Brandon's Take: Stop The Madness; Ban Fighting In Hockey

the effects of fighting on the late enforcers are inconclusive. It’s still a chicken and egg questions RE the tragedies of these suicides/premature deaths. Does the fighting cause the depression? Or are players with certain dispositions drawn to the enforcer role?

For every enforcer with a premature death or signs of depression, there is one with no ill effects that isn’t focused on by the media.

As shallow or selfish as this sounds, I’m all for it, but it will never happen. The players will never let it happen, the suits who take note of the people who get pumped to see it. From a safety perspective, if you could remove it without having to call 7000 penalties like basketball or ruin the game I would agree with it 100%. One other problem that arises is the whole calming two players down i.e AA did that stupid goal celebration. It was chippy afterwards but what if they stopped before they could get their frustration out in a couple punches and it escalated and Downie ends up throwing an elbow and seriously injures Artie? I feel like the one positive it brings is it can allow players to police themselves and be MEN, unlike every single other sport out there.

It’s not just about fighting to “spark your team” or make “the crowd go nuts”, fighting keeps these guys safe. You can certainly increase the penalties for “staged” fights, but if you take away fighting, and the personal accountability it gives to a players actions, you’re going to make it much more reckless on the ice. Any move geared at ending, or limiting fighting requires some HUGE changes to what leads up to the fights.

1. Give the goalie back the crease – Shots are coming in harder and faster then even before. Goaltenders need to know they have some room to operate, and can focus without fear of being blindsided. Less players hitting the goalie, less defensemen taking expception, or opposing forwards taking liberties with other forwards. Also, with the new rule limiting changes after icing, this could be a bit of a equalizer for the defense, since man-in-the-crease would move the faceoff outside and allow for a line change.

2. Regulate players in visors – I understand the league is encouraging players to wear visors, and I’m even beginning to see them as more of a necessity with the speed of the game increasing, but they are still alot of the problem with fighting. Increase penalties (instigating a fight in a visor is already a penalty on the books), or atleast add a mandatory 10 min miscounduct for a players who fight in a visor.

I think as much of Boogy’s problem was the pain killers as it was the hits to the head, and the need for the pain killers came from having to punch through guys shields and helmets. You don’t want to punish guys for wearing a visor, you just want to cut down on the guys sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. We talked about “the code” with AA’s recent incident, but rule #1 of that code is guys with visors don’t fight.

3. Increase penalties for non-suspension worthy hits – Years back the NHL made it clear that players were responsible for their sticks at all times, and began handing out high sticking accordingly. They also have the mandatory double minor when blood is drawn. Something similar to this needs to happen with hitting, the “Shanaban’s” are good step to get players to take accountability, but I think more double minors, or maybe major/game penalties (but not necessarily additional suspension) for hits from behind and elbows would help. No matter what the “intention” of the player was, the refs need to step in, quickly and decisively, and nip things in the bud before the players do it for them.
With the high sticking rule, as soon as the ref sees it, someone is over there checking for blood, limiting the chances for anyone to take exception. The same thing needs to happen on hits.

I feel a ban on fighting would actually increase injuries. Take away fighting and now guys will go in with a mindset that they have to put more effort into their checks to police the situation. A guy like Prust can still play the game even after a ban on fighting, but now in a situation where an idiot like Simmonds is running all over the place doing as he pleases he has to lay him out with a big hit to set him straight. These days in the NHL I actually cringe and anticipate injuries after huge hits, never really a fight.
Also this article was a good read, I suffer from blog post A.D.D and I didn’t have any symptoms throughout the article.

to say that banning fighting will increase injuries or cheap hits is bullshit, you wanna send a message to a guy you hit him cleanly on the open ice or through the boards…you don’t need to drop the gloves throw fists at another opponents unprotected head. The risks more than outweigh the rewards…fighting is an act that is left over from the days where players were not as talented as they are now and this game is a completely different game where fighting is an unnecessary side show.

…..the game of hockey is different from the other major sports and I think the existence of fighting in hockey justifies itself. Its 2011; almost 2012. Fighting has been around since day 1. For a reason.

I like where fighting is at right now. I like that you have to be able to play; no more Shane Churlas out there.

I actually get more excited when non-typical enforcers drop the gloves. Those are some of the most exciting fights and I’d rather see a 45 second scrum between two players than a flying elbow to the head.

I am not the kind of person who believes fighting solves life’s problems; in real life it often makes problems worse. But in hockey, which is its own universe while it is going on, fighting levels the playing field, keeps things honest, and redresses a lot of ‘injustices.’

It doesn’t deter the Matt Cookes of the league; that’s for sure. My only solution for that is repealing the instigator penalty – or making it only two minutes for instigating; no misconduct – to allow someone to grab a Patrick Kaleta or a Matt Cooke and beat the ever-loving shit out of them. I want that to happen. Why? Because the league protects Cooke and Kaleta and allows them to continue playing hockey. So it makes you feel like only the players doing subversive shit can ‘level the playing field.’

If the NHL had a pair of balls, the fighting debate wouldn’t even be engaged in. People would realize that fighting does not end careers 99% of the time; they’d realize the ONLY threat to long term player health is goons like Cooke and Kaleta, et al.

Really, people….Brandon, well written article and if you find fighting distasteful that is you’re right to have that opinion, but I think there should be far more concern leveled at the true damage causers in this league: the Cookes and Kaletas.

Defending Cooke is not something I’d ever want to do, but you have to give him credit for adopting his play and himself to the new head shot rules. His past transgressions aside, he’s not the poster boy for that, at least this year. So far. The point of all of this is not to take the tough out of the sport. Players get hit cleanly and they fall into the boards awkwardly or hit the ice in a vulnerable position. No one is suggesting that that be taken out of the game. Witness the NYR the last two games and no one can say the hit on Sauer was anything but clean or that the other injuries suffered weren’t a result of a hockey play, albeit one that should be reviewed by the league next season as no-touch icing should become a part of the NHL rules going forward. The point of the NYT piece on Boogaard is that anyone watching a fight during an NHL game has to be weary and leary of the potential long-term effects of repeated blows to the head. To say there’s lots of evidence that some players haven’t been affected is to say that not all have been tested because blows to the head will cause damage. I’m sure these posters have seen hockey outside of the U.S. and in colleges across the nation. No fighting allowed. Any problems affecting the purity of that game? I think it’s much better. For all the “fans” that love it when two enforcers or other players for that matter start fighting on the ice, think about Boogaard next time. Think about Wade Belak and Rick Rypien. That’s enough for me to prove fighting should be banned. You should have some talent to play in the NHL, and fists shouldn’t be judged as part of that. The biggest problem to me is the owners see how the fans react to fisticuffs on the ice. At MSG, the suits and 60% of the others not paying attention to the game as they’re on their BlackBerrys and the like jump to their feet when something breaks out on the ice. Otherwise they just want to show they were there. I am one of the small few who have never leapt to their feet. I like boxing. I watch boxing to see guys fighting. I love hockey. I hate hockey fights, always have, and anyone in management of an NHL team should be ashamed of themselves for causing irreparable damage to their employees. Stop reacting to the fights and see if they don’t go away.

Brandon, I agree with you. I always liked fighting and never thought you could take it away etc. But when I saw Boogey, Rypien, and Belak all pass away this summer, as well as Bob Probert having CTE, I started to think. In the game of hockey fighting is so unnecessary, it should be about the skating, and skill, not about senselessly beating someones brains out. With that said I do not mind if someone takes a run at your goalie or star player or whatever, I dont mind someone stepping up and challenging him. What I do care about though is the use of Goons, someone there specifically to fight, that is just stupid and unnecessary, and thats where the serious injury comes into play, when your fighting every single game. But with that said, as long as you allow fighting goons are going to be there, which is a sad thing because its really unnecessary in our sport.

Locker room hallways and parking lots, to be young again (sigh).

I disagree with this, but just go through the article and read what other people have said in their disagreements.

Theres’ no reason for me to repeat exactly what they said.

earthworm I had to delete your comment due to certain terms in it if you’re wondering where it went.

There’s one thing I don’t understand that I’d love an explanation for.

For those of you that keep saying the NHL will become soccer, or cricket, or anything like that, how is the NHL not physical without fighting?

There will still be hits into the boards, body checking, scrambles for the pucks, the inevitable scrum after the whistle that isn’t two guys ripping each others heads off.

Hockey will still be miles ahead the majority of sports in terms of being physical even without fighting.

Also, “you should just take out checking next.”

How does that make any sense? Checking is a part of play when the clock is running, part of winning games, and part of playing defense. Fighting is stopping the clock and punching each other in the face.

Fighting can’t exactly have a proven statistical affect on a team, though I’m sure many will bring up the Prust stat, that can’t be proven to be the reason why.

Fighting and checking are two completely different things, yeah, both can cause injuries, but one is a necessary part of the game that cannot be argued against, and the other is just an old rule that needs to be changed with new research given.

Fighting should be banned in Junior hockey. Generally players under the age of 18 don’t recognize the consequences of repeated blows to the head, and if they do that fact comes second to their dream of playing in the NHL. That will also make it so players aren’t groomed into goons from the age of 14 (as we saw in the Boogaard article) and reach the NHL as fighting machines.

As for the NHL, where players are over the age of 18… Let the guys playing the sport decide on what is best for them… I don’t agree with the notion that they need to be saved from themselves…. They are big boys, they don’t need anyone to tell them what is best for them.

I don’t think any reasonable hockey fan watches fights hoping that one guy gets his face punched in and knocked out. When a real fight breaks out (not staged goonery) the tension between the two teams are at its peak. Personally, I just hope that the two guys blow off some steam, punch each other in the helmet a few times, and when a punch or two connects, the guy on the recieving end turtles. Then pairing goes off the ice to let their adrenaline settle down.

Fighting for the sake of fighting is plain stupid though. Someone should tell Prust. My only gripe is that he is usually taking someone off the ice who is less useful than him.

Nice article and effective personal anecdote. Did that provide some of the inspiration to write this piece?

I think fighting is so intertwined with the core of the game of hockey it would be difficult to ban. This is one of the few sports where fighting is allowed and if you speak to anyone who knows little about hockey, they will somehow know something about fighting in hockey. I think the game is changing as the role of the heavyweight is disappearing and hockey will continue to adapt as the environment dictates. Not long ago, it is easy to remember everyone and their mother targeting the head of Eric Lindros after his repeated concussions. That has changed and fighting will too…

I also believe that one of the problems is that too many players are not prepared for fighting even though they are fighting. Brandon Prust is one of the most prepared and intelligent fighters in the game. It does not seem like a coincidence that he has avoided concussions but he has sustained injury….

Which leads to my final and probably most controversial point. These guys make a lot of money to do this. Most fighters make from league minimum to 1.5 million dollars to play four minutes a night and subject themselves to injury for thirty seconds. The other players (non-fighters) are out there a hell of a lot more. I wonder if there are any projected injury/time on ice stats. Either way, there is a risk to playing hockey but the financial reward is great. It does stink that many of these fighters make the least money but if one is to examine their salaries as compared to most people, it does not seem like a bad gig. I wonder how many of us would be willing to make one million dollars to play the tough guy role, even with the health risks. I know I would.

I was ambivalent about the Time articles on Boogaard. In one way, I was glad to see the memorialization and appreciation of a “non-star.” On the other hand, I saw it as The Times isolating the most controversial part of the sport. These articles should bring to light the NHL’s policy for players with disabilities, which includes psychiatric disabilities, and substance abuse. You have a ton of guys who have lived isolated lives who are subject to a complete change in lifestyle with little education, possible prior mental issues, and little in terms of social education of how to adapt to this lifestyle. I wish hockey would receive more educational and statistical type attention, where legitmate studies were done on issues like these.

but the times article made me look at it differently….i’m not in the camp of ‘ban fighting forever’, but i’m no longer of the mindset that fighting is an essential element in the game

reading about boogaard’s road to make it to the NHL, what he had to suffer as a kid and, consequently, what other kids undoubtedly go through to make it

as someone said earlier, fighting is way down in the playoffs, when the games mean more; in the regular season it’s more of a by-product of a long season, where on any given night someone will run players on the other team and need to answer for it

i think the instigator penalty is the real issue here, moreso than the fighting

The biggest problem with the Times articles on Boogaard is that they chose to focus on a guy who spend his entire life fighting, both on and off the ice. He ran a boxing camp, it’s what he loved to do. So saying his brain was damaged says absolutely nothing about hockey… just about getting hit in the head in general.

Granted, getting punched in the head clearly isn’t a good thing. But the fact that they chose Boogaard and not another “enforcer” makes the study completely useless.

It’s like if a guy was in a serious car accident and then got in a fight and we studied his injuries to see what fighting did to him. It’s an extreme circumstance that’s being exploited to prove the point.

If they wanted a serious study with legitimate results, they should have studied enforcers with NO previous shots to the head, as not to taint the results. But alas, as usual, the Times has a motive and doesn’t follow logic.

you all enjoy the Olympic tournament right? I forget, do they allow fighting in the Olympics or international play? They don’t? And the hockey is still as enjoyable you say? Huh, go figure