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

[Kin]

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting.

Well, except those two sports exist within the context of incredibly restrictive regulation. Look at boxing. In order for boxing to exist there are strictly enforced rules with regards to:

1) The equipment players wear, including the mandatory wearing of padded gloves
2) The safety of the ring
3) The relative weight of the two fighters, to within a few pounds of each other.
4) The medical training of the people observing the fight, who have the power to end the fight whenever they want.
5) The training of the referee to recognize when a fight is over and being able to step in to end the fight.

So to make the argument that you're making would essentially be like someone looking at a well regulated and controlled government hunt, where licenses are issued, permits given, limits enforced and specific seasons being regulated and then reasoning that they are allowed to bring a shotgun to a zoo and start blasting away. After all, you're shooting animals in both cases, right?

 

[Bullfrog]

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Hitting for the sake of hitting, no. But body-checking, most definitely.

 

[TML fan]

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.

No they aren't.

 

[losveratos]

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.

No they aren't.

I've watched "hockey" with no hitting allowed. It's not hockey. It's like watching a completely different sport. At that point you might as well not even have blades on the skates. Why not remove that risk too? It's one of the few things in hockey responsible for real injuries. Life threatening injuries. So I guess it should be roller hockey. That way they can use those big orange balls. The Americans can follow that better on their tv's too. So win win. Oh and another added benefit. Can't send that ball like 100+ kmph anymore either. So there's some more injuries avoided there as well.

If you decide to limit injuries as much as possible it will completely change the game.

You need to pick and choose your battles. You want fighting out of the game, fine! Take it out. But if you're pretending it's to avoid the injuries (or sincerely for that matter) then you can't stop at hitting and fighting. There's a crapload more that's dangerous in hockey.

 

[TML fan]

That's one opinion on the matter.

 

[losveratos]

That's one opinion on the matter.

But how can you possibly ban all hitting and then assume that it wouldn't make an entirely new game? Hell... half the players in the league would lose their job over night.

We would immediately need a new #1 D-Man, and our 3rd and 4th lines would need entirely new players.

Every team in the league would just be filled with tiny skilled forwards who are fast skaters and can handle the puck with good stick skills. If you don't have great stick work... boom outta the league.

There would possibly be one benefit to a no hit league for the NHL... the best of the female hockey players in the world could possibly start to break into the league. They could play finesse games.

 

[TML fan]

Because hockey is played all the time without contact? I'm not saying it wouldn't be a new league. All I'm saying is its would still be hockey. Maybe not your idea of it, but hockey nonetheless. I'm sure there are people out there who find the idea of 10-8 scores and lots of highly skilled players putting on a good show quite appealing.

 

[losveratos]

Because hockey is played all the time without contact? I'm not saying it wouldn't be a new league. All I'm saying is its would still be hockey. Maybe not your idea of it, but hockey nonetheless. I'm sure there are people out there who find the idea of 10-8 scores and lots of highly skilled players putting on a good show quite appealing.

I'm not sure if you've ever watched basketball to any real extent. But if you have in any sportsbar environment with your friends or whatever. How much to the audience cheer? A half second every 3 point and maybe for the first 2-3 baskets made. The reason they don't cheer that much if at all really is because there's so many baskets made during the game that it would be exhausting. It's also kinda boring. Hell... those game's in 6 minutes that we watch on the leafs tv website would need to be 10 minutes if they included all those goals. There's an excitement to the game that's added by the relatively low score like football and the action of american football. If you take away hitting and go finesse all the way then you'll start to see what football has become. A bunch of crying diving babies. (There are some of those in the NHL already) And if you let fighting or hitting become worse you'll see crazy lawsuits like the NFL.

I honestly believe that if we go in either direction it would be a mistake. In a world where a game like rugby can exist... I'm sure our precious snowflakes can play a little physicality in our national sport of hockey.

Ban fighting and see if the smoke settles I suppose. But if they go after hitting too... I say change the name.

 

[bustaheims]

No they aren't.

Of course, they are. Anything that gets taken out and immediately lessens the experience of watching or playing the game is something that's integral to the game. Let's put it this way - if the NHL decided to ban fighting, but managed to do so without anyone knowing, it would take a long time for most people to really notice. If they did the same with hitting, people would notice well before the end of the 1st period of the 1st game they watched.

 

[bustaheims]

Because hockey is played all the time without contact?

I've never played nor watched hockey that didn't include some contact - unless we're talking about kids still learning the game, in which case, it's not unusual to introduce aspects of the game as the kids grow and develop.

 

[Bill_Berg]

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting.

Well, except those two sports exist within the context of incredibly restrictive regulation. Look at boxing. In order for boxing to exist there are strictly enforced rules with regards to:

1) The equipment players wear, including the mandatory wearing of padded gloves
2) The safety of the ring
3) The relative weight of the two fighters, to within a few pounds of each other.
4) The medical training of the people observing the fight, who have the power to end the fight whenever they want.
5) The training of the referee to recognize when a fight is over and being able to step in to end the fight.

So to make the argument that you're making would essentially be like someone looking at a well regulated and controlled government hunt, where licenses are issued, permits given, limits enforced and specific seasons being regulated and then reasoning that they are allowed to bring a shotgun to a zoo and start blasting away. After all, you're shooting animals in both cases, right?

Feels more like I'm arguing that hockey might need to enforce similar rules at some point as the ones you've listed, rather than be unable to keep fighting in the game. They may decide it's not worth it though.

 

[Bill_Berg]

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting.

Well, except those two sports exist within the context of incredibly restrictive regulation. Look at boxing. In order for boxing to exist there are strictly enforced rules with regards to:

1) The equipment players wear, including the mandatory wearing of padded gloves
2) The safety of the ring
3) The relative weight of the two fighters, to within a few pounds of each other.
4) The medical training of the people observing the fight, who have the power to end the fight whenever they want.
5) The training of the referee to recognize when a fight is over and being able to step in to end the fight.

So to make the argument that you're making would essentially be like someone looking at a well regulated and controlled government hunt, where licenses are issued, permits given, limits enforced and specific seasons being regulated and then reasoning that they are allowed to bring a shotgun to a zoo and start blasting away. After all, you're shooting animals in both cases, right?

Your zoo reference makes it seem like I'm saying hockey doesn't need to change to keep fighting in the game. The fact is people are shooting animals in the zoo right now, all I'm saying is that to keep that up they may need to make some changes, like letting the animals out of the zoo and forcing the hunters to obtain licenses. If hockey didn't currently have fighting, your zoo analogy would be more appropriate.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I think those changes should be made and soon. Perhaps Orr and all the other fighters can wear these costumes.

 

[hap_leaf]

The threat that the other team is going to counteract with revenge (self policing) for dirty plays like stick work must remain in the game.  Just the threat.  Because its in the back of your mind when you think about taking liberties you will have to answer for it.  This is the way it has always been and must remain in the game.  Otherwise you are going to have some real ugliness evolve.  You're going to have a league of Ulf Samuelssons and Sean Averys running around unimpeded.  And you know as much as Colton Orr is seen as a dinosaur he has a place in an NHL lineup and I haven't seen anyone take potshots at Kessel lately. 

Another part of the game I enjoy is for example, the defenceman who must move the puck quickly or risk getting slammed into the boards.  That's part of the game we love - players need to make decisions in a split second.  The best players can do that.

This all builds emotion and it must always be part of the game.  Those that can reign in their emotions in a playoff game can be a factor.  The smart players know when to take one for the team without retaliating.  Makes me think of Darcy Tucker and the energy he brought to the game.  Could he be limited?  Would you want him to?

How the game is now is at a perfect level between self policing and officiating.  I guess the NHL agrees or they would do something about it.

 

[hap_leaf]

Because hockey is played all the time without contact? I'm not saying it wouldn't be a new league. All I'm saying is its would still be hockey. Maybe not your idea of it, but hockey nonetheless. I'm sure there are people out there who find the idea of 10-8 scores and lots of highly skilled players putting on a good show quite appealing.

Its called the All Star game and yeah, once a year it is appealing.  Then I want hockey back.

 

[TML fan]

No they aren't.

Of course, they are. Anything that gets taken out and immediately lessens the experience of watching or playing the game is something that's integral to the game. Let's put it this way - if the NHL decided to ban fighting, but managed to do so without anyone knowing, it would take a long time for most people to really notice. If they did the same with hitting, people would notice well before the end of the 1st period of the 1st game they watched.

Again, lessening the experience is an opinion, perhaps one shared by many, but it is not a cold, hard fact. There are some who might enjoy the pure speed and skill of a non-contact game.

I've played both contact and non-contact hockey, as I'm sure many have. The ONLY difference that I've noticed is how long I can look at the puck for. Non-contact hockey has never been a lesser experience for me.

 

[TML fan]

Because hockey is played all the time without contact?

I've never played nor watched hockey that didn't include some contact - unless we're talking about kids still learning the game, in which case, it's not unusual to introduce aspects of the game as the kids grow and develop.

Yeah, guys bumping into each other doesn't count.

 

[Bullfrog]

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.

No they aren't.

They absolutely are. I would say without doubt they're an integral part of the game.

But are we sure we mean the same thing when we talk about a body check? Here's how it's defined on Wikipedia: "Checking in ice hockey is any one of a number of defensive techniques, aimed at disrupting an opponent with possession of the puck, or separating them from the puck entirely." That definition includes stick-checking as well, but the intent is the same.

Was Scott Stevens' hit on Lindros's head a check? No, because the intent there was clearly to injure. Would it be integral to the game? Absolutely not.

But a genuine body-check meant as a defensive move to stop a goal or pass or to separate the player from the puck? Absolutely yes.

 

[moon111]

They should make on-ice incidents criminal.  I can't just ram my elbow into someone's head on the street and not expect the police to be involved.

 

[TML fan]

​

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.

No they aren't.

They absolutely are. I would say without doubt they're an integral part of the game.

But are we sure we mean the same thing when we talk about a body check? Here's how it's defined on Wikipedia: "Checking in ice hockey is any one of a number of defensive techniques, aimed at disrupting an opponent with possession of the puck, or separating them from the puck entirely." That definition includes stick-checking as well, but the intent is the same.

Was Scott Stevens' hit on Lindros's head a check? No, because the intent there was clearly to injure. Would it be integral to the game? Absolutely not.

But a genuine body-check meant as a defensive move to stop a goal or pass or to separate the player from the puck? Absolutely yes.

You've NEVER played in a non-contact league?