To understand why the NHL will have to ban fighting one day, read this story

[nutman]

So when fighting is gone what will you cry babys whine about then. oh yeah... Stevie, there hitting each other to hard... :'(

I'll be whining about punctuation and grammar on the internet.

I'm laughing to hard to care about grammar. I see you jumped to picking on flaws, once your argument fell through. lolololol.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Although, if we can take a bit of time out from humouring Cletus for a second, I do think that there's a slight problem with the point that ZBBM is making here and trying to link football and hockey. Football players have a really strong class action case against the NFL because there's a very credible argument that just the injury sustained by normal play in the league leads to the sort of debilitating condition that Mr. Wright suffers from. Fighting in hockey is different, as it's not something that a player has to engage in to keep their job provided they're actually good at playing hockey. A football player can't get out of tackling or being tackled.

So while it would be ridiculous for the NHL to say that Colton Orr's job didn't involve fighting, I do think they could argue credibly that Orr couldn't realistically enter into his profession with an expectation of being protected from the dangers that result from getting repeatedly punched in the face. I mean, if that were the case then I don't see how boxing or MMA could exist and, yet, exist they do.

To me the bigger concern the NHL faces, and to their credit/cynicism the thing they actually seem concerned about, is what would happen as a result of a catastrophic injury sustained during a fight. That's something that nobody could credibly argue a fighter signs up for and, yet, because of the realities of bare knuckle fighting on a sheet of ice and wobbly skates it's something that is a very real possibility. We almost saw it happen this year with Parros and we all know that fighting can result in death.

That's what the NHL should be concerned with and that, I think, is what will ultimately lead to major changes in the way fights are penalized.

Another major part is the recognition of damage. It's one thing to knowingly agree to do something that can cause damage and then take yourself out of harm's way when damage is sustained to avoid further and worse damages. It's another to feel forced to hide the symptoms due to peer, and financial, pressure. If the NFL and the NHL continue to force players to quiet rooms, attempt to change the culture of 'sucking it up', etc..., then they may not need to take any actual steps to remove violence from these games.

Now if boxing and MMA get banned because they are too violent, then I might think fighting in hockey is soon to come to an end, or as you suggest something catastrophic happens, but short of that I expect fighting stick around, perhaps with some ebb and flow to the volume of fights that happen season to season.

 

[nutman]

To be honest, I could care less one way or the other if there were fights. Even though, there has always been. I just love cranking the people who keep crying to change the game instead of just watching and enjoying it.

 

[Kin]

Another major part is the recognition of damage. It's one thing to knowingly agree to do something that can cause damage and then take yourself out of harm's way when damage is sustained to avoid further and worse damages. It's another to feel forced to hide the symptoms due to peer, and financial, pressure. If the NFL and the NHL continue to force players to quiet rooms, attempt to change the culture of 'sucking it up', etc..., then they may not need to take any actual steps to remove violence from these games.

I don't think that's true re: the NFL as the stuff I've read says that the repeated sub-concussive trauma alone involved in playing football is cause for concern in terms of long-term problems for players. Taking proper precautions to deal with concussions is a good thing but if you're asking employees to do something that is regularly giving them concussions, you're still going to be liable for that result. 

 

[ZBBM]

As I mentioned (in contrast to the NFL), the main point is that staged fighting is totally incidental to the game -- it has no effect on the outcome ("changing momentum" wouldn't fly 2 feet in court).  You could have players sign informed consent waivers until the cows comes home, but that wouldn't relieve the NHL of being liable for negligence.  And believe me, at some point somebody will step forward and sue the NHL for being negligent in not banning fighting when they easily could have.  That will leave the league wide open to a massive judgment. 

It's a matter of societal standards changing so that the league's exposure increases.  As more and more stories like Wright's circulate, juries are going to be less and less sympathetic to claims that "they signed up for it" and "they knew the risks" ... again, all the more so in a game in which fighting is totally extraneous.

 

[Kin]

As I mentioned (in contrast to the NFL), the main point is that staged fighting is totally incidental to the game -- it has no effect on the outcome ("changing momentum" wouldn't fly 2 feet in court).  You could have players sign informed consent waivers until the cows comes home, but that wouldn't relieve the NHL of being liable for negligence.  And believe me, at some point somebody will step forward and sue the NHL for being negligent in not banning fighting when they easily could have.  That will leave the league wide open to a massive judgment. 

It's a matter of societal standards changing so that the league's exposure increases.  As more and more stories like Wright's circulate, juries are going to be less and less sympathetic to claims that "they signed up for it" and "they knew the risks" ... again, all the more so in a game in which fighting is totally extraneous.

I fear, sir, that you are mistaking how labour-friendly your courts really are in these matters. One of the reasons most observers I've read said that the retired NFL players settled for the relatively low number they did was because if the case had gone to trial, odds were they'd lose.

 

[Arn]

While I agree how do you ban it? Technically it's not allowed - you get a major penalty for a fight as it's against the rules. Do you increase this penalty? Make it an automatic ten game ban?

Fighting in most European leagues gets an automatic ejection from the game, but people still fight. If they want to or feel the need to fight, they will.

Well, the easy answer is that you treat it like they did in Baseball or Basketball. Guys still fight, they just get suspended for it.

Was there talk that the OHL would dish out bans for fights, with the bans being longer the more fights you had or something along those lines?

Did that come in, and of so, was there an impact on the number of fights?

 

[Bullfrog]

I fear, sir, that you are mistaking how labour-friendly your courts really are in these matters. One of the reasons most observers I've read said that the retired NFL players settled for the relatively low number they did was because if the case had gone to trial, odds were they'd lose.

That and the length of time trials could take.

 

[Bullfrog]

Again .... For those who want fighting out of Hockey, I say go watch figure skating, and stop trying to fix a game that is not broken.

When the game includes something that leaves players open to significant, potentially career threatening injuries through something that is not integral to the sport itself, then, yeah, it is broken.

To me, it's even simpler than that. To try to put in an understandable perspective for those who don't understand my feelings: imagine if, instead of fighting, the two players spontaneously started doing a heated rock-paper-scissors competition, or charades, or a "who can do the best pirouette competition". That's what I picture when I see fighting: something irrelevant to the game. I sit there and count the seconds until it can get back to actual hockey, which is something I truly love watching.

It's not about being a sissy, cry-baby, or whatever childish insult nutman wants to throw out. Heck, I used to watch a lot of MMA, have taken many martial arts classes, and used to watch boxing regularly. It's not a lack of interest or a revulsion of combat sports, it's that I truly don't believe fighting has a role in hockey any more. I'm ok if fighting still exists, similarly to how baseball has the occasional charging of the pitcher.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Another major part is the recognition of damage. It's one thing to knowingly agree to do something that can cause damage and then take yourself out of harm's way when damage is sustained to avoid further and worse damages. It's another to feel forced to hide the symptoms due to peer, and financial, pressure. If the NFL and the NHL continue to force players to quiet rooms, attempt to change the culture of 'sucking it up', etc..., then they may not need to take any actual steps to remove violence from these games.

I don't think that's true re: the NFL as the stuff I've read says that the repeated sub-concussive trauma alone involved in playing football is cause for concern in terms of long-term problems for players. Taking proper precautions to deal with concussions is a good thing but if you're asking employees to do something that is regularly giving them concussions, you're still going to be liable for that result.

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

 

[ZBBM]

As I mentioned (in contrast to the NFL), the main point is that staged fighting is totally incidental to the game -- it has no effect on the outcome ("changing momentum" wouldn't fly 2 feet in court).  You could have players sign informed consent waivers until the cows comes home, but that wouldn't relieve the NHL of being liable for negligence.  And believe me, at some point somebody will step forward and sue the NHL for being negligent in not banning fighting when they easily could have.  That will leave the league wide open to a massive judgment. 

It's a matter of societal standards changing so that the league's exposure increases.  As more and more stories like Wright's circulate, juries are going to be less and less sympathetic to claims that "they signed up for it" and "they knew the risks" ... again, all the more so in a game in which fighting is totally extraneous.

I fear, sir, that you are mistaking how labour-friendly your courts really are in these matters. One of the reasons most observers I've read said that the retired NFL players settled for the relatively low number they did was because if the case had gone to trial, odds were they'd lose.

None of these cases have gone before a jury yet ... have they? 

 

[Kin]

None of these cases have gone before a jury yet ... have they?

No, but there's a reason for that.

 

[ZBBM]

True. But it's not the one you're implying.

 

[Kin]

True. But it's not the one you're implying.

I disagree. I think that your various players unions reading the temperature of the courts has explained a lot of their inclinations to settle of late.

 

[Corn Flake]

Another major part is the recognition of damage. It's one thing to knowingly agree to do something that can cause damage and then take yourself out of harm's way when damage is sustained to avoid further and worse damages. It's another to feel forced to hide the symptoms due to peer, and financial, pressure. If the NFL and the NHL continue to force players to quiet rooms, attempt to change the culture of 'sucking it up', etc..., then they may not need to take any actual steps to remove violence from these games.

I don't think that's true re: the NFL as the stuff I've read says that the repeated sub-concussive trauma alone involved in playing football is cause for concern in terms of long-term problems for players. Taking proper precautions to deal with concussions is a good thing but if you're asking employees to do something that is regularly giving them concussions, you're still going to be liable for that result.

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Or MMA.

Maybe I'm wandering off the point here a little but.... IMO Hockey vs. Football, Boxing, MMA isn't even a comparison as far as the overall risk for head trauma, etc.  In the latter 3, you are basically agreeing to have your head hit multiple times each and every time you are out on the field/in the ring.  Offensive or defensive lineman are smashing head on every single play. Helmet collisions occurring multiple times per game. in a 12-round boxing match, the head gets hit over 100x, no?  MMA you can take a kick or a knee to the head at any moment, not to mention the punches.

In hockey, we have incidents but there is no nightly head trauma happening, except possibly in the case of enforcers but we've seen that dwindling down to a fraction of the time.  All in all the times there is impact to he head is incidental vs. a part of the sport like the other three.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Another major part is the recognition of damage. It's one thing to knowingly agree to do something that can cause damage and then take yourself out of harm's way when damage is sustained to avoid further and worse damages. It's another to feel forced to hide the symptoms due to peer, and financial, pressure. If the NFL and the NHL continue to force players to quiet rooms, attempt to change the culture of 'sucking it up', etc..., then they may not need to take any actual steps to remove violence from these games.

I don't think that's true re: the NFL as the stuff I've read says that the repeated sub-concussive trauma alone involved in playing football is cause for concern in terms of long-term problems for players. Taking proper precautions to deal with concussions is a good thing but if you're asking employees to do something that is regularly giving them concussions, you're still going to be liable for that result.

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Or MMA.

Maybe I'm wandering off the point here a little but.... IMO Hockey vs. Football, Boxing, MMA isn't even a comparison as far as the overall risk for head trauma, etc.  In the latter 3, you are basically agreeing to have your head hit multiple times each and every time you are out on the field/in the ring.  Offensive or defensive lineman are smashing head on every single play. Helmet collisions occurring multiple times per game. in a 12-round boxing match, the head gets hit over 100x, no?  MMA you can take a kick or a knee to the head at any moment, not to mention the punches.

In hockey, we have incidents but there is no nightly head trauma happening, except possibly in the case of enforcers but we've seen that dwindling down to a fraction of the time.  All in all the times there is impact to he head is incidental vs. a part of the sport like the other three.

Well said CF.

 

[Kin]

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Who is a professional boxer's employer? Or, to frame it in the context of the question you ask, in regards to boxing who is doing the "asking"?

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Who is a professional boxer's employer? Or, to frame it in the context of the question you ask, in regards to boxing who is doing the "asking"?

Agree on that point, but I don't really get the Football issue.

The players can:

a) choose to play a sport they've played through high school/college and make large sums of money doing so.

b) choose a different career

So I see the cash incentive as pay for services/danger pay all rolled into one. Can a stuntman sue a movie company if he gets injured? (I don't honestly know the answer to this).

I seriously doubt many (if any) players decide they're worried about their long-term health with millions on the line in the present.

 

[Kin]

Maybe I'm wandering off the point here a little but.... IMO Hockey vs. Football, Boxing, MMA isn't even a comparison as far as the overall risk for head trauma, etc. 

Well, you're wandering off the point in as much as I don't think anyone has really said that hockey is as dangerous as those sports but rather that if a reality exists where teams have to have strict controls over what their players can do, punching each other in the head with bare fists(which doesn't exist in boxing or MMA) over a sheet of ice is probably going to fall outside the acceptable limit.

 

[Kin]

Agree on that point, but I don't really get the Football issue.

The players can:

a) choose to play a sport they've played through high school/college and make large sums of money doing so.

b) choose a different career

Well, in our society there are limits to what I can ask you to do regardless of how much I'm willing to pay you. I can't offer you 10 million dollars to kill yourself, to use an extreme example. Paying people a lot of money or even being up front with them about the dangers they might face doesn't exempt anyone from labour law.