NHL Fight

[PCM]

I think all hockey players should be allowed to pack heat. That would solve everything.

[redwing77]

I think all hockey players should be allowed to pack heat. That would solve everything.

Can't they keep warm enough by skating hard?

[MafiaMan]

Boogaard can skate, and he's only been in 4 fights this season while the Wild have played 10 games.

ONLY been in 4 fights this season in 10 games? Over an 82 game season, that equates to "only" 32 fights.

This argument has been (no pun intended) beaten to death on this board and this is just the latest go-round.

It's interesting that the purists who want to promote the artistry of hockey (the skating, the passing, the shooting, the goaltending, the all-around skill, etc.) are opposed to fighting and see it as a detriment to expanding the fan base of hockey. However, on the flip-side, when the American public tunes in to crap on TV like wrestling and the Ultimate Fighting Championship, it's almost surprising the NHL doesn't promote MORE fighting in the interest of appealing to the casual sports fan.

[sagard]

I hate to put more on the referees judgement, but when I watch NHL (and the USHL game I saw) there seems to be two types of fights. There is the scripted type where the guys discuss their intentions before a face off and then go at it when the puck drops.

Then there is the Vanelli/McMahon fight where two guys were battling during play and things escalated after the whistle blew.

I don't think any hockey is better for allowing players who participate in the first type of event to stay in the game (or maybe even the next game.)

I'd go with five for fighting if it is two guys who end up fighting after a hack. I'd go with five and a DQ for the scripted crap.

Anyone who takes on Boogard is foolish.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

Then there is the Vanelli/McMahon fight where two guys were battling during play and things escalated after the whistle blew.

Did Vanilla ever get his beak straightened out?

[PCM]

Anyone who takes on Boogard is foolish.

After seeing the face-smashing punch, I agree. What does this mean in the grand scheme of NHL enforcer hockey? I understand how it works in theory, but how does it work in practice?

Does it mean that because the Wild have the best goon in the league, they can get way with cheap-shotting other teams' players? Who's going to stop them with Boogard around? Does it mean that no fool will dare cheap-shot a Wild player as long as Boogard is on the bench? Is there even a need to have officials on the ice in any game in which Boogard participates? Why not just let him enforce the rules if he's so good at it?

Better yet, instead of refs, why not have a couple of non-aligned goons work every game to smash the face of any player who commits a penalty? Let the goon-refs wear brass knuckles just to make sure the penalized player gets the message. The cheaters wouldn't even get to defend themselves. They'd just have to submit to having their faces smashed right there on the ice for being naughty.

Think of the blood! The gore! The TV revenue! Fans would love it because it would take the guesswork out of whether or not they'll see a good face-smashing fight. (There'd have to be a requirement that the officials call at least one penalty on each team per game, regardless of whether anyone actually commmits a penalty.) And believe me, this officiating system would cut down on stickwork and obstruction in a heartbeat. Of course, it's too perfect, so the NHL would never implement it.

Back to the enforcer solution. If another player successfully smashes Boogard's face, does the balance of enforcer power automatically shift to the team for which that player plays? Is the team that successfully puts Boogard out of commission then given free reign to cheap-shot Wild players? Is that team also allowed to cheap-shot at will because no team can stand up to its enforcer?

Better yet, why bother putting any players on the ice who can pass, shoot and score? Why not just load a team up with goons to assure that it can play the game any way that it damn well pleases? If other teams don't like it, boo freakin' hoo. Let them put together a team that can out-goon the other team. The team with the biggest, baddest goons would win the Stanley Cup.

Now that I think of it, this is a great idea for a movie.

[Goon]

What?

He is talking about Brad Park and who he was traded to the Bruins. Basically dated himself back to the 1970's. Where there was way more fighting than there is now.

[Goon]

However, on the flip-side, when the American public tunes in to crap on TV like wrestling and the Ultimate Fighting Championship, it's almost surprising the NHL doesn't promote MORE fighting in the interest of appealing to the casual sports fan.

Heck lets not forget Jerry Springer, there is more fighting in that show than the NHL and the NBA put together.

[sprig]

ONLY been in 4 fights this season in 10 games? Over an 82 game season, that equates to "only" 32 fights.

This argument has been (no pun intended) beaten to death on this board and this is just the latest go-round.

It's interesting that the purists who want to promote the artistry of hockey (the skating, the passing, the shooting, the goaltending, the all-around skill, etc.) are opposed to fighting and see it as a detriment to expanding the fan base of hockey. However, on the flip-side, when the American public tunes in to crap on TV like wrestling and the Ultimate Fighting Championship, it's almost surprising the NHL doesn't promote MORE fighting in the interest of appealing to the casual sports fan.

They should allow fighting in TV texas hold'em. I might even watch

[Local Boy]

What?

[nd jg]

After seeing the face-smashing punch, I agree. What does this mean in the grand scheme of NHL enforcer hockey? I understand how it works in theory, but how does it work in practice?

Does it mean that because the Wild have the best goon in the league, they can get way with cheap-shotting other teams' players? Who's going to stop them with Boogard around? Does it mean that no fool will dare cheap-shot a Wild player as long as Boogard is on the bench? Is there even a need to have officials on the ice in any game in which Boogard participates? Why not just let him enforce the rules if he's so good at it?

Better yet, instead of refs, why not have a couple of non-aligned goons work every game to smash the face of any player who commits a penalty? Let the goon-refs wear brass knuckles just to make sure the penalized player gets the message. The cheaters wouldn't even get to defend themselves. They'd just have to submit to having their faces smashed right there on the ice for being naughty.

Think of the blood! The gore! The TV revenue! Fans would love it because it would take the guesswork out of whether or not they'll see a good face-smashing fight. (There'd have to be a requirement that the officials call at least one penalty on each team per game, regardless of whether anyone actually commmits a penalty.) And believe me, this officiating system would cut down on stickwork and obstruction in a heartbeat. Of course, it's too perfect, so the NHL would never implement it.

Back to the enforcer solution. If another player successfully smashes Boogard's face, does the balance of enforcer power automatically shift to the team for which that player plays? Is the team that successfully puts Boogard out of commission then given free reign to cheap-shot Wild players? Is that team also allowed to cheap-shot at will because no team can stand up to its enforcer?

Better yet, why bother putting any players on the ice who can pass, shoot and score? Why not just load a team up with goons to assure that it can play the game any way that it damn well pleases? If other teams don't like it, boo freakin' hoo. Let them put together a team that can out-goon the other team. The team with the biggest, baddest goons would win the Stanley Cup.

Now that I think of it, this is a great idea for a movie.

Exactly

[Air Force One]

After seeing the face-smashing punch, I agree. What does this mean in the grand scheme of NHL enforcer hockey? I understand how it works in theory, but how does it work in practice?

Does it mean that because the Wild have the best goon in the league, they can get way with cheap-shotting other teams' players? Who's going to stop them with Boogard around? Does it mean that no fool will dare cheap-shot a Wild player as long as Boogard is on the bench? Is there even a need to have officials on the ice in any game in which Boogard participates? Why not just let him enforce the rules if he's so good at it?

Better yet, instead of refs, why not have a couple of non-aligned goons work every game to smash the face of any player who commits a penalty? Let the goon-refs wear brass knuckles just to make sure the penalized player gets the message. The cheaters wouldn't even get to defend themselves. They'd just have to submit to having their faces smashed right there on the ice for being naughty.

Think of the blood! The gore! The TV revenue! Fans would love it because it would take the guesswork out of whether or not they'll see a good face-smashing fight. (There'd have to be a requirement that the officials call at least one penalty on each team per game, regardless of whether anyone actually commmits a penalty.) And believe me, this officiating system would cut down on stickwork and obstruction in a heartbeat. Of course, it's too perfect, so the NHL would never implement it.

Back to the enforcer solution. If another player successfully smashes Boogard's face, does the balance of enforcer power automatically shift to the team for which that player plays? Is the team that successfully puts Boogard out of commission then given free reign to cheap-shot Wild players? Is that team also allowed to cheap-shot at will because no team can stand up to its enforcer?

Better yet, why bother putting any players on the ice who can pass, shoot and score? Why not just load a team up with goons to assure that it can play the game any way that it damn well pleases? If other teams don't like it, boo freakin' hoo. Let them put together a team that can out-goon the other team. The team with the biggest, baddest goons would win the Stanley Cup.

Now that I think of it, this is a great idea for a movie.

Some call that "old time hockey".

[PCM]

Some call that "old time hockey".

Others call it "Slap Shot."

[Air Force One]

Others call it "Slap Shot."

I have the 25th Aniversary Edition on DVD!

[Dikaia880]

The mandatory full face shield makes the stickwork pretty much a non-issue. The worst thing that could possibly happen is you get a scratch on your Itech. Who cares?

Until the stick gets up under your mask or you get a nice hook to the larynx. Stickplay is way worse than fighting.

I wonder how many of you have actually played hockey at a level past pee-wee's...

Having Boogaard doesn't give the Wild any more incentive to throw cheapshots. There is an unwritten code in hockey about fighting, sometimes it gets broken. Fedoruk broke that code in a couple ways. Someone already tried to fight Boogaard, it should have been over. Boogaard didn't want to fight him, Fedoruk should have dropped it. Fedoruk paid the price, but the other Wild players aren't going to go out on the ice ready to stick someone because they can hide behind Boogaard, because they really can't.

Fighting is a part of the game, while there are still cheap shots and goalie getting run, there would be much more of it in the NHL if there weren't enforcers.

Cheap shoting shouldn't happen, but a legitimate fight is no worse than a clean hit.

While there isn't "fighting" in college hockey, how many scrums are there? How many times is the game delayed for 5 minutes breaking something like that up? There were at least 4 at Saturday's game against Mankato. I'd rather watch two guys have a quick clean fight, than a bunch of guys dancing around getting nothing accomplished but increase the number of retalitory cheap shots & sticking.

[Slap Shot]

PCM - your longer post, if even meant facetiously, suggests that fighting in the NHL has in recent years increased and become a bigger problem than before, which is far from the truth. Personally, I wouldn't complain if they penalized players in the NHL for fighting a la the NCAA, but let's not pretend the NHL is now policed by organized thugs exactling vigilante justice at their every whim.

[PCM]

I wonder how many of you have actually played hockey at a level past pee-wee's...

I quit at pee wees because I wasn't being taught how to fight, which, as we all know, is part of the game.

There is an unwritten code in hockey about fighting, sometimes it gets broken.

That's the great thing about unwritten codes. Nobody is required to follow them and they're always open to broad interpretation. I hear that Todd Bertuzi and Marty McSorley introduced some amendments to the code, but they weren't well received.

Fedoruk broke that code in a couple ways. Someone already tried to fight Boogaard, it should have been over. Boogaard didn't want to fight him, Fedoruk should have dropped it.

Maybe the NHL Players Association needs to sponsor some unwritten code workshops so nobody makes this mistake again. The association could hand out an unwritten code handbook published on an Etch-A-Sketch. Just a thought.

Fedoruk paid the price, but the other Wild players aren't going to go out on the ice ready to stick someone because they can hide behind Boogaard, because they really can't.

If he can't protect the Wild's players from other teams' goons, what good is he? I thought that's why enforcers were a necessary part of the game. Sheesh.

Fighting is a part of the game, while there are still cheap shots and goalie getting run, there would be much more of it in the NHL if there weren't enforcers.

In other words, hockey needs enforcers to stop the stuff from happening that continues to happen, even though the enforcers are there to stop it from happening.

Cheap shoting shouldn't happen, but a legitimate fight is no worse than a clean hit.

You know what? Given the choice between a clean hit and a Boogaard punch to the face, I would pretty much opt for the clean hit every time. But that's just me.

I'd rather watch two guys have a quick clean fight, than a bunch of guys dancing around getting nothing accomplished but increase the number of retalitory cheap shots & sticking.

That certainly explains why college hockey games are so much more bloody and violent than the NHL. Thanks for setting me straight.

[PCM]

PCM - your longer post, if even meant facetiously, suggests that fighting in the NHL has in recent years increased and become a bigger problem than before, which is far from the truth.

I have an idea. Why don't you try responding to what I actually said instead of some words you made up to put in my mouth? That way, we could have an actual discussion. I'm not about to argue a point I never made.

[PCM]

In the 25 years since the NCAA made full facemasks or shields mandatory, how many times has that happened? Not a single one that I'm aware of. I can see where that could happen in the NHL with those half-shields they wear, but it should be next to impossible to get a stick up under the full shield even if you tried to.

Oh, it happens. A few seasons back, Andy Schneider came out of a game with the Gophers in which he received a high stick right across the throat. And I remember Zach Parise needing stitches on his lower jaw from a high stick around the throat.

[sagard]

... There is an unwritten code in hockey about fighting, sometimes it gets broken....

From another great movie...

....the Code is more what you'd call guidelines, than actual rules...

[Slap Shot]

I have an idea. Why don't you try responding to what I actually said instead of some words you made up to put in my mouth? That way, we could have an actual discussion. I'm not about to argue a point I never made.

If that wasn't your point, then your most recent self-righteous diatribes were a waste of time because that's exactly what they insinuated - that fighting and enforcing in the NHL are out of control. Perhaps if you spent a bit less time thumbing your nose at anyone that has a differing opinion and more time simply trying to make a point, you wouldn't have so people supposedly misunderstaning your superior point of view. That onus falls upon you, not me.

[Dikaia880]

In other words, hockey needs enforcers to stop the stuff from happening that continues to happen, even though the enforcers are there to stop it from happening

Not really what I said at all, although a nice attempt to spin it that way. Neither the enforcers or rules will ever stop cheap shots, because its a physical sport and unless you take away the physical stuff there will ALWAYS be fighting and cheap shoting. Enforcers keep the cheap stuff to a minimum. If I'm paying a superstar millions of dollars a year, you bet I'm going to have a guy who will be able to keep him protected.

You know what? Given the choice between a clean hit and a Boogaard punch to the face, I would pretty much opt for the clean hit every time. But that's just me.

Then you wouldn't be stupid enough to get into a fight with him, so you're a hell of a lot less likely to do something that will get a guy like him to the point of wanting to start something.

I quit at pee wees because I wasn't being taught how to fight, which, as we all know, is part of the game.

There isn't fighting in pee wees, obviously not what I was saying, again nice spin though. The point I'm making is that a lot of you guys seem to have a lot of time riding in the stands and little on the bench. You think you know what is going on down on the ice, but you truly seem to be mistaken.

Oh, it happens. A few seasons back, Andy Schneider came out of a game with the Gophers in which he received a high stick right across the throat. And I remember Zach Parise needing stitches on his lower jaw from a high stick around the throat.

It happens all the time...

[PCM]

If that wasn't your point, then your most recent self-righteous diatribes were a waste of time because that's exactly what they insinuated - that fighting and enforcing in the NHL are out of control.

No, that's your interpretation of what I wrote. Your interpretation is wrong. Sorry.

[sprig]

If that wasn't your point, then your most recent self-righteous diatribes were a waste of time because that's exactly what they insinuated - that fighting and enforcing in the NHL are out of control. Perhaps if you spent a bit less time thumbing your nose at anyone that has a differing opinion and more time simply trying to make a point, you wouldn't have so people supposedly misunderstaning your superior point of view. That onus falls upon you, not me.

Your first mistake is assuming that someone here thinks what you think. Or maybe that anyone here thinks what you think.

What you may not realize is what you read is not what he wrote. I didn't read what you said PCM wrote. But I'm sure everyone else did

[redwing77]

I won't quote PCM's long post, but I agree completely.

Idealistically speaking, if the officials call the game like it is supposed to be called, cheap shots would get punished accordingly so goons wouldn't be necessary. So, fighting is allowed to compensate. Doesn't that sound just downright sad? Seriously, the NHL has the best quality of officiating this side of the ocean (stated because I have yet to see European hockey officials). Why do they need vigilante-ism on the ice?

OH, and don't give me the BS about how Boogaard tried to skate away and not fight Fedoruk. Let's face it, if Boogaard REALLY didn't want to fight him, he could have simply skated away to the bench and that would have been that. And, more than likely, Fedoruk would have been penalized for roughing or something akin to that.

Don't give me the other BS called "Unwritten code." That is like an unwritten policy. An unwritten policy is unenforceable because it is up to the interpretation of whomever is under the influence of said policy. Unwritten codes are the same way. Therefore, if it is unwritten, there is no code. Period.

I know I'd fail in the NHL as a head coach because I wouldn't waste a roster slot on an enforcer. Period.