For whatever reason, whenever there is a holiday on a Monday, my Hockey News gets all messed up. As such, I got two issues on the same day last week. No, wait, three. Anyway, one of them was the debate on fighting, and where it has a place in the game of hockey. I read the issue with an open mind, and a willingness to listen to both sides of the argument, and I have come to a conclusion that fighting most certainly has a place in hockey, and I hope it still does for years to come.
Listen, I am sorry Don Sanderson died. From everything I have read about him, he sounded like a hell of a nice young man. Loyal to his friends and family almost to a fault. He wasn’t the best hockey player on earth, but he knew his role. I have to ask though, why is there a role of enforcer in a senior A league? Am I wrong, or is this a glorified title for men’s league? Don was not getting paid to be there, in fact quite the opposite; he paid his own way to games. It is essentially a weekend recreation league, and I have to agree with Wayne Gretzky on this. Why was he fighting in this league in the first place?
In the wake of this tragedy, there is a ground swell to ban fighting in hockey. It gives the media another chance to take shots at our beloved game by showing fights in which people get taken down and land on their head sans helmet. The beating Kevin Westgarth gave Garret Klotz was as ill timed as a fart in church. I’d like to use logic to help solve this issue if I may. Don Sanderson was killed in a fight in a league WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL TO FIGHT. This is not a league where you have a dust up, and go feel shame for 5 minutes. A fight in the OHA results in a game ejection, so really, what will a ban on fighting do? Not a thing. Instead, here are some ideas I have on the matter.
1. Remove visors for anyone with over 100 PIMS the previous season in the AHL. Part of the problem and dangerousness of fighting is the code of honor under which these guys operate. When a fight ensues in the AHL, a lot of the times the boys shed sticks, gloves, and now helmets. Why? They don’t want to shred their knuckles on their opponent’s visor. Plus, one shouldn’t be fighting with a shield on. It’s against the code, and in fact, there is an extra penalty given to any player that instigates a fight with a shield on, on top of the instigator penalty. My solution is to give players that have amassed over 100 PIM the previous season to sign a no visor waiver. With the guys doing the heavy lifting visor less, they are free to fight without having to remove the bucket.
2. Remove the instigator. I have said this so many times, I will now try in another language. El removeo el instigatoro. Part of the argument people are making against fighting is they like fights, but not the staged ones. Why are people fighting 2 seconds into a game they ask? Well, because there are scores to settle, and if there is no instigator, those scores can be settled in the heat of battle without having to resort to staged fights. Personally, I love a good opening faceoff donnybrook, but maybe that’s because I understand what is happening more than the average bear.
3. Assess an extra penalty for take downs. I score no points for takedown in a hockey fight, and it’s become more and more a part of the strategy as of late. Perhaps it has something to do with a lot of the tough guys doing MMA training in the off season. From what I understand, takedowns are a huge part of the strategy in MMA. Watch a fight from the 80’s or 90’s. More of those fights were 2 guys squared up throwing punches at one another. When they got tired, they grabbed onto each other, and the stripes came in and separated the exhausted combatants. Of course you can find fights to the contrary, but look at the fights today. Two guys drop mitts. They size each other up forever. Then they try and get in tight on one another. Body shots ensue, then the take down. They aren’t as interesting as they once were, and maybe if the takedown rule is implemented that might change. It would be kind of hard to enforce, and some takedowns would be questioned, but I think it’s worth a shot. Hell, the NHL did a ton to open up the game after the lockout, why not try to make fighting more exciting while we’re at it?
Once again, I am very sorry for the loss of Don Sanderson. It’s tragic and sad, but let’s not has a knee jerk reaction and ban fighting because of it. It’ doesn’t sound like something Don Sanderson would have wanted.
Ottawa Senator belong at the top of the goon squad!! The Sabers are going to be playing you again Senators! Anton Volchenkov watch out!! You are being watched goon!
Time for the Sabers to rip into them and beat them! They will and won’t have to be goons to do it!
If you remove the instigator then that opens up a huge can of worms…your team is tied late in the game, you need the W so what do you do, you send your goon after their best player..both sit 5 and you’ve traded no skill for high skill….bad move for the league..real bad. I get the reason why people want to see it but go deep into what it would bring and its not something anyone would like.
Penalty for takedowns? That’s the only way a fight ends. No linesman wants to or is going to get between 2 big dudes dukeing it out. The answer is to leave it lay. Fight are fights and end however. There’s nothing to fix.
Smack on Brother. Sounds like excellent advice….not sure of the take down penalty though, unless it was blatantly obvious.
I too think fighting should not only be a part of the NHL…but it holds a vital function of the game. You need that missle in(and out) the silo if you will, to protect your super stars and serve as a deterrent to other liberties takers on the oppositon. It also does well serving as a jump start to a slumping club in a game. I do think the time of “Goon Only” players however is seeing it’s last days. The majority of habitual or perennial fighters do have some offensive and defensive skill to their game to go along with a vicious right hook. Safeguards as you mentioned can and should be taken to prevent unnecessary injuries during these fights, but the game itself will lose it’s edge and grittiness factor if it is outlawed or abolished completely. And who the hell wants to watch an NHL game with the intensity and nastiness of an All Star game night in and night out? That’s generic, sterilized, bubblegum hockey to me.
This article has a good opinion section:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/sports/2009/feb/Death-and-Injuries-Prompt-Hockey-to-Re-examine-Role-of-Fighting.html
The most convincing argument is the fact that the players all are aware of the risk involved in fighting. And it’s not like there’s anything inherently bad about fighting – we still view boxing as a sport, of course.
I don’t buy GM Burke’s opinion, though, that it has a self-policing role. That’s why you have officials, to enforce rules and hand out penalties. I don’t think fighting serves that purpose too much.
A+ Entry Chris. I agree with you on your “changes”, but mostly I think the takedowns need to be done away with. You can argue that fighting has a place in the game, as many of us have, but why are these two combatants constantly ending up on the ice. Let em’ fly and then do your time on the bench. One of my pet peaves with Jack Edwards is the glorification of the takedown.
fighting absolutely 100% has a place in the game, it’s important for the players to have that avenue to walk down without having to resort to other means of revenge.
Chris, I wrote an entry similar to yours over at From The Blue Line – check it out (it’s not an argument for or against fighting, but takes a look at why fighting isn’t nearly as dangerous as other aspects of the sport).
Agreed on all points 100% ! Excellent observations and ideas.