Why fighting will never be banned

[BuffaloBorn]

Last night I was bored and scanning through different news-stations on T.V and I was watching Bill O'Reilly for a solid two minutes interviewing someone (don't ask me why I was watching Bill O'Reilly)

 

O'Reilly at the end of his segment (A.K.A time to change the channel and watch something that isn't boring) said something like "You know! They're going to ban fighting in hockey as well!"..& I thought to myself.... no s***?!

 

I ultimately decided to comprise a list of why fighting will NEVER be banned, here's my top 30

 

1.) Kids are generally exposed to more violence on T.V and movies than all watched hockey fights

combined

 

2.) Fighting is a part of hockey and helps boost momentum for teams, potentially changing the outcome of games

 

3.) There are 11.5X more injuries from checking than fighting

 

4.) Fighting is a deterrent from players going after star players

 

5.) Without fighting the violence would be much worse (stick-swinging/slashing, stabbing) which could cause serious injury or death

 

6.) Fighting is part of a tradition of hockey making it unique from other sports, fighting has been in the game since its inception

 

7.) People who are opposed to fighting either don't understand the game, are worried mothers, or people who haven't watched or played the game

 

8.) UFC involves fighting much more brutal and gruesome than hockey- and UFC is allowed

 

9.) Serious injuries from fighting very rarely occur, the rate of injury in fights is 0.39% of players while body checking on ice injuries is 4.5% of players.

 

10.) Less people would likely go to games if fighting were banned

 

11.) Only about 15% of NHL players ever drop the gloves

 

12.) The NHL wouldn't exist without fans, so the NHL has an obligation to never ban fighting. Hockey is not as entertaining without fighting for most fans

 

13.) Fighting is the players decision, not the fans or critics of the sport's decision

 

14.) The NHL has issued a statement recently saying they are not even considering banning fighting

 

15.) If there were no fighting, the NHL would be like a Euro-league

 

16.) Without fighting, many players would have no role and may be forced to retire or lose their jobs

 

17.) Entertainment value, hockey is the 4th largest professional sport in the U.S (BIG 4) and needs as large of a fan-base as it can get. Without fighting, there would be less viewership and less revenues

 

18.) Hockey players are not babies, they are not little kids. Professional hockey players are full grown adults.

 

19.) The players know the risks that are inherent to hockey, yet still play

 

20.) Violence and injuries occurs in all contact sports, not just hockey

 

21.) Similar to baseball and steroids,banning fighting takes away from the authenticity of the sport since it has existed in hockey forever- since hockey has been a professional sport

 

22.) If fighting were banned, a plethora of players would get suspended and fined for no reason

 

23.) The only knock on fighting is that it is violent, barbaric, and can cause injuries. Football, rugby, and U.F.C are "barbaric" sports that are violent, and can cause injuries. Injuries in these sports more frequently occur than all hockey fights in a season combined

 

24.) If fighting in professional hockey is banned- then boxing, judo, UFC and Olympic wrestling should all be banned as well.

 

25.) The unwritten code of fighting in the NHL, is that that both parties have to consent to a fight (dropping the gloves). Every player that fights does it with consent.

 

26.) Cheap shots--which exist in almost all sports-- does not qualify as fighting. Elbowing, blows to the head, cross checking; These are the irrefutable dangers to players. Not fighting

 

27.) Cheap shots are more dangerous than fighting and it would be very very difficult to take actions like those out of the sport.

 

28.) There is no way to enforce a no-fighting ban, just as there is no way to enforce a anti-gun law or even a cannabis prohibition law

 

29.) Just because the other three major professional sports ban fighting, doesn't at all suggest the NHL should be pressured to follow suit and break a 97 year old tradition.

 

30.) If fighting is banned, what's next? Skating around in bubble suits with holes for skates and stick?

 

 

 

I know it's a busy day for sabrespace and the Buffalo Sabres community in general,

 

but what do you guys and gals think?

 

Thanks for reading

 

-BuffaloBorn

Edited January 9, 2014 by BuffaloBorn

[MattPie]

I'm not going to go through everything, but there's a few that jumped out at me.

 

 

2.) Fighting is a part of hockey and helps boost momentum for teams, potentially changing the outcome of games

 

6.) Fighting is part of a tradition of hockey making it unique from other sports, fighting has been in the game since its inception

 

7.) People who are opposed to fighting either don't understand the game, are worried mothers, or people who haven't watched or played the game

 

8.) UFC involves fighting much more brutal and gruesome than hockey- and UFC is allowed

 

10.) Less people would likely go to games if fighting were banned

 

12.) The NHL wouldn't exist without fans, so the NHL has an obligation to never ban fighting. Hockey is not as entertaining without fighting for most fans

 

15.) If there were no fighting, the NHL would be like a Euro-league

 

25.) The unwritten code of fighting in the NHL, is that that both parties have to consent to a fight (dropping the gloves). Every player that fights does it with consent.

 

28.) There is no way to enforce a no-fighting ban, just as there is no way to enforce a anti-gun law or even a cannabis prohibition law

 

2 & 6: Fighting is a part of NHL hockey and its feeder leagues. There's very little fighting in other leagues and international competition. I think it's banned in several.

 

7: There are real hockey fans that think fighting should be banned, don't try that tactic. I'm not one of them, but they have legitimate reasons for their arguments.

 

8: Very few people would encourage their kids to participate in UFC-style competition. Hockey is something kids do and parents want their kids to do. I'm betting that more than a few kids weren't allowed to play hockey, however because of the fighting (that's where the moms come into play).

 

10 &12: I don't think attendance would suffer much. Some people wouldn't go, and for the most part their seats would be taken up by people that didn't like the fighting before.

 

15: Annnnd?

 

25: I'm guessing you missed that Emery fight earlier this season. Or the many times that a player lays out a good clean check and then has to fight because someone on the other team didn't like it.

 

28: I think a mandatory 5 game suspension and fines would do a pretty good job of it.

 

Also, there's a difference between "outlawed/banned" and "illegal" that you're missing. The NHL has a semi-dictatorship over how it's games are played and what's allowed, and luckily, there's video of every game that they can go back and review. Also, using other sports as examples (pro or con) doesn't really matter since it's up to each league to determine what's best for the sport.

Edited January 9, 2014 by MattPie

[Campy]

<snip>

2 & 6: Fighting is a part of NHL hockey and its feeder leagues. There's very little fighting in other leagues and international competition. I think it's banned in several.

 

<snip>

 

I am not anti-fighting, I love it. But the lack of fighting doesn't seem to have harmed college hockey's popularity.

[BuffaloBorn]

I'm not going to go through everything, but there's a few that jumped out at me.

 

 

 

 

2 & 6: Fighting is a part of NHL hockey and its feeder leagues. There's very little fighting in other leagues and international competition. I think it's banned in several.

 

I'm talking about the NHL obviously

 

7: There are real hockey fans that think fighting should be banned, don't try that tactic. I'm not one of them, but they have legitimate reasons for their arguments.

 

More hockey/NHL fans are pro-fighting than not, just my opinion , and by personal experience. My bad for trying that tactic I guess. There are legitimate arguments for both sides, however I feel like the pro-fighting argument is much stronger.

 

8: Very few people would encourage their kids to participate in UFC-style competition. Hockey is something kids do and parents want their kids to do. I'm betting that more than a few kids weren't allowed to play hockey, however because of the fighting (that's where the moms come into play).

Kids grow up their whole lives training to fight and yes believe it or not their parents let them, don't try that tactic. I would agree there there are less UFC fighters, because there are less fans, hence it is less popular. I"m sure there are plenty of mothers who let their children aspire to this

 

10 &12: I don't think attendance would suffer much. Some people wouldn't go, and for the most part their seats would be taken up by people that didn't like the fighting before.

Getting rid of fighting isn't going to get you more fans

 

15: Annnnd? And it would be utterly boring one-dimensional

flat product that no one would want to watch for awhile

 

25: I'm guessing you missed that Emery fight earlier this season. Or the many times that a player lays out a good clean check and then has to fight because someone on the other team didn't like it.

Annnnd?

28: I think a mandatory 5 game suspension and fines would do a pretty good job of it.

Yet but would that really be a deterrent? Is that even realistic? We're not talking about any other league but the NHL

 

Also, there's a difference between "outlawed/banned" and "illegal" that you're missing. The NHL has a semi-dictatorship over how it's games are played and what's allowed, and luckily, there's video of every game that they can go back and review. Also, using other sports as examples (pro or con) doesn't really matter since it's up to each league to determine what's best for the sport.

 

My point is that all sports are different and the way one league works shouldn't be case-law for a league 28 years older than the NBA

[Hoss]

I'm not going to go through everything, but there's a few that jumped out at me.

 

 

 

 

2 & 6: Fighting is a part of NHL hockey and its feeder leagues. There's very little fighting in other leagues and international competition. I think it's banned in several.

 

7: There are real hockey fans that think fighting should be banned, don't try that tactic. I'm not one of them, but they have legitimate reasons for their arguments.

 

8: Very few people would encourage their kids to participate in UFC-style competition. Hockey is something kids do and parents want their kids to do. I'm betting that more than a few kids weren't allowed to play hockey, however because of the fighting (that's where the moms come into play).

 

10 &12: I don't think attendance would suffer much. Some people wouldn't go, and for the most part their seats would be taken up by people that didn't like the fighting before.

 

15: Annnnd?

 

25: I'm guessing you missed that Emery fight earlier this season. Or the many times that a player lays out a good clean check and then has to fight because someone on the other team didn't like it.

 

28: I think a mandatory 5 game suspension and fines would do a pretty good job of it.

 

Also, there's a difference between "outlawed/banned" and "illegal" that you're missing. The NHL has a semi-dictatorship over how it's games are played and what's allowed, and luckily, there's video of every game that they can go back and review. Also, using other sports as examples (pro or con) doesn't really matter since it's up to each league to determine what's best for the sport.

 

Did I post this under another username somehow? Exactly my thoughts.

 

Only gripe I have is the mandatory suspension. I think something like this would be good, but not after one fight. Maybe something like your third fight is a fine, your fifth is a suspension. Repeat.

 

If they wanted to eliminate goons who only fight then they could do something like ten fights is a major suspension.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Tankalicious

[PromoTheRobot]

I am not anti-fighting, I love it. But the lack of fighting doesn't seem to have harmed college hockey's popularity.

 

Who's going to fight a guy with a bird cage on his head?

[BuffaloBorn]

Wow... Totally thread-bombed. I think I make some good points,

[Campy]

Who's going to fight a guy with a bird cage on his head?

 

They used to go until they added the automatic game misconduct, and that meant a player missed the following game.

 

Wow... Totally thread-bombed. I think I make some good points,

 

You did. A few were stretches or reaches, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with 30, too.

 

I think the biggest reason it won't go anywhere anytime soon is that, whether a person likes it or not, it's simply part of hockey culture.

[BuffaloBorn]

So let's say that Milan Lucic runs into Ryan Miller, you're saying that if the Sabres players fight back they get multiple fines and suspensions??

 

Or what if an opponent player sucker-punches one of Buffalo's star young player (Risto for example) and starts beating him to the ground Shawn Thornton style, you're saying if two or three of our players all go after the perpetrator to fight they should get multiple fines/suspensions?!

 

What about line-brawls, the whole team gets suspended for 5 days?

 

Fights have their place

Edited January 9, 2014 by BuffaloBorn

[inkman]

Who's going to fight a guy with a bird cage on his head?

Someone who REALLY hates birds

[sabills]

Fights will end when someone dies from it on the ice, and not before. I give it another couple decades.

[Eleven]

Damn. Martin Luther made it to 95, and that was about religion and politics. You've got nearly 1/3 of that on hockey fights!

[TrueBlueGED]

There won't be a single fight at the Olympics, and the quality of hockey will be awesome..and I'd bet no goalie gets viciously run. I know, they're basically all-star teams filled with skill players versus the plugs on every NHL team, but still.

[sabills]

There won't be a single fight at the Olympics, and the quality of hockey will be awesome..and I'd bet no goalie gets viciously run. I know, they're basically all-star teams filled with skill players versus the plugs on every NHL team, but still.

 

Shouldn't that be what we want anyways?

[darksabre]

Shouldn't that be what we want anyways?

 

We don't want no ###### Euro League ###### in the NHL! This is the greatest league in the world! KILL KILL KILL!

[BuffaloBorn]

We don't want no ###### Euro League ###### in the NHL! This is the greatest league in the world! KILL KILL KILL!

#KILL :death: Isn't that what we want?

 

Damn. Martin Luther made it to 95, and that was about religion and politics. You've got nearly 1/3 of that on hockey fights!

ha!! :angel: :angel: :angel:

 

Fights will end when someone dies from it on the ice, and not before. I give it another couple decades.

"(Bill Masterton) Played 30 games in the 1967-68 season with the Minnesota North Stars and is the only player in NHL history to be killed as a direct result of an on-ice incident; the NHL annually awards the Bill Masterton Trophy in his honor, and the North Stars retired his number 19."

 

This was 46 years ago, I'd give it a few more decades than just a few.

 

I'm pretty sure the main hazard with fighting is hitting one's exposed head to the ice, not bitch slappin' someone on the way to the ice

 

Think of all the people who have fought in the NHL who lived long productive lives after fighting (Rob Ray for example)

 

Concussions are dramatically more likely to occur from hitting than fighting, in leagues without fighting, concussions run rampant at a similar if not increased rate.

 

Let's ban body checks too..?

 

 

"TORONTO - The occurrence of brain-rattling concussions among both elite male and female hockey players appears to be much higher than reported, suggests a study in which sports medicine doctors were behind the bench observing a season's worth of games.

The study, which followed players on two Canadian university teams during the 2011-2012 season, found the incidence of concussions was three times higher in males and more than five times greater in females than most previous research had found.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the rate of concussion among women playing university-level hockey was roughly twice that of their male counterparts."

Because girls drop the gloves alllllllll the time :rolleyes:

[BuffaloBorn]

granted there is not as much fighting in college hockey as in the NHL, but you get my point

 

Fighting isn't the hidden link causal relationship, , X variable, gateway drug to concussions (statistically)

[darksabre]

I would venture concussions are more likely among female hockey players due to their leagues being "no hitting" leagues, where they are likely to put themselves in more vulnerable positions. Unfortunately, "no hitting" doesn't mean hitting doesn't happen. I would also venture that the size disparity in women's college leagues is relevant. There's girls out there who are 4'11" and light as air playing against girls who are 6' 170lbs. That's a bigger gap than Gerbe to Scott.

[Trettioåtta]

I am reading The Game at the moment, and there is a section on fighting that has change my opinion on it, so i thought I would reply to this

 

1.) Kids are generally exposed to more violence on T.V and movies than all watched hockey fights

combined

This is true, but has nothing to do with hockey. Fighting shouldn't be banned because it might influence children in negative ways. This idea is ridiculous and on par with the whole violent video games are damaging our children. It is just ######.

 

2.) Fighting is a part of hockey and helps boost momentum for teams, potentially changing the outcome of games

I disagree, fighting by its nature is not part of hockey. The hockey game actually stops when this happens. It can act as a momentum boost, but it can also not (999.5% of Peters' fights for example). Furthermore, it is not the only way to change momentum, in fact, i would venture it is one of the weakest ways to change momentum. A big hit, a huge individual effort, hemming the other team in their defensive zone are all more powerful statements and are all hockey plays.

 

 

3.) There are 11.5X more injuries from checking than fighting

How many more checks are there than fights? Most fights aren't even really fights. Neither player generally gets good hits in and neither player really gets hurt. Mainly because most guys are off balance when they make a hit connect. This means the fight isn't even a good fight to watch as it is often more of a grappling/wrestling match with both players stopping the other one land any punches

 

 

 

4.) Fighting is a deterrent from players going after star players

'The Code' - perhaps the most persuasive reason for allowing fighting. However, does it actually stop people from going after stars? I would say it doesn't. The Lucic incident may suggest that he went for Miller because there was no one on the team who would punish him. However, a few punches that barely connect or hurt doesn't really teach someone a lesson or deter them. What teaches them a lesson is having everyone start finishing their checks, trying to cause him pain in the game in legal ways. Suspensions will stop players from really going after stars. Look at the pens team. Who is there to really deter someone from hurting Crosby or Malkin? No-one. Are they targeted by every player trying to kill them? No. Why? Because 4th liners are replaceable very easily, you get suspended for going after a star there is a good chance you lose your spot when you come back (e.g. Kaleta to an extent). The league is now suspending people for elbows, late hits, head hits, slashings etc. the stars are protected.

 

 

 

 

5.) Without fighting the violence would be much worse (stick-swinging/slashing, stabbing) which could cause serious injury or death

This is the argument the league used in the 70s. The league even told the players than in the Europe players finish games with far more bruises and pains because everyone is hitting each other with sticks. Firstly it simply isn't true about European hockey. But as Dryden points out, this also suggests that these are the only two ways to dissipate aggression. You either swing a fist or stick or you go home aggressively unsatisfied. But this isn't true. Another way would be to finish a big check, or to put that anger into skating harder or to clearing the front of the net, or to blocking the opposing goalies view. All of these actions require aggression, an they are all hockey plays and they all keep the game going.

 

 

 

6.) Fighting is part of a tradition of hockey making it unique from other sports, fighting has been in the game since its inception

Tradition isn't a reason on its own to keep something. However, tradition does link into 'identity' and that may be a reason to keep it. Plenty of things make hockey unique from other games, e.g. the fact there is no out of bounds, or the speed, or the idolising of players pushing through pain and injury. Coming from a non-hockey country, when I talk of hockey with people, the impression everyone has is that fighting is centre stage and everyone plays the game waiting for an excuse to knock each others' teeth out. This, in my opinion, summaries why the game isn't as respected as other sports...because peoples' perception is that the sport takes second place and is there to serve the spectacle.

 

 

 

7.) People who are opposed to fighting either don't understand the game, are worried mothers, or people who haven't watched or played the game

Ad hominem attacks are not persuasive arguments. If a six-time Stanley cup winner doesn't understand i don't think anyone does

 

 

 

8.) UFC involves fighting much more brutal and gruesome than hockey- and UFC is allowed

The fighting in UFC is the sport. Fighting in hockey shouldn't be banned because it is brutal, because it often isn't worse than other plays that happen in the game, but because it interrupts the game, stops the action and doesn't achieve anything tangible. If during the fight they suddenly stopped and grabbed sticks and started having a shooting accuracy test how much would people enjoy this aspect of the sport?

 

 

 

9.) Serious injuries from fighting very rarely occur, the rate of injury in fights is 0.39% of players while body checking on ice injuries is 4.5% of players.

You've mentioned this exact point above (#3). The fact the injury late is so low despite people hitting each other in the head shows how poor these fights really are. These guys know how to throw a punch. The reason no-one connects with a solid hit is because of a combination of lack of balance and the wrestling match that dominates the fight

 

 

10.) Less people would likely go to games if fighting were banned

Speculation. It could bring more fans in for all we know, who are simply not attending because they think that is the point of the game. Do you really go to games in case there is a fight? If so that is a little sad. Even if you enjoy the fighting aspect of the game surely that isn't what attracts you to the game and makes you enjoy it? If anything this attitude summaries why fighting should be banned. If people will not attend a game if they remove the part that stops the players playing then the idea that the game is second to the spectacle and people put up with the sport for the hope of a fight is apparently correct

 

11.) Only about 15% of NHL players ever drop the gloves

Exactly. You remove it and nothing changes for 85% of players. It is no longer a pervasive part of the game. How many of those 15% actually play the game? And how many are like Scott? If we swapped Scott for Kaleta, the game becomes more enjoyable with more hitting, our team improves and nothing is really lost. You could say fighting is there to sort out players like Kaleta who push limits and try and annoy other players, however, has Marchant, the king of pests and wankers, ever fought? No he just hides behind another player more willing to fight. So this argument doesn't even work. Plus we remove 'fights' like the Emery/Holtby one.

 

12.) The NHL wouldn't exist without fans, so the NHL has an obligation to never ban fighting. Hockey is not as entertaining without fighting for most fans

How do you know it isn't? The games i enjoy the most are the tough hitting lots of battling in the corner and in front of the net. The games where players are putting a little more aggression into their general strides and play. I do agree that some hockey fights can be entertaining, but the vast majority simply aren't. Watching Peters spin at centre ice with another player his arm cocked back for 2 minutes isn't entertaining. Goon fighting is worse than normal hockey. When I think of the most entertaining games I have watched, I cannot remember a single fight in them - whether they were or not is irrelevant as they were either not as fun as the rest of the game and forgettable or simply not there and their absence was not a noticeable event. I have never thought at the end of a game that what was really missing was a fight

 

13.) Fighting is the players decision, not the fans or critics of the sport's decision

Players play the game. The game makers decide the rules. By this logic the players can do anything they want, as it is their decision. If they agree to decide everything by duelling with their sticks should this be allowed because it is their decision? This really isn't an argument for anything.

 

14.) The NHL has issued a statement recently saying they are not even considering banning fighting

I don't think fighting will be banned in the near future. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't. The interesting conversation is one of the 'philosophy' of hockey, not on what is likely to happen.

 

15.) If there were no fighting, the NHL would be like a Euro-league

Have you ever wacthed any Euro-league stuff? It is good. The wider ice means there is less hitting and contact, but the wider ice means some plays are made that simply can't on smaller ice. This is a ridiculous argument for banning fighting. If you are referring to stick swinging then that is a myth. That doesn't happen either. Euro-hockey is fun to watch

 

16.) Without fighting, many players would have no role and may be forced to retire or lose their jobs

Yes it would be sad. But this isn't a reason to ban it. Every seasons players lose their NHL jobs and are demoted to the minors or forced to retire. It is part of the game. You swap John Scott for Matt Ellis. That is the result. I know which player I have more fun watching on the ice. Whilst many players would lose their job, you are actually giving those jobs to players who can play better hockey, which is actually fairer. Rather than having a shaved monkey who got to his job by being tall and swinging his fists, you give the job to someone who has worked hard(er) their whole life to be good at the actual game of hockey, rather than a single spectacle/component of the game

 

17.) Entertainment value, hockey is the 4th largest professional sport in the U.S (BIG 4) and needs as large of a fan-base as it can get. Without fighting, there would be less viewership and less revenues

Again, you have already made this point. Without fighting hockey does not lose its physicality. Hitting is still allowed. The fact that the other sports are more successful and don't allow fighting suggests something. I am not saying they are more successful because of it, but it is a possibility/possible component of it

 

18.) Hockey players are not babies, they are not little kids. Professional hockey players are full grown adults.

This is pretty much the hockey players decision point again. Just because a person is an adult doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever they want (more of a social/political point so i'll leave it there). But again, the persuasive arguments for banning it aren't to do with player safety (as the punches don't do much damage) but with interrupting the game, creating a role for a man who can't play hockey to the acceptable standard and will make players channel their aggression into the actual game

 

19.) The players know the risks that are inherent to hockey, yet still play

This is the third time you have made the same point. Most of these guys don't think of the future. They have the chance to get fame and fortune when they are 20/30..who cares if they get Alzheimer's in 30 years? Humans are bad at assessing detrimental effects in the future for short-term gain

 

20.) Violence and injuries occurs in all contact sports, not just hockey

I agree. But as you said almost no-one is injured by fighting so removing it wouldn't effect anything. The players don't really get hurt in the fights, therefore the fights are more spectacle than 'violent'

 

21.) Similar to baseball and steroids,banning fighting takes away from the authenticity of the sport since it has existed in hockey forever- since hockey has been a professional sport

You have made this point already above about its tradition.

 

22.) If fighting were banned, a plethora of players would get suspended and fined for no reason

I don't understand your rational for this? I presume it comes back to the idea that these 15% of fighters would be so angry at both the lack of fighting and their own ability to play the game they would be unable to control themselves and swing their sticks at others? Players can channel aggression. They are not beasts wrapped in clothes, they are humans.

 

23.) The only knock on fighting is that it is violent, barbaric, and can cause injuries. Football, rugby, and U.F.C are "barbaric" sports that are violent, and can cause injuries. Injuries in these sports more frequently occur than all hockey fights in a season combined

This is where most of your 30 points fall down. This is not the only, nor most convincing, reason for banning it. Fighting is more like wrestling and its lack of injuries show that it isn't violent/barbaric.

 

24.) If fighting in professional hockey is banned- then boxing, judo, UFC and Olympic wrestling should all be banned as well.

Why? This is a stupid suggestion. Like mind numbingly stupid. Hockey is a game about putting a puck in the opposing teams net. Judo, UFC and wrestling are sports about beating up/suppressing the other player with your strength. In other words, the point of those sports is the 'fighting'. The point of hockey is not. I think most people do not want hockey banned because it is violent but because it isn't part of the game. The game stops for it.

 

25.) The unwritten code of fighting in the NHL, is that that both parties have to consent to a fight (dropping the gloves). Every player that fights does it with consent.

There have been many cases in recent seasons of this code being ignored. The idea that the player is personally responsible has already been addressed.

 

26.) Cheap shots--which exist in almost all sports-- does not qualify as fighting. Elbowing, blows to the head, cross checking; These are the irrefutable dangers to players. Not fighting

Again, no-one thinks fighting is too dangerous to be allowed. It is because it doesn't matter to the game. It doesn't change the game in tangible way and the intangible ways it CAN change the game can be achieved in other ways. Barely anyone fights and barely anyone gets hurt from fighting. Nothing is achieved by it bar the game stopping and two non-hockey players move from warming the players bench to the penalty bench

 

27.) Cheap shots are more dangerous than fighting and it would be very very difficult to take actions like those out of the sport.

Fighting doesn't discourage cheap shots. A player doesn't have to fight if he doesn't want to (as you have pointed out three times). Therefore removing fighting doesn't increase the number of cheap shots that appear in a game. They are slowly taking action on cheap shots, but by their very nature they will never be removed, nor will the dangerous nature of hockey. Hockey will always be a fast, physical contact sport. Removing fighting won't change that

 

28.) There is no way to enforce a no-fighting ban, just as there is no way to enforce a anti-gun law or even a cannabis prohibition law

There is a really easy way to enforce anti-fighting.

1) If a player fights they are thrown out of the game and the other team given a 5 minute powerplay

2) If a player fights again you impose an automatic 10-game suspension

3) If a player fights again you increase the suspension length

4) If a team has too many players fight then you simply start deducting point from them. That will get their attention quickly. See how the 85% of hockey players feel if their work winning the game gets undermined by the 15% trying to start a fight

 

29.) Just because the other three major professional sports ban fighting, doesn't at all suggest the NHL should be pressured to follow suit and break a 97 year old tradition.

No that shouldn't be a reason. But why they are more successful, and if lack of fighting is a part of this, should be reviewed. There are plenty of other good reasons fighting should be banned that are not safety or other sports-based. However, it should be noted, why don't other sports allow it? What is their rational? Rugby is very violent and if fighting was allowed it would happen i'm sure. So why don't they allow it? The answer is because it has nothing to do with the game. Rugby is not a game about beating the opposition up. It is about scoring tries and kicks and stopping this to watch 2/30 guys beat each other up doesn't enhance the point of the game

 

30.) If fighting is banned, what's next? Skating around in bubble suits with holes for skates and stick?

This has been addressed already.

 

TL;DR - In short your arguments all presume that the only reasons for removing fighting are because either it is too violent or because other more popular sports don't have fighting. However, the reason it should be banned is because it is literally not part of the game. The game is put on hold and the clock is stopped. It is not part of the game and is just a spectacle. This turns the sport into a spectacle. It lowers the games respectability. Very few players even do it, showing that it is a specialised role with players who are specifically on the team for this 'mini-game' rather than help the team with the winning of the real game.

[mjd1001]

If fighting goes away, I'm OK with it. I find a goal filled game more enjoyable than a fight filled game....and after watching a goal filled game, I never walk away saying "that would have been evern BETTER with some fights." As far as how you get rid of it? Well, the NFL does pretty well by making penalties VERY harsh if there are fights. If you get rid of fighting totally, the league (and players) will eventually find a way to even things out. Don't get me wrong, when there is a fight I watch it and don't turn away or change the channel, just that I'd be totally ok with Hockey without them.

 

I'm more worried about watching an NHL where goals per game continue to drop than I am about the number of fights dropping.

[Eleven]

If fighting goes away, I'm OK with it. I find a goal filled game more enjoyable than a fight filled game....and after watching a goal filled game, I never walk away saying "that would have been evern BETTER with some fights." As far as how you get rid of it? Well, the NFL does pretty well by making penalties VERY harsh if there are fights. If you get rid of fighting totally, the league (and players) will eventually find a way to even things out. Don't get me wrong, when there is a fight I watch it and don't turn away or change the channel, just that I'd be totally ok with Hockey without them.

 

I'm more worried about watching an NHL where goals per game continue to drop than I am about the number of fights dropping.

 

Until cheap shots are uniformly and constantly penalized with real consequences, there will and should be fighting in pro hockey. Let me know when Chara-Pacioretty or Lucic-Miller hits are out of the game.

[Kristian]

There won't be a single fight at the Olympics, and the quality of hockey will be awesome..and I'd bet no goalie gets viciously run. I know, they're basically all-star teams filled with skill players versus the plugs on every NHL team, but still.

 

True, but they usually play pretty hard nonetheless, with a fair amount of hitting.

[nucci]

Until cheap shots are uniformly and constantly penalized with real consequences, there will and should be fighting in pro hockey. Let me know when Chara-Pacioretty or Lucic-Miller hits are out of the game.

How did fighting solve these hits or even prevent them? When I was younger I enjoyed a good fight but back then they weren't staged and regular players fought...Gare, Dudley....etc. Now teams have a designated fighter and it's a bit ridiculous....JMO obviously.

Also wanted to add that a player that gives out a clean hard hit has to worry about someone coming after him.

Edited February 2, 2014 by nucci

[Trettioåtta]

Until cheap shots are uniformly and constantly penalized with real consequences, there will and should be fighting in pro hockey. Let me know when Chara-Pacioretty or Lucic-Miller hits are out of the game.

 

Neither of those plays were resolved or solved with fighting. The police were called for the Pacioretty hit and Lucic fought Goose a month after the Miller hit. Goose fighting was ridiculous because it didn't happen at the time. However, since then the league has got better at suspending players and if that play was to happen again Lucic gets suspended

[BuffaloBorn]

Neither of those plays were resolved or solved with fighting. The police were called for the Pacioretty hit and Lucic fought Goose a month after the Miller hit. Goose fighting was ridiculous because it didn't happen at the time. However, since then the league has got better at suspending players and if that play was to happen again Lucic gets suspended

 

I definitely believe there should be changes, although; careful...thoughtfull.changes.

 

Maybe next season ?

 

Maybe somehow we can measure impact and intensity of a hit? So if a hit is too hard it's a penalty

 

"hitting too hard" double minor?

 

Velocity has well*

 

Intent to injure? game misconduct and automatic suspension for at least one or two games?

 

These plays can be reviewed