Photo by rubyswoon
A hockey fight between players Mike Rupp and Shawn Thornton
A new crusade has been unleashed upon the game of hockey, a game that has had needless change and disastrous decision-making thrust upon it for nearly 20 years. From the implementation of the instigator rule in 1992, through the profuse expansion of the 1990s and early 2000s, and culminating with the post-lockout rule changes and crackdown upon obstruction of today, the National Hockey League, more than any other sports league in North America and probably the entire world, has almost completely turned its back on those who have loved the game for more than 100 years. The new crusade, which aims to remove fighting from hockey, is part of this shameful and saddening pattern of disrespect for the fans of this wonderful sport.
Everyone who follows the game of hockey is aware of the fierce debate that is currently raging over the role of fisticuffs in the sport, and the tragic events that brought the debate to pass. In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having this discussion; in fact, with some of the serious injuries that have been suffered in recent years during fights and the tragic death of Don Sanderson, there would be something wrong if we were not talking about it. But given the aforementioned tradition of disregard for the viewpoints of those who follow the game religiously and prop up the incompetent NHL, we cannot help feeling a sense of doom, a premonition that no matter how articulately we defend the role of fighting in hockey, no matter how passionately we plead to be allowed to keep this unique element of the sport, that sooner or later, like the game itself, it will be taken from us; it is only a matter of time.
Nevertheless, I feel a sense of purpose in trying to confront the crusaders by revealing how there is no conceivable way by which a ban on fighting in hockey could be justified or defended; and I aim to do this not just for the sake of fighting itself, but because this is a symbolic struggle for the fate of the game, a fate that has for too perilously long been in the hands of those who have absolutely no idea what to do with it. If this battle can be won, then maybe, just maybe the true fans of the game will be reinvigorated and spurred to reclaim hockey for the people who play it, follow it, and love it.
Now I understand that not every true fan of the sport is in favour of fighting; that there are those who have been watching and playing hockey for decades who would rather not have to endure watching a fight when all they want to see is a good game of hockey. And while I respect this opinion, it does not change the fact that the majority of the game’s fans and probably an even greater majority of the game’s current and former players, coaches, and managers not only love this aspect of hockey, but see it as integral to the way it is played here in North America. Moreover, I am confident that when the arguments made against fighting by the crusaders are exposed as unequivocally invalid, many of those in opposition will at least realize that the game as we have known it could be irretrievably lost if we allow the crusade to succeed. So let’s take a look at the concerns that motivate this crusade, and show that there is nothing to them:
Fighting is violent and dangerous – sooner or later, someone is going to be killed
Taken on its own, this statement is completely true. In fact, as we all know, someone already has been killed. But as unfortunate and regrettable as Don Sanderson’s death has been, his death was, after all, an accident, and a fluke accident at that. While this does not diminish the tragedy, it should be noted that in the countless fights that have occurred at the various levels at which hockey is played in North America, this is the first time a player is known to have died as a direct result of a hockey fight. I do not resent those who would try and turn Don Sanderson into a martyr, for misguided though they may be, their concern for those who play the game is genuine.
Still, the fact remains that whether with fighting or without, hockey is an incredibly violent and dangerous sport. Scores of serious injuries have been incurred as a result of so-called clean hits; the ambiguity over what constitutes a clean hit is an ongoing debate in its own right. And contrary to assertions made by some, hockey, in North America at least, has always, since the very beginning of the sport, been incredibly violent. Fighting as we know it actually became a part of the game in 1922, when it was decided that participants in a fight would receive offsetting five-minute major penalties, rather than being ejected completely. This was done, believe it or not, so that violence in hockey could be regulated; so that ruthless acts of violence could be deterred by a relatively benign fistfight. Obviously this did not entirely eliminate those ruthless acts of violence, but it did curtail them.
But regardless of the history of fighting in hockey and its effectiveness as a deterrent of even worse violence, one must wonder why those who abhor the violence of fighting do not equally abhor the violence of bodychecking. Is it because bodychecking is more legitimately considered ‘part of the game’? Well what of it? If it were concern for the players that motivates opposition to fighting, certainly that concern would extend into a realm that is substantially more dangerous. Moreover, hockey could be played as a non-contact sport and remain fairly entertaining. Yet for a reason that escapes me, it is considered barbaric to enjoy a hockey fight, but completely acceptable to enjoy watching a player get slammed with full force and reckless abandon into the ice or the boards, and to enjoy it even more if the offended player has trouble getting back onto his feet; the harder the hit, the better the hit - but please, no fighting, it’s barbaric.
Rather than barring fighting for being too violent, it would be wiser for us to come to terms with the fact that hockey is a violent, physical sport in which players will from time to time get seriously injured. Unless we resolve to completely eliminate contact from the game, which I would suggest might not be too far behind a ban on fighting, we would all be a lot happier if we just accepted it for what it was, despite the shame some of us might feel for being a fan of a barbaric sport. And if fighting actually does deter violence in hockey, a suggestion made by many who have played the game (and you would think they might know a thing or two), consider it an added bonus.
Fighting in hockey is a bad influence on my kids
While you cannot fault parents for expressing concern over what their kids watch and do, do we really want to censor our game? It is one thing to have a debate over the role of fighting in hockey, but to ban fighting because kids might be watching would either set a disturbing precedent or else be a blatant double standard. For if fighting is across the line, the crusaders would then have to target mixed martial arts and boxing. Given the growing popularity of the former and the unquestioned legitimacy of the latter, I highly doubt that that crusade would be successful. So rather than open up a Pandora’s Box of censorship, parents who do not want their kids exposed to something should simply forbid them from watching it.
Besides, there is no evidence to suggest our society would be less violent without fighting in hockey. In fact, it seems that despite having a violent sport as our national game, we Canadians are actually relatively nonviolent; and the violence we are plagued with can hardly be attributed to hockey. Conversely, some of the most violent societies are absolutely nuts about sports in which violence is very heavily regulated. So clearly, we cannot expect any direct societal benefit from a ban on fighting.
As for the argument that because of fighting, fewer kids are getting into hockey, such claims are never accompanied by reliable evidence. Some crusaders would point to the recent decline in minor hockey registration in Toronto, but what they fail to point out is that the demographics of the city have changed quite a bit over the years; that more than ever, the city is populated by people from countries where hockey is played in a field or not at all. Besides, young kids playing hockey are never allowed to fight and up until a certain age, bodychecking is not even allowed. In fact, it is the prospect of their kids playing contact hockey that makes parents nervous; not fighting, which is something they would only have to worry about if their kids made it to the junior ranks. So clearly, as far as kids are concerned, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fighting is not part of the game and adds nothing to it
Whether or not fighting is ‘part’ of the game is a semantic issue that gets talked about too much. Is eye-gouging a ‘part’ of rugby? Well no, but by all accounts it is rampant in those violent scrums. What about trash-talking in basketball or end zone dancing in football? While the rules may frown upon or not mention these things, they definitely impact the game or else the players would not bother with them. Fighting in hockey is a lot about intimidation and vigilante justice, two things that are completely wrong and out of place in society, yet completely appropriate in sports. At the best of times it is a byproduct of intense hatred between two teams, and in this manner it has contributed to all of the most memorable rivalries in the history of the sport. Fighting lends hockey an intensity that most sports can only dream of and significantly raises the excitement level. So in this sense, fighting undeniably adds to the game.
There is hardly any fighting in playoff games, and those are the most exciting
This is indeed a compelling argument, but again, a bit of scrutiny exposes that it is actually quite misleading. In a given campaign, the playoffs are necessarily going to be more exciting than the regular season simply because there is so much more on the line and because the best teams are involved. So sure, the playoffs are great in spite of very little fighting, but what the crusaders fail to point out is that the playoffs are also exciting in spite of lower scoring and more clutching and grabbing. So when the league is doing everything in their power to artificially increase scoring so as to make it more exciting for the Americans who love the game but just don’t know it yet, why do the crusaders not point out that based on the playoffs, this is the wrong strategy? Because in reality, comparing the postseason to the regular season simply makes no sense.
What would make sense is a comparison between the modern game and an era in which playoff fighting was common. In the ‘70s, ‘80s and early ‘90s, before the instigator penalty, fighting was rampant in the playoffs. Not coincidentally, they were decidedly more fun to watch. In fact, scoring was much higher back then in both the regular season and postseason, and while the crusaders would love the opposite to be true so that they could point out how fighting suffocates offensive play (astonishingly, some of them do!), they would never acknowledge that fighting might actually create room for the stars of the game; that it might not be mere coincidence that hockey’s most offensive era and most violent era occurred at pretty well the same time. So enjoy the playoffs, but as you watch them, think about how much better they would be if the players were allowed to go at each other all out.
There is no fighting in other sports
When critics say ‘other sports’, what they usually mean is baseball, basketball, and football (not lacrosse, for instance). And yes, those three sports do not have fighting, but they also do not have pucks or sticks, and while it is likely Gary Bettman would get rid of those things if he thought it would win him a few fans in Mobile, Alabama, I do not see the point in making that comparison. Hockey is vastly different in so many ways from the other major American sports and it is nothing short of foolish to suggest that because they do things a certain way, we should be following their lead.
Most fighters are goons that cannot even take a regular shift
This may be true today, but during the aforementioned violent era of hockey, it was not at all the case. Fighters, guys like Marty McSorley and Bob Probert, were valuable members of their teams who in addition to fighting regularly, put in valuable minutes in both defensive and offensive roles. Nowadays, at a time when there is significantly less fighting, most of it is done by behemoths who are not good players and rarely get any ice-time in the playoffs. This is hardly an indictment of fighting. If anything, it suggests that there are simply too many roster spots in the league. Should the NHL ever contract to say, 24 teams, there would be more good players to go around and teams would be weary of carrying a player who logs less than five minutes of ice-time per game. But with 30 franchises, why not have a tough guy in the lineup when there are already three or four players on the roster who do not belong in the league? At least the tough guy comes in handy if the team is being bullied. Like many of the game’s problems, the ‘goon’ phenomenon is but a symptom of a bloated league and all the more reason that we who love the game should be clamouring to take it back.
Fighting is not an effective mechanism for ‘policing’ the game
While there is no way to definitively settle this one, history suggests that more fighting, along with other factors, does paradoxically raise the respect level on the ice. For example, one of the games biggest challenges these days is the rise of so-called ‘headshots’, or bodychecks delivered to the head. While the idea of somehow legislating headshots out of the game has been floated and will probably, sooner or later, be adopted, you have to wonder why such a problem did not exist when fighting was more rampant. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense:
Imagine you are a hockey player. You’re skating up the ice and you spot a defender not too far from you making an outlet pass and spending a bit too much time admiring it afterwards. The voice of your coach urging you to play more physically echoes in your head as you line him up and absolutely flatten him with a seemingly clean hit. However, the hit actually may have been a bit late and as it turns out, your rock-hard shoulder pad went right into his chin, knocking him instantly unconscious and leaving him in a pool of his own blood. The arena falls silent and the offended player’s teammates, angry though they may be, skate helplessly around in circles for fear of penalization and suspension. However, if, while you were lining up the helpless defender, you knew in the back of your mind that if you completely lay this guy out you might end up with a broken nose and some missing teeth, do you think you might ease up just enough that you do not knock him into the infirmary? Sure, there is more than just this to the headshot issue, including the hardness of today’s shoulder pads and the size of today’s players. But a relationship between the two is undeniable. The crusaders would suggest that rather than vigilante justice, what we need is tougher rules and longer suspensions. But the game is too fast and there is too much ambiguity over what constitutes a ‘clean’ hit for such a measure to work without an outright ban on bodychecking.
Banning fighting would make the game more physical as players wouldn’t be afraid to bodycheck
It is amazing how the same faction that denies the effectiveness of fighting as a policing mechanism could make such a claim. Perhaps fighting does discourage certain players from hitting more, but then again, there was no shortage of good physical play back when there was a lot more fighting going on. The difference is that fewer players got injured as a result of big bodychecks back then, and if fighting makes a player think twice about hitting everything in sight, the game will not suffer too much because of it.
And so, these are the charges made by the crusade against fighting in hockey, all of them flawed and misleading, and yet almost certain to eventually succeed in robbing us of another little piece of our game lest we say “No, this is our game, this is how we enjoy it and shall continue to enjoy it, for we do not need your approval.” This is not just about fighting; this is about having three teams in California and only six in all of Canada; this is about Winnipeg and Quebec City; this is about two referees; this is about three point games and shootouts; in short, this is about the latest in a series of slaps to the faces of those who make this game great, and who have for too long been turning the other cheek. Should this crusade succeed, the game will be irretrievably lost. Now is the time to take the game back for it belongs to us, and only we can restore it to its former glory.
