As of the time that I am posting this only two people in Alaska have voted on espn's poll: SportsNation Polls - Fighting in Hockey? I can assure you I was the one that said it shouldn't be banned.
Having said that, I don't like a fight for a fight's sake. Sakic v. Gilmor is probably my favorite. I like seeing the stars fight...to me that means the fight means something more than Lappy just going out to spark a little emotion. Vinny v. Jerome...that was two captains in the Stanley Cup Finals going at it. That was a fight and I don't want that kind of stuff banned. I'm all for dropping the instigator penalty and I'm all for dropping the third man in...but if the gloves come off, give them 5 minutes. If one player drops the gloves in anything other than self-defense a second time, eject him for the remainder of the game.
Let's drop the gloves and have it out...what say y'all?
Watch the amount of borderline and dangerous hits and injuries go up, when they cut down on, or eliminate fighting. They claim to want to cut down on injuries, but keep hampering the players ability to police themselves. Do they really think it would turn into slap shot style mayhem if they took out the instigator again?
Watch the amount of borderline and dangerous hits and injuries go up, when they cut down on, or eliminate fighting. They claim to want to cut down on injuries, but keep hampering the players ability to police themselves. Do they really think it would turn into slap shot style mayhem if they took out the instigator again?
I've never understood this mentality. Violence to prevent violence? Somehow I fail to see the connection. It's like saying the death penalty deters violent crime. I do enjoy seeing a fight for entertainment sake, but it adds nothing meaningful to a game and I wouldn't be upset if it was banned.
I've never understood this mentality. Violence to prevent violence? Somehow I fail to see the connection. It's like saying the death penalty deters violent crime. I do enjoy seeing a fight for entertainment sake, but it adds nothing meaningful to a game and I wouldn't be upset if it was banned.
Ask the players from the different era's, and that's exactly what they'll say. It's accountability and respect. There's much less of both in this era.
Also, comparing a hockey player's thought process to a murderer's thought process doesn't hold much water IMO. Obviously someone who is capable of murder has a different mentality, and doesn't react the same way that most people do. That's the reason why the death penalty doesn't deter them.
I've never understood this mentality. Violence to prevent violence? Somehow I fail to see the connection. It's like saying the death penalty deters violent crime. I do enjoy seeing a fight for entertainment sake, but it adds nothing meaningful to a game and I wouldn't be upset if it was banned.
One could argue that removing the instigator would be akin to adopting a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction to deter violence. You might not like the idea of MAD but the fact is neither the US nor the Soviets have caused the end of the world yet. Not sure it would be totally correct to draw a correlation between global politics and hockey though...
One could argue that removing the instigator would be akin to adopting a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction to deter violence. You might not like the idea of MAD but the fact is neither the US nor the Soviets have caused the end of the world yet. Not sure it would be totally correct to draw a correlation between global politics and hockey though...
When i watch college hockey I don't miss fighting and I find the trope that it's more dangerous in leagues without it over stated.
What I don't get about the instigator whining is players won't risk a minor, but will risk a suspension doing something worse. I'm sure it's just a canard.
I disagree to an extent; not that I'm a blood-monger or anything (never seen UFC, don't care about boxing) but it's frustrating to watch refs break up a shoving match when they're two grown men who want to blow off steam. I think it's hogwash that no fighting makes the game more dangerous, but in real instances (not staged goon brawls, as someone else said already) of tension I'm all for it
I think hockey is appealing to a degree because of how physical it is...it taps into the pimal nature of man, even without the fighting. That being said, If you play a timid game you will be destroyed....not just lose....but destroyed.
The game is so fast that even if collisions weren't stategic, they'd still happen (unless you play D for the Colorado Avalanche.)
To me, hockey is a blood-sport. Even when the team is up 3-1, 4-1 or 5-1....we are all hoping for more. I've never once heard someone wish their team would let up in a game. In hockey the goal is not to win...but to conquer.
With that mentality things are going to boil over. This is not football where the play goes on for 4 or 5 seconds and is followed by a 20-45 second interlude. It is non-stop and in your face at its very best. I just don't see how you can take fighting out at the professional level.
Some might not miss fighting at the college level. I'm not suggesting that is be allowed at that level but for me...when watching the CCHA I often see a mere imitation of hockey at it's highest level. I see kids afraid of losing scholarships if they play with the edge it takes to destroy* their opponent. In effect...I see a whole bunch of Jacques Cloutier influenced play and not much Cam Neely inspired play.
* Ok before anyone goes off on me, when talking about destroying their opponent I am NOT hoping to see a blind-side, sucker punch, from behind in the CCHA. I don't want to see that at any level. Hockey forces players to walk a thin line at all levels and at their best players are always on the edge. What I wouldn't mind seeing more of at the CCHA level is more "vigorous defense" in front of the crease similar to what Foote used to do and maybe the occasional flair of the shoulder and elbow by a forward making a move to the net "ala Forsberg."
