Now We'll Bring Some More Heat

The contributions of one Georges Laraque, it seems, have once more shifted the complex discussion of fighting in hockey.

That Laraque, the game's reigning heavyweight champion, has weighed in with some intriguing thoughts is meaningful, for none of the pro-fighting crowd will be able to shout him down, or claim that he has no business discussing fighting in hockey.

In an interview with TSN's Darren Dreger, Laraque called for players wearing visors to be prohibited from fighting and for fights to be stopped as soon as a player's helmet comes off.

Interestingly, Laraque said he's fully behind new regulations in the Ontario Hockey League on fighting instituted after the recent death of Whitby Dunlops defenceman Don Sanderson in a fight.

RYAN REMIORZ/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Georges knows a thing or five about fighting.

"The whole world is watching because some one in our sport has died," Laraque told Dreger. "The Ontario Hockey League made changes, so what examples are we (the NHL) providing. If we don't adjust, we're a bush league!"

In the OHL, new regulations say a player who takes off his helmet during a fight or undoes the chinstrap is liable to a one-game suspension. If a player removes his opponents helmet during a fight, he's liable to a one-game suspension and an extra two-minute penalty.

Laraque said no player without a helmet should participate in a fight.

"Every fight a guy ends up on the ground and risks hitting his head on the ice," he said. "It's simple. If the helmet comes off, or a player purposely takes it off, the ref should come in an stop the fight . . . It should be automatic . . . when the helmet comes off, the fight is over and if a guy throws a punch at a player without a helmet, he should get an extra penalty for that, too."

This is an interesting stance for Laraque to take. It comes on the heels of similar comments from NHLPA boss Paul Kelly, and shortly after NHL commissioner Gary Bettman called for a review of what he called the "rules of engagement" for NHL fighters. What Laraque must understand, of course, is that if his views were to become NHL law, less than half the players in the league - the non-visored ones - would be permitted to fight, and the circumstances under which those fights could take place would be very limited.

Given that Kelly and Bettman are also in favour of a rule that would grandfather in the use of mandatory visors, this would naturally, over time, produce the end of fighting in the NHL.

Laraque's comments add more fuel to the public debate raging over fighting in the NHL, and makes it more likely the NHL general managers meetings in Florida in early March which are expected to include a wide-ranging discussion of fighting could become very interesting.

Its the first time, really, that a big-name NHL enforcer has come out calling for tougher rules to regulate fighting.

Comments

[ray brewer]

Most people don't have a problem with helmets staying on..I don't..I think its a good idea..A punch in the mouth stings for a while, but hitting your head on the ice is a much different story..How will that end fighting?..Visors won't be forced on NHL players at any time..Why didn't they do that after the Brian Berard incident?

In OHL after the helmet rule, fighting hasn't stopped..They are still duking it out at the same pace..So you see Damian, nothing will stop fighting in hockey..You can post your articles and blather this nonsense until the cows come home..You forget time and time again that the players want fighting in hockey..Funny how you don't mention the tough guys that want to fight, just the ones that help your cause..

Even the Whitby Dunlops, the team that Sanderson used to play for still fight..More then 7 fights since his death..

[Billie Smith]

If hockey goes down the road that it appears it's going, then my days of watching hockey are over.

Over reaction and being politically correct are just too much to stomach. Add to this the issue of liability and you've got a boring game with too much stick work and dirty play.

A few hundred people died last week in the USA due to bullets entering various parts of the body. I wonder if they are going to ban the purchase of guns? A few people died in Toronto due to gun shot wounds as well, should ban guns too.

[Wade Tomlin]

When will hockey fans grow-up and just deal with the fact that the fighting in hockey debate makes the whole sport look bush league? Really, two grown me whaling away with punches is vital to a game even though the fights completely disappear when the games mean something. Hockey fans just need to deal with the fact that this is going to go away, face it now, create a safe way for it to be removed and maybe people will actually start talking about the sport of hockey.

[Colin McDonald]

I think banning guns is a great idea. It's definitely something that should be mandated.... well said Billie Smith. Oh wait, what was your point?

[mark]

I don't believe these rules or a new rule making visors mandatory will eliminate fighting in the NHL (afterall, there is still the old upper cut). But, it will definately cut it down considerably. I don't see this as a bad thing for two reasons. First, for those of you who still enjoy a good tussle, when a fight does erupt it will be real. It won't be some goon checking his dance card in the last two minutes of a period. Second, I think it would actually increase hitting. As someone who has played the game for 35+ years, I've fought maybe twice. My preference, if someone rankles me is to get them in my sights and deliver a message (albeit these days in my old timers league...it's a subtle message). I would love to see an influx of guys who are skilled in the lost art of the open ice hit. Every team with a Dion Phenuef-like hitter would be awesome. Much better than 30 teams carry the likes of Missing Link McGratton.

[SomeGuy]

I think a compromise is needed. Perhaps, set aside some time before the game just for fights, do an ultimate fighting / hockey doubleheader. Have the enforcers come out with proper protective gear and let them go at it. Then the loser of the fight gets a 5 minute penalty and the winner gets a 5 minute penalty, but his team gets a special bonus for their superstar, no one is allowed to body-check, hook him etc, for the game. Win-win situation. The pro-fighting camp who say fighting is needed to police the game are satisfied, and non-fighters can just come later to the game to miss the fights. Everyone's happy!

[Shemp Duchamp]

Yeah, "Billie", we probably should ban handguns. You've done an excellent job of refuting you're own argument.

Bravo!

[Oliver]

Give it up Damien. We all know that you haven't enjoyed covering hockey for years now. Retire already before you advocate any more stupid rule changes.

[Dave]

Damien,

Keep in mind that even as all of these discussions are continuing regarding fighting in hockey, the main issue is safety in fighting, and not removing it completely. I can't help but laugh as the main topic of this article has this comical sidepoint about in the end, the game is moving towards an end to fighting altogether (like it is now inevitable).

As Don Sanderson's father has stated, his son didn't die from fighting, but an equipment malfunction, and this is where Laraque's conversation is relevant.

As much as I respect people to have an opinion, I think history has proven no matter what, that fighting will always be there, whether it is completely against the rules or not.

[Noam Sugarman]

I agree with the comment that liability is making this game too careful. This is an aspect of the issue that should be discussed more; what role do insurance companies play in the fighting/visor/helmet issue? Also, I would agree that it is kind of funny the way Damien gets so excited whenever someone says something even remotely anti-fighting, but seems willing to ignore the fact that the vast majority of fans and players disagree with him. If anyone is interested, check out The Hockeyfight Manifesto at http://hockeymuse.blogspot.com/2009/02/hockeyfight-manifesto.html

[Chris Michaels]

I believe fighting has a place in the game and, to an extent, could agree to what Georges is suggesting. However, I think it's self-serving to players like him to ban visor-wearing players from fighting. If you only fight a handful of times a year, then banging a visor isn't going to be that big of a deal.

That said, fighting is a choice. And removing your helmet is a choice. Much like playing after your helmet falls off, you accept the risks. Much like blocking a shot, you accept the risks.

I'd be more worried about the puck then fists or ice.

[Mark]

I find Laraque's comments to be an indication of honour of character. If there is to be a fight, let it be done properly. A fair fight, not one where people hide behind visors, take cheap shots or take advantage of a person when a helmet comes off and theirs is still on. My respect for him has increased.

On a side note, what is with people who say they won't watch hockey if there is no fighting? If they're there primarily to see fights and not hockey, then they're obviously not a hockey fan in the first place. It's sad how much of the sport they're missing if they find no enjoyment the game unless there is a fight.

[Down Goes Brown]

Mr. Brown here...

I think Laraque may be on to something in terms of helmets. While I'm a fan of fighting and want it to stay (or even increase), there's no reason not to explore ways to make it safer. A rule forcing players to keep their helmets on, combined with enforcing some chinstrap tightening, could go a long way towards ensuring the NHL never sees a Don Sanderson situation.

I'm less enthusiastic about his visor ban. We already have special rules to penalize players for instigating fights if they wear a visor. Beyond that, players know who wears a shield and who doesn't and should be able to choose whether or not a fight is worth the extra risk of a broken hand.

If anything, Laraque's rule could lead to occasional fighters like Iginla or Schenn removing their visors permanently, and nobody should want to see that.

One thing Damien has absolutely right here... the voice of a player like Laraque should carry some weight in this debate. Far more than that of a columnist or college professor, to be sure.

[Steve]

Can we just relax a second and realize that the two sides of this debate aren't really that far away from each other? It appears to me that by wide margin the proponents of fighting are willing to do away with the 'staged' fights. NOBODY likes them so I wish the anti-fighting crowd would stop lumping ALL fights under this banner.

I have to believe that even the anti-fighting crowd would be ok with the odd fight if it were a result of heat between otherwise skilled players.

Damien, you wonder why all the proponents try to do is 'yell louder'. Well it's because there appears to be no compromise from your side. When there is no compromise you leave no choice but to face loud stubbornness in return.

[skyhawk]

I couldn`t agree more Billie,i too think hand guns should be banned.now then,about this fist fighting thing in hockey,love the idea of one of the best ever at it saying no helmet,no fight.same thing if you`re wearing a visor.no fight.i`d just as soon see no fist fighting in hockey but if they have to,that`s a good start.what happens to a visor wearing guy though that DOES decide to fight in the rare instances they say it`s supposed to happen.in a spontaneous fit of passion.what if a visor wearer throws a punch? how many games does he get? and it had better be games and not minutes.

[Trimmer]

How did we go from fighting to banning guns?As long as players play hockey with intense emotion,we'll have fighting.George is absolutely right about the helmets.Once a team looses a vital playoff game because extra penalties were assessed,they'll clue in real quick.

[Dave So]

Visors, like helmets could easily be grandfathered in and so they should be. Players like to use all sorts of excuses in regards to impairing their vision, thus putting them at a disadvantage, except for the fact that if all players are wearing them, then all players are equally disadvantaged which maintains an even playing field. IF that results in an end to fighting, so be it. I won't miss it as the vast majority of fights I see these days are little more than 1 or 2 misplaced punches thrown before both guys end up on the ice.

I do however find it hard to believe that those in favour of maintining this culture of fighting within the game really want to do so as a means of protection for star players, and not just because they like to see people throwing punches.

I do find it funny that although fighting is against the rules, that there seems to be a "rules of engagement" for fighting. How can you have a set of rules for something that is explicitly against the rules?

I think the NHL needs to take a long hard look at giving the league a major overhaul that would include disolving teams and redistributing players to remaining teams, and eliminating non-skilled 3rd/4th liners, as well as the goons/enforcers, leaving room enough only for those who actually belong in the game.

[K]

Do people really believe hockey would be a boring sport without fighting? If fighting is so great for hockey, why is it that the enforcers get paid much less than the skill players? The really exciting bits of hockey are speed of the game, the stick handling, skating and shooting skills needed to score goals, certainly most righ-thinking people will agree watching one player shove his fist in another's face isn't all that entertaining.

[Joe Jacobs]

I think it's simple:

What you permit, you promote. And by permitting fighting, the NHL promotes fighting. Very simple. It's not that fighting has a place in hockey, it's the fact that the NHL has decided it does and promotes that fact. Giving a 5 minute penalty, especially when both teams are equally penalized, just makes it a sideshow.

I think the rules should state, as they must in other sports, that fighting is not permitted and that if a player gets into a fight, they would then be ejected immediately from the game, perhaps the next game too.

It would be easy to get rid of fighting. But the NHL likes fighting. They could care less about the health and well-being of players or the impact that it has on younger players.

It sells. Unfortunately, really great hockey would probably sell more.

[John Strachan]

In the past few years, we have had a couple of players seriously injured and almost die in a freak accident when their throats got cut by a skate. Is it time to ban skates? Fighting is a necessary evil because you have guys flying around an enclosed space carrying a piece of lumber in their hands. There are far more injuries caused by sticks (slashing, high sticking, and spearing), and knees than in fights. Eliminating fighting will make the game much dirtier, with a lot more stickplay like you see in international hockey where fighting is much more frowned upon.

[CKW]

Players who initiate "staged fights" should receive automatic game misconducts and 1 game suspensions.

[ben]

Surely it would be possible to design some sort of helmet with a button or something that could be pushed by the player to pop the visor off.
I'm not a giant fighting fan, I wouldn't terribly miss it and I don't believe that it's an absolutely necessary evil though I do see that it's not a complete sideshow without any relation to the dynamic and momentum of the game.
However forcing players to keep their helmets on and the eventual integration of visors for all player would directly lead to the end of fighting is a bit of a stretch.

[Mike]

Georges Laraque hates to fight. He's a great guy (personality, charity work), and a good fighter, yes, but he does not care for his job. He fights because it is how he stays in the NHL. He has said this many times. Any comments he makes that are negative towards fighting shouldn't surprise anyone. You can slap a "champ" label on him all you want, but his opinion carries less strength than any of his punches.

[maxie]

If 2 players toss their helmets and square off, but there are no "real", "manly" and "knowledgeable" fans to see it, is it still of value? entertainment? interest?

I'm with Cox on this one. And well said Mark!

[Steve]

The anti-fighting crowd continually brings up comparisons with other sports. This insecurity is pathetic. Here's the ultimate trump card with respect to comparisons:

Other successful sports rarely - IF EVER - compare their sport to others.

We can judge our game by ourselves, thank you very much. And yes Damien, we should love it - 'Warts And All'.