Why do enforcer need to be in hockey ?

[Big Phil]

The Sens were up 2-1 in the series when that happened. The brawl had nothing to do with who won.

So I give you a recent example of a team getting their lunch handed to them in the alley (2013) and you claim it didn't have an effect? Which dressing room were you in? Montreal or Ottawa's?

Rivalries can start in other ways besides fighting.

They can, but so many of the great ones have legendary fights/brawls that keep the blood boiling. I think you're fighting a losing battle here.

I guess the thing I really don't understand is your apparent love for MMA fighting. You say you are worried that a player will get a concussion from a fight in the NHL and this is your basis on it but you like MMA? Sorry, just a bit confused here. The entire premise is to hurt the other person. Look at boxing for example, you are literally hoping for a TKO. But a fight in the NHL every other game from two combatants is not good because of concussions? Am I understanding this right?

 

[On-the-Fly]

I'm not one of those who say that fighting isn't a part of the game. I don't deny the threat of an enforcer has an effect on the game, sometimes it is observable and sometimes not. The intimidation from that threat probably makes players play a little bit differently. Would there be a higher or lower number of cheap shots without fighting in the game, how are we supposed to know? Probably more, I'd wager. Fights/enforcers also serve that tangible justice that should be delivered to the rats of the game. Fights are entertaining as hell. Put a camera on the crowd and show fan reactions to fights alongside goals and I bet you probably couldn't tell the difference. Maybe except for that fans of both teams would be on their feet for fights, not goals.

But they should still take it out of the game.

The problem isn't with the role fighting plays as a deterrent, but the effectiveness of the deterrent, and the brand of justice served. Fighting does such a crappy job at what it is supposed to do. It is a limited, sporadically effective, and secondary deterrent. If you really need something to 'keep players accountable', then why on earth would you choose something limited and sporadic? And if you were relying on something like fighting, why wouldn't you look for something more effective?

Of course, that is all about safety at the heart.

Fighting, or the role of the enforcer, shouldn't be viewed from a safety standpoint. It should be approached from a view of improving the game. I think removing fighting and enforcers improves the game.

 

[canucksfan]

So I give you a recent example of a team getting their lunch handed to them in the alley (2013) and you claim it didn't have an effect? Which dressing room were you in? Montreal or Ottawa's?

It is your job to prove it had an effect. You can't do it unless players said that is why they won the series.

They can, but so many of the great ones have legendary fights/brawls that keep the blood boiling. I think you're fighting a losing battle here.

At one point fighting did start great rivalries but now they rarely if ever do. Sens/Canadians didn't start one after the brawl in 2013.

I guess the thing I really don't understand is your apparent love for MMA fighting. You say you are worried that a player will get a concussion from a fight in the NHL and this is your basis on it but you like MMA? Sorry, just a bit confused here. The entire premise is to hurt the other person. Look at boxing for example, you are literally hoping for a TKO. But a fight in the NHL every other game from two combatants is not good because of concussions? Am I understanding this right?

With MMA the entire basis is fighting. You can't get rid of fighting in MMA. In hockey fighting can be eliminated because it is very rare in today's game. I don't see how you could be confused with that point.

 

[sanityplease]

This is an interesting thread. I wonder how many posters have actually played the game beyond beer league. There was a poster on an earlier page who was against fighting, I viewed their past posts & saw one where they said that they weren't allowed to play hockey because their mom wouldn't let them [sic]. I'm assuming because the mom thought that hockey was too dangerous or violent...

I have played College & University level hockey. I have personally used the threat of violence (many times & had it used on me), to intimidate or attempt to intimidate & force a withdrawal of an opposing player's unethical actions. When you see a less physical player on your team being intimidated by an opposing player (slashed, roughed up, chirped relentlessly), & you have the ability to reverse the intimidation, you do it (an ethical person feels a responsibility). Intimidation is a 'game in the game', it's always been there, it constantly affects the ebb & flow of the game. It's a mechanism that is a fundamental part of hockey. Having the option to fight (without being suspended for 20 games), is a fundamental part of that mechanism. Intimidation is something that is clear on the ice, but probably impossible to quantify watching from the stands or on TV.

Hockey is a violent sport, it has a unique combination of speed, continuous play, physical contact & use of peripheral's (sticks). To succeed, a player must exert themselves physically on opposing players. I have difficulty understanding someone who accepts physical contact in the sport, but wants fighting outlawed (suspensions etc.). Unless of course their end goal will eventually be to eliminate violence altogether.

There is a difference however, between 'fighting' & employing a designated 'enforcer'. It is clear that the designated 'enforcer' is either subjected to dangerous psychological/physical brain trauma, or is predisposed to a condition. In either case, being placed in a role where their fighting ability is the reason they are in the game, seems to cause damage psychologically.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

With MMA the entire basis is fighting. You can't get rid of fighting in MMA. In hockey fighting can be eliminated because it is very rare in today's game. I don't see how you could be confused with that point.

I don't see how you can't see the hypocrisy in relishing the pursuit of knockouts (and thus concussion risk) in one sport while whining about the very small risk that one will occur from fighting in hockey (204 fights so far this year - how many injuries, big or small?). Maybe you do, but feel like taking the hockey nanny approach anyway. No matter how you try to downplay the importance of fighting to protect yourself/teammates, it's fundamental to the overall make-up of the game. If it wasn't, coaches wouldn't devote practice time to teaching players how to do it properly, and how to protect themselves. But they always have, and they still do because it's a part of hockey and always has been.

And you know, you could have MMA without blows to the head, complete with karate style body punching, taekwondo kicks to the legs/body, wrestling from the standing, mount, or ground positions, and still even have submissions, but would you still watch this product, or find it as entertaining? That's the version of MMA that you have to argue for to be consistent on this one.

 

[leburn98]

It is your job to prove it had an effect. You can't do it unless players said that is why they won the series.

Clearly the Habs management thought it did as the following year they added Murray, Weise and a face-puncher of their own in George Parros. Say what you will, but that series and the 6-0 blowout from the Leafs were key reasons why Bergevin felt the need to add these guys to their lineup.

At one point fighting did start great rivalries but now they rarely if ever do. Sens/Canadians didn't start one after the brawl in 2013.

Obviously you haven't been to the CTC during a Sens/Habs game since that series

In my opinion, fighting is the least of the NHL's problems. If anything, it's certain rule changes since the 04-05 lockout such as the removing of the 'Two-line pass', 'Clutching and Grabbing' and the inability to impede that has been far more detrimental to the safety of the players than fighting ever will be. While exciting to watch, the game has now become so fast that it's almost inevitable that a concussion is just around the corner.

 

[On-the-Fly]

This is an interesting thread. I wonder how many posters have actually played the game beyond beer league. There was a poster on an earlier page who was against fighting, I viewed their past posts & saw one where they said that they weren't allowed to play hockey because their mom wouldn't let them [sic]. I'm assuming because the mom thought that hockey was too dangerous or violent...

It is interesting, isn't it? It probably isn't necessary to have played the game at a high level to understand the mechanics of intimidation and the role it can play as a deterrent to acting outside a 'code'. Is there any essential difference between knowing not to grab a guy's wife's ass in a bar and not taking a cheap shot at a skilled player due to the threat of a fight?

More interesting is the mom not letting a kid play the game because it is too violent. Even if it isn't exactly the case here, the generality could certainly be accepted. And I agree with it. One of the reasons to eliminate fighting would be to increase the chance of hockey being a game of choice for parents who either have kids in another sport, or are looking to put their kid in a sport.

Obviously you've got to admit of degree here, and choose to focus on the violent, yet marginal, aspects of the game versus the more essential, yet violent, elements.

I have played College & University level hockey. I have personally used the threat of violence (many times & had it used on me), to intimidate or attempt to intimidate & force a withdrawal of an opposing player's unethical actions. When you see a less physical player on your team being intimidated by an opposing player (slashed, roughed up, chirped relentlessly), & you have the ability to reverse the intimidation, you do it (an ethical person feels a responsibility). Intimidation is a 'game in the game', it's always been there, it constantly affects the ebb & flow of the game. It's a mechanism that is a fundamental part of hockey. Having the option to fight (without being suspended for 20 games), is a fundamental part of that mechanism. Intimidation is something that is clear on the ice, but probably impossible to quantify watching from the stands or on TV.

I'm not so sure people should be questioning the role of intimidation on the ice. I, for one, understand it and don't question that it plays a significant role in the game.

You gave an example of a player committing infractions against the game that weren't penalized by the refs. We suppose you threatened to fight your opponent, another infraction against the game. This should be an accepted anecdote, well illustrating the role of fighting/intimidation as a deterrent. Why not threaten with a bodycheck, or some other form of act that lay within the rules of the game.

Wouldn't a heavy hit promote all the things you listed below, of hockey as a violent, fast, continuously played, physical sport that requires a certain temperament to succeed at? And conversely, doesn't fighting run contrary to some of those things? Fights stop the play. They occur between whistles and are a penalty.

Hockey is a violent sport, it has a unique combination of speed, continuous play, physical contact & use of peripheral's (sticks). To succeed, a player must exert themselves physically on opposing players. I have difficulty understanding someone who accepts physical contact in the sport, but wants fighting outlawed (suspensions etc.). Unless of course their end goal will eventually be to eliminate violence altogether.

For the good of the game.

Not to eliminate violence altogether, but to eliminate those elements that can be eliminated and replaced by some other mechanism, and that run contrary to hockey's image as a fast, talented, hard hitting, competitive sport. Promoting the things that make the game it's best version of itself, through eliminating the things that tend to run counter, like cheap shots, head hits, fighting, etc.

 

[canucksfan]

I don't see how you can't see the hypocrisy in relishing the pursuit of knockouts (and thus concussion risk) in one sport while whining about the very small risk that one will occur from fighting in hockey (204 fights so far this year - how many injuries, big or small?). Maybe you do, but feel like taking the hockey nanny approach anyway. No matter how you try to downplay the importance of fighting to protect yourself/teammates, it's fundamental to the overall make-up of the game. If it wasn't, coaches wouldn't devote practice time to teaching players how to do it properly, and how to protect themselves. But they always have, and they still do because it's a part of hockey and always has been.

And you know, you could have MMA without blows to the head, complete with karate style body punching, taekwondo kicks to the legs/body, wrestling from the standing, mount, or ground positions, and still even have submissions, but would you still watch this product, or find it as entertaining? That's the version of MMA that you have to argue for to be consistent on this one.

The whole purpose of MMA is to win a fight. Hocke,y the purpose is to win the game by scoring more goals. Fighting has nothing to do with that. It is easy to take out.

 

[canucksfan]

Clearly the Habs management thought it did as the following year they added Murray, Weise and a face-puncher of their own in George Parros. Say what you will, but that series and the 6-0 blowout from the Leafs were key reasons why Bergevin felt the need to add these guys to their lineup.

Parros rarely played. Murray played 3 playoff games. Weise is a good 4th liner that can add toughness through bodychecking and forechecking.

Obviously you haven't been to the CTC during a Sens/Habs game since that series

There will always be a hype for Sens/Habs games due to geography. I have never seen networks promote the game because of that brawl. I have never seen players mention it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

For the good of the game.

Not to eliminate violence altogether, but to eliminate those elements that can be eliminated and replaced by some other mechanism, and that run contrary to hockey's image as a fast, talented, hard hitting, competitive sport. Promoting the things that make the game it's best version of itself, through eliminating the things that tend to run counter, like cheap shots, head hits, fighting, etc.

Hockey's image, which has continued to attract more fans and money every year, has always come from three things above all else: goals, hits, and fights. And you simply can't have the hitting without the fighting. The guys in the game know this, they guys who have played the game know this, and those who understand the game best know this too.

 

[Gerin]

Enforcers don't need to be in the game anymore. Game has changed were your better off using the lineup spot on someone who can actually can play over wasting it over some guy who has no talent and just fights. For pest and cheap shots teams are better off with guys like Lucic or Iginla while those guys are rare u can still find role players like Dorsett and S.Thortan who are good enough for a 4th line role and still can throw them.
While the protection doesn't always work example bruins with those names listed above and more guys like chara and ect still see players get cheaper shot (e.g. Horton hit) that's why using someone like John Scott is a waste

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The whole purpose of MMA is to win a fight. Hocke,y the purpose is to win the game by scoring more goals. Fighting has nothing to do with that. It is easy to take out.

So easy, in fact, that no one has even bothered for 100 years (except minor and female hockey, which will gladly accept your patronage dollars).

You're not getting the fact, btw, that players believe that physical intimidation can open up more space for them to score goals and win those games. So sometimes fighting has "something to do with that". And sometimes the key to a strong team is chemistry, and some players contribute to that by taking on the role of fighter for those on the team who either "can't" or "shouldn't".

But back to your initial line, why can't MMA fighters win a fight without striking the head? I've seen body shots drop boxers, leg kicks cripple kick boxers, and anything from ankle locks to kimuras finish grapplers/wrestlers. But punches and kicks to the head are absolutely crucial/fundamental to you in this arena, huh? Therein lies your hypocrisy.

 

[canucksfan]

So easy, in fact, that no one has even bothered for 100 years (except minor and female hockey, which will gladly accept your patronage dollars).

European hockey, IIHF etc.

You're not getting the fact, btw, that players believe that physical intimidation can open up more space for them to score goals and win those games. So sometimes fighting has "something to do with that". And sometimes the key to a strong team is chemistry, and some players contribute to that by taking on the role of fighter for those on the team who either "can't" or "shouldn't".

No fighting does not.

But back to your initial line, why can't MMA fighters win a fight without striking the head? I've seen body shots drop boxers, leg kicks cripple kick boxers, and anything from ankle locks to kimuras finish grapplers/wrestlers. But punches and kicks to the head are absolutely crucial/fundamental to you in this arena, huh? Therein lies your hypocrisy.

MMA is two people fighting inside a cage. It is a ****ing fight. Hockey fighting is very rare so easy to take out.

 

[leburn98]

Parros rarely played. Murray played 3 playoff games. Weise is a good 4th liner that can add toughness through bodychecking and forechecking.

Parros face planted into the ice. Guaranteed that if that didn't happen, he would have played more games. Also, regardless of the amount of games each player has played or whether a player didn't work out (in the case of Murray), still doesn't negate the fact that these three moves were all in direct relation to what the Leafs and Sens did to them the year prior.

 

[canucksfan]

Parros face planted into the ice. Guaranteed that if that didn't happen, he would have played more games. Also, regardless of the amount of games each player has played or whether a player didn't work out (in the case of Murray), still doesn't negate the fact that these three moves were all in direct relation to what the Leafs and Sens did to them the year prior.

What impact did Parros and Murray have?

Teams are not dressing enforcers now. Look at the Leafs, there were dressing two but now none.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

European hockey, IIHF etc.

The "big kids on the block".

No fighting does not.

Yes it does, and the overwhelming majority of people who disagree are on the outside of the game with a tenuous grasp/understanding at best when it comes to knowing what's involved with being a hockey player on an NHL team.

MMA is two people fighting inside a cage. It is a ****ing fight. Hockey fighting is very rare so easy to take out.

But it comes back to "why bother"? And if you're going to toss the "safety" line out there, well, you're simply exposing your hypocrisy. If you're going to toss out the "insignificant" line, you're simply exposing the limits of your understanding.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Players believed visors should not be mandatory. I believe visors should be mandatory. Guess what, visors are getting grandfathered in. I do know more in some cases than players playing the game.

You know?

What do you know?

That visors can prevent some facial injuries?

News flash - everyone and their mother knows that, including the players. They didn't want them because they felt it impeded their play. Why they don't want them has absolutely nothing to do with anything, they are the players and they know what is best for themselves.

 

[canucksfan]

The "big kids on the block".

The IIHF games are bigger than any NHL games. Look at the Olympics and WJC.

Yes it does, and the overwhelming majority of people who disagree are on the outside of the game with a tenuous grasp/understanding at best when it comes to knowing what's involved with being a hockey player on an NHL team.

You have yet to show me where it intimidates. At one time fighting did, I don't see how it does now. GMs like Yzerman want fighting gone, teams are not dressing enforcers and fighting is going down in the NHL and significantly in junior leagues.

But it comes back to "why bother"? And if you're going to toss the "safety" line out there, well, you're simply exposing your hypocrisy. If you're going to toss out the "insignificant" line, you're simply exposing the limits of your understanding.

Fighting isn't needed therefore it is easy to get rid. You can't get rid of major components of MMA. I wouldn't be surprised if MMA had to change their rules due to lawsuits.

I will backtrack on one thing. Fighting does help create rivalries which the NHL is in desperate need of. So fighting is not 100% useless but I feel the NHL could do without it. I think if the NHL were to get rid of the big enforcers, McGrattan etc. it would be a benefit for the pro fighting crowd. Also, fighting is entertaining, I have said that before in this thread but it depends on the fighters.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The IIHF games are bigger than any NHL games. Look at the Olympics and WJC.

Look at games that are in single elimination tournaments that don't involve an 80 game regular season qualifier?! Sure!

You have yet to show me where it intimidates. At one time fighting did, I don't see how it does now. GMs like Yzerman want fighting gone, teams are not dressing enforcers and fighting is going down in the NHL and significantly in junior leagues.

The deliberately obtuse line of rejecting physical violence's ability to intimidate is getting tiring... and pathetic. Teams are not dressing as many enforcers because they're trusting more and more "skilled" players to handle those responsibilities themselves as part of "team toughness". A response, btw, to the fact that dirt bag players now filter through top 3 lines these days, not primarily the 4th like yesteryear, so it's harder for one single guy to get an opportunity in the same game to chase down offenders on 3 or 4 different lines.

Again, fighting is useless in the NHL. It isn't needed therefore it is easy to get rid. You can't get rid of major components of MMA.

So striking the head is a "major component" of MMA and absolutely necessary (despite the myriad other techniques I've only begun to outline for you), and that makes it untouchable... Just wow. Almost a freak show level of contorting your logic is taking on in this one.

Fighting in hockey at the highest level is a fundamental, which is why coaches continue to teach their players who to protect/handle themselves while standing up for others, and why GMs continue to evaluate their team's "toughness" when signing/releasing players.

 

[sanityplease]

Originally posted by On-the-Fly
More interesting is the mom not letting a kid play the game because it is too violent. Even if it isn't exactly the case here, the generality could certainly be accepted. And I agree with it. One of the reasons to eliminate fighting would be to increase the chance of hockey being a game of choice for parents who either have kids in another sport, or are looking to put their kid in a sport.

The mother is programming her child, based on ignorant knowledge of the sport. Violence is virtually non-existent in minor hockey and/or non-competitive hockey. Violence only become an issue @ elite levels.

You gave an example of a player committing infractions against the game that weren't penalized by the refs. We suppose you threatened to fight your opponent, another infraction against the game. This should be an accepted anecdote, well illustrating the role of fighting/intimidation as a deterrent. Why not threaten with a bodycheck, or some other form of act that lay within the rules of the game.

Wouldn't a heavy hit promote all the things you listed below, of hockey as a violent, fast, continuously played, physical sport that requires a certain temperament to succeed at? And conversely, doesn't fighting run contrary to some of those things? Fights stop the play. They occur between whistles and are a penalty.

During the course of a game, you may never get an opportunity to execute a legal 'heavy hit' against a particular opponent (especially if the opposing player is expecting one). It is NOT an effective mechanism to counter intimidation.

Fighting (not enforcers) & intimidation form a symbiotic relationship. You can't simply remove fighting & expect intimidation to magically regulate itself. The topic is dark matter to most people.

The current state of officiating is not capable of enforcing the game on its own. Eliminate the initial infractions in my example (slashing, cheap shots, roughing up, chirping relentlessly- which often go uncalled, & often occur after whistles & from the benches), & fighting will not be required. But, you will be changing the nature of professional hockey drastically. Many fans are drawn to the sport because of the aggression & violence.

For the good of the game.

Not to eliminate violence altogether, but to eliminate those elements that can be eliminated and replaced by some other mechanism

Is completely subjective.

It is interesting, isn't it? It probably isn't necessary to have played the game at a high level to understand the mechanics of intimidation and the role it can play as a deterrent to acting outside a 'code'. Is there any essential difference between knowing not to grab a guy's wife's ass in a bar and not taking a cheap shot at a skilled player due to the threat of a fight?

The 'code' is regulated by the threat of violence. That guy doesn't grab my wife's hot ass, because I will probably punch him in the face.

Your comparison is probably one of the best 'pro' fighting arguments that I have ever seen. What if fighting in real life carried a mandatory 30 days in jail, no judge, no jury, go straight to jail? What's to dissuade your neighbor, or the guy down street, or that greaseball @ the bar from hitting on your wife or daughter excessively?

 

[On-the-Fly]

Hockey's image, which has continued to attract more fans and money every year, has always come from three things above all else: goals, hits, and fights. And you simply can't have the hitting without the fighting. The guys in the game know this, they guys who have played the game know this, and those who understand the game best know this too.

Sure, fans and viewership of the NHL is up. Participation on the other hand, is down, at least in Canada. It is a trend that Hockey Canada has made attempts to address. Lots of prohibitive factors: cost; other sports; injuries; violence.

You're right that hockey's image has always included goals, hits and fights. I don't entirely agree that those three encapsulate perfectly what hockey is all about. Either way, perhaps a change of that image would aid in increasing participation, and help keep the product that is gaining viewership and fans at its most skilled and entertaining.

 

[On-the-Fly]

The mother is programming her child, based on ignorant knowledge of the sport. Violence is virtually non-existent in minor hockey and/or non-competitive hockey. Violence only become an issue @ elite levels.

Agreed. This is a problem. Not that violence becomes a problem at high levels, but that a mother might not have a proper view of minor hockey. I am not so quick to say that 'mother x' is a one off nutcase and move on. The view of hockey as a violent sport, when minor hockey is generally contact free save for inadvertent collisions, should be addressed. It becomes more important to make sure hockey is most appealing at its most visible level, or the elite ones. That view of hockey as too violent needs to go.

During the course of a game, you may never get an opportunity to execute a legal 'heavy hit' against a particular opponent (especially if the opposing player is expecting one). It is NOT an effective mechanism to counter intimidation.

Your critique of checking as a form of deterrent can be applied to fighting. I agree that checking is an inconsistent, potentially ineffective, and secondary. Fighting is also inconsistent, potentially ineffective and secondary. As Bobby Orr said in his defense of fighting in the game, " The truth is, you couldn't pull the gloves off certain players if a fight was in their future ...". Even if you do get someone to drop the gloves, and don't have to jump them, is there a way to guarantee justice is served? Seems like a wrestling match is just as likely as a beat down. I call it secondary because it's a choice. No one has to fight. And if a player does, then how wrong is 'mother x'?

Fighting (not enforcers) & intimidation form a symbiotic relationship. You can't simply remove fighting & expect intimidation to magically regulate itself. The topic is dark matter to most people.
The current state of officiating is not capable of enforcing the game on its own. Eliminate the initial infractions in my example (slashing, cheap shots, roughing up, chirping relentlessly- which often go uncalled, & often occur after whistles & from the benches), & fighting will not be required. But, you will be changing the nature of professional hockey drastically. Many fans are drawn to the sport because of the aggression & violence.

I agree that if the game were called better there would be less need for a fight. I would take it a step further and say that there is no need for a fight after minor penalties. Cheap shots, on the other hand, do deserve some form of punishment. I would start with suspensions and fines. The level of observance at the elite and highest levels of the game could ensure that absolutely nothing gets missed. Every movement and word of every player could be caught, should there be a need to investigate. Fines and suspensions could be made consistent, effective, but still secondary. If your job is on the line, you are likely to play within the rules. If you're losing 25% of your income for a dirty hit, you'd think twice. Especially if penalties escalated.

The state of officiating isn't there, and rightfully so. Fighting is still an element of the game and plays its role. I'm not suggesting eliminating fighting its effects as a deterrent without implementing some mechanism to protect the players from the 'rats'.

The 'code' is regulated by the threat of violence. That guy doesn't grab my wife's hot ass, because I will probably punch him in the face.

Right. I bring it up only to say that you don't have to be an expert to understand the role fighting plays, and to see it on the ice. It isn't essentially any different from any form of threat, intimidation, and 'codes'. Schoolyard, street, bar, ice, etc.

Your comparison is probably one of the best 'pro' fighting arguments that I have ever seen. What if fighting in real life carried a mandatory 30 days in jail, no judge, no jury, go straight to jail? What's to dissuade your neighbor, or the guy down street, or that greaseball @ the bar from hitting on your wife or daughter excessively?

You've got it the wrong way around. You're suggesting a punishment for fighting, I'm suggesting harsher punishments for cheap shots.

In that case, what if someone hitting on your wife or daughter excessively carried the 30 day sentence?

 

[Sheppy]

Weise never turned down anyone. Weise was supposed to fight McQaid and Thornton jumped in.



That never happened regarding Bieska.

I take it you didn't watch that full game, did you? McQuaid repeatedly challenged him throughout that game after the incident. He also shook his gloves at Thornton and immediately turned away like a punk.

As for Bieksa, how can you argue that he didn't come flying in but as soon as Chara grabs him he's all calm. Did that not happen?

 

[Sheppy]

Some of you guys are acting like you'd get up and leave the room if a fight starts. It's crazy.

 

[On-the-Fly]

Some of you guys are acting like you'd get up and leave the room if a fight starts. It's crazy.

I'm running into the room if I'm out and hear a fight start. They're fun and exciting. Still want 'em gone from the game.