What's dumber in fighting?

[koyvoo]

Right, people understand it, and that's what makes it dumb as heck.

You wouldn’t know it gauging the replies here, most of which insist the fight is because the players don’t have time to decipher whether the hit was clean or not, when in reality the hit being clean or dirty is mostly irrelevant to the players. .

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Never understood why people have a problem with fighting after a clean hit. Why does it have to be dirty?



Lots of things can be acknowledged as dumb whilst still being loved. It's why reality TV has been thriving for decades

Because, legal hits are allowed in hockey. Fighting someone over doing something legal within the rules is pretty dumb (I understand why it happens of course).

If it's a dirty hit then the player has done outside of the rules and you could theoretically justify fighting them which is also outside of the rules as an equal act.

Fighting someone for a clean hit, in theory has the same logic as fighting someone for scoring a goal.

 

[NyQuil]

Because, legal hits are allowed in hockey. Fighting someone over doing something legal within the rules is pretty dumb (I understand why it happens of course).

If it's a dirty hit then the player has done outside of the rules and you could theoretically justify fighting them which is also outside of the rules as an equal act.

Fighting someone for a clean hit, in theory has the same logic as fighting someone for scoring a goal.

I wonder if part of the issue is that retribution is much more frowned upon than acting in the moment from the perspective of NHL discipline.

You're likely to be penalized/suspended far more for reviewing a hit on the iPad, judging it to be dirty, and then going after him later in the game, than you would just beating up an "innocent" guy immediately afterwards.

It kind of skews the risk/reward calculus towards acting immediately without clear justification.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Fighting someone for a clean hit, in theory has the same logic as fighting someone for scoring a goal.

Huh?????

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Huh?????

What are you needing help with here?

Hitting someone with a legal check is obviously perfectly fine within the rules of hockey. Fighting someone because they performed a legal play is dumb.

Would it be acceptable to fight someone for scoring a goal or a goalie making a save?

My point is that those are all legal plays within the game. There shouldn't be illegal retribution for any of these things. If you don't like that someone hit your player legally then go hit them back legally.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I wonder if part of the issue is that retribution is much more frowned upon than acting in the moment from the perspective of NHL discipline.

You're likely to be penalized/suspended far more for reviewing a hit on the iPad, judging it to be dirty, and then going after him later in the game, than you would just beating up an "innocent" guy immediately afterwards.

It kind of skews the risk/reward calculus towards acting immediately without clear justification.

Ya, I would say some of that comes into it, but also hit the person back legally later on in the game or season/series, whatever. I don't really care about fighting in hockey one way or the other but there are plenty of ways of exacting retribution within the rules of the game. Fighting is just the easiest way of doing it without much of a penalty attached to it since both players usually go off and the instigator calls are extremely inconsistent.

 

[NyQuil]

Ya, I would say some of that comes into it, but also hit the person back legally later on in the game or season/series, whatever. I don't really care about fighting in hockey one way or the other but there are plenty of ways of exacting retribution within the rules of the game. Fighting is just the easiest way of doing it without much of a penalty attached to it since both players usually go off and the instigator calls are extremely inconsistent.

Yeah they used to say “take their number” and that can still happen in a playoff series but pretty rarely in regular season games.

 

[Number8]

Do people really not understand the point of staged fighting? It’s trying to create a momentum swing, by bringing your guys into the game and raising their emotions. Players aren’t robots, they have emotions and watching your guy go beat the wheels off your opponent can get them fired up and swing the momentum in their favour.

I’m not defending it at all, and much prefer when fights are spur of the moment reactions, but people saying it does nothing other than the player trying to justify them having a spot in the league are way off. A good portion of stages fights when they were more common were actually the coach asking the player to do it.

Staged fights have always been largely foolish.

If what you say was the only factor, then every "staged fight" would be a non starter. One guy (the guy whose team needs momentum) would ask, and the other guy (the guy whose team already has the momentum) would tell him to go screw.

Of course, that is, unless the momentum holding guy feels he has to honor "the code". Then I guess all bets are off. But giving the other team a chance to change momentum because of some sort of an unwritten "code" is dumb with a capital D.

And I'm a guy who has watched a lot of hockey over many decades and loves the scraps -- including on occasion the staged fights. I just have enough credibility to not try and argue it's something it's not. Which, again, is f***ing dumb.

 

[Stive Morgan]

I'm ok with fights after a clean hit/accident to sort of "bury the hatchet" where neither guy really tries just so both teams can move on (i.e. Perry fighting Foligno after the Tavares injury)

Staged fights have always sucked, although I do admit I liked them as a kid.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

What are you needing help with here?

Hitting someone with a legal check is obviously perfectly fine within the rules of hockey. Fighting someone because they performed a legal play is dumb.

Would it be acceptable to fight someone for scoring a goal or a goalie making a save?

My point is that those are all legal plays within the game. There shouldn't be illegal retribution for any of these things. If you don't like that someone hit your player legally then go hit them back legally.

The difference is if you hit my guy, clean or not, you have to answer the bell. No one's taking numbers for scoring a goal, unless it's a douchetard like Dale Hunter.

I don't think your comparison works.

 

[WarriorofTime]

When it comes to "fights give momentum." Removing the CTE/injury issue from it all.

Taking it as true that we can point to instances where a team was losing, they won a fight and then they united, rallied and won, and that it's not even a point of contention that a fight changed the game... ok. In any sport involving an offense and defense, there's two sides to the same coin, and everything that occurs is a net zero. If one offense is suceeding, the other defense is not succeeding, if one side has momentum, the other side does not have momentum. So then, logically, it has to be the case that the other side would say that they lost momentum as a result of the fight, and that they would claim, as a matter of it not being a point of contention, that the lost fight resulted in them losing the game.

With something like "momentum", it can be gained or lost in a number of different ways. Taking fights as a for-granted way to gain momentum without directly effecting the scoresheet, you can also add things prolonged offensive zone time, big hits, great saves by a goaltender, etc. How does fighting differ from each of these? The idea of consent. Teams don't "choose" to let the other team have prolonged zone time, they don't choose to be on the receiving end of big hits, they don't choose to have the goaltender make great saves.

With a fight though, they do choose. It takes two willing participants to participate in a scrap. Of course, they may not know who will win the fight beforehand. However, in general, over time, one side can theoretically realize if they have an advantage/disadvantage in a fight. Think about this in other contexts, if your team is not well suited to a style of play that is wide open, trade chances for chances up and down hockey... you tighten things up. If the low scoring, tight checking doesn't suit your team well, you try to open things up and catch the other team in more free-flowing situations. Essentially, you make adjustments. If your team is bad at fighting, this costs you momentum and ultimately results in you losing games, the natural adjustment to make it is... if you are running your team optimally, stop fighting. It's completely within your power to consciously not provide the other team this advantage. Probably more so than any of the others, the other team can try and push/slow down a pace. They cannot force you to fight.

This connects with the other thing that fighting MUST be voluntary. The other team cannot adjust to your adjustment by essentially jumping your team to gain the advantage seeking fight. If fighting is not voluntary, it removes all logic of two consenting participants choosing to partake in an activity and accept the risks that come with it. Anything else is removing the voluntary assumption of risk that makes fighting have any moral justification as a place within the game. So if one side wants to fight, the other side does not want to fight, there can be no fight. So the side with the advantage in a fight should never have an opportunity to realize their advantage unless the other side consciously make an unforced error in choosing to fight.

TLDR of this this; if fighting does in fact give momentum the winning side, the game theory optimal move is for one side to just never fight, and thus fights should almost never occur.

 

[isles55]

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.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

The difference is if you hit my guy, clean or not, you have to answer the bell. No one's taking numbers for scoring a goal, unless it's a douchetard like Dale Hunter.

I don't think your comparison works.

My point is that clean legal hits are allowed in the rules. Just like line changes or faceoff wins. They shouldn't have to 'answer the bell' for that.

It comes down to whether you think something that you should have someone fight you for doing something legal and within the rules. When you put it that way the comparison is apples to apples.

Like why not fight someone if they high stick a player? That would actually make more sense because they did something outside of the rules that could or did injure a teammate.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

The difference is if you hit my guy, clean or not, you have to answer the bell. No one's taking numbers for scoring a goal, unless it's a douchetard like Dale Hunter.

I don't think your comparison works.

IMO, you can pretty much always deliver a hit that just separates a player from the puck. I don't think you need to deliver a devastating check. If you deliver a super hard/huge check, even if it's clean, you should probably not be surprised if someone wants to fight you.

 

[Slats432]

I am in the fighting is a part of the game crowd, but fighting after a clean hit and staged fighting are both dumb.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

IMO, you can pretty much always deliver a hit that just separates a player from the puck. I don't think you need to deliver a devastating check. If you deliver a super hard/huge check, even if it's clean, you should probably not be surprised if someone wants to fight you.

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.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Because, legal hits are allowed in hockey. Fighting someone over doing something legal within the rules is pretty dumb (I understand why it happens of course).

If it's a dirty hit then the player has done outside of the rules and you could theoretically justify fighting them which is also outside of the rules as an equal act.

Fighting someone for a clean hit, in theory has the same logic as fighting someone for scoring a goal.

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.

 

[ScottyMascotty]

Both are equally dumb

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

My point is that clean legal hits are allowed in the rules. Just like line changes or faceoff wins. They shouldn't have to 'answer the bell' for that.

It comes down to whether you think something that you should have someone fight you for doing something legal and within the rules. When you put it that way the comparison is apples to apples.

Like why not fight someone if they high stick a player? That would actually make more sense because they did something outside of the rules that could or did injure a teammate.

I guess I'm coming at it from the point of intentionality. Even if it's clean, the hitter is intending to blow someone up. It's not like finishing a check, I mean HUGE hits. I don't condone fighting when it's just a routine hit where no one is laid out after. Sticking up for the teammate probably goes a long way. Not sure that makes any more sense but I can see where it makes sense to the players starting these scraps.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Needed a "both" option.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

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 not allowed in hockey it's just not penalized in such a way as to dis-incentivize it.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm tired of the "fighting after a clean hit" complaints, to be quite honest.

You can throw a clean hit and still absolutely try to kill the guy. Trouba does it all the time (yes, he also throws dirty hits, but not the point). Like, I understand when teams go after Trouba for doing that.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Fighting is not allowed in hockey it's just not penalized in such a way as to dis-incentivize it.

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.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

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.

They get majors after they fight. Yes there's no loss of man power. But there literally is a band called "five for fighting" because, you know you get a five minute major if you fight. I can't believe I have to explain this to someone on a hockey message board but here we are.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

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"