Reflections on Parros-should fighting be banned?

[Neech]

Most of what you said here, I don't take offense to, other than you evaluting my post which puts you in a category that you are accusing me of. My comment was directed at Lovett Magnatone when he said "What I want to know, is when are the bench clearing brawls coming back". I do agree that a lot of comments on this board are misread. The fighting issue is currently beening debated on an international scale again. I may have more imformation concerning the direction of this debate that has yet to appear on this thread.Sorry

Your post failed to acknowledge any of the anti-fighting arguments presented in this thread and instead presented a fictitious viewpoint to argue against (that people want to remove all contact from the game). It showed that you had either ignored or misunderstood practically the whole thread, and thus it was counter-productive to the discussion.

Don, are you really comparing drunk driving, which endangers innocent people with hockey fights? Really? I could see that if hockey fights consisted of players jumping into the stands and killing families watching the game. Otherwise......

Boxing is a better comparison, If we outlaw boxing and MMA there will be a good argument to take fighting out of hockey. As long as it ok for 2 combatants to fight, which by the way is legal in Canada, then it should stay. I will once again say though that it should be a game misconduct. Yes, it is legal to fight in Canada if both parties agree. If you get in a bar fight and get the hell beat out of you but were legally considered a willing party you have no legal recourse.

That is freedom of choice. I am a proud Canadian who would not want that freedom taken away.

Boxing and MMA are combat sports. Hockey exists at many levels in many leagues without combat. Every other sport besides the combat sports exist without a combat component. Why should hockey have a combat component? I get that it does, but should it?

And I don't know where you got your law degree, but owners of bars and perpetrators of bar-fights can get sued. This isn't the 18th century where dueling is allowed and as long as someone agrees to something everything is kosher. If damaged parties (former fighters) feel the league didn't provide a safe environment for them, or downplayed the risks to their safety, there is a potential for legal recourse.

It's a fascinating debate. I don't feel strongly either way. If I take my daughter to a game, I really don't want to see players carted off on a stretcher. Which is probably more likely to happen with fighting. She was troubled by what happened to Lars Eller, and that wasn't even a fight. I'll say this though. I haven't read a single compelling argument to keep fighting anywhere, at any time. This idea that it's part of the game is ridiculous. It all but disappears in the playoffs, when the games are the most important. Does anyone actually miss fighting in the Olympics? That's fantastic hockey. The idea that fighting limits stick work, if that were even true, could be rectified easily. Get the refs to call it. Helmets, visors all introduced for players safety. I wouldn't be surprised if fighting is slowly fazed out of the game.

This is pretty much the sensible view. I find fighting fun (if the Habs don't get pounded), but I won't try to justify it. I also don't like to see people get severe concussions, which happens in fights more than the old school would like to admit. There's a moral grey area in watching any contact sport, but we have to at least be able to honestly view what is necessary within the game and what is not.

[sakiqc]

The NHL has taken measures to protect players during fights with the new minor for removing your helmet, but the guys are still whipping them off.

I don't know that we'll see fighting actually removed from the game before an "important" (i.e. star) player's career or even life is jeopardy as of the result of the fight.

The NHL is more reactionary than it is preventative. Headshots became a problem, so they worked to reduce them. Players becoming injured on icing plays was a problem, and it took them awhile to finally introduce the hybrid model.

Fighting has been in the game for a long time. What happens if it's removed completely? Do cheap shots reign? Do stick-swinging incidents become more frequent (we're looking at you, Kessel)? Will everyone just play nice? Can Patrick Roy keep his job in a fightless NHL?

I think the league could be afraid of the consequences of removing fighting. They might see it as a pandora's box situation that will lead to a scenerio where even more rules and regulations will have to be defined.

It's sad to say, but I think it will take that career or life ending injury at the NHL level to trigger action on the part of both the league and the players to remove fighting from the game.

I think soon we will see fighters bowing and let their opponent's remove their helmet before going on with the fight to circomvent the 2-min penality.

I wonder though if the refs will instead call a unsportsmanlike conduct penalty to both for that.

[johnnyhasbeen]

Neech, no law degree, but I have been in many bar fights and had the law spelt out to me by more than one cop from more than one detachment. You can not be charged with assault if both parties fight. No degree, I lived a life.....

I do think you should get the gate if you fight.

[dlbalr]

I think soon we will see fighters bowing and let their opponent's remove their helmet before going on with the fight to circomvent the 2-min penality.

I wonder though if the refs will instead call a unsportsmanlike conduct penalty to both for that.

That already happened a couple of times in the preseason.

[Commandant]

Neech, no law degree, but I have been in many bar fights and had the law spelt out to me by more than one cop from more than one detachment. You can not be charged with assault if both parties fight. No degree, I lived a life.....

I do think you should get the gate if you fight.

Not exactly true, on the "no assault if both parties fight".... the cops may have choosen not to charge you, but its no defence in court.

Often when we see these "both parties fighting" things go to court, you end up in a situation where one guy is seriously hurt in the fight... be it a mismatch, or a lucky punch, or whatever the reason... if one of the two end up hurt bad, you might see a charge anyway.

And if that injury is death.... it could be manslaughter.

Of course I'm talking bar fights, not hockey.

[Toronthab]

I get the same visceral and arational thrill in some fights. But it is simply wrong. We should not be allowing it no matter how much we enjoy it. It's really bad for children. And bad for them to see us celebrating it. Sport is sport and the rules should protect it and keep it as sport. Our nature is a fractured thing....

[Chris]

They should probably ban checks also. I mean Pacioretty was hurt by Orr on a body check.

The players like tough guys and fighters on their team. They are normally the most popular and well respected players on the team. That's all that's important. I have NEVER been to a hockey game when I fight broke out where I saw people leaving, having their feelings hurt, etc.

It will not go away in my lifetime and i'm 30.

There are more injuries caused by body checks and stick work than fights.

[hab29RETIRED]

my two cents.

Fighting has no place in hockey. The whole self policing argument is bullshit.

You want to ensure stick work doesn't get out of hand, have 10 to 15 games suspensions for vicious slashes - even if they DON'T lead to an injury. If a guy hacks away like Kessel did - give him 10 games minimum.

You want to ensure the rats don't get out of hand, give more discretion for unsportsmanlike conduct penalties and make that a suspendable act. If an idiot like Avery is waving his hands in the air in front of the goalie, the way he did against Broduer - call a double minor and suspend him for 5 games.

For a Matt Cooke hit from behind - 10 games the first time, 20 games the second time, 30 games the third time and so on. That would get rid of the cheapshots from behind.

Lastly, force the damn referees to call damn penalties. They blow obvious calls they sit out games and get fined. Hold the damn zebras accountable to enforce the damn rule book. None of this Don Cherry "let them play, so the players decide the outcome" crap. If it's a penalty in the rule book, call the damn penalty!! Doesn't matter if its a pre-season game, a regular season game in the first period, a regular season game in overtime, a playoff game, or in overtime of game 7 of the stanley cup finals. Call the damn penalty consistently.

Consistent application of the rules and harsher penalties for stick work will get stick work out the game, or offending players out of the game.

Football has a lot more hitting then hockey, but fighting is not allowed. The whole arguement that the speed of the game necissitates self policing is stupid, as is the arguement that fighting sells tickets. There is an element that will pay too see live hangings, beheadings, or fights to the death as well. There are enough people that would be satisfied at seeing fast, hard clean hitting hockey. Screw the neanderthals that are bruins and flyers fans!!

[johnnyhasbeen]

Not exactly true, on the "no assault if both parties fight".... the cops may have choosen not to charge you, but its no defence in court.

Often when we see these "both parties fighting" things go to court, you end up in a situation where one guy is seriously hurt in the fight... be it a mismatch, or a lucky punch, or whatever the reason... if one of the two end up hurt bad, you might see a charge anyway.

And if that injury is death.... it could be manslaughter.

Of course I'm talking bar fights, not hockey.

Ok, here is an example. A group of people are in a hotel hallway being loud and drunk. A sober person comes out of there room disturbed by the noise, gets into the face of one of the drunks and knocks him down. A friend of the guy knocked down (me) says "Hey if you want to go with someone, try me." Guy rushes me and I clean his clock. Cops show up. Who can be charged with assault? According to the responding officers, only the guy who came out of his room and attacked my friend. He didn't agree to fight. By my offering to go and the guy coming at me, we had both agreed to the fight. In Saskatoon, this is the law. We didn't lay charges.

Trust me. I lived on the road with major rock bands for 30 years. I have had more fights with drunks than I can remember. I know my rights when it comes to fighting and know when to stop. When it is your job, as road manager I was "enforcer/protector", you need to know the limits. I also know that what goes in Canada doesn't fly everywhere but that is for another post....

[DON]

Don, are you really comparing drunk driving, which endangers innocent people with hockey fights? Really? I could see that if hockey fights consisted of players jumping into the stands and killing families watching the game. Otherwise......

Boxing is a better comparison, If we outlaw boxing and MMA there will be a good argument to take fighting out of hockey. As long as it ok for 2 combatants to fight, which by the way is legal in Canada, then it should stay. I will once again say though that it should be a game misconduct. Yes, it is legal to fight in Canada if both parties agree. If you get in a bar fight and get the hell beat out of you but were legally considered a willing party you have no legal recourse.

That is freedom of choice. I am a proud Canadian who would not want that freedom taken away.

Oh, and who barely made it through high school? That line made no sense to me what so ever.

No don't compare drunk driving and hockey fights, other than simply fact (maybe a bad/extreme example) some groups simply cant see err of their ways and need someone else to step in to protect themselves from themselves.

And in education, I would use the cup and helmet choice as one prime example of misplaced or wonky attitude, protective cups had been worn by NHLers since beginning of time (I am guessing at that, but agree a long long time), but went decades with zero protection to a much more important part of body, till basically players were mandated that might be good for their well being to all wear helmets.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

my two cents.

Fighting has no place in hockey. The whole self policing argument is bullshit.

You want to ensure stick work doesn't get out of hand, have 10 to 15 games suspensions for vicious slashes - even if they DON'T lead to an injury. If a guy hacks away like Kessel did - give him 10 games minimum.

You want to ensure the rats don't get out of hand, give more discretion for unsportsmanlike conduct penalties and make that a suspendable act. If an idiot like Avery is waving his hands in the air in front of the goalie, the way he did against Broduer - call a double minor and suspend him for 5 games.

For a Matt Cooke hit from behind - 10 games the first time, 20 games the second time, 30 games the third time and so on. That would get rid of the cheapshots from behind.

Lastly, force the damn referees to call damn penalties. They blow obvious calls they sit out games and get fined. Hold the damn zebras accountable to enforce the damn rule book. None of this Don Cherry "let them play, so the players decide the outcome" crap. If it's a penalty in the rule book, call the damn penalty!! Doesn't matter if its a pre-season game, a regular season game in the first period, a regular season game in overtime, a playoff game, or in overtime of game 7 of the stanley cup finals. Call the damn penalty consistently.

Consistent application of the rules and harsher penalties for stick work will get stick work out the game, or offending players out of the game.

Football has a lot more hitting then hockey, but fighting is not allowed. The whole arguement that the speed of the game necissitates self policing is stupid, as is the arguement that fighting sells tickets. There is an element that will pay too see live hangings, beheadings, or fights to the death as well. There are enough people that would be satisfied at seeing fast, hard clean hitting hockey. Screw the neanderthals that are bruins and flyers fans!!

This is a more cut-and-dried view of the matter than my own, but I love this post!

The thing is, Habs29, the NHL has proven itself to be incapable of enforcing its own rules. The refs are incapable of not putting the whistles away in the playoffs. The NHL is incapable of changing this. And the NHL is incapable of levying adequate suspensions for reckless behaviours, gross endangerment, and brutal attempts (failed or successful) to injure. This is a league where "good guys" like Chara get at least one free pass to crash a kid's head into a massive concrete pole at top speed, because, you know, they didn't *mean* it (even though they did). The league is controlled by good old boys making judgements about what so and so "intended," and heavily biased in favour of a presumption of innocence (except for guys the old boys don't like).

So that's why I'm a little more willing than you to consider fighting's value as a deterrent. (Of course, it wouldn't work in the case of a gorilla like Chara, but we're talking about percentages here). Again, I see it as an empirical question - what protects players best? But I don't think we should assume a league that is capable of actually enforcing rules against vicious stickwork.

[Fanpuck33]

No don't compare drunk driving and hockey fights, other than simply fact (maybe a bad/extreme example) some groups simply cant see err of their ways and need someone else to step in to protect themselves from themselves.

And in education, I would use the cup and helmet choice as one prime example of misplaced or wonky attitude, protective cups had been worn by NHLers since beginning of time (I am guessing at that, but agree a long long time), but went decades with zero protection to a much more important part of body, till basically players were mandated that might be good for their well being to all wear helmets.

Drunk drivers can't see the errors of their ways because their judgment is impaired by the alcohol. Impaired judgement doesn't come into play when we're talking about the rules of hockey.

Lastly, force the damn referees to call damn penalties. They blow obvious calls they sit out games and get fined. Hold the damn zebras accountable to enforce the damn rule book. None of this Don Cherry "let them play, so the players decide the outcome" crap. If it's a penalty in the rule book, call the damn penalty!! Doesn't matter if its a pre-season game, a regular season game in the first period, a regular season game in overtime, a playoff game, or in overtime of game 7 of the stanley cup finals. Call the damn penalty consistently.

I disagree with your stance on fighting, but I totally agree with this point. If the refs just call the rules consistently, then they will never be deciding the outcome of the game. The players are the ones who break the rules and are thus the ones deciding the game. The "let them play" mentality is like saying there should be no rules at all.

[Commandant]

Ok, here is an example. A group of people are in a hotel hallway being loud and drunk. A sober person comes out of there room disturbed by the noise, gets into the face of one of the drunks and knocks him down. A friend of the guy knocked down (me) says "Hey if you want to go with someone, try me." Guy rushes me and I clean his clock. Cops show up. Who can be charged with assault? According to the responding officers, only the guy who came out of his room and attacked my friend. He didn't agree to fight. By my offering to go and the guy coming at me, we had both agreed to the fight. In Saskatoon, this is the law. We didn't lay charges.

Trust me. I lived on the road with major rock bands for 30 years. I have had more fights with drunks than I can remember. I know my rights when it comes to fighting and know when to stop. When it is your job, as road manager I was "enforcer/protector", you need to know the limits. I also know that what goes in Canada doesn't fly everywhere but that is for another post....

Like I said cops are lenient and use discretion in laying charges.... that doesn't mean that if you agree to fight the other guy can't be charged with assault.

I've seen it all the time, the injuries sustained in the fight go a long way in determining the amount of force someone has consented to.

I do this stuff for a living, I'm a lawyer and see these things in court every single day. Just because you haven't been charged, doesn't mean you can't be.

[Commandant]

As for boxing and mma..... bare knuckle boxing was outlawed a long-time ago.... and you have a more dangerous version of bare knuckle boxing in every hockey game.

Boxing and MMA also have people going 2-3 months minimum between one fight and the next. In hockey you can fight twice in the same game, or 2-3 times a week.

The issues aren't the same.... you have a lot more precautions in combat soports

[Commandant]

This remains the best argument I've seen in the fighting debate.....