HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Hockey Fights
Hockey Fights Discuss and rate hockey fights and fighters of today and from the past. Videos welcome!

Should Fighting Be Abolished?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2012, 06:59 PM
  #101
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Absolutely not!!!!

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2012, 11:56 PM
  #102
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
Fights that start as the result of hockey plays in that game or from a prior contest should not be abolished. What should be looked at, however, is the concept of staged fights and the elimination of the instigator rule if a player challenges someone who injured a teammate.

aemoreira1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2012, 04:02 AM
  #103
gabbagabbawill
Registered User
 
gabbagabbawill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
It seems to me that the point that seems to be missed in this discussion is that fighting is part of the culture of hockey.

Ideally, fights should not have to start. However, what some folks here seem to be forgetting is the reason there is fighting in the first place. One reason to start a fight is to deter players on the opposite team from intentionally hurting/ injuring a star player, goalie, or otherwise "non-fighting" player. The "instigator rule" changed the way fights are doled out, and has hurt the game overall, in many peoples minds. The harsher penalties for the person starting the fight means that players can get away with a lot more abuse to opposing team's players without having to face consequences of fighting a player on that team as readily.

In other words, it plays out like this: player on team A takes a cheap shot at player on Team B. Team B sends out their enforcer to take care of it, but player on team A doesn't accept the challenge to a fight, so if the enforcer from team B starts one, he faces much heavier penalties. Basically, this gives the player on Team A a lot more leeway in their conduct on the ice.

Not everyone goes to a hockey game just to watch fights. I don't want to see my favorite team's players have to fight, but if they need to fight, then they should be able to.

Do away with the instigator rule. Do this, and you'll see less cheap shots, and maybe even less injuries.

Finally, ask the players what they think. If they voted to do away with fighting, then so be it. But I seriously doubt you'd get that kind of response from players in the NHL.

gabbagabbawill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2012, 07:34 AM
  #104
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 39,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbawill View Post
It seems to me that the point that seems to be missed in this discussion is that fighting is part of the culture of hockey..
* fighting is part of the culture of canadian hockey. its not part of the culture of american or european hockey.
* fighting protects the cheap shot perp as well. you have to realize that. the famed flyers of the 70's were not only the fightingest team in the league, but they were also the dirtiest team in the league.

newton's law: every action creates and equal and opposite reaction. if you open up fighting by removing the instigator, you not only open it up to respond to a cheap shot, you open it up throughout the game. that means teams that already like to play with an edge and carry players known for the cheap shot will heavy up with players that fight well with the intent of taking advantage of the change.


Last edited by txpd: 01-27-2012 at 07:44 AM.
txpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2012, 12:35 PM
  #105
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbawill View Post

Not everyone goes to a hockey game just to watch fights. I don't want to see my favorite team's players have to fight, but if they need to fight, then they should be able to.

Do away with the instigator rule. Do this, and you'll see less cheap shots, and maybe even less injuries.

Finally, ask the players what they think. If they voted to do away with fighting, then so be it. But I seriously doubt you'd get that kind of response from players in the NHL.
You are forgetting that the players, coaches and GM's are a bunch of uneducated rubes who should take the advice of anonymous internet whiners whose sole purpose is to oppose more than 100 years of history in order to shape the game into something that is more personally palatable to them.

Forget the fact that when fights happen the people in the stands stand up and cheer, forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of players past and present want self policing to continue. Forget the fact that 99.9 % of fights are consentual whereas I suspect the number of people who consent to get boarded or speared or slashed is pretty much zero. Just abandon your previous position and accept the position that a bunch on entitled whiners ( many of whom oppose the very concept of fighting and may have never watched a game or ever laced them up) are the only ones who really have hockey's best interest in mind.

Once you do this, you get to bask in the glow of the same retreaded and refuted arguments that are impressively impervious to the truth.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 12:35 AM
  #106
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,399
vCash: 500
What may ultimately kill fighting:

BoH Thread: NHL may drastically change if/when insurance for concussed players disappear

Concussion coverage could soon become headache for NHL

Quote:
Insurance companies specializing in sports say the Penguins and other NHL teams will increasingly have to adopt the risk of million-dollar contracts alone as the number of players sidelined with concussions swells. The prospect threatens to alter the hockey industry.

For players who have suffered serious concussions — there are at least 73 players who have missed games this season with brain injuries, according to player agent Allan Walsh — new contracts will include so-called concussion exclusions.

That will mean teams won’t be able to insure those players against future brain injuries.

Bill Hubbard, chief executive of HCC Specialty, a New York-based company that also specializes in the sports industry and has insured hockey players, says it could lead to an even more troubling development for the NHL.

If more players continue to be sidelined with concussions, insurers may stop insuring players with brain injuries altogether.

“Right now you’ve got 10 per cent of the league affected by concussions,” Hubbard said. “While I don’t know where the breaking point is, at some point, if it keeps trending this way, companies are not going to be able to insure NHL players for concussions.”

Many teams could be driven into financial ruin if one or more of their top players are sidelined indefinitely and don’t have insurance, Walsh said.

...

Last week, Toronto-based Sutton Special Risk, which provides off-ice insurance to more than 400 NHL players, rewrote its insurance application form to devote more scrutiny to concussions.

“We used to have one question asking players their history with cardiac issues and other problems like concussions,” said Greg Sutton, the company’s president.

“Now, concussions have their own section. We’re asking about frequency, how bad they were and how many games they missed. We know you’re not recovered from brain injuries because the symptoms go away. This is not an organ like the liver that can regenerate itself.

“You’re going to see a lot more contracts with concussion exclusions. It’s a big risk. Teams are going to have more exposure related to concussions that they’re going to have to eat.”
I would not be surprised to see insurance companies start writing policies with riders explicitly excluding coverage for head injuries due to fighting.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 02:02 AM
  #107
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
What may ultimately kill fighting:

BoH Thread: NHL may drastically change if/when insurance for concussed players disappear

Concussion coverage could soon become headache for NHL



I would not be surprised to see insurance companies start writing policies with riders explicitly excluding coverage for head injuries due to fighting.
Would you please stop conflating fighting and concussions ? Yes fighting can lead to concussions but the players who have missed several games due to concussions ( and especially the ones with fat contracts) very few were due to fights. Based on this should the companies put in riders against hitting and make the league the no hit league ?

hockey is inherantly a dangerous sport but Fighting is down 25 percent, the insurance companies can moan all they like but if they want to teams to take on more liability for something that is clearly trending down then someone else will step in and take on the risk. This is afterall a game where the guys play the game with clubs in their hands and knives on their feet.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 11:09 AM
  #108
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Not that I recall a lot of players being ejected for 3 fighting majors in a game anyway...but....
I'm all for reducing that to just basically 1 fight a game per player, meaning, that you have to be real smart and decisive about it, since it would be a game misconduct for a 2nd fight.
I just don't want to see if finally banned, after someone gets killed from a fight in the NHL, which is not totally out of reality, especially from fights when they take off the helmets...

beenhereandthere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 12:31 PM
  #109
hckyplayer8
He's Gone!
 
hckyplayer8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Chicken Capital,PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
What may ultimately kill fighting:

BoH Thread: NHL may drastically change if/when insurance for concussed players disappear

Concussion coverage could soon become headache for NHL

I would not be surprised to see insurance companies start writing policies with riders explicitly excluding coverage for head injuries due to fighting.
When was the last time you heard of a severe head injury (concussion) due to a fight?

hckyplayer8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 02:29 PM
  #110
TheNorthFace
Mo and Willy
 
TheNorthFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,158
vCash: 500
Absolutely not.

TheNorthFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 03:07 PM
  #111
Destroyer100
 
Destroyer100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 261
vCash: 500
Hockey would be so boring, it would just be horrible.

Destroyer100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2012, 03:21 PM
  #112
UnrefinedCrude
Registered User
 
UnrefinedCrude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam042686 View Post
If this was the case why did both the NHL and WHA fail to catch on in the US in the 1970's when violence was at its' peak? NBC dropped their TV contract with the NHL at the "boom period" of the Flyers. The US saw the NHL's violence and turned away from it.
The US saw a sport that was unfamiliar with vast swathes of it's viewership. it saw a sport it wasn't dominant in, and turned away from it. It had nothing to do with violence. and it did in fact gain a foothold. But nothing sells a sport like winning. once US franchises started winning the championship more regularly it became much easier to sell the game to new markets.

UnrefinedCrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 01:50 PM
  #113
idk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aemoreira1981 View Post
Fights that start as the result of hockey plays in that game or from a prior contest should not be abolished. What should be looked at, however, is the concept of staged fights and the elimination of the instigator rule if a player challenges someone who injured a teammate.
This.

The idea of a fight that develops out good, if chippy, hockey is one thing. However some teams/players use it as a strategy - either to gain momentum or to intimidate the other team. That's what needs to be eliminated. To this end I'd propose the following rule changes.

(1) No fights within ten seconds of a faceoff unless there is another whistle in between. Offenders get a game misconduct.

(2) Change the instigator. Instigator is called if you are penalized for a player safety violation (by that I mean penalties such as hitting from behind, slashing - not tripping, hooking or interference (excepting goalie interference)) which results in a fight on the same play (say within the next ten seconds). The instigating player is the player who is also going to be penalized for something else (so two for the penalty, two for the instigator and five for the fight).

(3) Third man in is allowed. If a player becomes involved in an altercation which he does not want to be involved in and another player jumps in to his defense it is perfectly legal (so long as the surrendering player throws no punches). He can still get an instigator though.

(4) No fighting unwilling combatants. If a player drops to one knee the fight is over. Period. Game misconducts and suspensions for anyone who punches a player who has at least one knee on the ice. Game misconducts and suspensions for anyone who goes down and pops back up (I know this will eliminate some good fights, but it prevents the rule from being abused). Players who throw no punches do not draw the fighting major (but can still get an instigator).

Would these rules cut down on fighting? Yes. But it'd also cut down on chintzy plays (because you're apt to wind up with an instigator tacked on) and keeps teams from using it as a strategy (if you want to intimidate someone then do it with a clean check, if you want to change momentum, do it with a clean check or a goal). And the fights that you'd see would be of a much higher quality because it'd involve people who were fighting because they were mad, not because it was a part of their job description

idk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 02:33 PM
  #114
cam042686
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hckyplayer8 View Post
When was the last time you heard of a severe head injury (concussion) due to a fight?
If I am not mistaken, Nick Kyprios had his career ended as a result of a fighting injury, Colton Orr knocked someone out (concussion there) and Don Sanderson died back in 2010.

cam042686 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 02:36 PM
  #115
cam042686
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by idk View Post
This.

The idea of a fight that develops out good, if chippy, hockey is one thing. However some teams/players use it as a strategy - either to gain momentum or to intimidate the other team. That's what needs to be eliminated. To this end I'd propose the following rule changes.

(1) No fights within ten seconds of a faceoff unless there is another whistle in between. Offenders get a game misconduct.

(2) Change the instigator. Instigator is called if you are penalized for a player safety violation (by that I mean penalties such as hitting from behind, slashing - not tripping, hooking or interference (excepting goalie interference)) which results in a fight on the same play (say within the next ten seconds). The instigating player is the player who is also going to be penalized for something else (so two for the penalty, two for the instigator and five for the fight).

(3) Third man in is allowed. If a player becomes involved in an altercation which he does not want to be involved in and another player jumps in to his defense it is perfectly legal (so long as the surrendering player throws no punches). He can still get an instigator though.

(4) No fighting unwilling combatants. If a player drops to one knee the fight is over. Period. Game misconducts and suspensions for anyone who punches a player who has at least one knee on the ice. Game misconducts and suspensions for anyone who goes down and pops back up (I know this will eliminate some good fights, but it prevents the rule from being abused). Players who throw no punches do not draw the fighting major (but can still get an instigator).

Would these rules cut down on fighting? Yes. But it'd also cut down on chintzy plays (because you're apt to wind up with an instigator tacked on) and keeps teams from using it as a strategy (if you want to intimidate someone then do it with a clean check, if you want to change momentum, do it with a clean check or a goal). And the fights that you'd see would be of a much higher quality because it'd involve people who were fighting because they were mad, not because it was a part of their job description
How about this?

1. As soon as a helmet comes off the fight is stopped? Let's face it people - you have to get away from all head shots. No exceptions.

2. Let them fight but no shots to the head. Any punch to the head is intent to injure. Body blows would be fine. It would look silly - but then don't all hockey fights look ridiculous?

cam042686 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 04:11 PM
  #116
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam042686 View Post
How about this?

1. As soon as a helmet comes off the fight is stopped? Let's face it people - you have to get away from all head shots. No exceptions.

2. Let them fight but no shots to the head. Any punch to the head is intent to injure. Body blows would be fine. It would look silly - but then don't all hockey fights look ridiculous?

Ummmm, how about no ? How about the people who are so offended with fighting start supporting the multitude of leagues that don't have fights instead of trying to force their vision of the game ( against the overwhelming wishes of the other fans and the players) down everyone's throats ?

And its nice to see the anti fighting crowd still willing to exploit the tragic death of Don Sanderson. Stay classy.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 04:26 PM
  #117
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Sorry, don't think they're exploiting anything. I cringe when I see guys take their helmets off during fights. Thanks to that, even if it's not in the NHL, a death is bound to happen from hitting a head full force on the ice. All pro leagues that allow fighting will mandate hopefully, no helmets off. If a guy has a visor, there are still other ways you can get effective punches on him.

beenhereandthere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 05:48 PM
  #118
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
Sorry, don't think they're exploiting anything. I cringe when I see guys take their helmets off during fights. Thanks to that, even if it's not in the NHL, a death is bound to happen from hitting a head full force on the ice. All pro leagues that allow fighting will mandate hopefully, no helmets off. If a guy has a visor, there are still other ways you can get effective punches on him.
Don Sanderson died as a result of a tragic accident that happened after a fight. That's not to say that fighting did not contribute to it but Sanderson decided to take his helmet off. The same people who hold out Sanderson probably could not have picked him out of a two person line up before or after his death. I'd say that when people's concern is directionally proportional to how much it advances their agenda that that's a pretty good definition of exploitation.

There are lots of people who chose to do things I would not ( like the guys doing double flips on snowmobiles at X-games, or free climbing). You don't see people trying to parlay Sarah Burke's tragic demise to try and restrict snowboarding because its morose. If that's the model you want to follow, be my guest. But you can't have it both ways.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 03:24 PM
  #119
Lars Mon Amour
Mon beau Lars
 
Lars Mon Amour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Saint-Hyacinthe, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer100 View Post
Hockey would be so boring, it would just be horrible.
You don't watch Olympics Hockey? Junior?

Lars Mon Amour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 05:33 PM
  #120
ShaggyRogers
Mystery in Tampa
 
ShaggyRogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
This is the kind of idea that could slowly kill the sport.

ShaggyRogers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:57 PM
  #121
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: north finchley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,921
vCash: 500
another idea would be to have a mandatory instigator for all fights. that would eliminate the staged fights. usually the team that's down would get an extra two mins for pulling that i'm-gonna-change-the-momentum b-s.
i appreciate the idea of eliminating the instigator to allow players to police themselves and beat-down cheap-shotters. but maybe the league could actually handle that role, and really start disciplining players who step over the line.

egelband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 02:54 PM
  #122
Larrikin
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
A bit of bloody helps you hold onto the stick a little better

Larrikin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 04:58 PM
  #123
Blue Regime
Registered User
 
Blue Regime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Groton, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by egelband View Post
another idea would be to have a mandatory instigator for all fights. that would eliminate the staged fights. usually the team that's down would get an extra two mins for pulling that i'm-gonna-change-the-momentum b-s.
i appreciate the idea of eliminating the instigator to allow players to police themselves and beat-down cheap-shotters. but maybe the league could actually handle that role, and really start disciplining players who step over the line.
Terrible idea.

Blue Regime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 06:45 PM
  #124
Droid6
Registered User
 
Droid6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 99
vCash: 500
I don't think fighting should be banned but I'm always surprised by the guy who goes and fights someone after they lay a legal check on a teammate. A good example would be the last time the Red Wings played the Blues Alex Pietrangelo seemed to be skating with his head up his ass all game and gets blown up repeatedly and his teammates came for vengeance which put them shorthanded and resulted in a few goals against.




Droid6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 07:01 PM
  #125
capebretoncanadien
Registered User
 
capebretoncanadien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Expert View Post
No and Puck Daddy is garbage and has been for a while now.
Yep...he used to be required daily reading for me. Now I only go on there if I'm terribly bored.

capebretoncanadien is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.