Taming the Lunacy

NAPLES, Fla.

There are those who believe all fighting in hockey is wonderful.

There are those who believe it's all idiotic.

Then there are those that believe some fighting in hockey is necessary and meaningful while just some of the fights are idiotic.

The NHL knew it couldn't please the first crowd or the second, so it's going for the third.

Today, the league's general managers approved recommendations aimed at curbing so-called "staged" fights and those scraps that occur as a result of teammates coming to the supposed rescue of other teammates.

No longer will two players be permitted to line up for a faceoff and then drop their gloves immediately after the puck is dropped without receiving extra penalties. Starting next season, the league will assess automatic 10-minute misconducts to players in those situations, while referees will be given lattitude to decide how involved two players have to be in the play before they can drop their gloves.

In 500 fights this season up to the first week of February, 108 fights occurred right after a faceoff, a occurance that has increased 30 per cent in the past eight years.

Similarly, another 118 fights occurred because one teammate was coming to the aid of another after an illegal or legal hit, an increase of 27 per cent over the past eight years. On 85 per cent of those occasions, the original hit was clean.

To curb those types of fights, the GMs decided to ask officiating staffs to more aggressively hand out instigator penalties.

So while the NHL won't ban fighting, it also understood it had to respond in some way to the public furor over fighting caused by the death of senior hockey defenceman Don Sanderson in January.

So more than 45 per cent of the fights that had occurred this season by the first week of February are of a type that will receive extra penalties next season. The GMs proposals, of course, have to be rubber stamped by both the league's competition committee and the NHL board of governors.

In essence, Gary Bettman's administration decided to take a stand against the type of fights few support, although it stopped short of booting players from the game who engage in staged fights or respond to a clean hit on a teammate by starting a fight.

"What we're saying is that if you're going to fight, it's got to be a real fight," said league vice-president Colin Campbell.

The league didn't come up with new regulations on the removal of helmets during fights, nor did it decide to respond to the request of the players union for new regulations on head shots.

So not everyone will be happy with what the GMs have decided today.

Then again, with hockey in Canada making everyone happy is impossible.

Comments

[Ryan]

Sounds like a fair and well thought out compremise. I'd personally hate to see all fighting disapear, but staged fighting and coming to the aid of a team mate after a clean check should not be allowed. My only concern is the degree of latitude that referees will have. As much as rules are rules, all referees officiate games with their own style. I expect it will take a good 20-30 games into the season for the players to get a handle on how each referee will make these judgement calls.

[Lasher500]

I've got absolutely no problem with these new rules. Staged fights I will not miss...but the odd punch-up, I don't mind.

[tah]

the instigator penatly for coming to the rescue of a teammate is only going to protect the rats and weasels.

[Paul]

It's a start… albeit a small one.

The GM's can only do so much in order to create a better game. It needs to be a co-operation with the NHLPA, the league and common sense. A tough combo, but no doubt in due time things will change and eventually the so-called enforcer will be a thing of the past.

[Ray Richards]

"nor did it decide to respond to the request of the players union for new regulations on head shots." If the players union is so concerned about head shots, why don't they fine or suspend their own members when this occurs. The union could stop this kind of activity much quicker than league rule changes would.

Ray

[Hawg-R]

The players HATE the instigator rule as it is. Most hockey people are opposed to the instigator rule. Why would the league look to "more aggressively hand out instigator penalties"?

[Hockey Fan]

I guess I'm what you would call "pro-fighting" but I do like parts of this new logic. Fights directly after a faceoff are ridiculous and make the game look cheesy. On the other hand, penalizing someone extra for coming to the rescue of a teammate, needs to be explained a little further. Giving extra penalties after a legal hit, I can understand, but if someone of size takes a run at a smaller skilled player, then to me it makes sense for someone more equipped to handle himself in a fight, come to the rescue of the skilled player. I understand and agree with you that you cannot please everyone and some may say let the refs give a penalty or league give a suspension. I say if a teammate who is on the ice at the time jumps in, then that should be considered spontaneous and thus no instigator penalty. Maybe if the hit is deemed illegal and a penalty was going to be called, then no instigator, but if a hit is legal and no penalty is going to be called, give them an instigator penalty.

[derek]

Finally. Canada is moving into the 4th century.

[m d'ailleurs]

If you're going to fight it's got to be a real fight..........?? Who cares? what's the difference. Drop the instigator-so that all players are held accountable for their own aggressions

[Down Goes Brown]

Ignoring whichever side of the fighting debate you're on, the "no fighting off of a faceoff" rule has the potential to turn into a bit of a farce, as players try to figure out how long they have to wait and/or how many times they have to "accidentally" bump into each other before they're allowed to go.

Yes, many of these faceoff scraps are the meaningless kind -- two heavyweights squaring off just to pad their stats and justify their ice time. But many aren't. Think back to Jamal Mayers challenging Tom Kotstopolous the game after his dirty hit on Van Ryn. Both guys knew what needed to happen, and the fans knew what was coming as soon as everyone lined up. Isn't there something to be said for just getting it over with, rather than forcing the guys to jump through hoops that will seem even more staged than what we have now?

However it works out, let's hope that referees come up with a consistent way to call the new rule. Let's learn from the debacle of the first year of the instigator, when every ref seemed to have their own shifting interpretation of the new rule and nobody knew how it would be called on a given night.

[Chris]

While I agree that the staged fights are sad and lack intensity, I vehemently disagree that players should not be allowed to stick up for a teammate. I know that sometimes it doesn't make sense after a clean hit but some hits, like Scott Stevens on Eric Lindros, are clean but put start players out for weeks or more. This is bad for the player's team and the league. If Brendan Witt cleanly injures Ilya Kovalchuk, how do the Thrashers sell tickets? People need to understand that big hits happen very quickly and that sometimes there is a very small difference between a clean hit and a dirty hit. Sometimes there is no guarantee that even if a player attempts a clean hit the other player won't stumble, turn or get caught in an awkward position. Therefore, if a player is going to make the decision take a big run and make a hard clean hit on another team's star players or rookies they should face very clear on-ice consequences for putting the star player at risk. If you've ever played the game at any decent level you will understand this. I know Sanderson's death was a tragedy but hockey a contact sport and sometimes fights happen. To put it into perspective, more people have died from doping in hockey than from fighting and as dangerous as fighting is, it is necessary to keep order on the ice. Look at the playoffs; no fights, great hockey and yet we see twice the injuries over the course of a dozen games than we do in three times as many games in the regular season when we see more fighting. The hockey is great because of the intensity and because the games have meaning but it would be impossible for pro players to keep that up over 82 games. You'd have nobody left and careers would likely be much shorter. Maybe if the regular season were 25 intense games instead of 82 mostly meaningless tilts it would make more sense to put star players at risk but over an 82 game schedule you need your star players playing to sell tickets which is the most important source of revenue for the NHL.

[Greg Dickinson]

No coming to the aid of your line mates? Gretzky would've been 3 seasons tops. I agree with the face off rule but you have to protect your team mates after a big hit or a illegal hit. 5 game suspensions don't stop the dirty hits. Open ice head hits will go up proportionaly to the fights going down.

[John Moore]

I totally agree with trying to banish the "staged" fights. However, maybe I just don't understand the hockey mind, but I thought that defending teammates was one of the standard reasons fighting has remained in the game ("You don't touch Gretzky", etc.)

That being said, I am all for players fighting their own battles. I would approach it differently - don't ban fighting, just ban fighters. For instance, give an automatic suspension once a player receives a certain number of fighting majors in a season. This would allow players to get in a few fights if they felt the need, but it would likely abolish the position of "goon".

[shaun]

Doesn't matter if it was a clean it. The idea is that it shouldn't be open season for goons to crush skill players. In football, they protect the QB with a wall of muscle. This idea that fighting should not be part of strategy in hockey is back-asswards.

[BDH]

Not sure I really see the impact of this... if we assume the players involved in staged fights on the faceoff are the guys skating 6 - 10 minutes a game, what good does giving him an extra 10 minutes do?

If the Rangers want a score settled, don't they gladly take the fight and find a way to manage for 10 extra minutes without Colton Orr (he of the 7 TOI, .08 points per game, and -14)?

[Philip F. Proctor]

Fighting in hockey is both barbaric and takes away from the true spirit of the game. Players should be saving their energy for offence, as in putting the puck in the opposition's net.
Hockey is a very physical game, it doesn't need to be tarnished by the few hooligans around the league whose only talent for the game is only to be a thug.
This sets such a bad example for the youth, seeing grown men (their heroes) on the ice, loosing their cool and composure.
Look at the NFL, a very physical sport, yet the extra push or shove after the whistle has blown will result in a unsportsmanlike conduct flag.
There is no need for hockey players to not be in control of their emotions at all times, and one of the reasons that some cities have had a hard time at the box office is because of their not wanting to bring their kids to witness grown men drawing blood.
On another note, I see a lot of silly insignificant penalties being called as of late, ones that are just a normal part of the game.

[Dennis Regan]

It's a beginning. I like the idea of a player booted out of the league for the remainder of the season if he receives a particular total of penalty minutes throughout the year, (and into the next year if it occurs late in the season). I still prefer that we all change the channel for about ten minutes every time a fight breaks out. OUCH! to the advertisers if enough of us do it.

[Gary Doak]

My brother's hours of VCR tapes of the classic bouts between Semenko-Basil McRae, Kordic-Jay Miller, Nilan-Miller, Gord Donnely-Miller, Clark-Probert, Grimson-Baumgartner, McSorely-Buchberger, etc. from the 80s are going to be priceless now that they are putting the kibosh on the fights right off the draw. Those were our favourite kind.

[Mark]

Either there is fighting or no fighting. If players beating one another up is an important part of hockey as the NHL is saying by not banning fighting - then all penalties should be eliminated and players should be allowed to beat each other up to the bloody end. If fighting is to be penalized, then there is an immediate solution to the problem. Any player that fights is thrown out of the game - end of story. The NHL cannot have it both ways.

[valux]

American Football and Hockey are very physical sports where the very goal is to bring down the other player with a "clean hit" -- yet you don't see fights erupting the way some Hockey players/fans seem to think is required.

[Rossvegas]

For all those who seem to feel the need to compare football to hockey, I'm guessing that you've never played hockey. Football is certainly sometimes violent in terms of the collisions, but the plays are short and punctuated by dozens of breaks in the action. Conversely, hockey is played at lighting speed for extended periods of time, allowing the players' adrenaline to build up. When emotions boil over, they don't break for a beer ad or a huddle as they do in football; a hockey fight breaks out in a FRACTION of a second. The biggest difference is that hockey players are armed with pieces of lumber (or worse), they have elbow pads that can easily and quickly crush an eye socket and their headgear isn't anywhere near as elaborate as the football players. My biggest concern is that if you shut off this "steam valve" for the hockey players, we're going to see an explosion in stick action, cheap shots and debilitating hits.

[Larry Hallatt]

Lets add a $5,000 team fine and a $3,000 player fine that goes to medical research the local hospital fund.

Make it hurt them financially and do something sociable.

[Larry Hallatt]

Maybe it is time to apply a three game suspension for the one starting the fight and have 3/100th of their salary donated to charity and an equal amount donated by the team.

Teams should not be allowed to bring up another player during the suspension period.

This would ensure only worthy fights would occur.

[MrTH]

I'm an American who follows the university game here but not the NHL for the simple reason that the tolerance of fighting in the latter is the single most idiotic thing in all of sport (and that includes NASCAR). It's easy...drop your gloves to throw a punch, and you're suspended. Do that one thing, and you'd have a far, far better game.

[M]

I found the numbers from the Big Bad Bruins and the George Armstrong era to be illuminating when contrasted with present day. I was formally in the first crowd, have moved to the third crowd and am willing to acknowledge that I will probably be move into the second crowd in the future. Fighting was never going to be removed from the game in one fell swoop so this is a first step. I admire fast, tough hockey, but have no regard for the circus on ice this move seems to acknowledge that.