|
Post by Shredded Red on Mar 10, 2009 21:24:35 GMT -5
(excerpts from Yahoo! article) sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=ap-gmmeetings&prov=ap&type=lgns"NHL general managers think some fighting in their league needs to be eliminated or at least reduced. They’re recommending a rule change that would give a 10-minute misconduct penalty to players who fight immediately after a faceoff. The 10-minute misconduct could also be applied to any other fight a referee believes was staged." "The GMs also recommended limiting fighting in response to a clean hit, by calling the instigator penalty more aggressively. The league has seen an increase in violent reactions to clean hits." "League statistics cited by Campbell show that 108 (22 percent) of the first 500 fights this season occurred immediately after the faceoff. He also said there was a 20 percent drop in fights during the last five minutes of the game after the NHL gave an automatic five-minute major penalty for those fights." "The general managers also put off recommending a helmet-on rule, similar to the one passed in January by the junior Ontario Hockey League. Complicating a helmet-on rule is the use of visors, which Campbell said 60 percent of NHL players wear. Players with visors often have to remove their helmets before a fight to make it fair." ____________________________________________________ I don't see the point in any of this. I don't care if a fight is staged in "appearance" or not. A fight is a fight whether it's spontaneous in the cafeteria or planned for after school behind the dumpster. Staged fights bring energy to a game that desperately needs more energy, both on the ice and from a spectators perspective. If they're so concerned with safety you'd think they'd want to keep the staged fights which generally are less violent than brawls in the corner where individual fights break out with little control. As for the fighting after a clean hit, I think that's something that's unique to hockey because it's allowed, but universal in all sports. In every sport their will be repercussions for picking on a star player. I'd rather see a legal fight in hockey than a bean ball in baseball just because a pitcher cut in a little too close to the plate on some steroid enhanced super star. Let the players police themselves. It adds real emotion the game. If I took a shot at Crosby and had to deal with Ruutu, I'd think twice....but if there was a 'chance' I might get a penalty....I'd be gunning for him over and over again, and the next thing you know players like Crosby are going to start paying for their press box suites because they're spending so much time on the IR. A "helmet on" rule during fighting? That's laughable. Just cause there's one unfortunate accident where a player cracks his head on the ice during a fight....now it's a big deal? Probert should be allowed to punch who ever even endorses this idea right in the mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Zoom Waffles on Mar 10, 2009 23:46:17 GMT -5
eh... i see both sides here. fighting brings a lot to the sport... energy, excitement, grit, and allows for players to self-police. at the same time, it promotes violence and aggression in a way that's becoming less and less accepted in American society (fighting on the playground is far less accepted now than 20 years ago... no more "boys will be boys").
honestly, i'm in favor of eliminating fighting altogether. but like i said, i see both sides.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan24 on Mar 11, 2009 2:33:25 GMT -5
When you phase out fighting it's gonna be open season on the skill players. A punch in the mouth sends a clear and direct message that if you go after my skill players you will pay for it. Also you phase out fighting the game loses the some of the passion to it and I think that will slowly kill the game. I don't know if the violence and aggression is far less accepted but more discussed nowadays because people are speaking out about everything today. People seem to complain about everything today and it does get annoying because I feel like people are nit picking. This whole notion about "staged fighting" seems ridiculous to me because a good scrap can shift momentum in a game. and describing it as "staged" seems strange for me. What do you mean by staged? Ok Laraque/Brashaer meet up and say ok Georges you'll win this one...?
|
|
|
Post by HockeyEdge on Mar 11, 2009 9:23:51 GMT -5
I think they mean staged as in planning to fight? I like the rules how they are. Fighting needs to stay. There are a lot of people out there that just watch for the fighting. The NHL needs publicity. How many heads are going to turn if fighting is eliminated from the game? Besides, being able to drop the gloves in one of the major reasons some people consider NHL players tougher than NFL players. And we don't want to lose that.
|
|
|
Post by idiopathic on Mar 12, 2009 5:04:14 GMT -5
If you start talking about taking away fighting in hockey, your really talking about taking away it's mystique. People associate hockey with fighting. it's the only sport that allows this sort of behavior, and I love it.
if it's the skill players complaining about the fighting, that means their just going to be checked into the boards harder, and more often. More injuries happen on checks and boarding than when a fight breaks out and a few punches are thrown.
In hockey, you need those "goons" to protect and stand up for the team. When you do this, your imposing some intimidation. Believe it or not, that goes a long way.
|
|
|
Post by fukufuji on Mar 12, 2009 8:51:48 GMT -5
If they take away fighting I would miss it. There is always MMA for pure fighting entertainment but its more than just seeing a fight. Fights settle scores in hockey once and for all, most fights are a final word on something. Without fighting I see an escallation of tit for tat. ie. you slash me, i slew foot you, you slew foot me i elbow you, you elbow me i charge you, you charge me i check you from behind on an icing and so on till someone goes on IR.
|
|
|
Post by Shoe Bottom on Mar 13, 2009 12:08:41 GMT -5
They dont like the fights after a faceoff, one of the most eciting moments in hockey. This talk by the league makes my stomach turn. I agree with Zoom, this is more of the sissification of our sport and society. Unlike MMA, a hockey fight is man on man, throwing hands, no choke outs, no kicks, it is old school toughness. If I want euro hockey I would try to get the leagues in Sweden and Finland on the sattelite, but you know what? they arent there.
next thing you know we will be like a league with no checking. Nikita Filitov said the most difficult adjustment was the hitting in NAMerican hockey. instead of being hit one time a game hard, he is hit 5 times a shift. i like that about North AMerican hockey
I know fighting isnt checking, but arent the two both essential to what we like about this game??
|
|
|
Post by Shredded Red on Mar 14, 2009 0:57:45 GMT -5
The article also mentions the GM's discussing penalizing shoulder to the head hits which to me is certainly dangerous, and cheap on occasion....but I think the refs do a good job of penalizing a cheap shot, and letting a big open ice hit on a player with his head down be fair game. Sure it's still dangerous, but if you can't hit with your shoulders....whats left? It's part of the game, just as much as an open field mid air tackle is part of Football.
Hockey is already in banishment on VS. as it is, take away the fighting, and the open ice hits and what's left is a very watered down ice-capadesey version of hockey that isn't going to be attractive to many in this country. While Zoom does have a point about our society not "accepting" violence to a certain extent......the flip side of that is we're also extremely desensitized. A violent film 10-20 years ago is boring by comparison to today's hollywood standards of violence. The same goes for sports. Hockey has changed with society to match that desensitized mentality rather seamlessly and the league may be reacting to a society that asks for less violence, but they're certainly not in tune enough to realize that we crave more violence than we turn away from.
If they take fighting out of hockey it will send the game in the opposite direction of a fans true needs that they get out of sport, and that is a thrill and a release. Fighting provides a lot of that for those who don't truly appreciate the game as a whole yet. If they sensitize the game by toning down the fighting, they may get a pat in the back, but at the same time they'll lose the attention of part of their fan base who are going to seek out that need for violence in another venue. I'm not advocating that the league pursue this need for violence...all I'm saying is they should leave the game as is to not slip even further off the American Sports radar.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfpack on Mar 16, 2009 17:26:53 GMT -5
shredded, Along those same lines, I know people who don't like hockey BECAUSE of the fighting. I just don't see someone becoming less of a fan if they eliminate the fighting. Sure, it can be exciting, just like a wreck in NASCAR. But people don't sit and watch an entire race just for the crashes. Just like the majority of people don't go to a game and leave disappointed if there wasn't a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Shredded Red on Mar 16, 2009 21:50:20 GMT -5
A fight at a hockey game is like the icing on the cake. I'll admit it's a bonus. If you're eating cake you're happy to just be eating cake, but frosting makes cake that much better. If you go to a hockey game you're just happy to be there, but the fight can put the game over the top.
I've never talked to anyone who refuses to watch either hockey or NASCAR for that matter because of the fights or crashes. I've heard people say it's a violent sport, but they're the same people who love Jason Statham movies and who get excited when there's a fight on the show Cheaters. Like I said people may say they don't like the violence or the fighting, but that doesn't mean they're not drawn to it....which means the fighting and the big hits are part of the draw to the game. Hockey needs the fights right now because it needs every draw it can get.
|
|
|
Post by The Hockey Hitman on Mar 17, 2009 10:35:13 GMT -5
The real enigma here is why in the hell the NHL continues tinkering with this great game. Leave fighting alone, as is. There is nothing wrong with the current rules. Who cares what GM's want? I guarantee you if polling was done at every NHL arena across North America, an overhwhelming majority would be in favor of leaving fighting and the rules and stipulations involved with it alone. Period.
Its beyond ridiculous how they keep trying to change things up, and if fighting is eliminated from the NHL entirely, or even not all the way but makes it to where a fight is happens maybe once a week or something like that, then I guarantee you they will alienate many fans, including myself. Its a friggin joke.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfpack on Mar 17, 2009 12:39:26 GMT -5
If the current rules were called as they are in the rulebook there would be much less fighting in the NHL. The instigator rule is rarely called the way it is written. And if it was called the way it was written (A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major for fighting and a ten minute misconduct.) players would think twice about fighting.
I for one couldn't care less about the fights. Football is a much more violent sport than hockey and they don't have fighting as part of the game. Why should hockey? I love the game, I love the speed, I love the skill, I love the big hits, but the fighting seems lame to me. And fights seem especially lame after a good clean hit. This happens much more than it should. Imagine a fight breaking out every time a receiver in the NFL gets laid out going over the middle. It would be lame. So why does Jody Shelley have to pick a fit when Patrick Marleau gets hammered against the boards? Its part of the game and within the rules. In no other sport do fights break out on a regular basis after a legal play. The NHL should be no different.
|
|
|
Post by The Hockey Hitman on Mar 17, 2009 16:50:58 GMT -5
While I see and respect your point Wolfpack, for me its all about tradition. For the most part I'm against anything that goes against tradition. I didn't like it when they renamed all the conferences and divisions these generic names they have now. I miss the Campbell's, Wale's, Norris etc. names that actually mean something. Its like the Conn Smythe Trophy, Art Ross, Jack Adams etc. i've heard arguments in the past for changing those to honor some more recent players, such as Gretzky, Lemieux and Scotty Bowman for the Adams...while those ideas make sense, I still am against them as I don't like the tradition being messed with.
Why should there be fighting in the NHL? Because theres always been fighting in the NHL. Fighting has never been a part of the NFL, or any form of North American football that I've ever seen, so I don't get the comparison.
Theres so little of it around and you get rid of fighting, I guarantee you one day hitting will be eliminated as well. Fighting will be abolished, and then as years go on players keep getting hurt because of hard checks and the league changes it to where any hit is a penalty...
"Lightning penalty to no. 91 two minutes for a clean check."
Whats the word....pussification? Yeah...thats it. Thats what some are trying to do with our sport. And you know what? You change something enough, and its no longer the same thing you love. That goes with anything really.
|
|
|
Post by Shredded Red on Mar 17, 2009 16:58:46 GMT -5
I disagree. Fighting is something that is unique to hockey, it's what sets it apart from other sports. Like I said above, there are outbursts in other sports, but I'd rather see an acceptable fight in hockey than a bean ball in baseball, a slap fight in basketball, or a full padded shoving match in football. I love that the NHL lets the players go at it when emotions run high.
I'll admit fights happen when there are clean hits, but the majority of the fights happen on dirty plays....and scrums in front of the net. I'm not opposed to that, and I'm not opposed to it after a clean hit either. I think it provides a sort of third law to the game. Certain clean hits are illegal, certain dirty hits are legal, certain players play a rough game, certain players don't.....and I think the players do a good job of determining who and when aggressive play is necessary and when it is not. And they do this through fighting.
Without this outlaw 3rd law on the ice players like Crosby would be getting crushed double what they get now.....but every instigator, even goon knows that if you take a run at a superstar be prepared to defend your actions. It's not like that in every sport, but it's an interesting aspect that hockey needs to keep because it provides a certain level of unpredictability and intensity to the game. I can't think of another sport in the world where you're able to fight (with the exception of fighting based sports like Boxing) and I can't think of a sport that is better suited for it than hockey.
Seriously could you imagine if they allowed fighting in basketball? Players would get injured left and right because for one they're not wearing any sort of padding, they're on solid ground so they can land more solid punches....plus basketball players are pansy's. Same goes for Baseball. I wouldn't want to see a fight in football because those guys would crush each other. The guys are too big, and the sport is a lot more physical so I think a fight in football would actually be too violent. You'd have guys out simply to hurt each other, and that's not the case in hockey. It's a fight for a fights sake, and while I'm sure there's some intent to injure I think in most cases the guys are fighting for the sake of sport. It's part of the game....and I agree with Hitman, they need to leave it as is.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfpack on Mar 17, 2009 17:34:16 GMT -5
The tradition angle that Hitman speaks of is the only one that really makes sense to me. Although, there are many traditions that have changed for the better of the game (helmets, wooden sticks, placement of the blue lines, goalie equipment, etc). What one person calls changing tradition, another calls evolution of the sport.
And I am not real worried about the slippery slope argument that once fighting goes then hitting goes soon after. No one has ever suggested the NHL eliminate a good clean check.
Some of the greatest hockey games I have seen have seen were collegiate or Olympic, which basically have no fighting due to the stiff penalties. In addition, I don't remember any star players getting "crushed double" because there is no fighting. I don't know, I'm just not buying it.
The origination of fighting in hockey was due to the fact that there were not very many rules. The players enforced the rules as they saw fit. Sort of an anarchy state on ice. But this is not the case anymore.
|
|
|
Post by fukufuji on Mar 18, 2009 9:31:14 GMT -5
I agree with the sentement that they are meddling with the game too much. I am under the assumption these changes are being made to attempt to draw new fans. Unfortunately Hockey is like soccer to most Americans. These are some of the reasons I site for the game's struggle to reach an american market: All of which I personally don't identify with nor give merit too.
- Not invented here - Forigen names and culters are represented by majority of hockey players. America may be an open trade market but since the colonial days and expansion to the west we have become more of a closed society to outside cultures and ideas. (very unfortunate) - Hockey equipment costs and travel prevent the sport's promotion to american youth and schools - More than half of the American states do not have a climate allowing pond hockey which is another youth window into the game
Hockey will most likely always be a minority sport in America, rule changes are most likely never going to address these core impeedments to the games adoption. Are Canadian fans getting tired of rule changes to try and chase an elusive american market? That is assuming the changes are to expand the american fan base?
My least favorite new rule is hancuffing defenseman in the crease. I want to see people like holmstrom and Avery knocked on their can and seeing stars when they camp the goalie. I am in favore of rules to address head huntiong and hitting from behind. Leave fighting alone.
|
|
|
Post by fukufuji on Mar 18, 2009 10:24:39 GMT -5
I didn't like it when they renamed all the conferences and divisions these generic names they have now. I miss the Campbell's, Wale's, Norris etc. It really hurt my feelings when they did that What better way to take the games character and homoginze it to something generic. Maybe its trivial but it was a big deal to me. I was also upset that they switched jersey colors representing the home team. I liked the home team in white.
|
|
|
Post by Shoe Bottom on Mar 18, 2009 14:25:24 GMT -5
The PAtrick and Adams Division playoffs used to be epic. They were battles of endurance and heart, and yes often fighting. Some of the biggest characters in hockey as a sport would not be on a roster in todays game, and I dont think its because the game is better. Faster yes, better??, thats up for debate. the league should add to the game, not take things away. What would larry robinson and langway have done to holmstrom and avery? those battles in the crease used to be the best to watch. a stay at home d-man battling a gutsy crease hugger. NOPE too rough.
|
|