Sean Avery sure has been suspended over and over for cheapshotting guys on the ice, hasn't he?
Anyway, I agree with mostly everyone else in this thread. It's a different game and the enforcer role is slowly going away. Nothing wrong with fighting, but the game is going away from predetermined goon fights to fights between heart and soul players who also play hockey, like the Brandon Prust's of the league.
It's a good point - what makes hockey so special that it "requires" enforcing? Football is as violent if not more so and it doesn't require an enforcer. Rugby, for god's sake, which is a violent sport that involves NO equipment doesn't require enforcers. The rules, refs and coaches take care of it. Are there fights? Of course. Occassionally the situation gets out of hand and the rules break down and mayhem ensues. But no sport OTHER than hockey has institutionalized fighting as a sideshow to the action of the sport itself and certainly no other has introduced a role for a player that can't actually PLAY THE GAME simply because he can fight.
A certain segment of hockey fans (and players) like it and that's the only reason fighting - and enforcers - are in the game.
Don't get me wrong, when Dubi and Richards spontaneously break into a fight due to the action of a game, I enjoy it. Because it IS part of the game. But goons? Stupid. They were stupid in the 70s and they're stupid now.
I played rugby for my college, and I think you're expressing a point of view very similar to mine.
Fighting is fun for me to watch, but I don't see how the game -requires- it in any way, and whenever I have asked the question why (when other, violent sports don't -need- it) no one can answer the question.
I believe you're right. Fans (and players) express a fun part of watching a hockey game as some sort of policing tool, which it really isn't. Goons don't have a place in the game, IMO.
I played rugby for my college, and I think you're expressing a point of view very similar to mine.
Fighting is fun for me to watch, but I don't see how the game -requires- it in any way, and whenever I have asked the question why (when other, violent sports don't -need- it) no one can answer the question.
I think it has to do with the severity of the violence. A baseball player getting beaned, a basketball player gettting upended, there are fights in all sports.
What makes hockey different is the speed, ice, and sticks. A little pokecheck in the skates could send a players career crashing. It's just too easy to hurt someone severely in hockey. Boogy didn't get concussed from Carkner. It's when he banged his head on the ice. And that's really all it takes. You wanna add players going 20miles per hour on skates and you got a very dangerous profession. I don't think the cheapshots are as critical in other sports as they are in hockey.
If fighting weren't allowed in hockey, do you think there would be no fights? There would be bench clearing brawls, just like in all major sports. Except it would be nightly in hockey. At least this way with fighting in the game,.. the refs can police the fights, make rules governing them and for the most part control them,... without having to call the national guard to quell the riot,... like at a soccer game.
If fighting weren't allowed in hockey, do you think there would be no fights? There would be bench clearing brawls, just like in all major sports. Except it would be nightly in hockey.
No.
Like in other sports they would be fined huge amounts and suspended for lengthy times and then it wouldn't happen all that often, just like in other sports.
I wasn't crazy about the article. Cote only played 4 years and he came off a little punch drunk. I wouldn't say he's a typical NHL tough guy. Not with only 4 years.
Although he did bring up alot of the same points as Belak did in his last interview. Mostly about always being anxious thinking of the next fight and the not so healthy mindset that's needed to perform.
There is another articule in that mag about concussions featuring Pat Lafontaine and Jeff Beukaboom worth reading.
Like in other sports they would be fined huge amounts and suspended for lengthy times and then it wouldn't happen all that often, just like in other sports.
Ya think,... I wouldn't bet on it.
Your entitled to your opinion, but hockey is like no other sport. It's just too dangerous to get seriously hurt with a simple push. Who was it who broke his back just by being slightly shoved into the endboards this year? I forget.
Anyway, I would think the NHL would fall apart if fighting were takin out. Suspensions and fines wouldn't stop the fighting. Only eliminating the cheapshots would. Would the fines and suspensions eliminate the cheapshots? I don't think so. Hell, look at Matt Cooke. He says he a changed man! We shall see. But it's not just the Cooke's of the NHL. It's practically everybody. Crosby with the slew-footing, Pronger with the skate stomping and it goes on and on.
If the NHL could do away with fighting as you say so easily,... don't you thing they would have done it already? They know the consequences of such an action.
I think we need to do away with the instigator rule.
I believe that by natural attrition the role of the knuckle dragging goon is going to be un needed, but I do believe that the role of enforcer is going to be one that is needed regardless.
Personally, I think guys like Jarrko Ruutu and Matt Cooke do not exist in the NHL without the instigator in place as they would HAVE to answer for each and every dirty incident.
Think Shawn Thornton didn't want to pummel Cooke after he laid out Savard? Or Prust didn't want to pound Cooke after his cheapshot on McD?
The legit guys that can play and fight have had their balls cut off due to the instigator rule.
The NHL wanted and got the frontier justice out of the game, but in it's place they have allowed players to lose respect for each other as they now do not have to answer for their actions.
Back in the day, you had guys cheap shotting each other. That will never get eliminated from the game.
The difference is that the guys then were also the heavyweights and were more than willing to answer for their actions.
Now you have little dirtbags like the guys mentioned above and guys like Avery (just because he's neve rbeen suspended for an on ice infraction doesn't mean he's not a dirty player) they know that they can do what ever they want and as long as the instigator rule is in place, will never have to drop the gloves against a Boogaard, or an Orr or a McIntyre.
I mention Avery because of the BS he pulled against Boston, where he skated by Tim Thomas and allowed his stick to hit Thomas in the back of the head as he skated by. Did it hurt? No, was it the worst I have ever seen, not even close, but the fact that he know he wouldn't have to answer to Shawn Thornton later in the game gave him a level of comfortability to pull that crap in the first place.
Cooke would not be the same player he is today if he had to answer for each of his infractions. He'd be alot more thoughful in how he approaches each and every game. His style, for such a little man, would be very much altered. He'd be a pest, but not a cheapshot artist that he is today. Same goes for Ruutu and Avery.
I don't disagree that Goons are becoming extinct, but I do believe that Fighting has a place in the game, that it's still important to leave in the game and that if you really want to clean up the dirty play that we have seen, get rid of the instigator.
