What's dumber in fighting?

[Devilsfan2326]

We have the benefit of a slow-no replay. Players usually do not even get a clean look at the hit. They’re just reacting to the result. It looks worse if it were a dirty play, and the teammate did nothing in response.

Exactly. Nobody respected the Buffalo Sabres and their cold feet after the Miller/Lucic collision. Really doesn't matter if it was dirty or not - help your teammate. Maybe in their heads they thought it was legal and did nothing. Terrible look.

If it's clean, the stoppage of play that comes with a fight is also a factor, since the teammate is still sprawled on the ice making them a man down. If the ref doesn't blow the whistle, the stoppage from fighting could help everybody.

On the contrary, there were big hits where a fight did not happen, and the guy got back up and scored. Such as Malkin at the blueline.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

You're contradicting yourself on the first paragraph by stating that legal hits are allowed in hockey. The obvious response is that fighting is allowed in hockey as well.

The second and third paragraphs are using your own opinion as the default logic.
"Fighting someone for a clean hit, in theory has the same logic as fighting someone for scoring a goal."

In who's theory, yours? Because history has shown almost no one else's. If your theory was true we would see fights after goals. We don't. You're wrong.

Fighting is a penalty in hockey. It’s not a legal play. So, no, you’re wrong.

It’s part of the culture but it’s not the same as a legal hit.

I’m putting things in two buckets here. Legal actions and illegal actions.

Non penalized body checks are on one side, just like scoring a goal, and then fighting is in the other bucket along with other penalties.

That’s the difference here

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Fighting isn't allowed in soccer. It's not allowed in basketball, it's not allowed in basebal.

Fighting is certainly allowed in hockey. It's the only sport where you can still keep playing in the game after you do it. I can't believe I have to explain this to someone on a hockey message board but here we are.

It’s more tolerated in hockey but it’s not part of gameplay. It’s not something you’re supposed to do.

 

[Panthaz89]

I don't see anything wrong with fighting after a clean hit except that the refs will penalize your team for 2 minutes.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

I don't think anyone is surprised when it happens, but I think the question is more of whether or not it should be something that has become so acceptable.

I see. I feel that as long as fighting is a norm in hockey, it should be acceptable.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I actually think that a staged fight would give the best overall fights because you've got two guys, assumedly good at fighting, where both of them have agreed to fight.

In other situations, you might get mismatches where one guy didn't really wanna fight but was pressured to because of "The Code"

In my view how necessary the fight is, is more important than how good it is.

 

[Caps8112]

fighting after a clean hit is ridiculous and only exists in todays NHL due to the real enforcers from back in the day no longer existing. Now you have all these fake tough guys running around trying to be a hero. Like Matthews defense of Marner the other day. Waited until there was nothing anyone could do to him and then hit the guy in the back when he wasnt looking. Fighting and the enforcer use to be a way of keeping teams from doing dirty shit. Now that those guys are gone make believe tough guys like trent frederic get to run around doing dumb shit without consequences. He would not fight a Chris Simon or Donald Brashear. If its dirty hit or play and your guys want to protect the star players, by all means go for it. Standing up for your teammates is part of hockey but not when it was a clean play and part of the game.