to be when they first came into the league. The same thing happened with Gretzky before they began to protect him.

Players on opposing teams go for the star players of their opponents. It happens. It's hockey. That's the way it goes. You need to protect your players. Once again I found it pathetic that Okposo had to be the one to stand up for JT years ago.

3) The deterrent factor isn't substantiated either. We're talking about the NHL today, and not the NHL in the 70s, where the Broad Street Bullies ran wild.

4) Again, I think a lot of this is perception, and not necessarily fact. In addition to this, all three players got older and better at avoiding contact. That's kinda what happens with age, you learn pretty quick to keep your head up the first time you take a Scott Stevens check (unless you're a Lindros).

 

[OlTimeHockey]

If goons weren't so punished, they would be the O'Reily's and Semenkos and Gillies....but the league did away with players enforcing conduct so the game changed to Mick Vukota and Jim Cummins goons. It didn't work, cheap shots go unanswered due to fines and suspensions and hits got cheaper.

There is a place for it, but Bettman eliminated it.

ORGANIC fights are GREAT! But the league wants to appease the beauty of the game, the trap, the rushes with stickwork, etc. Sorry, the game was once much better.

Euro hockey was a joke.....boring....but now it's the standard? Sure. They started playing rougher. Bigger ice surface? Try smaller and softer equipment!!! Players still take up roughly four square feet of space...about the same as always.

Faster? More skill and better skating make up for that change.

THE MEANS TO WHICH FIGHTING WAS ACHIEVED CHANGED. NOT FOR THE BETTER. Now it's cheaper hits and harder hits due to equipment {bigger players are being hit by bigger players now.....and equipment protects them more than ever}.

What's not being focused on is the honor code. It's gone, almost.

We can argue if fighting should be banned or allowed unfettered....the issue is stupid. Players should patrol players without fear of suspensions for upsetting Bettman. What should be allowed is retaliation and in some way prevention of horrible hits that hrt players.

A player like Byfuglen or Chara should be LAUDED for fighting if it's to protect a teammate. Nowadays I feel like the league wants to hand out Kleenex tissues.

There is a place to allow players to vent and contain the emotion to prevent Bertuzzi hits and prevent career enders.

But I feel the league wants fights to remain staged to satisfy purists {it doesn't} and prevent raw emotion from hurting the Disney crowd.

 

[JKP]

I heard an interview with David Branch talking about this. I think this rule is actually more interesting than the staged fighting rule:

If a player receives a fourth minor penalty during the regular season in any one of the following categories, ie., checking from behind, checking to the head, kneeing, clipping or boarding, he shall receive a one (1) game suspension. For each subsequent minor penalty in any of the particular categories, the suspension shall be increased accordingly.

This starts to clean up the stick work and goonery that many are arguing you need enforcers for. It recognizes that from time-to-time you might make a bad judgement or a mistake, but if you're a habitual ********, you'll start missing time (and game cheques).

Personally, I agree that staged fights are stupid and should be banned / punished. Waste of time. I also am not a big fan of fighting. I get why it's there and some think it should be, but I personally find it just ruins the flow of a game. I'd rather watch skill players skating, passing, shooting, checking, etc. than fighting.

 

[ScaredStreit]

No, Webb was never a fighter. I wanted Cairns to take care of him, or Cummings. But who fought him? Shawn f'ing Bates (to be fair it was an organic fight and not a retribution fight). Why? Because Tucker didn't want to fight Cairns, or Cummings, or even Webb. He didn't want to, therefore he didn't, so how can he possibly be deterred from attacking Peca's knee when he has no obligation to fight?

Tucker never really got minutes after the incident IIRC. Could be wrong. And I forgot all about Cairns.