Would it surprise you if I told you love watching hockey without fighting?

[HordiBrusk29]

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

Why don't we at least try? Why not try and put a 50 game suspension in to see what happens? I don't see any harm in that. Do you?

Absolutely. The game is already struggling as it is. You do something like that and before you know it, a lot of loyal fans simply aren't going to care anymore. Myself included. Never mind the fact I'm confident most players would be opposed to something like this as well...

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

How would that make the game boring?

The better question is how would that make the game more exciting? It should be pretty obvious why outlandish penalties and suspensions like that would make the game worse. You'd have players skating on egg shells and the entire physical element of the game would diminish. Without that the sport dies, IMO.

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

It doesn't even have to be at the NHL level. Find a league that allows fighting and see what happens when you put serious consequences in, like a 50 game suspension for a cheap shot. See if cheapshots go down.

They won't. Just look at college hockey or leagues over in Europe. It doesn't work. The ONLY sufficient way to put an end to fighting is to ban all physical contact from the sport. And as I stated previously, you do that and the sport is dead.

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

The problem is nobody has tried it. So to say it wouldn't work is speculation at this point.

I disagree. Like I said above, look at college hockey or European hockey over the decades. Fighting is at a bare minimum yet cheap shots and cheap play is alive and well.

[Juha82]

Fightning is a part of the game.
I can to wathces a hockey without fightning.

[Randall Graves]

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

Just so everyone has a clear understanding of what I trying to say, for who knows what time: paying a guy to sit on the bench, except for 5 or 6 minutes, and do nothing but predominantly fight is useless in winning a Stanley Cup. Guys who are in the NHL for only one reason and one reason only, to fight, should be gotten rid of. You might say a guy like Brashear does other things, apart from fighting, but we know the only reason why they picked him from the other guys is because he can fight. That's why he has a job in the NHL. I can make the same case for Colton Orr on my Leafs.

I think physical play has a place in hockey. I feel you need it to win. In fact, some of my favorite players would be considered physical or tough (ala Ovechkin) I enjoy it as much as everyone else. Hell, I can even say fighting is entertaining and I do watch it. I don't leave the room or close my eyes. But, it is useless when it comes to winning. That's the question at hand.

and sitting a guy on the bench, whos a 5'8 midget that doesn't excel at any part of the game, except slightly above average skating is better? get real noob

This arguement is by far the gayest. I want toughness not a skirt wearing midget who plays outside

[Goonscantskate]

Originally Posted by antonio106

I'm perfectly willing to consider it. However, you must concede that the NHL has a horrible track record of doling out punishment evenly to goons and superstars.

Couldn't agree more with you on that one.

Do you think a super star and goon should be treated differently when it comes to cheapshots, or any infraction for that matter?

And contrary to what you state, it's far from cut and dry, even for minor things. A goon will sit a game or two out, a Crosby or Ovey might get 5 minutes for a dirty check, kicking, etc. Martin Havlat had to kick three different players before they even handed out a suspension. Why would you give the NHL power to potentially ruin a man's career, when the interpretation of the rules is so subjective?

Which is why you make it as objective as possible. In fact, I want to take as much power away from the NHL heads as possible. If the punishments were better defined, it would be much easier to decide. At this point it's a mystery as to what kind of suspension will be dished out by Colin Campbell. It seems he just makes it up as he goes along.

Why not have a tiered suspension system, for example, where each infraction that you can come up with is classified into a certain category and each category has a range of suspension, that way there is at least some subjectivity, but vary narrowly.

For example: Slash to the face - a level 2 infraction- anywhere between 3 and 5 games based on previous history and severity of injury. That way it doesn't matter who the player is--you do this, you get this suspension.

[Goonscantskate]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck16

Well, quite frankly, if you don't think fighting has a place in the game, that's a whole different argument. So far all you've done is argue why enforcers don't play in the playoffs. And guess what, buddy? There are leagues where fighting is banned (but still happens, actually.) Go watch the Swedish Elite league or the KHL, and leave the real hockey to us. Its that simple.

I still don't think you're getting what I am saying. I never said it doesn't have a place in the game. In fact, I think it's quite entertaining. I watch fights. I like it when teams brawl. I feel people, in general, like it. I just don't see why people have to justify it by saying it helps you win a Cup and not just leave it at the entertainment factor. I've stated a couple of times now that there are two types of fights in the NHL: the pre-conceived ones and the spontaneous ones. It seems one of them disappears in the playoffs along with the players who are in the game who do nothing but predominantly fight. That doesn't strike you as bit odd? (It's a rhetorical question).

As for switching to another league, why wouldn't I want to watch the best hockey in the world, in the NHL? Again, I never once said I hate fighting. I merely pointed out that it disappears, almost completely, in the playoffs. That doesn't mean I hate fighting or start crying when I see it.

[Goonscantskate]

Originally Posted by Randall Graves

and sitting a guy on the bench, whos a 5'8 midget that doesn't excel at any part of the game, except slightly above average skating is better? get real noob

This arguement is by far the gayest. I want toughness not a skirt wearing midget who plays outside

Well, if the goon or enforcer isn't going to play in the playoffs anyway, I don't really care who fills his spot. Even if it's a 5'8 midget in a clown suit.

The point is these guys are being scratched to begin with by their coaches. I am not saying we should scratch them, I am asking why do you think they are getting scratched and/or getting played much less when it matters the most: in the playoffs?

[Gunslinger]

13 pages on this crap???!!!Come on guys, why waste your time on this loser, who joins a site called "hockey fights" just to argue against fighting?

[stevecanuck16]

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

I still don't think you're getting what I am saying. I never said it doesn't have a place in the game. In fact, I think it's quite entertaining. I watch fights. I like it when teams brawl. I feel people, in general, like it. I just don't see why people have to justify it by saying it helps you win a Cup and not just leave it at the entertainment factor. I've stated a couple of times now that there are two types of fights in the NHL: the pre-conceived ones and the spontaneous ones. It seems one of them disappears in the playoffs along with the players who are in the game who do nothing but predominantly fight. That doesn't strike you as bit odd? (It's a rhetorical question).

As for switching to another league, why wouldn't I want to watch the best hockey in the world, in the NHL? Again, I never once said I hate fighting. I merely pointed out that it disappears, almost completely, in the playoffs. That doesn't mean I hate fighting or start crying when I see it.

You do realize that your supposedly rhetorical question has been answered multiple times. Here, let me summarize it, for the last time, and really dumb it down for you.

1.) The playoff season is a much more condensed version of the regular season. It can be as short as 4 games and go to a maximum of 28. Therefore, each goal against comes at a much greater cost. If an enforcer is a liability to get scored against, in the regular season, the benefit of having that enforcer will probably still outweigh the cost of an occasional goal against. However, in the playoffs, where the cost of a goal against is potentially much greater, the benefit may not outweigh the cause.
Note that:
a) I'm only mentioning the defensive side of the game. It is not the role of the 4th line to score regularly, but to provide energy and play well defensively.
b) Not all enforcers disappear. Sure, the Fritzs and MacIntyres might not play every game, but guys like Shawn Thornton, Darcy Hordichuk, Georges Laraque, Donald Brashear, Jared Boll, Mike Rupp, Colton Orr, etc. all stayed in their teams lineup last playoff season. Hardly the disappearing act you describe.

2) Now, let's look at the reasons that fights happen. Easiest to explain is the 'giving your team a boost' factor. Plain and simple, the atmosphere and intensity of the playoffs essentially negates this need. Its often needed and utilized in the regular season, but come playoffs, everybody should be up and raring to go on every shift. However,

3) The 'sending a message' aspect of fighting intensifies because each loss becomes that much more costly. Teams simply cannot afford to take a heavy loss, and the loss of momentum that goes with it, lying down. That's why at the end of almost every playoff game with a lopsided score, you see rough stuff. Any possibility of regaining some momentum for your team must be taken advantage of.

4) Note that I said rough stuff. While fighting majors may decrease in the post-season, roughing minors go on the rise. This is because while rough play still happens, players are terrified of going the extra step and potentially drawing an instigator call or something else. As explained by the condensed nature of the playoff schedule, each penalty taken becomes that much more potentially destructive to your team.

5) The intensified meaning of penalties in the playoffs also explains why the retribution side of the game diminishes. Often you won't see retaliation for a liberty taken until the tail end of a lopsided score, or until the next regular season. This is fine, retribution is still undertaken, but it doesn't come at a time when an extra penalty will greatly affect one's team.

6) The idea of stepping in to fight your teammates fights for them still exists in the playoffs to a lesser extent, which is why most enforcers still have the most fights come playoff season. However, this aspect of fighting is diminished by the greater extent players are willing to go in pursuit of a Cup, and the greater sacrifice they're willing to put their bodies through. Evgeni Malkin would probably never drop his gloves in the regular season, but in a greatly more important playoff game, suddenly he's willing to take that extra punch to the mouth. So maybe in the playoffs, Eric Godard isn't necessary to fight Malkin and Crosby's battles, but you can't have that kind of thing happening in the regular season.

and, as a side note...

7) Your idea of eliminating cheapshots by handing out massive suspensions is highly unrealistic and ridiculous. Cheapshots are not a black and white issue. Do you give Richards 50 games for his hit on Booth, which split the hockey world in two regarding its cleanliness? How about Ovechkin for his slewfoot that only got him a fine? It's a very slippery slope, and as Hordibrusk pointed out, the inevitable end result is the physical side of the sport disappearing, as players skate around with eggshells in their pockets. That would no longer be hockey, and most fans would no longer be watching.

If you do choose to respond, please take the time to actually go point by point and come up with actual relevant responses. Your constant reiterating of the same points, which keep getting proved wrong, is tiring, and the reason you are being insulted so frequently.

[antonio106]

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

Which is why you make it as objective as possible. In fact, I want to take as much power away from the NHL heads as possible. If the punishments were better defined, it would be much easier to decide. At this point it's a mystery as to what kind of suspension will be dished out by Colin Campbell. It seems he just makes it up as he goes along.

Why not have a tiered suspension system, for example, where each infraction that you can come up with is classified into a certain category and each category has a range of suspension, that way there is at least some subjectivity, but vary narrowly.

For example: Slash to the face - a level 2 infraction- anywhere between 3 and 5 games based on previous history and severity of injury. That way it doesn't matter who the player is--you do this, you get this suspension.

It's not a question of making new or better rules - it's a question of equal enforcement by the refs. Even if you make hockey the most litigious sport on the ice, and hand out 82 game suspensions for head shots, some guys will avoid punishment.

Insofar as the rule book of the NHL constitutes the law, consider criminal law. Most legal scholars concede that a harsher penalty (e.g., capital punishment vs. life in jail) won't deter someone from committing the crime, unless the probability of getting caught is higher. You haven't established how creating a more expansive code of rules for penalties would do anything but bog down the sport. And it would. Every team would then have a set of lawyers on the payroll (a lot of GMs are already lawyers, anyhow), arguing interpretation of the law, meaning, intent, etc.

Players would either get to play in the meanwhile, or opposing teams would throw injunctions non-stop to get a guy off the ice. Is that a better system?

I think the coaches should be allowed to challenge more plays on the ice, for once. That's the only rule change I'd make. Deuteronomy 19:21 covers the rest.

[Big Violence]

I love hockey in general. The fights are just an added bonus

[mckendo83]

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

What if I told you everyone on this board loves hockey without fighting and in fact cheers even more so than when there is no fighting? How do I know this? All I did was look at this websites own statistics. It's found in the fight logs archive section of the website.

And it's called the playoffs my friends. Pure hockey, no fighting, all skill!! And everyone loves it!

The intensity of the game in the playoffs is so high that at any moment it can erupt... there are not the "show" fights where 2 guys square up based on each others names on the back of the jersey in the playoffs (as much) but there have been plenty of out of control brawls that happened in the playoffs when a series boils over...

playoff hockey has fighting, it has hitting, it has scrums, and intensity...

you're point is wrong.

[BrianTheAdsFan]

Originally Posted by Goonscantskate

Again, as for "don't you want a tough guy to step in for you when the time comes" part, I'd rather try and see if tougher penalties actually deters any of the cheap stuff. But, no one has tried that or even considered it, so it's hard to say if it would work or not.

And give them tutus and sequins too. If ginormous penalties exist, the game goes the way of the ice capades, no hitting at all.

If the instigator didn't exist, especially in the playoffs, the cheap hits could be policed by the players. I guarantee if some of these guys knew an asskicking was coming due to a cheapshot, alot of it wouldn't go on, and if it still did, they'd pay the consequence.

As has been stated, goals are a premium in the playoffs and if you serve out retribution in said playoffs, the idea of going down a man on the PP is sometimes too much for a coach to allow, thus the enforcers sit.

[Fotiu]

Don't use Colton Orr as an example of a worthless goon.
He is a valuable forechecker who plays up to ten minutes a game and has done so the last two years.
He has yet to be a healthy scratch,he has also played every playoff game with NY.

[canuck2]

Originally Posted by Fotiu

Don't use Colton Orr as an example of a worthless goon.
He is a valuable forechecker who plays up to ten minutes a game and has done so the last two years.
He has yet to be a healthy scratch,he has also played every playoff game with NY.

Get real. Orr is a fighter. He can barely play the game. Let's call a spade a spade here.

[Alexifighter1]

Huh?

This is hockey, hockey is rough.. if you dont like it, stop watching it.