If you were in the NHL, I'd watch women's hockey instead.
- Lahey

That's not very nice. You know, I was always the best hockey player on the teams I played for... NOW THINK ABOUT THAT!

Ok, interesting. However,the fact is, with more concussion issues coming to be known and the start of the law suits, we've already begun the inevitable slide downhill to the abolishment of fighting in team sports, but especially hockey. Sure, we all love to see it for the reasons you've set out, but there are personal & legal consequences.
So, in most Rec leagues & especially Oldtimers (those over 35), fighting is banned. First offence in Oldtimers is a 1 year suspension in most places. Sure, at times tempers flair, harsh words are spoken and there's a shove or two, but that year-long ban is really effective.
The die is cast. It won't happen for years yet, but it will happen. Like it or not, fighting will be banned from hockey.
- haymac

How can you compare mens league to pro though? One is some ones lively hood, the other is a fun game.

What the NHL, NFL, NLL and apparently soccer have to figure out is a way where there is no liability to the leagues. I'm not saying we should become savages, but common sense has to prevail here. It's a fast paced, physical game. People are going to get concussed. But like people on the Oil Rigs, these players are getting a pay that can be deemed danger pay.

It's not like we are forcing a kid to go out and fight for 30k a year.

God, it's time for some Newfies to get the sticks out of their asses...

It's a legal thing. Someone was on Gregor's show talking about it and it comes down to if the NHL mandate a particular piece of equipment and then someone gets killed with that piece of equipment then the NHL is screwed.


It's apparently a very fine line.
- Lahey

The (frank)ing nuts! Well the way the legal system works I'm not shocked, when an elder lady can put a coffee between her legs drive off and spill it on her self then sue for pain and suffering to McDonald's anything is possible.

I mentioned in a previous blog that they should ban holding the other guy's jersey in a fight, make them go toe-to-toe. No more of this wrestling the guy or jerking them around just to get them down on the ice. There have been many injuries that happen from these types of plays. The interesting thing about the original comment I made, it was moments before Parros went down the other night.

That's not very nice. You know, I was always the best hockey player on the teams I played for... NOW THINK ABOUT THAT!
- laughs2907

That's how poor your teams were or you have clouded judgement.

I mentioned in a previous blog that they should ban holding the other guy's jersey in a fight, make them go toe-to-toe. No more of this wrestling the guy or jerking them around just to get them down on the ice. There have been many injuries that happen from these types of plays. The interesting thing about the original comment I made, it was moments before Parros went down the other night.
- nated81

You know you spew a lot of crap and I love ya for it, but this is one of the best comments I have read in a long time on the internet.

You know you spew a lot of crap and I love ya for it, but this is one of the best comments I have read in a long time on the internet.
- Lahey

Thanks?

That's how poor your teams were or you have clouded judgement.
- Lahey

Thanks?
- nated81

Just messing with you.

It was such a simple observation yet I don't think I've ever heard it before.

I like fighting.....but I'm sure we would get used to hockey without it.

I say just limit fights per year. Give each guy 3 or so, any more he gets tossed from the game and a 1 game suspension for first offense, 3 for the second, 5 for the 3rd etc.

Should help take out the "staged" fights which are useless.

Well, I must be wrong then.
- Lahey

I like fighting.....but I'm sure we would get used to hockey without it.

I say just limit fights per year. Give each guy 3 or so, any more he gets tossed from the game and a 1 game suspension for first offense, 3 for the second, 5 for the 3rd etc.

Should help take out the "staged" fights which are useless.
- The-O-G

That was my idea. Thief.

Actually it was junior hockey. I'd go about 5 or 10 fights and then the penalties. This way you still can have that stand up guy.

The only problem I do see is some fighters and teams won't care. Hit my 5 or 10 fights and then get a new fighter.

Just messing with you.

It was such a simple observation yet I don't think I've ever heard it before.
- Lahey

And by banning the holding onto the jersey, I mean giving the players a game misconduct not just a silly 2 minutes added on like this new helmet removing rule.

I liked your blog and how you took a look at both sides of the argument. Personally, what makes me indifferent about it is that most fights are generally pretty meh in terms of entertainment. Really, they kinda suck. And a lot of the time they're staged. I know its just part of the hockey package but still.

Well, I must be wrong then.
- Lahey

You son of a b....

I like fighting.....but I'm sure we would get used to hockey without it.

I say just limit fights per year. Give each guy 3 or so, any more he gets tossed from the game and a 1 game suspension for first offense, 3 for the second, 5 for the 3rd etc.

Should help take out the "staged" fights which are useless.
- The-O-G

They already have this;

46.17 Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor - A player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team.
During the Play-offs, any player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the second time shall be suspended automatically for the next Play-off game of his team. For each subsequent aggressor violation during the Play-offs, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
Prior to the commencement of each Stanley Cup Final, a player or goalkeeper will have his current aggressor violations removed from his current playoff record. They will remain part of his historical record.

The problem is they don't hand out the aggressor penalty often enough.

That was my idea. Thief.

Actually it was junior hockey. I'd go about 5 or 10 fights and then the penalties. This way you still can have that stand up guy.

The only problem I do see is some fighters and teams won't care. Hit my 5 or 10 fights and then get a new fighter.
- Lahey

ya I dont know what the perfect "formula" would be...but i'm sure they could figure out some time of system.

They already have this;

The problem is they don't hand out the aggressor penalty often enough.
- nated81

Ya, that's not the same thing.

Ya, that's not the same thing.
- The-O-G

Its not the exact same as what you were describing but it shows that the NHL is trying to create a rule, or at least make it seem like they are trying, to hand out suspension for repeat offenders. If they gave out the aggressor penalty when they give out the instigator penalty then it would go on the players record and then could get suspended if it happens a couple more times that season.

How can you compare mens league to pro though? One is some ones lively hood, the other is a fun game.

What the NHL, NFL, NLL and apparently soccer have to figure out is a way where there is no liability to the leagues. I'm not saying we should become savages, but common sense has to prevail here. It's a fast paced, physical game. People are going to get concussed. But like people on the Oil Rigs, these players are getting a pay that can be deemed danger pay.

It's not like we are forcing a kid to go out and fight for 30k a year.
- Lahey

I don't think there's a comparison necessary. Due to our new information on concussions and the probable legal consequences, fighting is on the way out. I didn't say I agreed with it; these are my observations of the trend.

Its not the exact same as what you were describing but it shows that the NHL is trying to create a rule, or at least make it seem like they are trying, to hand out suspension for repeat offenders. If they gave out the aggressor penalty when they give out the instigator penalty then it would go on the players record and then could get suspended if it happens a couple more times that season.
- nated81

The rule is too muddy.

Just limit fights. Determining who the "aggressor" is leaves too much grey area.

Why not have an instigator rule?

Great blog Ryan, especially this statement:

Another reason I love fighting is that it shows us the athletes care. Sure they can fake it and go through the motions over the course of a game, but once you drop the gloves and go toe-to-toe you’d better care or you can get mangled. Just the simple fact that a player is willing to put himself in physical danger shows us some measure of his character and dedication to the team. Bravery and honor aren’t on display very often, but whenever a player comes to the aid of a teammate and drops the mitts you have to admire both qualities.

Its not the exact same as what you were describing but it shows that the NHL is trying to create a rule, or at least make it seem like they are trying, to hand out suspension for repeat offenders. If they gave out the aggressor penalty when they give out the instigator penalty then it would go on the players record and then could get suspended if it happens a couple more times that season.
- nated81

No but it's totally different, the aggressor is given at the end of a fight, the instigator at the start. Technically you could have one fight participant in the fight get the instigator, and the other get the aggressor.