NHLPA Fehr wants to address issue of fighting | Page 7 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

NHLPA Fehr wants to address issue of fighting

Well, I think part of the problem is that the pro-fighting advocates seem to have a problem articulating their side of the argument, and for the anti-fighting proponents guys like Don Cherry & others make for easy targets. Whats crystal clear, to me at least, is that its just not fighting thats the problem here, goes back to what I, Canadiens58 & others have stated, that theirs just a lack of respect amongst the last few generations of players that with the increased speed & evolution of the style of the game, conditioning & equipment advances, rule changes, re-configuration of the goal-line, removal of the centre ice-red-line, the way the games taught, coached etc etc etc, mistakes have been made. Id be taking a time-out, returning to yesterday, turning back the clock & re-setting the cycle, the wheel. Rescinding & removing no-hitting below Bantam. Removing the full cage requirements, banning them. Long list really.



Well, "checking" actually is a problem Foogs. Back in the day the art of checking was simply to strip the opposing player of the puck using minimal force. Economy of movement & effort, using angles to direct them into the boards, or perhaps just simply standing them up on a rush, maybe a hip check, the dirtiest being a "Dip Check", going down low, aiming for the knee's but not knee on knee, using you back, sides, flip the guy ass over tea kettle. Round about 72'ish the whole paradigm swung, whereby players were no longer taught to simply strip the opposing player of the puck, but to "finish the check", and that meant that even after release of the puck you were expected to drive the guy into next week. This of course has become the norm, as witness any game whereby late hits, post release, guy gets absolutely smoked. Again, back in the day, you pulled that, youd immediately get the tar beaten out of you for so callously crossing the line, if not by a potentially injured opponent but by the nearest team mate, large or small, who would seek retribution for your stupidity in breaking The Code, and youd be paying a price, branded an idiot by not only the opposition but so too your own team mates. It simply wasnt done, it was/is dirty hockey.

I don't disagree that hitting [vs checking] is something that's become a problem, especially due to the factors you cited, like the speed of the game increasing, armor on the players, and the mental shift to encouraging the light's out approach. I personally despise the open ice hits that the likes of Stevens and Kronwall deliver. It's simply unnecessary in accomplishing a defensive play, which is ostensibly the reason for the hit.

With that said, hitting certainly does result in concussions, and the players I mentioned above were all the victims of these deliberate intents to knock someone into the next century, and until recently were probably considered legal hits for the most part. When I use the term 'checking' I really do mean the old school check. The hip check is actually one of my favorites, an almost disappearing art unfortunately, but rarely something that will injure an opponent, for example. It also never resulted in a player getting jumped for delivering a clean/legal check, so there's a lot of merit to the respect for each other and the game argument--- but let's not lose sight of who it is that encourages and demands that players 'finish their checks' too.
 
The "Dip" Check...

tumblr_mizimbf82z1r4gyjbo1_400.gif


compress the body, hit down low.
 
Reversal

I don't disagree that hitting [vs checking] is something that's become a problem, especially due to the factors you cited, like the speed of the game increasing, armor on the players, and the mental shift to encouraging the light's out approach. I personally despise the open ice hits that the likes of Stevens and Kronwall deliver. It's simply unnecessary in accomplishing a defensive play, which is ostensibly the reason for the hit.

With that said, hitting certainly does result in concussions, and the players I mentioned above were all the victims of these deliberate intents to knock someone into the next century, and until recently were probably considered legal hits for the most part. When I use the term 'checking' I really do mean the old school check. The hip check is actually one of my favorites, an almost disappearing art unfortunately, but rarely something that will injure an opponent, for example. It also never resulted in a player getting jumped for delivering a clean/legal check, so there's a lot of merit to the respect for each other and the game argument--- but let's not lose sight of who it is that encourages and demands that players 'finish their checks' too.

Hiliting the way the NHL game has changed in the last two generations. Combined with "taking a hit to make a play" you have a complete reversal of descriptions of what used to be considered bad hockey.

Used to mean being slow to read and react, taking the defensive player hopelessly out of position, creating an odd man situation or worse yet allowing a goal. The second meant taking too long to execute offensively mitigated somewhat by bad, equally slow defensive reaction. Both players winding-up out of position to contribute on the resulting sequence resulting on scrambly offensive and defensive play until a reset.

Today both qualities are praised instead of being corrected.
 
I've brought up valid points and this is the response? See, this is my point. Ignore it all you want, hitting is more of a risk than fights.

Who's ignoring it? THAT was my point. The hit that you're most hung up on, Gryba on Eller, was the biggest scandal of the playoffs to date. Chara on Pacioretty drew serious consideration of CRIMINAL charges. The various injuries to Crosby, Savard, Lindros, Kariya and so forth, have been well chronicled and are at the center of a concerted effort to change the rules and culture of the game. A change which all but the most unrepentant are encouraging.

If you really think you're making a strong argument here, I'd like to see even one documented example of someone arguing against fighting but in favor of hits to the head.

I'm not talking about the suspend-able hits either. I'm talking about every single hit. Every hit can and most likely does cause some sort of damage to the brain.

I'd also like to see the hard science behind that, if you don't mind. How does a glancing blow to the hip damage your brain?
 
I've brought up valid points and this is the response? See, this is my point. Ignore it all you want, hitting is more of a risk than fights. I'm not talking about the suspend-able hits either. I'm talking about every single hit. Every hit can and most likely does cause some sort of damage to the brain.

Oh dear, I think your just getting frustrated mgw. A clean check as opposed to a "hit" no problem. Players are taught how to give, how to take a check early (or should be). If executed properly no problem, and you skate away with the puck or knock it off the guys stick for someone else to pick up. Checkings a good thing, full contact, no problem. The problem is that rather than just checking, guys are hitting, targeting the head instead of the body in some cases. They do it late after a players already released the puck or they step into it beyond what is civilized, ethical. The term "finish your check" is code for precisely that kind of action which has become the norm, taught, pounded into players from Pee Wee on up. This whole "finish your check" meme started early-to-mid-70's, dont just check, smoke the guy, put him over the boards, into next week. Most people like watching a good clean check, absolutely. But the "hits"? I dont think even Ogie Oglethorpe would approve. It aint "Code". Back in the day you did that, you'd be the one sent into next week, sent there at the end of someones fist.
 
Hiliting the way the NHL game has changed in the last two generations. Combined with "taking a hit to make a play" you have a complete reversal of descriptions of what used to be considered bad hockey.

Used to mean being slow to read and react, taking the defensive player hopelessly out of position, creating an odd man situation or worse yet allowing a goal. The second meant taking too long to execute offensively mitigated somewhat by bad, equally slow defensive reaction. Both players winding-up out of position to contribute on the resulting sequence resulting on scrambly offensive and defensive play until a reset.

Today both qualities are praised instead of being corrected.


Indeed. You see it all the time, guys going for the big hit and ending up out of position, left behind. I remember Babcock was asked to comment about Kronwall hits at one point, and his message was about being in position to play defense and not to put his team at a disadvantage. I seem to recall fewer of those hits being attempted after that quote. ;)
 
Code II - Security Perimeter

Oh dear, I think your just getting frustrated mgw. A clean check as opposed to a "hit" no problem. Players are taught how to give, how to take a check early (or should be). If executed properly no problem, and you skate away with the puck or knock it off the guys stick for someone else to pick up. Checkings a good thing, full contact, no problem. The problem is that rather than just checking, guys are hitting, targeting the head instead of the body in some cases. They do it late after a players already released the puck or they step into it beyond what is civilized, ethical. The term "finish your check" is code for precisely that kind of action which has become the norm, taught, pounded into players from Pee Wee on up. This whole "finish your check" meme started early-to-mid-70's, dont just check, smoke the guy, put him over the boards, into next week. Most people like watching a good clean check, absolutely. But the "hits"? I dont think even Ogie Oglethorpe would approve. It aint "Code". Back in the day you did that, you'd be the one sent into next week, sent there at the end of someones fist.

You still see elements of the code today. The NHL may issue supplementary discipline but some players require further behavior modification.

Justin Abdelkader was running around taking liberties early in the playoffs until he was Rozsivaled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkFMYrMQCw

Effective follow thru with the stick. No penalty. Establish and apply a security perimeter.
 
Code II

Justin Abdelkader was running around taking liberties early in the playoffs until he was Rozsivaled:...Effective follow thru with the stick. No penalty. Establish and apply a security perimeter.

Yes, good example. Abdelkader was running around out there playing SpaceInvaders. Close to the edge RunningRiot in fact. Clearly wasnt trying to strip the puck off of Rozsival nor earlier the other Hawk players. Best way to deal with that is use your stick & arms in giving the guy a full on FaceWash. Make sure that sort of player understands that there are consequences for getting to close, stepping into a check & crossing the line in an attempt to "hit" either as or just after youve released the puck.
 
Who's ignoring it? THAT was my point. The hit that you're most hung up on, Gryba on Eller, was the biggest scandal of the playoffs to date. Chara on Pacioretty drew serious consideration of CRIMINAL charges. The various injuries to Crosby, Savard, Lindros, Kariya and so forth, have been well chronicled and are at the center of a concerted effort to change the rules and culture of the game. A change which all but the most unrepentant are encouraging.

If you really think you're making a strong argument here, I'd like to see even one documented example of someone arguing against fighting but in favor of hits to the head.



I'd also like to see the hard science behind that, if you don't mind. How does a glancing blow to the hip damage your brain?



Don't twist my words. I'm referring to all of those legal hard hits as well.This video is one tiny example. Bickell's head never touches anything, yet his balance was clearly shaken. I like the words your choosing, trying to diminish hitting. I used the Gryba and Chara hit as an example. Why? Both are legal hits and both hits caused trauma. There is a variable when it comes to hockey players and CTE. You can't prove it was only punches to the head. You can assume it is based on bias towards the subject, but you need to consider all aspects of the player's life.






Here's a bunch of links that will help you arrive at the conclusion that regular hard body contact can and will cause some trauma to the head. I had more from my research paper, I'll gladly pm them to you when I find them.

http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/healthcare_services/nervous_system/injury/Pages/index.aspx

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/concussion/DS00320/DSECTION=causes

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/child-safety/hockey-our-most-dangerous-game

http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20000921/there-are-no-mild-concussions-when-kids-are-involved

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/rele...e-was-not-caused-by-football-concussions.html

http://www.canada.com/news/Earlier+...ike+kids+concussions+study/4447979/story.html
 
Bickell's head never touches anything, yet his balance was clearly shaken.

Whiplash causes imbalance as well, absolutely, brains shaken around. That was a booming check Bickell took there and you can clearly see his head snapping back so sure, not absolutely necessary that some one has their head impact with anything to produce concussion like symptons. Possibility of some mild bruising to the brain. That to me is a perfectly acceptable level. But imagine had he gotten up & tried to retaliate? Took a bunch of punches to the head while his brains are already scrambled eggs? Also possible this guys already suffering concussions, that whiplash stirring up his brain like ice cubes in a Martini Shaker producing the subsequent lack of balance.

We just dont know.
 
Whiplash causes imbalance as well, absolutely, brains shaken around. That was a booming check Bickell took there and you can clearly see his head snapping back so sure, not absolutely necessary that some one has their head impact with anything to produce concussion like symptons. Possibility of some mild bruising to the brain. That to me is a perfectly acceptable level. But imagine had he gotten up & tried to retaliate? Took a bunch of punches to the head while his brains are already scrambled eggs? Also possible this guys already suffering concussions, that whiplash stirring up his brain like ice cubes in a Martini Shaker producing the subsequent lack of balance.

We just dont know.

Which is my point. We can single out fights as the sole reason for concussions and future CTE diagnoses. You also don't need to be diagnosed with a concussion to have brain trauma. One example of someone who's still having problems with post concussion syndrome is Chris Drury. We won't know who is suffering from what until their lives are over and their brains are made available to doctors and scientists.
 
Which is my point. We cant single out fights as the sole reason for concussions and future CTE diagnoses.

Good God no, not just fighting. No ones suggesting that...
and if they are point them out, I'll go beat them up. :D
 
Don't twist my words.

I'm not twisting your words.

Here they are, verbatim:

"I've brought up valid points and this is the response? See, this is my point. Ignore it all you want, hitting is more of a risk than fights."

-- Ok, but nobody is ignoring that hits are also an issue. Headhunting has been a major, front-and-center issue in this league for over a decade and especially in the past few years. It could hardly be MORE talked about. Everyone you're addressing is aware of it, but it is simply not the topic of this conversation. This is a conversation about the NHL/NHLPA's fighting policy, so derailing us to a tangent about hitting is not all that helpful.


"I'm not talking about the suspend-able hits either. I'm talking about every single hit. Every hit can and most likely does cause some sort of damage to the brain."

-- OK, and I asked for hard evidence to corroborate this claim.

I just read every page of the links you posted. NOWHERE does even one of them say that a normal or light bodycheck (ie, "every hit") causes brain injury.

The one article that speaks most directly to the causes of brain trauma is link #1, the OSU article. And it clearly lays out the two common conditions under which concussions emerge:

1) A hard, direct blow to the head area

2) A collision that causes whiplash

Clearly those conditions are not present in "every hit", so barring unpresented evidence there is no support here for the claim that ordinary, legal bodychecking will lead inevitably to CTE.

If such evidence is in fact available, please do not PM it to me. Post it here where it can further the discussion.
 
If the reasoning for taking fighting out of hockey is to prevent injuries then they better take bodychecking out as well because last time I checked way more concussions and other injuries were caused by hitting rather than fighting.

Secondly, if they take fighting out good luck to the star players who will have the target on them increase big time when the Matt Cooke's of the league have no fear of being jumped when they take a run at the other teams star. Taking out fighting will increase injuries not reduce them.

The NHL has taken steps to reduce fighting, and that's fine, but to take it away altogether would be a huge mistake.

Agree. Heat of the battle fights stay, staged fights out, crap after whistles out, start calling CFB for what it is.
 
there is fighting to one extent or another in all team sports. there is less fighting in the nhl because of the helmet/facemask they were more than any other reason. there is plenty of fighting in mlb after cheap shots on the base paths or pitchers throwing at hitters. you see fighting in the nba when it gets physical.

when people around here talk about taking fighting out of the game they talk like here will never be another fight. if fighting were to become a suspendable offense, it would not eliminate very many if at all fights that need to be had.

the staged fights would go. the fights to create a little momentum would stop. but run a goalie or cheap shot a star or young player and there is going to be a fight just like there is in baseball and basketball.

most character nhl players would take a two game suspension to stand up for a player that needed standing up for.
 
there is fighting to one extent or another in all team sports. there is less fighting in the nhl because of the helmet/facemask they were more than any other reason. there is plenty of fighting in mlb after cheap shots on the base paths or pitchers throwing at hitters. you see fighting in the nba when it gets physical.

when people around here talk about taking fighting out of the game they talk like here will never be another fight. if fighting were to become a suspendable offense, it would not eliminate very many if at all fights that need to be had.

the staged fights would go. the fights to create a little momentum would stop. but run a goalie or cheap shot a star or young player and there is going to be a fight just like there is in baseball and basketball.

most character nhl players would take a two game suspension to stand up for a player that needed standing up for.
Fighting in baseball and basketball?!? Seriously? Throwing out random and reckless punches? I don't think I'd compare any of that to a fight in hockey.

The fighting in hockey is because the game is physical, fast and the intensity every shift. Not to mention, you are getting slashed, pushed, hooked etc. etc. It's due to frustration and players are doing minor cheap shots here and there. There's also players that don't have the higher level of skill and are thus, called 'enforcers' which don't exist in any other sport (that I know of).

It's not just due to no face shields. There was fighting way before in the NHL. But, players are bigger and stronger nowadays and instead of fighters being under 200 lbs, now many are over 200 and some are employed just to keep everyone honest. The reason they need this is that the NHL has decided they won't dish out 20 penalties per team when things get out of control. If they were going to throw guys out when it got dirty, maybe they don't need fighting. But, they still have to deal with the energy release.

Where would all that frustration go? That is probably the biggest challenge, imho (if they try to take fighting out of the game). I think it doesn't matter as much as some say if the players have lots of equipment on. They might be more daring but it doesn't lead to more fights, imho.
 
Fighting in baseball and basketball?!? Seriously? Throwing out random and reckless punches? I don't think I'd compare any of that to a fight in hockey.

The fighting in hockey is because the game is physical, fast and the intensity every shift. Not to mention, you are getting slashed, pushed, hooked etc. etc. It's due to frustration and players are doing minor cheap shots here and there. There's also players that don't have the higher level of skill and are thus, called 'enforcers' which don't exist in any other sport (that I know of).

It's not just due to no face shields. There was fighting way before in the NHL. But, players are bigger and stronger nowadays and instead of fighters being under 200 lbs, now many are over 200 and some are employed just to keep everyone honest. The reason they need this is that the NHL has decided they won't dish out 20 penalties per team when things get out of control. If they were going to throw guys out when it got dirty, maybe they don't need fighting. But, they still have to deal with the energy release.

Where would all that frustration go? That is probably the biggest challenge, imho (if they try to take fighting out of the game). I think it doesn't matter as much as some say if the players have lots of equipment on. They might be more daring but it doesn't lead to more fights, imho.

just stop.

1. most nhl fights are about trying to win the game. they have NOTHING to do with frustration. road team scores a couple of first period goals and the next face off after the second goal, there's a fight. like clockwork. most nhl fights are about momentum and energy. they are tactical.

2. how often do top half of the lineup nhl players have a board battle escalate into a fight? that frustration fighting is very rare.

3. the real frustration fights will still happen. they are rare, but they will still happen. thats the point. the real fight that happens out of anger or frustration or standing up to a cheap shot happens per team 5 or 10 times a year, max. you fight, you get two games. just like in the other sports.

oh....and in the other sports they do fight.

 
I'm not twisting your words.

Here they are, verbatim:

"I've brought up valid points and this is the response? See, this is my point. Ignore it all you want, hitting is more of a risk than fights."

-- Ok, but nobody is ignoring that hits are also an issue. Headhunting has been a major, front-and-center issue in this league for over a decade and especially in the past few years. It could hardly be MORE talked about. Everyone you're addressing is aware of it, but it is simply not the topic of this conversation. This is a conversation about the NHL/NHLPA's fighting policy, so derailing us to a tangent about hitting is not all that helpful.


"I'm not talking about the suspend-able hits either. I'm talking about every single hit. Every hit can and most likely does cause some sort of damage to the brain."

-- OK, and I asked for hard evidence to corroborate this claim.

I just read every page of the links you posted. NOWHERE does even one of them say that a normal or light bodycheck (ie, "every hit") causes brain injury.

The one article that speaks most directly to the causes of brain trauma is link #1, the OSU article. And it clearly lays out the two common conditions under which concussions emerge:

1) A hard, direct blow to the head area

2) A collision that causes whiplash

Clearly those conditions are not present in "every hit", so barring unpresented evidence there is no support here for the claim that ordinary, legal bodychecking will lead inevitably to CTE.

If such evidence is in fact available, please do not PM it to me. Post it here where it can further the discussion.

Don't be selective, quote my entire piece. "I've brought up valid points and this is the response? See, this is my point. Ignore it all you want, hitting is more of a risk than fights. I'm not talking about the suspend-able hits either. I'm talking about every single hit. Every hit can and most likely does cause some sort of damage to the brain". See to me, "can and most likely does", is not a guarantee, but it's a very good possibility. In watching Boogaard's movie, even the man from BU refers to the hitting AND fighting. Another thing, let's not down play the force of hitting by hockey players. We constantly brag about how hard they hit, how tough they are and how they always get up after having their bell rung.




Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher, a neurologist who heads the University of Michigan NeuroSport program and is an N.H.L. Players’ Association consultant to the concussion working group, said the elimination of fighting was a policy decision for the league and the players union to make, in much the same way cracking down on checks to the head was.

“I’m going to beg off on commenting on the policy part of it,” he said. “I can see the inconsistency that you’re outlining there.

“In essence, I would say there’s no more evidence that fighting is bad for the brain than there is that hits to the head are bad for the brain. The amount of evidence is the same — essentially, very little. Yet the decision was made on a policy level: let’s take head shots out of the game. There’s no more evidence, or less, for head shots than there is for fighting.”

Researchers generally agree that there is a link between repeated blows to the head and C.T.E. But they are uncertain which specific hits lead to the disease and whether some people have a genetic predisposition. In Boogaard’s case, the Boston University researchers said it was impossible to know whether the condition was caused by blows he sustained in fights.

Dr. Robert Cantu, a co-director of the Boston group and a prominent neurosurgeon in the area of head trauma in sports, said the evidence was strong enough to say that league officials “are putting people at risk by allowing fighting.”

Dr. Robert A. Stern, a neuropsychologist and another co-director of the Boston group, said that the elimination of fighting was a policy matter for the N.H.L. to decide and that “we need to not overreact or make knee-jerk policy or rule changes.” But, he added, “If there’s a logical explanation for a larger number of hits and you can then reduce that number of hits, that makes sense to do.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/s...cal-experts-weigh-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Thank you TXPD for posting the video... No that's what I'm talking about. MLB perfect example of a pre-meditated attack... Get's hit with a pitch, he's p**sed off and rushes the pitcher with clenched fists... Only one thing on his mind there. But what of the other players in the scrum taking some shots at each other...

This is what I'm having a hard time understanding, these people are pro athletes. We are not. They make a choice to play a high intensity, fast, physical sport. Why do WE get bent out of shape over this? I said it before, if we are so concerned about pro hockey athletes then what about MMA, Boxing, kids taking karate, taekwondo, etc, etc... Again, I said it before, MMA and boxing people beat each others brains out yet we pay money to watch... And we are so concerned about a fight that lasts on average 30 seconds and maybe a knock out punch every dozen or so fights. Like what is this topic really accomplishing already? I'm sorry, it's just frustrating. Two willing combatants should be allowed to go, period. They have accepted the risk of their sport. Get rid of the staged fights, the crap after every bloody whistle and I'd be more than happy with that. You remove fighting completely and you will see cheap shots rise, period.
 
We're worried about fighting and yet a guy like Bertuzzi is allowed to even play the game of hockey after what he did to Steve Moore? Are you kidding me. He stalked and maimed someone. He should have been banned for life, period and jailed. You do that on the streets, in Canada, and we're talking about aggravated assault... Any one of us could come up with another five incidents of cheap shot crap that's either ended a career or seriously hampered a career of another player. You get rid of fighting and you have no equalizer. Someone slashes the crap out of someone what do they do then? Turn around and whack em like an axe to a tree? What is that teaching?
 
Thank you TXPD for posting the video... No that's what I'm talking about. MLB perfect example of a pre-meditated attack... Get's hit with a pitch, he's p**sed off and rushes the pitcher with clenched fists... Only one thing on his mind there. But what of the other players in the scrum taking some shots at each other...

This is what I'm having a hard time understanding, these people are pro athletes. We are not. They make a choice to play a high intensity, fast, physical sport. Why do WE get bent out of shape over this? I said it before, if we are so concerned about pro hockey athletes then what about MMA, Boxing, kids taking karate, taekwondo, etc, etc... Again, I said it before, MMA and boxing people beat each others brains out yet we pay money to watch... And we are so concerned about a fight that lasts on average 30 seconds and maybe a knock out punch every dozen or so fights. Like what is this topic really accomplishing already? I'm sorry, it's just frustrating. Two willing combatants should be allowed to go, period. They have accepted the risk of their sport. Get rid of the staged fights, the crap after every bloody whistle and I'd be more than happy with that. You remove fighting completely and you will see cheap shots rise, period.


two willing combatants. what is your definition of that? in 24/7 caps v pens matt hendricks was very straight forward. based purely on his hockey game he wasnt quite making an nhl roster. he was told he could make it if he would fight. he was pretty clear. he didnt like fighting and really didnt want to do it but if that was his only way to become an nhl player he was willing.

is that what you call willing? this is a player that would skate away from 90% plus of his fights if he had choice, but fights because its his job.

this is another brick in the wall that proves that most of the fighting has nothing to do with frustration or the energy of the game. its tactical and cold. players like hendricks would just as soon not fight.
 
You remove fighting completely and you will see cheap shots rise, period.

let me go back to this for emphesis. the fights you mention here. the fights to Pejorative Slur cheap shots. this was the reason for the nolan ryan video. cheap shot cause fighting in every sport. baseball, basketball, racing.

you cant honestly believe that hockey players of all players wont step up to defend a teammate and fight a cheap shot artist because it would come with a suspension of a game or two.

i suggest to you that fighting would become a penalty that comes with an automatic review for supplimental discipline just like a blow to the head penalty. i would further suggest that if the fight was triggered by a cheap shot, that the nhl would not suspend the player standing up for a team mate and suspend the player that started the fight with a cheap shot.

what would stop are attacking a player after a clean, hard hit and all the staged fighting to try and change the momentum of a hockey game. no nhl player is gaming to give up two games of salary because his team fell behind at home.
 
I don't see any need to suspend players for a fight. This is hockey, after all. Fighting is part of the culture.

The issue is players who fight constantly, and for seemingly no reason other than ensuring a paycheck. There's no need to slap Subban with a suspension for getting in a scrap. If anything, you WANT to keep him in the game after that to see what comes of it. It's not like he's likely to go out and fight a second time. Suspending him wouldn't really produce any clear positives or offset any clear negatives.

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water here.
 
I don't see any need to suspend players for a fight. This is hockey, after all. Fighting is part of the culture.

Well, if you keep it in there, accept that its "just part of the culture", then we should shrink the roster sizes eliminating room for designated hitmen. That would be helpful. Also rescind the Instigator Rule. Let the players police themselves and make it mandatory that edification in the pugilistic arts be included in every training camp at every professional & junior level of hockey by certified instructors, trainers & coaches. You cant fight or unwilling? Gone. Must have minimum threshold abilities, be able to defend, throw punches. On ice, dryland, gym & ring training. As its just a matter of time before someones grieving family sues & wins a major award having proven conclusively that repeated blows to the head, some or all attributable to fights and the teams/leagues are unable to secure insurance coverage thereafter, then you, the player, will be responsible for paying the premiums yourself. Tacitly accepting & understanding that not only are you expected to fight, take high head ringing "hits" that may result in life altering permanent damage and or prove fatal, then fine. Good to go. Just make a clean breast of it, bring out into the open. Yes, hockey's a bloodsport. You dont like it? Go play or watch tennis, golf, basketball, baseball.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad