NHL general managers propose rules to curb fights

[CUDangled]

Here is the article...
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hocke...m-fights_N.htm

In a sport that is doing whatever it can to improve ratings and bring more fans into the games, how can this help? What are the three things that bring fans to the their feet the fastest? Goals, big hits and fights. Not to mention the COUNTLESS "experts" of the game who have already stated that efforts to reduce fighting have only increased "cheap shots" (sticks, etc.) and that is where players are more likely to be injured.

[United Inline]

I just want to point out that they are not intending on outlawing fighting. The goal here is to penalize premeditated fights more heavily than spur of the moment fights. They also want to (to talk more about the NLL) penalize players who keep their helmets on during a fight.

Fighting is not going to completely going out the door, the NHLPA and GM's just want to make it a bit, "safer".

[CUDangled]

penalize players who keep their helmets on during a fight.

Fighting is not going to completely going out the door, the NHLPA and GM's just want to make it a bit, "safer".

Don't you mean DON'T keep their helmets on during a fight? There have been some serious injuries lately where players hit their heads on the ice during the course of a fight. It is believed that had they kept their lids on, they may have been okay.

The article mentions tightening down on the "instigator" rule as well, bnot just the planned fights. Regardless, fans love the fighting. I am sure we all remember what happend the last go around with "cracking down on the violence in the game". Attendance (and viewership) took a plunge. Die hard fans see this as part of the game. New fans expect this...players use it as a form to self-govern the game.

[whalercane]

I think the "fighting is good for the sport" argument is flawed on numerous levels.

You can argue that fighting is part of the fabric of the sport (and there's no question that it is), but if it's actually good for the sport, then why is it so hard for the NHL to grow its fan base? Forget about this nonsense of "keeping fans" in the seats; anyone who loves the sport would continue to love it and follow it and pay outrageous ticket prices to see the game played whether fighting were to be outlawed or not.

The fact is, fighting is clearly not DRAWING new fans to the game. If that were the case, the NHL would have TV contracts and would not be the 5th major sport in the US- yep, that's right; not 4th, but 5th behind NASCAR. If you don't believe that, check the web for proof.

If anything, fighting adds to what the general non-hockey loving public already considers a circus environment.

I just don't understand why people insist on backing the concept of fighting when it essentially illegitimizes hockey in the general sporting landscape.

Anyone who likes fighting in the sport is more than welcome to that opinion, but please don't spew this nonsense about how it would be bad for the sport to get rid of it. If you truly believe that, you're not viewing the issue from a global perspective; you're putting on the old hockey-centric blinders which is exactly the kind of narrow paradigm that's historically buried this great sport beneath a pile of other sports that I don't feel come close to stacking up to hockey.

I'm off my soapbox- sorry for the rant...

-Ryan

[quick_dry]

firstly I'm not a huge fan of fighting, and when hockey folks drag out rock'em'sock'em type videos where it is a long montage of fights and hits I'm mostly bored.

Anyway, in mentioning NASCAR - isn't a large draw there the prospect of crashes and the resultant carnage on the track? (not that watching cars turn left 500 times isn't exciting....) (yes, I know there are circuit course events too)

I'd consider the crashes somewhat equivalent to fighting.

I don't think it is goals that hold peopels interests either, so much as chances at goals - and the "will they or won't they" suspense.

[alex]

Hockey doesn't translate well to TV, that's a bigger reason people don't watch it than fighting. And removing fighting would hurt the sport, not from a viewership standpoint, but from the "players policing themselves" aspect. I don't see any legitimate reason to remove fighting from the NHL.

[CUDangled]

TV ratings for hockey may fall 5th, but that is most likely more due to the popularity of our sport at ANY level, rather than the fact that someone may see a fight while watching a game. Go to a typical sporting goods store? IF they sell hockey equipment, it sucks and it is burried behind the tennis stuff, baseball gloves, etc. Ask the person sitting next to you (assuming you aren't at the rink!) where the closest hockey rink is. Then ask them where the closest soccer field or baseball diamond.

If fighting in the NHL didn't capture people's attention, why are the fights featured on Sportscenter as teasers to get you to stick around through the commercial break? They show fights, big hits and goals. They don't show (generally) nice passes, strong defensive plays and aggressive forechecking...unless those clips also invove BIG HITS and GOALS!

I am not trying to say that the league should PROMOTE the fights, just don't take them away. Have you noticed how the injuries from "cheap shots" and "stick work" have gone up since the league started to crack down on fighting a few years ago?

[whalercane]

Hockey doesn't translate well to TV, that's a bigger reason people don't watch it than fighting. And removing fighting would hurt the sport, not from a viewership standpoint, but from the "players policing themselves" aspect. I don't see any legitimate reason to remove fighting from the NHL.

Players policing themselves is the one of the sillyest ESPN-esqu sayings ever to be attached to a sport. Players should not ever be allowed to police themselves in any sport: that's what officials are for.

Think about this concept in a real-life scenario: someone speeds by you on the freeway so you catch up to him and clip him/her off the road but expect not to get in trouble or just a "little bit of trouble" because you were keeping them in line, so to speak. Sound ludicrous?

Right, now turn back around and try sensibly defending any sort of retaliation as policing in sports, specifically hockey; it's no less silly than in the scenario I laid out...

And to the point about removing fighting = more Zoro-esque stickwork from players, here's how that goes. There is absolutely no way anyone can draw an honest parallel between these two things because the water is too cloudy , so to speak. Here's what I mean: there are more European players in the league today then ever before and back home, they use their sticks to check a lot more than NA's do. They come here in droves to play hockey and bring their style of play with them (the good and bad parts of it). This is just an example or one of MANY reasons why there are more stick penalties today than in years past, but let's just attribute it to recent constraints placed on fighting because that proves our argument... gimme a break guys.

Oh, and about the ESPN highlights: ESPN doesn't have hockey's best interests in mind, in case you fell asleep a couple of years ago and have yet to wake up and see that ESPN doesn't carry hockey games anymore. So, the little snipits they show that MAY once in a while include a fight are simply there to catch the interest of EXISTING hockey fans because those morons at ESPN think fighting is what brought all the existing hockey fans to hockey and has kept them there. This is just a simple case of a sports network that has "never really gotten" our sport continuing to "not get it".

-Ryan

[whalercane]

[QUOTE=CUDangled;58734]TV ratings for hockey may fall 5th, but that is most likely more due to the popularity of our sport at ANY level, rather than the fact that someone may see a fight while watching a game. QUOTE]



You're missing my point here. I would actually argue that hockey is not as popular as we'd like it to be because it's not a home-grown American sport, period. However, that's a different topic for another thread.

I'm simply saying that fighting does not and never has DRAWN NEW FANS to the sport of hockey. If anything, it gives hockey haters yet another in a long line of reasons to question the legitimacy of our great sport.

[CUDangled]

Your scenario suggests martial law...that isn't what I am saying.

The idea isn't to "get someone back" it is to prevent the other guy from taking a cheap shot to begin with.

Have you played (any sport) at a high level of competition before? It doesn't sound like it... NOt trying to be rude, just sounds like your perspective comes from a different angle.

When the stakes are high, the tough guys will target the skilled players from the other team. The difference between those runs being "cheap shots" and "legal" is the consequences. This is just part of sports (any sport). This is no different than a pitcher throwing a brush back pitch when the other teams slugger is up to bat. What if they "outlawed" charging the mound and fighting in baseball? Would the players start throwing the bat?

Between the 5-min major, instigator and third man in penalty, I think the rules are adequate as they stand. Someone takes a cheap shot, you can defend yourself in a manner which most likely will not injure the other player. I would much rather get my ass beat in a fight than have someone get me with some stick work to my knees. Wouldn't you?

You are acting as if removing fighting will remove retaliations...it won't. The debate should be about what means of retaliation is acceptable. Any physical sport with have a "little extra" on the side that goes outside of the spirit of the game.

Ever play football and jump on a fumble? The players on the bottom of the pile aren't exactly exchanging casarole recipies!

And yes, fighting does draw new fans to the arena. Once they are their, the rest of the GAME keeps them there.

[quick_dry]

Your scenario suggests martial law...that isn't what I am saying.

The idea isn't to "get someone back" it is to prevent the other guy from taking a cheap shot to begin with.

Have you played (any sport) at a high level of competition before? It doesn't sound like it... NOt trying to be rude, just sounds like your perspective comes from a different angle.

If the stakes are high and you're ruthless enough, taking somebody out with a cheap shot if it gives you the win is well worth the risk that some tough guy from the other team will pop you in the nose.
So you get punched, big deal - they're now missing their goalkeeping phenom and the backup is a funnel.

I don't think removing fighting will make much difference to cheap shots. However harsh the penalty for a fight is, the penalty for a cheap shot resulting in injury is usually much higher.

I do agree that fighting can draw people to the arena, people who may then become hockey fans (or at least fans of people checking and fighting each other). We get about 600-700 spectators per game and I'd be lieing if I said a good number of them aren't there to see hits and hope a tussle breaks out.

Maybe its just that the ice hockey fraternity is unsure of its sexuality, I mean, what is ice hockey without hitting? 30 guys in stockings and garter belts stickhandling - in roller hockey we wear pants.

[whalercane]

Your scenario suggests martial law...that isn't what I am saying.

The idea isn't to "get someone back" it is to prevent the other guy from taking a cheap shot to begin with.

Have you played (any sport) at a high level of competition before? It doesn't sound like it... NOt trying to be rude, just sounds like your perspective comes from a different angle.

When the stakes are high, the tough guys will target the skilled players from the other team. The difference between those runs being "cheap shots" and "legal" is the consequences. This is just part of sports (any sport). This is no different than a pitcher throwing a brush back pitch when the other teams slugger is up to bat. What if they "outlawed" charging the mound and fighting in baseball? Would the players start throwing the bat?

Between the 5-min major, instigator and third man in penalty, I think the rules are adequate as they stand. Someone takes a cheap shot, you can defend yourself in a manner which most likely will not injure the other player. I would much rather get my ass beat in a fight than have someone get me with some stick work to my knees. Wouldn't you?

You are acting as if removing fighting will remove retaliations...it won't. The debate should be about what means of retaliation is acceptable. Any physical sport with have a "little extra" on the side that goes outside of the spirit of the game.

Ever play football and jump on a fumble? The players on the bottom of the pile aren't exactly exchanging casarole recipies!

And yes, fighting does draw new fans to the arena. Once they are their, the rest of the GAME keeps them there.

What planet are you from? Martial law? What?? Do you know what that is? If you do, then you need to re-read my post because you've gone ahead and confused yourself.

Another thing: Lets leave personal athletic accomplishment out of the conversation because such points have no baring on what we're talking about. All you need to know is that I'm one of about .000007% of the life-long ice hockey players who are actually against fighting in hockey because I feel it gives the sport a black eye (no pun intended).

If you want to make the case that fighting draws people to hockey (meaning generates revenue for the sport, and I'm not talking about drawing a crowd around some roll-on concrete outdoor rink where some guys are playing pickup), then feel free to argue yourself or selves blue in the face but that's just not true.

If it were the case, then I'd suggest that the NHL look to increase fighting. Hell, bring in a squared circle and some turnbuckles along with a few collapsable tables if that's gonna bring "new" fans to the seats, but something tells me it wouldn't.

[DannyG]

"Ken Dryden, Wayne Gretzky, and Mario Lemieux are now owners, fighting is going to slowly disappear from the game."

This quote from about five years ago (somewhere on this board)... fisticuffs has no place in the game, and makes our game only look stupid to outsiders. The fact that this only a step, and not a ban, is irrelevant. Fighting must ultimately disappear, and it will...hopefully, sooner than later.

[United Inline]

Ya... let's make it non contact too, that will draw more fans. Look, I'm all for making the game safer, but professional hockey is a business. Putting fans in the seat is important. Not to say that fans are only there to see fights, but fighting is a big part of it.

I'm all for fighting in the National Hockey League.

[DannyG]

okay, here we go...

Fighting is "a big part" of the game only for those fans who like fighting.


The evaluation/assessment that "fans like fighting" never looks for the potential fan who stays away because of the fights. Such potential fans do exist, and their numbers are legion.

Bertrand Russell is quoted as saying, "A stupid idea that is believed to be true by a thousand people is still a stupid idea."

Sports, games, "recreative fun," are supposed to be man's primal combat nature, re-directed toward a secondary, irreal function. Rather than combat-war-survival conflict, we accept the challenge of chasing a ball (or other object of play) around a play area in a prescribed manner.

We do our best to play hard, clean, and within the rules. Whoever does the best, wins...and since we didn't die, like we would have in a real war/combat, we can even play again the next time.

The game is just that, the game. Fighting brings our actions outside the game, into reality. Fighting, other than in actual fighting sports, cannot ever truly be a part of the game..by definition!

Just because Barry Melrose, and 999 other people believe that fighting is a legitimate "part" of hockey, does not make it right. Fact is, it is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong.

I am saddened that I will never be able to convince fighting-in-hockey believers that they are wrong. But they are.

Thanks for listening.