Searching for a Discussion

Poor tired old Hockey Night in Canada.

Despite exhaustive efforts (presumably) by its production and research staff, HNIC has still not been able to turn up a single person capable of expressing the growing sentiment against fighting in the sport.

You'd think with all those taxpayer dollars behind it HNIC might be able to find a single voice in the hockey world to occasionally disagree with the program's stridently pro-fighting platform.

Instead, it's "fighting is part of the game" before the game, during the first period intermission when we see hockey's version of Ann (Anybody Who Disagrees with me is a Fag) Coulter, during the second period intermission panel discussion and after the game.

Not one voice to challenge the notion that fighting is desperately needed in the sport. It's almost as if HNIC and its chief opinion makers are frightened of actually having to defend their antiquated notions of the sport. They're so insecure, folks, they have to replay old shows to make themselves feel better.

But maybe Joel Darling and his staff just couldn't find somebody. Or maybe having a certain point-of-view is a pre-requisite to participating in that program?

Well, let's help them out, shall we?

Right there in the ACC on Saturday night, after all, was one of hockey's more reasoned, intelligent and independent thinkers, injuried Maple Leaf forward Michael Peca.

Peca has been through the wars, playing as a little man in what has become a big man's game, and playing it with an edge the entire way.

So here's what Peca had to say about fighting in an interview with The Star's Paul Hunter:

"Traditionalists will say it has a place in the game, it helps police the game. There’s a whole theory about that but, on the other hand, guys are getting hurt. I don’t think it’s just the fighting. I think it’s blows to the head in general.

"I’m sure there’ll come a day when, much like in football, you just can’t hit the head whether it’s your shoulder or anything. Then fighting becomes a little redundant because those are basically blows to the head.

"I think fighting will eventually find itself out of the game. There might be people worried that then the stick fouls and everything will increase but I think it’ll come to a point where respect for the game will kind of balance that out.

"Ninety per cent of the time it doesn’t really serve a purpose any more in the game so take it for what’s its worth."

That's just one NHLer's opinion, but while some would have you believe all NHLers think fighting is wonderful, there are lots more just like Peca out there.

Even HNIC might be able to find one.

NOTE: Given that a couple of readers have wondered if The Star isn't just as guilty as HNIC in airing both sides of the fighting debate, I figured it was worthwhile to point out that Rosie DiManno took a decidedly pro-fighting stance in her coverage of the Belak-Janssen scrap last week and Kevin McGran published a piece with both sides of the fighting debate last week as well.

More to the point, I don't think there's any shortage of availability of pro-fighting opinions out there. It's the silent majority that is far under-represented in the public debate.

Comments

[mimmo70]

Yes, HNIC's, "Coach's Corner", is a tired, old farce that should've been put out to pasture long ago. That said, Cherry does, on occasion, make some good points about the game - critique's of NHL equipment and his arguments for automatic icing.

Unfortunately, he also spews a lot of nonsense about fighting, European born players, and no talent goons like Tie Domi. I remember a game sometime last year when one of his least favourite Leafs - Ponikarovsky - was playing great. Despite this, Cherry didn't mention it once during his segment. (You can bet your paycheck that if it was Domi, he would've spent all five mintues showing highlights of his play.) Some weeks before, however, he did show a clip of Ponikarovsky sitting on the bench backing away from a couple of players on the ice who were goin' at it. He showed this to illustrate just how cowardly and feminine Ponikarovsky was. It was pathetic.

Cherry is Hockey's Bill O'Reilly (Fox News) - not to get too political. He's a bully. His debate tactics are to shout, belittle and interupt. The more he employs these tactics, the more he convinces himself that he's right and convinces us that he's an idiot.

[Iain Wood]

To all the anti-fighting folks I say let's postpone the debate for a while and dust off NHL Rules 44 and 47 (see below). Those are the NHL Rules that the refs don't call anymore.

Time and time again players are being run at and injured with cheap shots.

Last night Carolina's Craig Adams drilled Philly's Denis Gaithier on what should have been a Boarding/Charging call.

For the umpteenth time in recent weeks, all 4 refs viewed this type of hit as clean. Yet again the recipient was seriously injured.

Flyers' Randy Jones took exception however and explained to Adams in the language of the moment that Adams' conduct was not condusive to ensuring continued harmonious play. Jones got the double roughing minor, Gauthier was lost to injury, Adams got the last laugh.

The new rules mean forecheckers can skate a full speed unimpeded and crunch D-men into the boards. Except that used to be called "Boarding" and "Charging". These penalties were intended to prevent injuries.

Anyone who's every played knows that charging someone a foot or two from the boards is very dangerous and considered a "cheap shot". Hence rule NHL 43 Attempt to Injure.

So the "new rules" version of the game means faster play and more hits. Surely this must mean there are more charging, boarding and hit-from-behind calls? Nope. There's lots of injuries from boarding and charging but scarcely any penalties.

So sure, let's have the fighting debate. But let's start when the refs get control of the game. Specicially by using NHL rules 44 and 47. Player ARE frequently getting hurt - but not by fighting.

(Check out the rules below...)

NHL Rule 43

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player who deliberately attempts or who deliberately injures an opponent and the circumstances shall be reported to the Commissioner for further action.

NHL Rule 44

"A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards."

NHL Rule 47

"Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "Charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

[Nick]

It is unlike me to come to the aid of a media giant like this (sports sections don't count, right?), but to paraphrase Bill Maher: "You don't have to cover both sides of an argument if one is wrong". The argument for fighting is up there with the one for creationism, based on myths, faith and emotion. If you honestly think the game is dirtier now than it was back in the "good ol' days", pull out some tape of Gordie Howe's stickwork. Fighting was quite prevalent then, wasn't it? Who policed the Broad Street Bullies?

And the argument that "head shots and stick swinging is bad, therefore fighting is good"... isn't an argument at all. They are both bad, and the NHL has been soft on them for years. If anyone should be mocked for being the stereotypical effeminate (and no one should use such ad hominems in an argument), it should be Gary Bettman and Colin Campbell for not standing up to the neanderthals in the sport. How about automatic ejections and suspensions the next time Andrew Peters or Donald Brashear feel like putting on a pointless exhibition during a game? How about having the balls to suspend popular players like Jordin Tootoo or Darcy Tucker for their attempts at trying to end other players' careers? Real suspensions of 20-40 games for reckless hits? No? Too afraid? After all, cheap shots and serious injuries add drama to the games and PR down south (any publicity is good publicity!).

Hey, I've got an idea: If you want to watch two morons duke it out, watch UFC. Some of us want to watch hockey.