NHL Fight

[PCM]

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.

What do you define as "physical stuff"? Hockey is, by nature, a physical game. As far as I know, nobody here is advocating an end to legal hitting. I certainly am not because that's an aspect of the game I enjoyed as a player and I enjoy it as a fan.

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I realize that there will always be some fighting in hockey simply because it is a physical sport played with sticks that can be used as weapons. So, yes, I understand that tempers will flare from time to time and players will be unable to resist the urge to punch someone. Fights will happen. I don't deny that.

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.

Where is the evidence that this actually works? Someone should be able to prove that superstars suffer fewer injuries because of the enforcers who protect them.

There isn't fighting in pee wees, obviously not what I was saying, again nice spin though.

My point was that if fighting is such an important part of the game, why not start teaching kids how to fight when they're at the pee wee level? Using your logic, the more quickly players settle issues by fighting, the better off the game is.

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.

What I know is that not a season goes by in college hockey in which some player doesn't lament the fact that he can't take care of things on the ice (i.e. fight someone to settle a score). I know players are brought up with that attitude because it's the attitude that permeates pro hockey. And I'm sure they'd feel a lot better if they were given an opportunity to punch the lights out of someone who did them or a teammate wrong.

The folly of this thinking is that is assumes the players who deserve "prairie justice" are going to get it and that at some point, the score will be evened. So let's look at a real-world example of how this supposedly works. Geoff Paukovitch breaks Robbie Bina's neck with an illegal check from behind. Mike Prpich pops Paukovich in the groin to get even for his hit on Bina. Paukovich comes back with a cheap shot on T.J. Oshie.

So where are we now in this little drama? Did Mike's illegal hit on Geoff's family jewels make up for the illegal hit on Bina? And if retaliation for cheap shots works so well, why didn't Paukovich get the message? Why did he come back by slamming T.J.'s head into the ice? And now that Paukovich cheap-shotted Oshie, do we owe Geoff two cheap shots or one? Who keeps score? Who decides when enough is enough?

You think you know what is going on down on the ice, but you truly seem to be mistaken.

I have been in the position of wanting to fight another player who cheap-shotted me. And if he wouldn't have skated away, I certainly would have fought him because I was that angry. If we would have fought, maybe I would have beat him up and I'd feel better. Or maybe he would have cleaned my clock. Either way, what would it have solved?

In retrospect, the real source of my anger in that game wasn't the player who purposely and flagrantly tripped me. It was the ref who stood there and let it happen without calling a penalty. It was during a game in which the officials were calling every ticky-tack little penalty they could on my team and nothing on the opposing team. I became extremely frustrated to the point where my anger boiled over. Had the officials called the game fairly, it never would have come to the point where I was angry enough to fight.

My postition has always been that responsiblity for the enforcement of the rules belongs with the leagues in charge of the games. If players believe that the hockey is dangerous to them because penalties aren't being called and the rules aren't being farily enforced, then there's something wrong with the game. Players, coaches, parents and fans should demand that leagues do everything they can to enforce the rules. If bad behavior continues to be a problem, then the rules need to be changed so that engaging in such behavior becomes too costly and the players who continue to engage in it are banned from the game.

[southpaw]

PCM- You forget to mention regarding the comment about riding the stands and not the bench is that it is quite remarkable how people feel that the only people who should comment on any particular subject is a person who has physically done that subject.

I mean, think about it. I haven't played hockey so I shouldn't be allowed to comment on hockey? Think about all those media members' jobs! Did TH or Pat Sweeney play hockey? I'm not sure they'd be qualified for their jobs under this rule!

In fact, I think Jim Dahl would be wise to shut down this message board because there aren't enough "qualified" and "credentialed" posters to keep hockey message boards, regardless of affiliation (official or otherwise), operational!

Please! Right or wrong, good or bad, we have JUST as much of a right to comment on the sport of hockey as a hockey player, a football player, or even Don Lucia or Dave Hakstol! Until such time as there is a law made requiring otherwise, there is NOTHING anyone can say or do that will prevent us from expressing our opinions. NOTHING.

he never said you couldn't comment about it. lord knows we'll get your commentary left and right. however, he says if you haven't been there in the game, you don't know what its like. throw your crap opinions out left and right, but unless you've actually been in a situation like that you're just talking out your ears.

[redwing77]

he never said you couldn't comment about it. lord knows we'll get your commentary left and right. however, he says if you haven't been there in the game, you don't know what its like. throw your crap opinions out left and right, but unless you've actually been in a situation like that you're just talking out your ears.

I see. Obviously I misread his intent. I'll delete the post.

My apologies Daiakia880

[BIGSIOUX]

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.

bingo

[PCM]

bingo

This post I wrote as part of this thread proves that Slap Shot's interpretation of what I've previously stated is flat wrong. If I wanted to say that fighting in the NHL is increasing, I would have said it. That is not and never has been my point. For Slap Shot to claim that he knows my own mind better than I do is patently ridiculous.

[luapsided]

This conversation is still continuing! Its a neverending conversation if you ask me. Heck, go to the crazy ladies blog from mankato and laugh at some of the comments being posted. Some are immature, and maybe im tired, but wow- funny stuff!

That'll be a blog to look forward to every year we are about to play them. Cant wait till Feb 9 / 10th!

[Dikaia880]

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.

If you watch the fight you'll see that boogaard didn't drop the gloves until Fedoruk had already come up on him gloves off & fists in his face. Who wouldn't fight back in that position?

The folly of this thinking is that is assumes the players who deserve "prairie justice" are going to get it and that at some point, the score will be evened. So let's look at a real-world example of how this supposedly works. Geoff Paukovitch breaks Robbie Bina's neck with an illegal check from behind. Mike Prpich pops Paukovich in the groin to get even for his hit on Bina. Paukovich comes back with a cheap shot on T.J. Oshie.

This is a college game, had fighting been legal Paukovitch would have found himself in a fight no question, in my mind that would have ended it. The problem is that instead of being able to fight him Prpich goes and throws a cheap shot, cheap shots bring more cheap shots, especially in college hockey where there are no true enforcers.

The amount of cheap shots is substantially lower in the NHL, partially due to maturity and partially due to fighting.

Fights don't bring more cheapshots in the NHL. College the maturity level might not be there and you'd end up with more stickplay and what not.

[Slap Shot]

For Slap Shot to claim that he knows my own mind better than I do is patently ridiculous.

I never claimed to know your mind, I replied based upon two other lenghty posts that went above and beyond your major point:

When I watch the NHL (which isn't often), I see too many players dropping the gloves for what I consider dumb reasons. It just ruins the game for me. And I believe it ruins the game for many other sports fans who might otherwise give hockey more serious consideration.

This is succinct and to the point, and if you had simply stuck to such a short and sweet comment, perhaps your ultimate intent wouldn't have become buried.

The folly of this thinking is that is assumes the players who deserve "prairie justice" are going to get it and that at some point, the score will be evened. So let's look at a real-world example of how this supposedly works. Geoff Paukovitch breaks Robbie Bina's neck with an illegal check from behind. Mike Prpich pops Paukovich in the groin to get even for his hit on Bina. Paukovich comes back with a cheap shot on T.J. Oshie.

I don't think anyone would agree this kind of exchange is desired, but this says nothing about fighting in hockey because it doesn't exist in the college game. While this behavior does demonstrate players acting badly, it's not a comment on fighting in college hockey. For all we know had fighting existed in its previous NCAA form, this tit-for-tat would have ended with a one-on-one fight between Paukovich and Prpich. You certainly don't see Palestinian/Israeli "you started it" scenarios playing out in the NHL, despite the presence of fighting.

[PCM]

This is a college game, had fighting been legal Paukovitch would have found himself in a fight no question, in my mind that would have ended it.

Except how do you know that whoever fought Paukovitch would have beat him? He's a pretty big guy. What if he beat up the Sioux player who challenged him? What if they fought to a draw? What if, in the eyes of the Denver players, the Sioux player KOed poor Geoff with a sucker punch? Then what? What does the "unwritten code" say should happen next?

Whether this situation happened at the college or pro level makes no difference. You're claiming that allowing a fight in retaliation for one player's cheap shot on another will lead to some sort of neat, rapid conclusion to the misbehavior that everyone agrees to. You're simply assuming that if a Sioux player fought Paukovitch, the Sioux player would win and Paukovitch, properly humbled, will end his cheap-shotting ways. There's absolutely no guarantee that the neat, tidy outcome you envision would actually happen.

The problem is that instead of being able to fight him Prpich goes and throws a cheap shot, cheap shots bring more cheap shots, especially in college hockey where there are no true enforcers.

But there are "true enforcers" in the pros. So tell me, how did a cheap-shot artist like Claude Lemieux survive for so long in the NHL where enforcers rule the rink?

The amount of cheap shots is substantially lower in the NHL, partially due to maturity and partially due to fighting.

Who do I believe? You or my lying eyes? Until you or somoene else can provide proof of this, I can only go by what I see happening on the ice.

[PCM]

This is succinct and to the point, and if you had simply stuck to such a short and sweet comment, perhaps your ultimate intent wouldn't have become buried.

What, exactly, is it about this statement I made in this post that's not short, sweet and succinct enough for you to understand?

"I don't think fighting is out of control in the NHL."

[Dikaia880]

Except how do you know that whoever fought Paukovitch would have beat him? He's a pretty big guy. What if he beat up the Sioux player who challenged him? What if they fought to a draw? What if, in the eyes of the Denver players, the Sioux player KOed poor Geoff with a sucker punch? Then what? What does the "unwritten code" say should happen next?

Most of the time, its over no matter who wins, if its a fair fight its over. If some guy comes up behing Paukovitch and bertuzzi's him, that's not a fair fight. But if geoff and a Sioux player square up and drop the gloves (as it almost always happens) the fight ends it. There isn't going to be a sucker punch in a fair fight.

Whether this situation happened at the college or pro level makes no difference. You're claiming that allowing a fight in retaliation for one player's cheap shot on another will lead to some sort of neat, rapid conclusion to the misbehavior that everyone agrees to. You're simply assuming that if a Sioux player fought Paukovitch, the Sioux player would win and Paukovitch, properly humbled, will end his cheap-shotting ways. There's absolutely no guarantee that the neat, tidy outcome you envision would actually happen

It is, actually, a conclusion to that event. Does Paukovich end his cheap shotting ways, eh probably not, cheap shot artists with get their shots in. Does is make him think twice on who he's hitting, does it make he throw less cheap shots, you bet. I've been in many fights, a winning fight or a losing fight will make you think twice about who and how you're hitting.

But there are "true enforcers" in the pros. So tell me, how did a cheap-shot artist like Claude Lemieux survive for so long in the NHL where enforcers rule the rink?

Because its an imperfect world.

Who do I believe? You or my lying eyes? Until you or somoene else can provide proof of this, I can only go by what I see happening on the ice.

That's not something you could measure. But if you watch both games on a regular basis, and aren't like a lot of our fellow Sioux fans you'd see what's really going on during the game. Not just the checks and the shots.

[Slap Shot]

What, exactly, is it about this statement I made in this post that's not short, sweet and succinct enough for you to understand?

Absolutenly nothing, but as I noted your longer-winded diatribes buried this prevailing thought in such a manner as to suggest there was something else behind your criticism of fighting in hockey. It's not a big deal and I've now noted your main point. Let's move forward.

[THETRIOUXPER]

What exactly is a "fair" fight ? Is that when the two combatant's come to some kind of agreement before they square off ? Let's see, I won't hit you in the face if you promise not to kick me in the junk. OK, let's get it on. Completely ridiculous.

[Dikaia880]

What exactly is a "fair" fight ? Is that when the two combatant's come to some kind of agreement before they square off ? Let's see, I won't hit you in the face if you promise not to kick me in the junk. OK, let's get it on. Completely ridiculous.

Have you ever played a game of hockey in your life, this post shows your complete ignorance to the game and how its played.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Have you ever played a game of hockey in your life, this post shows your complete ignorance to the game and how its played.

Posting an oxymoron like "fair fight" shows you have no clue about life. Who made you an expert on proper hockey etiquette, and please, show me where knowing anything about hockey is directly proportional to having played the game. What, are you like 8 yrs. old or something, judging by your posts, you seem to be the uneducated one here.

[PCM]

Most of the time, its over no matter who wins, if its a fair fight its over.

So if Paukovitch unloads a Boogaard-type punch on the biggest, baddest player the Sioux can put up against him, you're telling me that the Sioux team will be satisfied with the outcome? What reason will they have to believe that Geoff learned a valuable lesson that will result in him cleaning up his act? It seems to me that if that happened, the exact opposite lesson is more likely to be taught. And because nobody on the the Sioux team can control the outcome of a fight or what Paukovitch and his teammates are supposed to think when it's over, the entire situation could just as easily become worse, not better.

There isn't going to be a sucker punch in a fair fight.

Some sucker punches are obvious and sometimes what one person considers a sucker punch, someone else won't. As you said, it's an imperfect world, and because it is, you have no control over how one team might perceive another team's actions.

Does Paukovich end his cheap shotting ways, eh probably not, cheap shot artists with get their shots in. Does is make him think twice on who he's hitting, does it make he throw less cheap shots, you bet.

You just contradicted yourself. And in doing so, you proved my point: There's no guarantee that a fight will result in a change in a particular player's behavior.

There is one way to guarantee a change: Call all the cheap shots as they occur in a game and assess the maximum penalties. Levy fines and suspensions to the worst offenders. And if the officials miss cheap shots in the course of the game, use video replay to hand out suspensions and fines after the fact. Make the coaches feel the pain of losing key players for important games. It'll be only a matter of time until coaches figure out that they can't win by using a goon to take out the other team's best players.

If those measures aren't effective, suspend players without pay for several games. If they don't get the message after that, ban them from hockey for a season. If they come back the next season and cheap-shot someone else, throw them out of hockey for good.

If the NHL, the NCAA, the WCHA or any other league is truly interested in protecting players and ending the cheap shots that threaten seasons and careers, there's no doubt in my mind that they could do it through the rules systems and the strict enforcement of that system.

I've been in many fights, a winning fight or a losing fight will make you think twice about who and how you're hitting.

But apparently you haven't been enough fights to change your behavior on the ice. Because if you had, you wouldn't keep getting into fights. If you're thinking twice, why do players on the opposing team think they need to fight you to adjust your attitude?

That's not something you could measure.

I know. It's just your opinion.

But if you watch both games on a regular basis, and aren't like a lot of our fellow Sioux fans you'd see what's really going on during the game. Not just the checks and the shots.

Look, I realize that a lot of stuff happens in the course of a game that the officials don't see. It also happens in football, and, to a certain extent, it goes on in basketball, which is supposed to be a non-contact sport. So how is it that hockey is the only sport in which enforcers are needed? If the concept of player enforcement works so well in hockey, why don't we apply the same concept to other sports to clean them up?

[luapsided]

zzzzz. Is it Friday yet? Lets fight all of SCSU

[southpaw]

Posting an oxymoron like "fair fight" shows you have no clue about life. Who made you an expert on proper hockey etiquette, and please, show me where knowing anything about hockey is directly proportional to having played the game. What, are you like 8 yrs. old or something, judging by your posts, you seem to be the uneducated one here.

on the contrary, i think he's shown his point better than anyone else. even if you disagree with what he has to say, there's no doubt you know his viewpoint, that can't be said for others in this thread.

other than intramurals in college, i haven't played organized hockey since i was 10, but i know about the unwritten rules of fighting. a "fair fight" has to do with two guys squaring off. both guys dropping the gloves and agreeing to go at it. those "unwritten rules," also called sportsmanship, are why once one fighter drops to the ground, the fight is over.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Have you ever played a game of hockey in your life, this post shows your complete ignorance to the game and how its played.

PCM, didn't you see this. All of your hockey knowledge is immediately and completely null and void, as you have never played the game. Please cease and desist being a fan and posting any more of your hogwash.

[THETRIOUXPER]

on the contrary, i think he's shown his point better than anyone else. even if you disagree with what he has to say, there's no doubt you know his viewpoint, that can't be said for others in this thread.

other than intramurals in college, i haven't played organized hockey since i was 10, but i know about the unwritten rules of fighting. a "fair fight" has to do with two guys squaring off. both guys dropping the gloves and agreeing to go at it. those "unwritten rules," also called sportsmanship, are why once one fighter drops to the ground, the fight is over.

The whole point here, and what PCM is trying to say, the fight may be over (or battle, if you will), but the war goes on. I like a good fight as much as anyone but thinking that kicking punkobitches ass is going to magically erase all past wrong-doings and that both sides are going to kiss and make up is just assinine. Unwritten rules or not, one act of violence usually begets another.

[redwing77]

PCM, didn't you see this. All of your hockey knowledge is immediately and completely null and void, as you have never played the game. Please cease and desist being a fan and posting any more of your hogwash.

I said that earlier and apparently I was told that wasn't his intent. I'm not a fan of the comment you've quoted, but I guess it all comes down to interpretation.

And I still agree with PCM. Fighting isn't out of control in the NHL, but the whole concept that fighting eliminates all wrong doings made by the players on the ice is simply assinine to me. What are the refs doing while this is going on?

Triouxper is right. Fighting doesn't eliminate cheap shots. I'd argue that it doesn't lessen them that much either. But Daiakia's argument only works if the team whose fighter is fighting on behalf of the person who HAS been cheap shot wins the fair fight and even then, it's not a sure thing it will end.

[Dikaia880]

Thank you southpaw. He understands exactly what I'm saying.

Who made you an expert on proper hockey etiquette, and please, show me where knowing anything about hockey is directly proportional to having played the game.

Who made me an expert on proper hockey etiquette? I guess no one, other than my 20+ years of playing, ref'ing, coaching, and watching the game. I would think playing, ref'ing, and coaching the game would be directly proportional knowing anything about hockey. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to go ahead and assume you are like a lot of the Sioux fans out there. They are fans, not because of the game, but because it is the thing to do in Grand Forks. Half the crowd at Englestad has no clue whats going on, which can be judged by the amount of oh's and ah's that go on when a dumped puck gets mistaken for a shot.

Posting an oxymoron like "fair fight" shows you have no clue about life.

Actually "Fair Fight" isn't an oxymoron at all, "Jumbo shrimp" now that is an oxymoron.

You just contradicted yourself. And in doing so, you proved my point: There's no guarantee that a fight will result in a change in a particular player's behavior.

There aren't any guarantee's in hockey or life. If I cheap shot someone or put a good clean hit on a star forward (mind you not all fights start from cheap shots) I'm likely to get hit in return and very possibly get into a fight. Is it likely to influence the amount of hits and the force I use on the ice, yeah it is, unless I know the other team doesn't have a fighter or anyone bigger than me.

Hockey is fundamentally different than football, baseball, or basketball. You cannot compare the physicalities of those sports to hockey.

But Daiakia's argument only works if the team whose fighter is fighting on behalf of the person who HAS been cheap shot wins the fair fight and even then, it's not a sure thing it will end

I sorry, but that is not how it works. Win or lose, its over MOST of the time.

There will always be that next thing, the goal in fighting isn't to elimate all, but to intimidate the other team into not doing it as much.

[sprig]

Yet another wonderful suggestion, only those that have played the game are allowed into the arena, because everyone else is clueless

[sprig]

Half the crowd at Englestad has no clue whats going on, which can be judged by the amount of oh's and ah's that go on when a dumped puck gets mistaken for a shot.

Leopold's length of the REA ice dump (Kollar in net) wasn't mistaken for a shot, but it counted as a goal anyway.

[Dikaia880]

Yet another wonderful suggestion, only those that have played the game are allowed into the arena, because everyone else is clueless

Sorry if that came off as something I meant to say. Of course I don't think that, but the fans at Engelstad are by far the least educated fans I have ever come across.

The point I am making is that I don't expect people who barely understand the game, to understand the complexities that happen during the game on the ice. The things that are said, the things that happen, and the way things work.