I have heard some people say that the National Hockey League should ban fighting. They say this will create more offense and the new viewers who are eager to see high-scoring games will easily replace the number lost with the banishment of fighting.
Perhaps, but then again, what about the star players? If there weren’t any enforcers in the League,the stars would get beat up on by defenders every game without repercussions. Remember how the Pens went out and got some enforcers to protect Sid the Kid? He was being given too much attention by the opposing team’s checkers for Pittsburgh’s liking.
If fights get eliminated then, as long as the hits are clean, every franchise guy who isn’t built to withstand a beating will be at the mercy of the defense. This is because the hitters wouldn’t have anything to worry about. No suspensions from the League as long as the checks are legal, and no fights to make them think twice about it. And then the whole offensive aspect of the game is in jeopardy due to hard-hitting players going after the, as one person put it, “true hockey players”.
When did the League switch to a scorers-only format? I must have missed it if they did…
And as for the concept of the sport needing more offense, there have been a pretty good amount of games throughout the season with a lot of goals scored. But isn’t it also fun to watch a defensive struggle end with a final score of 1-0 or 2-1?
If people want to watch goal scoring, they can tune into Eastern Conference action. Or if the viewer wants a more defensive aspect, watch the West. And those of us who just want to watch hockey for the sake of watching hockey, they can watch whatever teams happen to be available to see.
Also mentioned in the anti-fight theme was the suggestion of doling out 5-10 game suspensions for dirty hits. If a player gets four such suspensions, he is banned for half a season.
Even with the current, screwy NHL punishment system, most players who take cheap shots are getting suspended for a decent amount of time. Note the “most” part.
If the League wanted to crack down on dirty players in either system (Fighting/non-fighting), it should make guidelines for the punishments handed down.
If that were the case, Chris Pronger would be serving a much longer sentence than 8 games. He isn’t even going to miss any playoff action. With the guidelines, it would then be on par with the 30-game ban Chris Simon got. And there isn’t really an argument against this statement. The two are repeat offenders with multiple cheap shots in their careers, who both stomped on another player with a skate blade! Has anyone here seen the Zednik and Malarchuk clips lately? If so, you know that hockey players’ ice skates aren’t all that dull.
And as for neck guards, from what I have heard and read, they don’t really protect the neck as well as many people say and they can cause the player to overheat. So I’m not so sure that forcing players to wear them would be a very wise move by the executives.
But back to the hypothetical situation now. If a player has gotten in trouble with the disciplinarian(s) four times, he should be at risk of losing his job (Depending on what the action he was reprimanded for was), not just skipping half a season.
Perhaps if the NHL really wanted to get rid of the bad apples, it should just kick them out. Todd Bertuzzi, Simon, and Pronger are all still in the League, but a case could be made that all three should also be in jail. Bertuzzi on some kind of assault charge and the other two on because of an attack with a deadly weapon. These guys are still making millions after these occurrences. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that?!
Sure the current NHL system could use some changes, nothing is perfect.. But eliminating fighting should definitely not be one of those modifications!
