If You Ban Head Shots, Does Fighting Go?

There have been a lot of troubling injuries lately, and if things continue that way, we may be faced with tragedy sooner or later. There can still be a solid physical game but without the dangerous stuff.

As for the popularity of fighting, I do wonder about people who just watch hockey for the fights. I mean what do they do when there are no fights in a game, ask for their money back? If two “normal” players have it out, that is one thing, but hiring guys just to put on a sideshow gets kind of tedious after a while.

such as the one in the Ontario Hockey League a couple of years ago.

This happened when Sanderson fell and hit his head, but when you consider the size of the guys throwing, it may well be only a matter of time before someone dies from a punch. When it comes to fighting (and leaving aside the issue of policing for dirty players, which seems to be one of the prime justifications ad whcih I’ll leave for another day), I won’t be sorry to see those who watch for fights leave the stands and go watch MMA or something.

With respect to head shots generally, and leaving aside the obvious difference in levels of “tragedy”, we lost Sydney Crosby for most of this season to an inadvertent head shot. He may never be the same again: we don’t know. Lindross (two of them actually) had to quit due to concussions. We have Marc Savard, now Nathan Horton, sidelined fro long periods due to severe concussions. It’s a tragedy that we lose these players and their tremendous skills; its more of a tragedy that their life expectancy and/or quality could be impacted forour viewing pleasure.

No. Fighting does not go and will not go. As brutal as it sounds, the NHL needs fighting or else it loses it’s tradition, it’s competitiveness, and it’s fan base (and the dollar bills yo). Fighting has been a part of the origin of the game. Taking it out takes the fun out of it for not only the fans but the players. The players fight on their own free will, just like dirty players will take cheap head shots at other players. It’s the nature of the game. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it and don’t play it. Simple as that. Hockey is not a peaceful game between hippies. Players get along after the fights and make like nothing ever happened. of course there are the exceptions, but if Avery became an Islander, he would be embraced in the locker room whether you like it or not (it pains me to say that).

As for head shots, the only thing you can do is enforce fines and/or suspensions. you’re always going to have repeat offenders and you always have to be prepared for the unfortunate to happen. the players knew the risks.

Head shots and fighting are not a one-to-one ratio. Head shots are a fast moving, often blind-side hit, with one player in the prone position and often defenseless. Fighting, on the other hand is, for the most part, two players agreeing to duke it out face-to-face. Yes, pounding each others faces with bare knuckles is not helpful to the brain, but both players are willing participants.

Also, the rules, as they stand, need to be more consistently enforced. Players can not leave their feet to check another player, yet they often do, especially along the boards, players hands can not be up, a player with his back turned can’t be hit, on and on, yet the referees allow this stuff to occur in every game. Call those penalties, hand out five minute majors, but keep fighting.

Losing fighting will lose the NHL’s identity… but make the rules clear that you can OPT OUT… When challenged YOU ARE IN… then you can OPT OUT (put up the white (or yellow) flag.
CHALLENGE = RH on opposing left shoulder, face to face, other hand raised
OPT OUT = Challenged can drop gloves (he’s in), or raise his opposite hand (opt out). This way it is clear that you were challenged and you took the less honorable road… and it is clearly recorded that you did so. After the opt out, if the challenger pulls a Matt Martin he will get 5, 10 and a game… subject to suspension (depending on how long it continues)… and after the opt out a player can not challenge another player in that game. You can’t opt out of Gillies and challenge Bailey. Once your team has recorded an OPT OUT, you can only be challenge three designated players on the other team…. any other challenges will be penalized by an extra 2 minutes. So if Gillies challenges talbot, Talbot opts out, but Godard decides to challenge Gillies, then Godard gets the extra two.
And this will do away with the instigator rule. You hit my guy, I challenge you… you fight or you don’t… end of the deal.
You also need to have had 2mins(3 shifts) of TOI before you can challenge anyone… or you get 2 mins extra. That will help do away with some of the goonery.

Player A is behind the net, Player B cross checks him in the back. The referee is in the corner and sees this YET calls nothing. Well, Player A is NOT going to allow to be beat like this so the next time he is near Player B, Player A cross checks him. The official now calls Player A for a cross checking penalty.

…..so I don’t expect fighting to be banned anytime soon. A few seasons ago, there was talk of suspensions for staged fights. Maybe the league can start there.
Technology is to blame as well. We get to see EVERYTHING the refs miss, the elbow here, the cross-check there, the punching of the nards from behind, etc., etc. So now the players see that as well, figure the refs are missing too much( even more than they already think they miss!), BTW, having watched hockey for over 40 years, the player that retaliates always gets caught.

As already mentioned, it comes down to enforcement of current rules. You can’t suspend a Carcillo for starting a fight in the last 5 minutes of a playoff game, then not suspend a Malkin for the same infraction. Hopefully Shanahan will be given a free reign to enforce the rules on an equal basis, and not based on the outcome on a violation, but of the act itself.
P.S. The league needs to put a ban on the running of goaltenders, which has become out of control as well.

Fighting keeps “some” dirty players honest. No one “wants” to answer the bell of a Haley or Martin if given the choice(well Martin to a lesser extent). With fighting in the game, there are less liberties taken with players and less “dirty” hits/plays in the game. But headshots need to be eliminated asap. As I’ve stated somewhere before, make the penalties a lot stiffer and you fix this:

1st offense headshot-20-25gms
2nd offense headshot-50gms
3rd offense headshot-lifetime ban

That will send the message. Losing 1/4 of your season and paycheck gets the message across well, imo.

I can logically deduce and conclude that fighting should be gone for a variety of reasons, yet I’m not willing to go there (for a variety of other reasons). In limited form, I still think it might be the right release valve for our North American version of the game, especially when the NHL has proven incapable of enforcing its own rules.

Not that I feel good about that.

I don’t have the statistics, but I do believe that once they banned fighting in the Euro leagues, high sticking infractions went thru the roof. Hockey can be a very frustrating sport, especially when getting scumbagged behind the play by an Avery type. Sometimes a little two fisted tango is the only way to try and right a wrong without putting your team down a man (as long as you have a willing partner). Most of the time, a fist or two to the beak does less damage than a high stick to the face. I do agree about getting rid of the goon sideshow. I’d much rather see two genuinely pissed off middle weights going at it, and then going back to playing hockey. But we don’t need any more high sticking infractions.

a little more cerebral than the average hockey fan. (Don’t we hold ourselves in high regard?) And yet this group of people votes overwhelmingly in favor of hockey fights. You know, I am a sport angler and for several years I exclusively practiced “catch and release”, but you know what?, My interest in fishing started to diminish, until I realized, that dispite it not being politically correct, the violent and barbaric act of retaining and consumining the fish was a big part of the attraction to angling. It’s kind of the same with hockey. dispite the fact we know as civilized, cultured humans we should be offended by the violence in hockey, it reallly is part of the attraction. live by the sword, or die by the sword.

The Horton play shows the root of the problem: you can’t truly tell what Rome’s intent was.
-Watch the replay with the mindset that Rome was looking to knock Horton out: you can see it
-Watch the replay with the mindset that Rome was lining up a shoulder-to-shoulder hit, that while late, probably would have gone uncalled: you can see it
-Watch the replay with the mindset that Horton strides left at the worst possible second: you can see it
I have to admit, my opinion on this hit keeps changing. You really can make a convincing argument about Rome’s intent, for either side. I’m not sure what to make of it.
Oh, now ask me to dole out the punishment.
I wouldn’t know what to say, which is why the guys who mentioned set punishments are right. Intent can NOT come into the equation because only the aggressor truly knows the intent.

As for the fighting discussion, I believe the instigator rule has caused the headshots to get worse.
What happened to Rome after he hit Horton? Anybody? He skated right to his bench, got a tap on the ass from the backup goalie, and headed to the showers. He knew the drill. No one on Boston would jump him because they didn’t want to lose their power play.
Twenty years ago, he would have never made it to the bench untouched. He would have paid an additional price for his actions.
For those that boo-hoo that as more potential for concussions: wouldn’t fear of receiving a shot to your own head be a pretty good deterent for giving head shots? With the instigator rule in effect, that fear is non-existant.