Fighting in the NHL

[B21]

I think hockey players are NOT fearless. I think it does weigh in a little, and would weigh in more if they did away with the instigator rule. I think the instigator does stop some players from being that third man in. But I also agree some will do it regardless. (i.e. Goddard).

I would agree with you IF the league took a more serious stance on protecting the players from cheap shots, and they became consistent in that stance. Without that change, I will remain against removing fighting. I think the fights ten seconds into the game are stupid, but I do think players need to be allowed to defend themselves or others at least until the league does.

Hockey players are not afraid of fighting. Period.

I agree completely about the legue taking a harder stance. It's been proven to work. I also agree players should be allowed to defend themselves but fights for those reasons are few and far between.

So until fighting is proven to be useful versus being a sideshow, I say get rid of it.

[blocker]

So does football. You fight in a football game and you are ejected

I played football.

I was a lineman. Almost every play is a fight.

[B21]

I played football.

I was a lineman. Almost every play is a fight.

C'mon, blocker. You know what I meant.

[Polaris922]

Good article on THN related to this...

NHL's violent culture encourages reckless play

Jen Campbell

The second Brad Richards’ head slammed into the boards Sunday night, you could hear the clucking of tongues in the hockey world. A reckless play by a reckless player. And, of course, the predictable proclamations that there is no place for this in the game.

Well, we all should have saved our breath. Because there is a place for Patrick Kaleta’s hit from behind on Richards, a very prominent place. That’s because there’s a place in the league for unaccountable, dastardly players such as Kaleta. And because of that, and the fact that the NHL is a complete coward when it comes to standing up to these miscreants, we have to have fighting.

You see, the problem is that players such as Richards and others around the league are quick to denounce players such as Kaleta when something like this happens to them or one of their teammates. But, mark my words, if Kaleta were traded to the New York Rangers tomorrow, Richards would be one of the first players to shake his hand and welcome him to the team. And that’s because the NHL and everyone in it likes having players such as Kaleta around.

The NHL is enveloped in such a culture of violence that it actually encourages players such as Kaleta to exist. It promotes violence on its own website, sells it with as much vigor as it does skill and creativity and seems to love the idea that forcing players to have their antennae up at all times for players such as Kaleta is a good thing for the game.

And that, of course, is why we need fighters in the NHL as well. Because the league essentially has no spine when it comes to meting out discipline against these guys, teams feel the need to do it themselves. There is no sport in the world where either real or believed transgressions have to be addressed with violence the way they do in hockey. Case in point: Ryan McDonagh of the Rangers crumples Max Pacioretty into the boards. Pacioretty then has to address that by launching himself into McDonagh later in the game. No penalty. No supplemental discipline. No fine. Nothing. It’s basically an open invitation to exact revenge.

But what really mystifies is the fact the NHL’s department of player safety can be so decisive and make so much sense one day, suspending Harry Zolnierczyk of the Philadelphia Flyers for four games for his head shot on Mike Lundin of the Ottawa Senators – and so little sense the next. Giving Kaleta a telephone hearing means he’ll be suspended no more than five games and will avoid the new provision in the collective bargaining agreement that allows a player to appeal any suspension of six-plus games to an independent arbitrator. Kaleta is, by definition, a repeat offender and if the NHL ever wanted to actually deter this kind of behavior, it would use his status as a reason to deal harshly with him.

And, as always, if this were an isolated case, perhaps it wouldn’t be such a problem. But last Thursday night, with the Edmonton Oilers leading his Dallas Stars 5-1 with four minutes left, Jamie Benn left the bench and delivered a vicious crosscheck to the back of Ryan Jones of the Oilers. Benn was not suspended, but received a $10,000 fine, the maximum a player can be fined under the new CBA.

Benn’s team was losing badly late in the game and he was minus-2 that night. He had been minus-3 in each of the two previous games, making him minus-8 for that three-game set, so you clearly had a frustrated player. He gets off the bench, skates directly at Jones – who had just seconds before made absolutely no effort to avoid a collision with Dallas goalie Kari Lehtonen – and drills the shaft of his stick right into Jones’ numbers.

So let’s break this down. Benn was fined $10,000. Based on his salary this season of $4.5 million, Benn will earn $2.47 million because of the truncated season and the fact he missed the first six days of the season. If you equate that to someone making $100,000 a year, that’s a fine of $404. Do you know any workplace in North America that would fine someone $400 for attacking a fellow employee because he was having a bad week?

It’s very clear to these eyes that the department of player safety has become hockey’s most prominent contradiction of terms – right up there with army intelligence and jumbo shrimp. And no five-game suspension to Patrick Kaleta is going to do a thing to change that.

Ken Campbell is the senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com with his column. To read more from Ken and THN's other stable of experts, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine. Follow Ken on Twitter at @THNKenCampbell.

[B21]

@Polaris922

There is fighting now and the league has to have it per Ken Campbell (and this entire forum membership sans myself apparently)...

So why do all of these violent incidents (and many many many others) happen in the first place?

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

There is fighting now and the league has to have it per Ken Campbell (and this entire forum membership sans myself apparently)...

So why do all of these violent incidents (and many many many others) happen in the first place?

I think his point just reflected my own. If the league would address things more consistently AND more severely, fighting could be abolished. It sounds like he wants that to happen.

[flyerrod]

I think his point just reflected my own. If the league would address things more consistently AND more severely, fighting could be abolished. It sounds like he wants that to happen.

Ken Campbell wants fighting out of the game.Period. That is the first time he has actually backed up his reasoning rather than just spouting fighting is horrifying. He also reasoned out in his article why it still needs to remain. Ken Campbell will try anything to get readers most often by making ludicrous tweets that he will later not be able to justify.

I don't understand how people don't get that dropping the instigator penalty would ultimately lead to less fighting. Cowards like Kronwall/Kasparitus/Barnaby and their ilk who always made the questionable hit but would never drop the gloves but maybe rarely, had no fear. If someone came after them, 99% of the time, they turtled. If they had to answer for their cheap shots, they would stop. The League has NEVER addressed those type of players, the ones who are ultimately responsible for the "staged" fighting.

[blocker]

You know what I meant.

Yeah......

But having some guy trying to break your fingers by stomping on your hand. Or worse yet, stepping on your foot so that he can break your leg, getting punched, kicked, gouged all sound like a fight to me.

[DaGreatGazoo]

Hmmm....interesting article in light of this thread: players on record as admitting the fight got them to play inspired hockey. Have at it, boys. :-)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/jets/thorburns-scrap-lifts-his-teams-intensity-197726051.html

[Polaris922]

Hmmm....interesting article in light of this thread: players on record as admitting the fight got them to play inspired hockey. Have at it, boys. :-)

http://www.winnipegf...-197726051.html

That's a common mentality amongst the players it seems. If I remember correctly, there was a polling of the players a couple years ago and it was decisively in favor of leaving fighting in the game.

[B21]

That's a common mentality amongst the players it seems. If I remember correctly, there was a polling of the players a couple years ago and it was decisively in favor of leaving fighting in the game.

I was wondering why it was taking so long for someone to bring up the fact that every time the players are polled on the matter they overwhelmingly support keeping fighting.

[jammer2]

@B21 I could not even imagine the unGodly stick work that would come to the forefront should fighting be eliminated. You would just spear your way to retubution....lol.

[B21]

@B21 I could not even imagine the unGodly stick work that would come to the forefront should fighting be eliminated. You would just spear your way to retubution....lol.

So why hasn't anyone pounded Briere into oblivion?

There is fighting in the game right now and I see a lot of unGodly stick work. It's not like the current situation is a league full of choir boys kept in line by the theat of a beat down by the opponent's goon.

I keep seeing these arguments that if fighting was banned all of these awful things would happen...the same awful things that have been happening for decades now.

Flip side, if fighting went away I don't think you would see the Matt Cookes and Raffi Torres of the world all of a sudden go on a head hunting rampage. Know why? Because they are coming off long suspensions.

[jammer2]

@B21 " I keep seeing these arguments that if fighting was banned all of these awful things would happen...the same awful things that have been happening for decades now."

All that anger, all that hostile attidtude, all the revenge, retubution.....it would have to be focused somewhere, if the fists are banned, you can bet the sticks will be utilized as weapon of choice....much, much worse than what we are seeing now. I guess it might come down to how long you get suspended for an illegal fight as opposed to breaking your stick over buddies noggin. But then again, it's not like you plan these things, it's mostly heat of the moment type of lash out.

[B21]

@B21 " I keep seeing these arguments that if fighting was banned all of these awful things would happen...the same awful things that have been happening for decades now."

All that anger, all that hostile attidtude, all the revenge, retubution.....it would have to be focused somewhere, if the fists are banned, you can bet the sticks will be utilized as weapon of choice....much, much worse than what we are seeing now. I guess it might come down to how long you get suspended for an illegal fight as opposed to breaking your stick over buddies noggin. But then again, it's not like you plan these things, it's mostly heat of the moment type of lash out.

I guess that is one of the fundamental points where I disagree. There are lots sports our there that are just as violent as hockey and they all seem to do OK w/o fighting to alleviate all that pent up hostility (I'm agreeing the hostility is there). But again...how often do the players even chose the route of fighting in those instances? I'll argue rarely. How many times do we see it play out this way....

You push me. I spear you. You cross check me. I cross check you back. Then we swap sweaty gloves to the face. By that point, our teammates have jumped in which means the officials are there to keep an all out brawl from happening. Occurrences like that happen a few times a game at least and still...no fighting. And that's not even a scenario where the instigator comes into play.

You spear me. I cross check you. Gloves dropped. It just doesn't happen all that much.

[jammer2]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree with this one, don't see either one of us budging off our positions.

[Podein25]

You spear me. I cross check you. Gloves dropped. It just doesn't happen all that much.

You've got it all backwards man. I speared you because you wouldn't drop the gloves and fight like a man, you wuss

[B21]

You've got it all backwards man. I speared you because you wouldn't drop the gloves and fight like a man, you wuss

Moot point because I wouldn't spear you due to the threat that @Polaris922 might have to willingly fight you.

[Podein25]

Moot point because I wouldn't spear you due to the threat that @Polaris922 might have to willingly fight you.

Even if I understood that sentence - and I don't - I'd still see your moot point and raise you a headbutt to the bridge of your nose. I'd throw a thumb in the eye for good measure.

[flyerrod]

@B21

This is the kind of idea that need to be given merit.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/50613-How-reintroducing-the-gross-misconduct-would-curb-staged-fights.html

[B21]

@flyerrod

The idea certainly has merit - I agree. But it does open up a huge can of worms, too. Cans actually.

[jammer2]

@flyerrod That looks like a really good idea.