Fighting after a clean hit

[Gordon Lightfoot]

Why do many fans seem to have a problem with a fight after a clean hit? I feel like it's part of the game. If I throw a big hit on you, your teammate might come after me. He's not going to try to decide if it was clean or not. And if I'm not the fighting type, maybe I should throw regular checks and not try to destroy someone.

 

[Hynh]

Delayed retribution isn't cool ever since Bertuzzi so you have to punch without checking whether it was clean or not

 

[adsfan]

If it is a clean hit, there is no reason to fight!

Inside the rules, you can look for the guy and nail him when you get the chance.

Think about this. The biggest guy on the opposition hits your smallest player. The next time that their smallest guy has the puck, you or your teammate plaster him. It is perfectly legal and sends a message. A hit for a hit, that is part of hockey. Fighting is a part of hockey too. But fighting over a good legal hit has always puzzled and troubled me.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

I'm mostly talking about immediately after the hit. I'd want my teammates to do it if I got rocked.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

If it is a clean hit, there is no reason to fight!

Inside the rules, you can look for the guy and nail him when you get the chance.

Think about this. The biggest guy on the opposition hits your smallest player. The next time that their smallest guy has the puck, you or your teammate plaster him. It is perfectly legal and sends a message. A hit for a hit, that is part of hockey. Fighting is a part of hockey too. But fighting over a good legal hit has always puzzled and troubled me.

That's fair and it makes sense. But I see it opposite. Not fighting or at least getting in someone's face always puzzled me.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

I guess I think that because the purpose of a check is supposedly to separate a player from the puck, not to destroy a guy or hit him as hard as possible. And part of the game is also to defend your teammates.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

If it is a clean hit, there is no reason to fight!

Inside the rules, you can look for the guy and nail him when you get the chance.

Think about this. The biggest guy on the opposition hits your smallest player. The next time that their smallest guy has the puck, you or your teammate plaster him. It is perfectly legal and sends a message. A hit for a hit, that is part of hockey. Fighting is a part of hockey too. But fighting over a good legal hit has always puzzled and troubled me.

Sticking up for your teammate is good for the locker room and comradery. Its a pack mentality. You drill my teammate, friend, roommate or whatever, I'm not going to be happy about it and I'm going to want to do something about it in the moment. Doesn't matter if its within the rules or not, I'm still going to want to protect my guy.

 

[Paris in Flames]

I'm the biggest hypocrite on this subject.

When it's two teams I'm not invested in then I don't like the idea of having to fight after a clean hit. Buuuuut on the other side of it, if somebody does so much as breath on Nylander's hair I want Matt Martin to show up at the guys house.

 

[MrLunatik]

If it is a clean hit, there is no reason to fight!

Momentum is a reason and if you fight after a clean hit it can stop the momentum shift that a big clean hit can provide. It also sends a message to prevent borderline hits.

 

[Reinhart]

Clean hits can cause injuries and end careers too.

I will never understand how people seem shocked that players want retribution for those big clean hits often. Look, they may be in the rules, but is this merely a 'separate the puck from the player' play? No.

What is it then?

A big clean hit is really a legal way of an intent to injure. What else is it? That's why players fight after.

I, for one, love seeing the big hits and even the fights after, as I feel it brings a lot of emotion into the game. Games I feel are often to sterile these days during the regular season. I love emotion in sports. I just find it kind of funny that some people take the side of "A guy shouldn't have to fight if the hit was legal". A guy shouldn't have to send another player into the upper bowl either to separate him from the puck so his team can gain possession.

 

[almostawake]

There is a great blog post on this called "The Punk Test" by Dangle.

To me it perfectly describes why it is important to push back against physical play regardless of whether it is legal or not.

 

[Chrisinroch]

If you want to see fewer big clean hits, you'll want more fighting after them.

 

[BLNY]

Why do many fans seem to have a problem with a fight after a clean hit? I feel like it's part of the game. If I throw a big hit on you, your teammate might come after me. He's not going to try to decide if it was clean or not. And if I'm not the fighting type, maybe I should throw regular checks and not try to destroy someone.

A clean legal play, whether it's a goal, pass, or hit, should never be the cause of a fight. Hit the guy back. Stopping play because your team mate got hit clean is a waste of time. What bothers me more is these are clear instances of instigation and by the letter of the law should result in immediate ejection.

With ipads/tablets and tvs with live feeds on the benches, along with press box coaches, find out from them if it was dirty. If the check was clean, suck it up and go out and return the favor. If the hit was dirty, take a number and engage them later.

 

[kcin94]

I'm mostly talking about immediately after the hit. I'd want my teammates to do it if I got rocked.

If you can't handle getting hit clean, don't play hockey.

 

[Sens Rule]

If it is a clean hit, there is no reason to fight!

Inside the rules, you can look for the guy and nail him when you get the chance.

Think about this. The biggest guy on the opposition hits your smallest player. The next time that their smallest guy has the puck, you or your teammate plaster him. It is perfectly legal and sends a message. A hit for a hit, that is part of hockey. Fighting is a part of hockey too. But fighting over a good legal hit has always puzzled and troubled me.

That is true. But sometimes it does not matter. Everyone understands this.

Byfuglien cleanly hit Stone. Hard. Left him crumpled on the ice. His linemate Pageau comes at Byfuglien giving up maybe 80 pounds and punches him in the face seconds after the hit. In another second Smith the much bigger linemate of Stone pushes Pageau aside and goes at Byfuglien. There was never an actual fight because Byfuglien respected the entire situation and just took a few punches to the head and didn't destroy smaller guys defending their teammates after his clean hit.

Anyway most players that destroy a guy clean know they are possibly going to face the consequences. That is why some players will choose not to destroy a guy and just hit him but not destroy him when they get a chance at a clean hit to an unsuspecting player.

Guys like Buff throw big hits and expect the consequences and even respect the situation enough to let the other team defend their guy a bit and not go nuclear on guys that do that are out of his weight class.

It is NHL hockey. Guys that choose to throw nuclear sized hits know they may face a nuclear sized response. Lots of players do not want to face the consequences so they don't hit guys that way. Simple.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Can we have fights after clean zone entries too?

 

[acrobaticgoalie]

I'm mostly talking about immediately after the hit. I'd want my teammates to do it if I got rocked.

So keep your head up and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Hitting is a part of the game and thepoint of it is to stop the opposing player and seperate him from the puck. Why should you have to fight for a perfectly clean and legal hit?

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[Canadiens1958]

Necessary

Issue has changed over the years from whether a hit was part of a necessary hockey play to if it was clean as defined by a measurable abstraction of the rules. Eg. time lapse after the play was made, blind spot, etc.

Basically if the hit is not necessary it should not be made.

 

[almostawake]

People grossly overrate the gap in intention between a very big legal hit and the vast majority of illegal hits.

They are both a product of aggression and recklessness.

I hate Torres and I find his attitude disgusting. But at least he was honest about it when asked. To him, his illegal hits were just a side effect of the level of aggression he had to maintain to be a viable NHLer (i.e. to make the legal hits that made him effective). Where I disagree with Torres is that, in my opinion if he had to force such a high level of aggression to maintain employment, then he probably shouldn't have been in the NHL.

All big hits have the same goal, to violently take the other player out.

If a player who is in the league largely because of his willingness to play a highly aggressive style makes a big legal hit on your teammate, why just let him continue on that path unchecked when you know good and well that if he continues ramping up his aggressiveness there is a very good chance the next big hit will not be legal.

For what its worth, it isn't often that you see guys who aren't noted for their aggressive style being challenged to fights after big legal hits.

In fact, it is quite often that players who are noted for not playing aggressively aren't even challenged to a fight after a blatantly illegal hit.

 

[kcin94]

Can we have fights after clean zone entries too?

Should have to fight after a good goal too. That way it will be a deterrent and players will be less eager to score.

 

[Sens Rule]

Should have to fight after a good goal too. That way it will be a deterrent and players will be less eager to score.

We need to see more Dale Hunter on Pierre Turgeon type moves.

Plus but a sharp metal edge on sticks so the NHL can be like Mortal Combat with fatalities and decapitations.

Goalies should have a new stat called Hextall. For losing it and brutally attacking someone with their goal stick.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Should have to fight after a good goal too. That way it will be a deterrent and players will be less eager to score.

And what's the difference between a 'good goal' and a goal that's waived off for offsides? Not even inches!

Do we really want to watch a game where the 'official' in a 'War Room' polices the blue line? Let the players police offsides on their own.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Think of it in the context of another sport.

If a QB throws a long pass that's a little off the mark and a defenseless vunerable WR gets crushed by a Safety. You don't see the offensive linemen running down the field to "send a message". It's part of the game.




If a defenseman throws a suicide pass up the middle and the opposing defenseman steps up and crushes the forward with his head down receiving the pass. That's a line brawl because hockey .

 

[Sens Rule]

Think of it in the context of another sport.

If a QB throws a long pass that's a little off the mark and a defenseless vunerable WR gets crushed by a Safety. You don't see the offensive linemen running down the field to "send a message". It's part of the game.




If a defenseman throws a suicide pass up the middle and the opposing defenseman steps up and crushes the forward with his head down receiving the pass. That's a line brawl because hockey .

Irrelevant. Completely different sports.

Might as well ask why people don't kick in boxing.