HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Washington Capitals (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   OHL Fighting Rule: NHL to Follow? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1275467)

BTCG 10-25-2012 08:06 AM

OHL Fighting Rule: NHL to Follow?
 
Anyone else see this?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408051

Interesting concept. But one paragraph caught my attention, especially:



The other area is deterring players from responding to a good, clean body check of a teammate by challenging the hitter to a fight.

Where at one time, clean body checks were accepted as part of the game, these days they are often answered with immediate reprisals in the form of fisticuffs. That's a trend that concerns the OHL and one it would like to curb.

It believes that consistent application of the instigator rule, combined with the 10-game fight limit, will reduced the number of instances when a player has to answer the bell because of delivering a clean and fair bodycheck.

"That player who has a clean body check and suddenly turns around and there's a player waiting for him there to fight that fight, if there is one, won't count in his total number (of fights)," said Branch. "And hopefully that, in some way, will take away from these needless fights because there's been a clean body check."



I like this, but here's my take. If a player starts a fight because he or his teammate had been the victim of a clean check, the league should count that fight as "2".

That'll stop that in a hurry.

Vikke 10-25-2012 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTCG (Post 55267749)
Anyone else see this?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408051

Interesting concept. But one paragraph caught my attention, especially:



The other area is deterring players from responding to a good, clean body check of a teammate by challenging the hitter to a fight.

Where at one time, clean body checks were accepted as part of the game, these days they are often answered with immediate reprisals in the form of fisticuffs. That's a trend that concerns the OHL and one it would like to curb.

It believes that consistent application of the instigator rule, combined with the 10-game fight limit, will reduced the number of instances when a player has to answer the bell because of delivering a clean and fair bodycheck.

"That player who has a clean body check and suddenly turns around and there's a player waiting for him there to fight that fight, if there is one, won't count in his total number (of fights)," said Branch. "And hopefully that, in some way, will take away from these needless fights because there's been a clean body check."


I like this, but here's my take. If a player starts a fight because he or his teammate had been the victim of a clean check, the league should count that fight as "2".

That'll stop that in a hurry.

The problem is, it's easy to say afterwards that the hit was clean, when you're on the ice and a teammate gets leveled, it's easy to assume that it might've been dirty.

BTCG 10-25-2012 08:16 AM

I get your point. Many times, the announcers will proclaim a hit as "clean" (thus, agreeing with the refs), but when you see the replay, the guy left his feet, and/or threw a quick elbow.

And the only fix there will be to open the ranks of refs to people other than Canadians. Hockey is a world sport, and we should have the best in the world as refs, too.

Right now, reffing is an old boys network that consists of 99% Canadians.

txpd 10-25-2012 09:45 AM

* if the nhlpa wants to eliminate enforcers and cut down on fighting without having to go public with being against fighting, this kind of rule will get passed thru the competition committe.

* my view on the fighting after the clean hit is this. a dirty hit is in effect and instigator. any fight as a result of a dirty hit is shouldnt be charged as a fight to the responder. i think any fight started as a result of a clean hit should be a suspendable offense.

* lastly, the pro fighting lobby says that fighting deters evil/dirty play. the number of fights throughout the leagues that result from clean hits has not deterred hitting. has it? fighting doesnt deter.

Liberati0n* 10-25-2012 09:46 AM

Fights after clean hits are infuriating. I want as much fighting as possible in a general sense, but the implication that effective hits are somehow out of line bothers the **** out of me. I guess the OHL's motivation is to decrease fighting, so this rule is probably a pretty terrible development. Whether this approach is right is debatable anyway; there definitely needs to be an exception when players legitimately think a hit was dirty, and that's hard to assess. I think something like what the NHL does with the list of divers might be good, but much more severe. If you start fights after clean hits, everyone in the league should know you're a huge, whiny ****ing *****.

Hivemind 10-25-2012 10:07 AM

How do you reasonably enforce clean hit vs. dirty hit fighting? The players are moving at full speed and often have their attention elsewhere when the hit occurs. They don't have the benefits of replays and slow motion, or even the ability to dedicate their attention to it the same as the refs. Do you only allow fights if a penalty was called on the hit? Do you want players to wait for an arm to go up before charging at the checker?

BobRouse 10-25-2012 12:41 PM

Not a fan of any rules that may curb fighting.

Us knuckle dragging cavemen want to see MOAR fights because they are exciting and fill the crowd and team with energy.

Pretty much anyone who wants to deter fighting is a wuss in my eyes. Sorry wusses. I call it how it is. ;)

txpd 10-25-2012 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystlyfe (Post 55269803)
How do you reasonably enforce clean hit vs. dirty hit fighting? The players are moving at full speed and often have their attention elsewhere when the hit occurs. They don't have the benefits of replays and slow motion, or even the ability to dedicate their attention to it the same as the refs. Do you only allow fights if a penalty was called on the hit? Do you want players to wait for an arm to go up before charging at the checker?

a lot of times its pretty clear whether its clean or dirty.
this one is typical and clear cut.



fighting after body checks is weak. most of the time the dirty play is as obvious as the clean one.

For BR, as i said, fighting after a clean hit doesnt deter hitting anymore than it deters dirty play. my view is that if you are dumb enough to fight after a clean hit, your team should take the penalty/power play hit for the poor judgement.

BobRouse 10-25-2012 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpd (Post 55274691)
For BR, as i said, fighting after a clean hit doesnt deter hitting anymore than it deters dirty play. my view is that if you are dumb enough to fight after a clean hit, your team should take the penalty/power play hit for the poor judgement.

No worries TX. I still think you're a wuss if it makes you feel better :)

txpd 10-25-2012 05:10 PM

and you a knuckle dragger. you know the march of time is working against you

thom 10-25-2012 05:23 PM

The key will be the public who buy the ticket will they in smaller cities pay to watch a less violent game.Many of these clubs are still based in mining towns instead of office jobs.I'm not being biased but Art SHOWS don't have too many contruction workers going to the show.Hockey games don't have too many university professors going too games.

txpd 10-25-2012 06:50 PM

i dont mind a hockey fight when its a result of the play. i feel differently about it when its a way to try and win the game...a tool to get momentum or to intimidate the opponent away from playing their game. i fully dont approve when the fight is for the hell of it.

if a canadian mining town citizen wont go to a hockey game because there wasnt a fight in the last one, i am not sure how much of a hockey fan they are in the end.

brs03 10-25-2012 08:09 PM

Well, it's a much bigger issue in Jr hockey than it is in the NHL. The age gaps are more meaningful, the players are at a higher risk physically, and the focus is more on development to begin with.

The same climate of worries about fighting doesn't quite exist in the NHL right now. About enforcers as a role? Probably. But otherwise I think the differences in the underlying issues means any rule changes would develop a little differently.

txpd 10-26-2012 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brs03 (Post 55285039)
Well, it's a much bigger issue in Jr hockey than it is in the NHL. The age gaps are more meaningful, the players are at a higher risk physically, and the focus is more on development to begin with.

The same climate of worries about fighting doesn't quite exist in the NHL right now. About enforcers as a role? Probably. But otherwise I think the differences in the underlying issues means any rule changes would develop a little differently.

i agree that 16 and 17 year olds dont need to be fighting as a matter of course. i disagree that the nhl isnt concerned about fighting at their level. i think they are serious about head injuries in general terms. i think that nhl players that fight are getting "their bell's rung" at a greater rate than in the past because players that do this with some regularity work on it as professionals do to protect their income.

it used to be that getting hurt in an nhl fight was a freak thing. nowdays these guys work on it and they hit hard. jay beagle's career with very close to done after asham crushed him. aaron asham isnt even a heavy.

how many caps have had concussions from fighting in the last couple of years? beagle, erksine more than once, hendricks at least once. if you fight you get concussed.

brs03 10-26-2012 08:37 AM

I didn't mean to suggest that I think the NHL isn't worried about them. But it's a different kind of worry than the OHL. I think if and when the league does address it, it'll be a different type of change born from a different set of issues.

And I have to wonder if players are getting hurt more from fights today, or if they're just being diagnosed more. How many unreported concussions would a heavyweight of 10, 15, 20 years ago have endured? Obviously other injures would be tougher to ignore so you may be right there regardless. Player training is continually improving in all facets of the game, including fighting it would seem.

BobRouse 10-26-2012 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpd (Post 55280695)
and you a knuckle dragger. you know the march of time is working against you

Maybe true but doesn't mean I have to like it. I see why they are doing it...to get the non hockey market into the game b/c they think one reason they don't like hockey is the fighting and barbarism it stands for.

I think the NHL is killing the goose that laid the golden egg on this one. Fighting in hockey is part of the reason it became popular as a niche sport and how it drew so many fans. Then when Gretzky came along their was both fighting and skill aplenty!

Nothing beats 80s hockey. Those games were GREAT! I remember a great many and there were tons of fights, lots of hitting, lots of chances, lots of goals etc.

Now no one fights and everyone traps. Yawn

brs03 10-26-2012 09:05 AM

I think its less about getting new fans into it and more about not wanting to deal with the aftermath down the road, especially wrt concussions. For the OHL especially it's not a particularly difficult decision to make when you're dealing with teenagers. For the NHL its obviously more complicated.

BobRouse 10-26-2012 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brs03 (Post 55295231)
I think its less about getting new fans into it and more about not wanting to deal with the aftermath down the road, especially wrt concussions. For the OHL especially it's not a particularly difficult decision to make when you're dealing with teenagers. For the NHL its obviously more complicated.

Well I have issue with the whole concussion argument. Now its true what you say that it is a huge factor into why they are looking to curb fighting but what about hitting? Hitting causes TONS of concussions and I would say far more than fighting.

The logical conclusion is to eventually make hockey a non contact sport. It may seem implausible now but take a look...less and less fighting every year and more frowning upon it. Over the last couple years they are regulating hits more and more and even players like Cooke are saying "F it" I just won't hit anymore. We see first hand how it neutered Ovechkin.

Scott Stevens would not last in this league.

If this trend continues, which I fully expect it will, then eventually hitting will be banned too and we'd have field hockey on ice.

Where do you draw the line? Thats the question. This is a slippery slope the NHL is going down.

brs03 10-26-2012 09:23 AM

As I said, in the NHL it's a tougher thing to decide. The most likely solution is to lessen the prime dangers as much as they can (reduce the role of enforcers or players who's only job is to fight and who would rack up more damage than most over the course of a career, reduce the amount of particularly dangerous hits whether it be from behind or to the head or whatnot) and to improve safety equipment as much as possible. Some things may never be completely removed by they can still try to minimize them if they think they're the most dangerous causes.

And of course fighting is a much easier line to draw than hitting, especially at the lower levels. Fighting is a discrete event that's easy to keep track of and pretty easy to judge, and hence is easy (or easier) to regulate via rules. Cracking down on dangerous hits is more complicated.

fedfed 10-26-2012 10:46 AM

My take:
If you see a hit that you think is dirty, you should take a look at the ref. If the hand is up, you can go after it and get matching majors for fighting (and that guy will be called for the previously commited infraction). You get a PP.
If the hand is not up, you shouldn't go after the guy.
If you call for the fight and he refuses, you get two for roughing. Opponent gets a PP.
If you call for the fight and he agrees, he gets a major, you get a major and instigator. Again, PP for the opposition.
If you call for the fight and he refuses and you still punch him, welcome to 5+2+game misconduct.

BobRouse 10-26-2012 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brs03 (Post 55295479)
As I said, in the NHL it's a tougher thing to decide. The most likely solution is to lessen the prime dangers as much as they can (reduce the role of enforcers or players who's only job is to fight and who would rack up more damage than most over the course of a career, reduce the amount of particularly dangerous hits whether it be from behind or to the head or whatnot) and to improve safety equipment as much as possible. Some things may never be completely removed by they can still try to minimize them if they think they're the most dangerous causes.

And of course fighting is a much easier line to draw than hitting, especially at the lower levels. Fighting is a discrete event that's easy to keep track of and pretty easy to judge, and hence is easy (or easier) to regulate via rules. Cracking down on dangerous hits is more complicated.

The question I have for you is if you agree with this? Meaning do you support it or are you just saying it is what it is and thats how it will probably shake down?

Just trying to determine if you are a wuss or not :nod:

brs03 10-26-2012 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobRouse (Post 55297125)
The question I have for you is if you agree with this? Meaning do you support it or are you just saying it is what it is and thats how it will probably shake down?

Just trying to determine if you are a wuss or not :nod:

I have no real problem with fighting in hockey, at least at the NHL/pro level. I get as entertained by a well-timed fight as the next guy, like seeing guys stick up for each other etc. I think staged fighting and obligatory heavy-heavy matchups are kinda dumb, albeit still entertaining sometimes. I think discouraging it in the CHL is the right thing to do, for the most part. Teams making money off 15- and 16-year olds fighting is just... off.

I think the NHL would be irresponsible if it didn't take serious measures to curb concussion issues, including dangerous hits and fighting. I'd be fine with the role of the enforcer going away; a guy who's only job is to fight, who may take serious head trauma many times over the course of the season and has basically nothing else, is too much. Too many off-ice issues that that can lead to.

If the NHL came out tomorrow and said "no more fighting" I'd think it was overreacting and a bit of a bummer but I wouldn't stop watching or anything like that. I think hockey without hitting is more boring (part of why I can't get into women's hockey, the flow just isn't there) but I also don't think that's a realistic outcome so it doesn't worry me as much as it seems to worry you.

That said, I'd be proud to be called a wuss. ;)

(EDIT: Then again, I consider myself a pragmatist over all. Right and wrong don't mean much, just whatever is, I don't have much of a say either way.)

txpd 10-26-2012 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobRouse (Post 55295325)
Well I have issue with the whole concussion argument. Now its true what you say that it is a huge factor into why they are looking to curb fighting but what about hitting? Hitting causes TONS of concussions and I would say far more than fighting.

The logical conclusion is to eventually make hockey a non contact sport. It may seem implausible now but take a look...less and less fighting every year and more frowning upon it. Over the last couple years they are regulating hits more and more and even players like Cooke are saying "F it" I just won't hit anymore. We see first hand how it neutered Ovechkin.

Scott Stevens would not last in this league.

If this trend continues, which I fully expect it will, then eventually hitting will be banned too and we'd have field hockey on ice.

Where do you draw the line? Thats the question. This is a slippery slope the NHL is going down.

oh br....whats next? nhl players should play in dresses? the nhl is going to be a non contact sport like the nfl is going to. that doesnt mean the nfl isnt going to put a stop to helmet to chin/helmet hits.

scott stevens would do just fine in the current nhl. the big lindros hit he went straight thru 88's body. the concussion was as much from bouncing his head off the ice when he went down. the kariya hit was late and should have been a suspension then.

stop with the hitting being banned too stuff. do you honestly think the cooke hit on savard should be in the nhl?

BobRouse 10-26-2012 01:58 PM

BRS

No problem wuss! :) Yeah it is kinda creepy having young kids able to fight but that being said I'm sure that is a high level of hockey they are playing there. If we take out fighting too early (and leave it in the pros) then kids wont learn to fight or to defend themselves in a fight. That said I really don't care about this part of it ...I'm more concerned with the NHL.

TX

I think Stevens actually himself said he would not last in the NHL! haha I was paraphrasing his own comments.

Games evolve over time. At one point, if you remember (you probably due since youre such an old fogie! haha) football did not have a forward pass.

Its not out of the realm of reason to suspect there would be strict hitting rules in the NHL to the point where its stifling and taken out of the game entirely.

It will be like soccer on ice

txpd 10-26-2012 05:01 PM

it used to be that chris hanburger closeline tackled his way to the nfl hall of fame. its illegal and long gone from the game. it used to be that deacon jones could just hit and offensive lineman in the head as hard as he could on a pass rush. players are still pass rushing.

was that pansifying the nfl?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.