Eliminating the "Fight After a Clean Hit" Epidemic: Easier Said Than Done
by David M. Getz on Feb 10, 2010 11:00 AM EST
82 comments
As the Capitals kept on rolling last weekend, extending their win streak to fourteen games with wins of the Thrashers and the Penguins, fans were treated not only to victories but to some entertaining hockey - and not just from the home town team. Atlanta, in it's first game of the post-Kovalchuk era, put forth a solid team effort and, as unappealing as it may be the admit, both of Sidney Crosby's goals on Sunday afternoon were examples of impressive hockey. That said, each game was also marred by the most decried trends in modern hockey. the desire to fight after a clean hit. On Friday it was Chris Thorburn going after John Erskine for a hit on Marty Reasoner; Sunday it was Brooks Orpik trying to instigate something with Brian Pothier after a hip check from the Capitals defenseman.
Discussion on fighting after clean hits has been a fairly popular topic this season. A monster early season hit from Willie Mitchell on Jonathan Toews got the discussion started, we've weighed in on it from time to time here at Japers' Rink, as has Pensburgh, TSN's Bob McKenzie recently had an opinion piece on the topic, and Greg Wyshynski at Puck Daddy has touched on the issue recently in his discussion of a Steve Ott/Cal Clutterbuck fight. Opinion on the matter is near unanimous: fighting after clean hits is ridiculous and embarrassing, and the hockey would would be better off without it. The reality, though, is that ending fights after clean hits is much easier said than done.
For an objective observer it's easy enough to condemn these types of fights as petty, absurd, and even insulting to the nature of the game. For someone with a vested interest, it's not so simple.
When someone who's a general hockey fan see Toews get lit up by Mitchell they think to themselves "Wow, what a monster hit. Hope that kid's okay". When a Blackhawks fan sees the hit, he thinks "Holy crap, that's our captain and best forward laying on the ice like he's been shot! Someone get that guy!" By the same token when I see Clutterbuck's hit on Richards, I think "Nice hit. Love that Clutterbuck kid", while a Stars fan's worried about whether a big hit to their leading scorer is going to hurt the team's playoff chances. As Capitals fans it's easy for us to condemn fights after hard, clean hits when they involved Western Conference teams, but it wouldn't be so easy if we were seeing Brooks Orpik, Dan Carcillo, or Aaron Voros lining up Nicklas Backstrom, Mike Green, and Alexander Semin.
Therein lies the issue. Collective opinions are simply the amalgamation of individual opinions, and if Capitals fans want vengeance for hard hits on Capitals players, Stars fans want vengeance for hard hits on Stars players, Red Wings fans want vengeance for hard hits on Red Wings players, and so on, the collective opinion isn't fights after clean hits should be removed from the game, it's that player should be protected (or at least avenged, as the case may be). Changing the opinion on these kinds of fights starts with getting fans, players, and coaches to denounce them even when it's their guy who's being hit - and that's something that I can't see happening any time soon.
2 recs |
82 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It’s easier to be against the fighting when you’re a caps fan because fighting doesn’t help us at all. Our main star Ovie can take hits fine, and we have no real heavyweight fighter.
That said if people were running at Green again, it’s harder to say no. But I try to stay with my principles, so no fighting, just let Ovie crush the guy with a check. Everyone wins!
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I think what Ovechkin did to Boychuk — a couple of hits after Boychuck hit him — is more appropriate, though the desire to go “after” someone is still detrimental, from a play perspective (if you’re too worried about retaliation, whether it’s a fight or a hit, you’re not necessarily in position to make a play).
I think one facet that can’t be ignored is the heightened adenaline of the players who see one of their teammates take a huge hit. But when did desire for retaliation turn from a hit in return to fighting? Has this been a growing issue that’s just now become epidemic, or are players more likely to fight (which is an obvious penalty) because they don’t want to get involved in questionable calls (kneeing, boarding, charging, etc.) that may come with a return hit? Remember that Mike Richards’ hit on David Booth was considered “clean” and didn’t get a penalty and that Ovechkin’s shoulder-to-shoulder hit on Patrick Kaleta was “boarding.”
Part of the problem is that AO is unique. There simply aren’t other studs that play as physical as he does so it’s not realistic to expect every other team to abide by that mentality.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Whether or not a personal stake in the matter should not (and doesn’t, in this issue) reflect on the thoughts that we share about the issue itself, which is outrageous in and of itself. Besides, we had a heavyweight fighter last year, how’d that work out?
It’s encouraging (to a degree) that the on-ice guys are calling this out more. Whether or not the Adams hit on AO was a call or not (should have been), Knuble’s PIMs afterwards are a symbol of good on-ice intention, but the League office should take this more seriously. That last part is utopian, I know.
Damn! Looks like my women is on time.
by Bald Pollack on Feb 10, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
I am not at all saying we should get a fighter. I like the fact that we don’t. But the fact that we are built to not fight makes not fighting much easier. Personal stakes shouldn’t reflect into the thoughts we share, but often do.
While the fighting needs to be toned down, I never expect fights after clean hard hits to completely go away, because players do not see replays like we do. They simply see the end result. So to stick up for their teammate, they fight. I doubt Knuble was starting at Ovie like a referee would/should have been, and certainly not like the camera men do, so he fought because he say an injury, probably not because he saw the play and thought it was a terribly dirty hit.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
From what I’ve seen the past 2 years having a fighter or not has very little to do with this issue. I’m not sure when the switch flipped, but in the not so distant past it seemed like fights after clean hits were extremely rare and mostly stemmed from the guys jumping in not having a clear view of the hit and assuming it was dirty. Now it seems like have the big clean hits in the league result in either outright fights or at least a lot of pushing and shoving.
The league has made a mistake in once again being behind the curve as it relates to on-ice discipline matters. They should have come out strongly and warned teams after that Clutterbuck debacle that if that happens again players/coaches will be fined. However, BP is right, such thoughts are utopian.
"You ever use smelling salts, every time you type a bad blog?" Brooks Laich
I understand what you’re saying and agree with you to some degree on it. Players are going to see what they see and respond appropriately. I think that retaliatory stuff can be mitigated a little by the League, but players are going to continue to jump in for their linemates until they feel that officiating supports the linemate getting creamed. Which of course leads us back to “why doesn’t Colie do something about this?”
Damn! Looks like my women is on time.
by Bald Pollack on Feb 10, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
I just don’t understand how instigators arent’ called on clean hits, but are on dirty hits. Knuble gets one but Ott didn’t (I don’t think)? Ridiculous.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
There’s a simple explanation. It relates to the relative quality of refereeing in the National Hockey League.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Feb 10, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
And direction from the heads up above.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
Team unity > enforcer
Everyone wants to kill the king. But the prince, he just sails along telling all the ladies, "One day I'm gonna be king."
by Steck It Out on Feb 10, 2010 12:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
Great post. I think one additional thing that should be added is that, from an ice level perspective, the players don’t have the benefit of multiple replays to determine whether a hit was clean or dirty. They may not have seen the hit in the first place, they almost certainly didn’t watch the player before the hit, and instead just have to look at the aftermath. We have the benefit of hindsight in calling it a fight after a clean hit. The players don’t, necessarily.
Oh yeah, and in the heat of the moment, how do you distinguish a clean hip-check by Brian Pothier or Keith Ballard from a dirty one by Rob Scuderi?
GUTEN TAAAAAAAAAAAAG!
by Wheeler on Feb 10, 2010 11:27 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Great point – I agree.
After the Pitt game, Knuble said he didn’t see exactly how Ovie was hit by Adams, he just saw him on the ground by the boards and heard the crowd reaction so he stood up for him. So that fight could also be added to the discussion.
I agree with the dislike of fighting after good hits – especially because our Captain hits so hard so often, this certainly will happen to him soon.
In this case, the instigator penalty is the only deterrent from these type of fights, and I like seeing it applied here.
Where I sit, the hit on Ovie was the one spot along the boards that is ever so slightly obstructed in my view, so I didn’t see the boarding until afterwards. I remember freaking out because Knuble was taking himself out of the game over a hit that wasn’t called for a penalty.
"The Caps fan doesn't say, 'is the glass half full' or 'is the glass half empty'. He wonders when the glass is going to spill."
Very good point. I’d give players greater leeway to fight because of this. If the hit is even questionably dirty at real speed then let the players fight. That’s the point of self-policing. But when you have Ty Sloan destroy Rene Smith at the blueline and everyone in the stadium sees that it’s a clean hit then the refs should drop the hammer.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Changing the opinion on these kinds of fights starts with getting fans, players, and coaches to denounce them even when it’s their guy who’s being hit – and that’s something that I can’t see happening any time soon.
The trouble is, fans can’t even agree on the definition of a clean hit. It is made apparent by the surge in comments and heated debate here and elsewhere after a couple infamous hits this season. Take Ovi’s hit on Gleason for example. Some call a hit dirty and thus worthy of retaliation, some call it a clean hit and the fight that follows is therefore frivolous, still others assign blame to the player who was hit instead of the hitter himself. It’s even more difficult to judge in the heat of the moment during a fast-paced game. The first step is to eliminate fighting over obviously clean checks and hopefully the borderline cases will follow.
"Dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported."
by Laich It Or Lump It on Feb 10, 2010 11:29 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure that many “obviously clean checks” start fights. Perhaps to those watching on TV it’s very clear after a few replays that some hits are clean, but that’s not the reality at ice level.
Of course even trying to define the “obviously clean check” is nearly impossible in today’s NHL. By the ruling on the ice (and by the league’s ruling thereafter) the Richards hit on Booth and the Carter hit on Salmela both qualified as legal, while the Ovie hit on Kaleta was not. Does legal equal clean, and if not, how is that defined in the rules?
In the end, it comes down to the question of self-policing. Does it work? If we accept that self-policing is an integral part of the game, then we have to accept that perspectives will differ in many ways, including in determining what is and what is not a clean a hit. Or we can determine that self-policing creates more problems than it solves and try to remove it from the game. Up to this point, the league has found a middle ground – policing the self-policing.
Does legal equal clean, and if not, how is that defined in the rules?
Very important point. Even if the hit is legal, if a player feels it was dirty they’ll want to fight. The Richards hit may have been “legal” but it wasn’t “clean” and FLA fans (specifically W4E) were real pissed that the team didn’t step up and fight or respond.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Further to the point, the league can’t seem to send a consistent message either. And from my perspective, for example, I saw Carter lay out Salmela as the latter was scoring, and couldn’t tell whether the head offices would determine it to be a clean hit or not.
by Stephen Pepper on Feb 10, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
I really liked your wording and how you formed your observation on this. I suppose the instigator penalty and the threat of a misconduct should be threat enough. In some cases when a teammate sees one of their boys get laid out, and their emotions on overdrive, that’s not going to be good enough.
I look to the future because that's where I'm going to spend the rest of my life.
The problem there, as we saw against the Penguins is that it was the fight after the dirty hit that got the instigator and not the scrum after the clean hit. Against Atlanta there was no instigator either, instead it was a roughing minor. The instigator is not really acting as a deterrent because it is not called in the correct situations.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → b a (select) start
also orpik was the only one that wasn’t penalized for going after pothier. additionally that happened after staal scored i’m pretty disgusted that orpik wasnt ejected from the game for his unsportsmanlike conduct after his team scored a goal
Instigator Rule
isnt this one of the reason the instigator rule was implemented? if you are going to make someone “pay” for a clean hit on one of your guys, you will need to ride the pine for a while.
i think one correct application of the instigator rule would be to not apply it if a fight results from a penalized action, such as going after koci for hitting green. going after someone who had the audacity to cleanly hit one of your guys should get penalized.
however, its not going to change until guys on the ice decide that the best way to make someone answer for a clean hit is to cleanly hit one of the other teams guys.
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
Hit'em where it hurts
Very provocative post DMG. One solution could be raising the stakes for the offending player by making the deuce for unsportsmanlike conduct into a 5 minute major PP (and a game misconduct for the offender) for the aggreived team.
While this may seem like a lot (10+5+5+game) of lost ice time—and I would have howled at the moon had 22 gotten such an infraction on Sunday—the bottom line is wins and until a team pays for such aggression, it’s going to be tolerated by coaches and players alike.
Driving under the influence of hockey since godknow's when.
sorry, that would be 5 for fighting, a 5 for instigating / unsportsmanlike, and a game misconduct. The 10 is irrelevant in the previous post.
Driving under the influence of hockey since godknow's when.
by bigonetimer on Feb 10, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure how or when this fighting after clean hits started, but it certainly makes the league look more like wrestling than a legit sport. To make a parallel, the NFL has plenty of questionable hits, particularly on quarterbacks, yet how many times do you see guys getting into fights over it? Teams take the 15 yards and move on. If refs started handing out not just two minute instigators but also game misconducts, it would end this foolishness in a hurry.
I’m all for game misconducts, but I also want the coaches getting fined. The coaches have the ability to clean this business up. I can’t remember the last time I saw a bench clearing brawl in the NHL. They stopped when coaches/teams started getting fined. Same goes for sending thugs out at the end of games.
"You ever use smelling salts, every time you type a bad blog?" Brooks Laich
I don’t like the comparison to football or other sports because in hockey you are basically “allowed” to fight. Sure it’s penalized but it’s an accepted and normal part of the game. In the NFL it’s 15 Yards and an Automatic Disqualification from the game, no matter what. There is also going to be a lot of fines for the player who fought as well.
Now we are talking about when it’s OK to pick and choose to fight in the NHL.
Fighting isn’t a rational thought process to begin with (unless we are talking about the staged fights that we don’t want to see anymore) so when players know they are more or less allowed to fight at anytime, cooler heads aren’t always going to prevail.
Maybe there needs to be specific disciplines put into the rulebook for this type of fight because obviously the instigator isn’t always being handed out and it certainly hasn’t looked like a deterrent.
I look to the future because that's where I'm going to spend the rest of my life.
There's been a paradigm shift...
…with hitting and this retaliation-after-clean-checks is a new phenomenon. With the advent of the “Hits” stat plus a new generation of bigger/faster hockey players that grew up with much better hockey equipment there’s now a lot more hitting in the regular season.
Go watch a regular season game from the 80s or pre-‘94 lockout and you rarely saw fierce checking (save for Scott Stevens). Those guys played a much less physical game back then and saved it for the playoffs. Also, back then, you didn’t have to worry about your star getting brutally checked because you knew the game would degenerate into a line brawl. It was almost an unwirtten code – go after a skill player and either you’d have to answer the bell or someone on your team would. Not so much nowadays. That code is being muddied now, and, hence, the NHL now has to deal with this problem for the first time.
Grimm's in. Jacoby's next?
by topshelf_22304 on Feb 10, 2010 12:15 PM EST reply actions
It would help if the officials would correctly call the instigator penalty. For example, Thornton when he went after Erskine did not get an instigator penalty but only got an extra 2 for roughing. However, Knuble was given an instigator penalty when he went after Adams. An instigator penalty was warranted in both instances. That is the only way you are going to solve hits in retailiation for clean hits is if they vigorously enforce the instigator penalty.
Proud to be a Caps fan. Its a Great Day for Hockey.
I see this issue as the intersection of old time hockey culture with the new NHL.
Post lockout, the elimination (kinda) of hooking and holding, combined with the two line pass, has opened up the throttle on speed through the neutral zone and entering the offensive zone. In other words, the number of potential targets for a big hit has proliferated, and so, correspondingly, have the number of big collisions.
Then you have the NHL’s traditional culture of “protecting” star players. Goons, enforcers, policemen, whatever you want to call them, they had a place on an NHL roster for one reason: fighting. Fighting for various reasons, but often fighting to send a message: don’t mess with our star players. If you take liberties with our stars, our tough guy will make you pay for it. And often, when the game was a 200-foot mosh pit and grab fest, the star players didn’t get hit. Why hit when you can just put a stick in the midsection and water ski for 40 feet, while your linemates converge to recapture possession of the puck?
Now, you can’t pull the water skiing trick, and that star player is most often coming blazing through the neutral zone. A good option to stop him is to blow him up with a big hit. Enter the residual impulse to send a message, and you’ve got a fight.
I agree that it’s bogus. I think the only way to stop it is the way they stopped line brawls: penalize it like you penalize the third man in. I also think they need to balance the equation a little bit by penalizing hits to the head, even if unintentional.
"You want to start being part of the Rink? Fine, but more’s expected of you than John/Jane Cap Fan. Carry the cause of informed discussion to the unwashed masses and don’t crap in the yards of other SBN sites if you decide to go over there. They’re passionate about their teams too, no need to troll elsewhere and/or be a sore winner." --BP
by fat_daddyo on Feb 10, 2010 12:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Hockey players fight...
…for way stupider reasons than clean hits. Some guys fight because they are bored. Some fight because their girlfriend dumped them. Some fight because the guy on the other team skated within 5 feet of their goalie.
I’ve never understood why people get upset when someone throws down after a clean hit… it’s certainly not the worst reason to start a bit of fisticuffs. With the instigator your team is paying a price for a one-sided fight initiation. What more do you want?
Everyone loves hockey fights! Right?
by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Feb 10, 2010 12:23 PM EST reply actions
Wrong. I would be more than pleased if the league got rid of fights entirely.
"You want to start being part of the Rink? Fine, but more’s expected of you than John/Jane Cap Fan. Carry the cause of informed discussion to the unwashed masses and don’t crap in the yards of other SBN sites if you decide to go over there. They’re passionate about their teams too, no need to troll elsewhere and/or be a sore winner." --BP
Well that is certainly one opinion, but considering the financial state of the game, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. People like to watch other people fight…. well, people not named fat_daddyo.
by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Feb 10, 2010 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
Plenty of us besides fat_daddyo. If I want hand to hand combat I prefer boxing or MMA.
"You ever use smelling salts, every time you type a bad blog?" Brooks Laich
Really? I don’t like to see fight upon fight, but when I look at things like the Max Talbot fight from last year’s postseason, at the right time and place they can make a difference, and if nothing else, fights are part of hockey. I’d sure like to see fewer, especially from “fighting” teams like Philadelphia and Anaheim, but I’m not sure if banning them is the right way to go.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Feb 10, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Fights are a part of hockey until they aren’t.
In that same vein, women were the chattel of their husband until they weren’t. “Literacy tests” were a prerequisite to vote until they weren’t.
Just because it’s always been that way doesn’t mean always has to be that way going forward.
No doubt fights swing momentum or otherwise “make a difference” in a particular game or series. The question is, ought they?
"You want to start being part of the Rink? Fine, but more’s expected of you than John/Jane Cap Fan. Carry the cause of informed discussion to the unwashed masses and don’t crap in the yards of other SBN sites if you decide to go over there. They’re passionate about their teams too, no need to troll elsewhere and/or be a sore winner." --BP
The question is, ought they?
I suppose this is the traditionalist in me, but yes, I think so. That does bring safety and other things into it too, and by no means should teams have “goons” so to speak unless they can contribute offensively or defensively too, but the well-timed fight here and there can be pretty safe I’d guess and game-changing as well.
One big draw of ice hockey I feel is its physicality, and fighting and hitting are at the center of that. If the league cuts those down, then we’ve essentially got field hockey on ice. If just fighting is cut, the alternative I feel would be cheap-shots and illegal hits, since a great hard hit is getting tougher and tougher to deliver. That sort of illegal play IMO is more dangerous than two guys throwing off-balance punches at each other.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Feb 10, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Bizarre affirmative action?
If… fighting is cut, the alternative I feel would be cheap-shots and illegal hits, since a great hard hit is getting tougher and tougher to deliver.
Hm. Let me see if I can think of players who aren’t fighters or cheap-shot artists, but have the [keywords] speed, skill, and discipline to lay out the “great hard hit”.
Why, yes! Yes I can.
Let me see if I want to cater to (and spend money to see) those guys, or for the ajoles who’d be forced into “cheap shots and illegal hits” if fighting got them tossed from the game…
Hm. Let me see if I can think of players who aren’t fighters or cheap-shot artists, but have the [keywords] speed, skill, and discipline to lay out the "great hard hit".
Why, yes! Yes I can.
I don’t think any of those guys could give you a big hit on cue, really, one that’s not illegal. But maybe I’m wrong.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Feb 10, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think any of those guys could give you a big hit on cue, really, one that’s not illegal
Well, if it takes an open-ice concussion to rev your motor that’s one thing. But Brads has been known to settle accounts or wake up his teammates, quite without his fists. Chimera and Pothier (!) can read your “cue” cards, too. Those routine examples come from one bench. Nicklas Backstrom is 38th in the league in hits, ranked much lower in fights though.
When a hockey team needs a lift, they might get it from 50 things fans can see—Knuble’s solo PK; Varlamov’s edge-of-the-goal-line stand; etc. In a galaxy of such lifters, the fight has the least amount of Hockey in it. Therefore utterly expendable to this hockey fan.
It’s not the fighters that would turn to using more cheap shots if fighting was taken out of the game, it’s the pest like Ott, Avery, Tootoo, etc. who would be given more free reign to dish out cheap shots.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Feb 10, 2010 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
who would be given more free reign to dish out cheap shots
Why is that a given? Why would those guys not be “free to rack up fat PIM, since cheating is an unworthy leveller of the talent field”?
I’m kind of confused about what you are trying to say, but if you think PIM or even supplemental discipline is enough to deter cheap shots then you haven’t been paying attention to the inconsistency of reffing and supplemental discipline.
Plus, players aren’t always thinking “hmm, I better not go after this guy because I might get a penalty”. It’s an emotional sport and fights are a better outlet for that emotion and aggression than are stickwork or other cheap shots.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Feb 10, 2010 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve heard this argument – that if you remove fighting the cheap shots and stickwork will increase drastically – and I don’t buy it. You’d need to have the refs really enforce the rules, but it could easily be done.
As for the hitting in hockey, I love it. It’s part of what makes hockey great. But watching two guys totter around and throw wild haymakers is zero on the entertainment scale, as far as I am concerned.
"You want to start being part of the Rink? Fine, but more’s expected of you than John/Jane Cap Fan. Carry the cause of informed discussion to the unwashed masses and don’t crap in the yards of other SBN sites if you decide to go over there. They’re passionate about their teams too, no need to troll elsewhere and/or be a sore winner." --BP
I do think that over several years’ time (maybe around 10) the rule changes would start to become “the norm,” but as to before that, I could see the state of hockey as chaos if fighting is banned. And I don’t think the refs needs even more subjective calls to make.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Feb 10, 2010 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Having the refs “just enforce the rules” isn’t really a solution. For one, look how well they do it now. For two, do you want to see any 5 on 5 play? Personally, I do. Calling every hook and hold, and not allowing fighting and making the refs the only police out there will ruin the ES game. I don’t want to just see a series of PPs. And you say you’ve heard the argument, but don’t buy it. Just curious, how much European league hockey have you watched (or how many first hand accounts have you read)? I haven’t watched a ton, but I have seen a decent number of Czech league games, a few SEL games, and I played for three different coaches that played in European pro leagues (Italian, German, Dutch, Russian) and they relayed basically the same premise to me. Maybe they just bought in to the common narrative, but I doubt it (especially from the Russian).
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
You go look at the European leagues that don’t allow fighting and they have some of the dirtiest stick work you can find. I firmly believe fighting is necessary and players need to be allowed to police themselves to some degree, it’s just a matter of finding that line. I don’t agree with your analogies, but this isn’t the time or the place, and the point is taken.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
fights are part of hockey.
Like saying “wrecks are part of driving”. They happen, but much less often among the most skilled practitioners.
If Talbot getting his butt kicked ‘made a difference’, it’s a difference that a great clean hit or one of those object-of-the-game thingies, y’know, a GOAL, might have made just as well.
by redlineblue on Feb 10, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Plenty is a relative word I suppose…
by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Feb 10, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
Start a poll, see where people come down.
"You want to start being part of the Rink? Fine, but more’s expected of you than John/Jane Cap Fan. Carry the cause of informed discussion to the unwashed masses and don’t crap in the yards of other SBN sites if you decide to go over there. They’re passionate about their teams too, no need to troll elsewhere and/or be a sore winner." --BP
At this point, I think fights detract more than they add. Take David Koci out of the game, and I might feel differently. But staged fights between heavyweights do nothing for me. Mike Knuble standing up for his linemate, now that was exciting.
I could do without 80% of the fights that happen. I wouldn’t mind too much if 100% of them were eliminated. But I really don’t like the crap fights.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Feb 10, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
And that’s a big point. The staged fights are lame, but they are the only ones that don’t get an instigator. That’s dumb. Use the instigator to take out the fights we don’t want, and don’t apply it when we have fights we do want, which, as I understand, are the self-policing variety.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
League makes money off fights?
Doubtful. One reason they lost real TV money was that interrupting Hockey for Wrestling eats up air time. Also crosby’s a profit center and Ott’s Not: fighting’s a great way for less valuable inventory to diminish the effective worth of top-shelf goods.
People like to watch other people fight
Let ’em eat MMA, while I take in some Hockey.
How do we put in a rule to eliminate fights after clean hits when the line between a clean hit and a dirty one can be almost impossible to determine at game speed, never mind when watched in slo-mo? The referees in this league struggle terribly with doing this during games, and that’s their job. In a league that encourages self-policing in the form of fighting, how can we expect the players to do a better job then the refs? It’s absurd.
Mike Green will tell you the hit he got suspended for was a a clean hit. Orpik will tell you that Pother submarined him. Perception is reality.
I think the Caps have this thing figured out pretty well, actually. Even without a bruiser like Brash, our team toughness is above acceptable in my book especially when you combine the edge of guys like Chimera, Bradley and (gulp) Erskine with the PP talent of Ovie, Semin, Noobs. We can stand up for ourselves AND make you pay on the scoreboard (when the refs get it right). We are one of the few teams that actually practices what I preach when it comes to philosophies on what the game is about. We don’t get into retaliatory fights (ok, rarely) and teams still respect us.
I remember watching Scot Stevens (don’t we all?) and, man, what awesomeness?! He’d lay down the wood and there would be little retaliation from opposing teams. Sure, there would be a lot of face washing and “Yo’ mama!”s afterwards, but rarely a fight would result. And he hit guys into the next dimension, too. It’s only been recently that this phenomenon has grown into an expectation. These days, it’s not “if” there will be a resulting fight but “when” (usually immediate).
I know it happens regularly in the A leagues. Shoot, P. Roy expects it of his kids (literally). And that’s where it starts and foments. There is a lack of respect for other players being taught at the lower levels. These kids are corn fed on individual performance results in order to make it to the next levels. It’s natural that these same kids bring it into the NHL where they have to learn to respect the “code”, which must be a foriegn language to them at that point.
Problem: I see the coaches at the junior levels that have recently been looking for a type of edge outside of X’s and O’s that will allow their teams to win with intimidation when there is an absence of talent. The biggest problem I see with that is that the real talented kids grow up in a system that breeds the expectation that they can’t be hit (cleanly or otherwise) and we end up with 20 something year old whiners that we’re supposed to admire for their skill.
And, I think it’s cyclical. This style of coaching will fall out of favor eventually to be replaced by another and maybe the by-product of that will be a growth in a respect for the game. That might be more Utopian than waiting on the league to do something about it. We’ll see.
Some argue that fighters in the NHL are the “teachers” of the “code” and since the pugilist’s decline, the respect for others has lessened along with the likelihood of “getting learned”. (Sorry for all the quotation marks. I’m really not “that guy”…dammit!). I do not advocate for the return of Twist, Domi, Probert, etc…, but I’m saying that they may have had a role in the grand scheme of the game that needs to be acknowledged.
Sorry so long and thanks for the prosetic (yeah, I think I made up that word) license.
Excellent topic.
Does anyone else see this (disrespect for clean play) as a product of today’s juniors coaching? Look at Cormier, Roy, SDR, among others. Although SDR has matured a bit more than the others.
"More Gary Thorne, please."
by ZamMan on Feb 10, 2010 12:42 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Does anyone else see this (disrespect for clean play) as a product of today’s juniors coaching? Look at Cormier, Roy, SDR, among others. Although SDR has matured a bit more than the others.
It’s hard to say. Because of the internet, I have far more insight into the juniors and minors than I ever did before. I can’t say whether it’s different than it was because I’m only now seeing it on a regular basis. And I think most of us are in the same boat.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Feb 10, 2010 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not directly related to this point, but I know that when I was growing up it was well known that if you went to try out for a Juniors team in Canada you would not make the team if you declined a fight in try outs. You’d better just take an ass kicking if you wanted to make the team.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Feb 10, 2010 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
It all comes back to the instigator penalty and getting the Refs to use it more. I get that guys want to stick up for their teammate but they should do it by running the guy cleanly not instantly dropping the mits.
Only way you can discourage it is by even harder penalties for instigator and even attaching Game Misconducts to it. Clean hits like against Toews above or Clutterbuck are fine, fights after them should result in Game Ejections. Fighting after a dirty hit, from behind, head first, knee on knee, elbows those should abstain from the Instigator. It comes down to protecting the players but like everyone else has said it really does come down to perception of the ref.
People are stupid, a person is smart. This leads me to believe there must be at least one smart hockey fan in Philly.
I like this.
If a hard, clean check to Ovechkin means you’re gonna get bashed three times in 10 seconds, that’s good.
If cheap-shotting Ovechkin means twenty guys are going to be in your face (and your top star’s face) all night, that’s even better.
If responding to a clean play with a fight means your team is going SH and/or you’re done for the night, well: Hockey fans will fill the seats vacated by Wrestlemania followers.
by redlineblue on Feb 10, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Haven’t had time to read through all of the comments but wanted to throw my two sense out there. I got into a heated argument with my roommate a while back (a flyers fan) because after a clean hit he was glad that one of his players fought the guy (can’t remember the game though). I argued that there was no need to fight there because the hit was clean and that goes against the underlying rules of fighting in the NHL. He disagreed and said that he feels after any big hit there should be a fight so that guys think twice about hitting other people hard. This blew my mind that any hockey fan could have this opinion and I wonder if any team actually takes this idea to heart (if anyone does I guess it would be the flyers).
"Ovechkin is as subtle as a shot of vodka."
I think it could be argued that players are adopting your roommates opinion too, not just fans.
Consider the hit on Booth. Legal, but causes a team’s top player to miss months of the season.
Perhaps players feel the rules don’t do enough to protect the players right now, so this fight after the hit is a way to add additional deterrent to the big hit. To me, the fights seem to infer players are not as ok with these hits anymore, or if they are, they feel retribution is acceptable.
by Stormblue on Feb 10, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Many hockey fans, and fans of other violent sports, work out their feelings of aggression, inferiority, powerlessness, etc. vicariously through the exploits of their favorite team (yeah, maybe I do too, but just a little!).
To suggest that fans should just accept when one of their team’s players gets hit, cleanly or not, and not only sit back and say "well, it was a clean hit, he was in the wrong place, wrong time, didn’t get his head up, wasn’t aware enough" but denounce any attempt to push back is, I think, asking too much.
It’s frequently not rational to be a sports fan. Why should it be up to the fan?
So are folks here really able to say with a straight face that they can take watching Green, for example, get smacked again, clean though it may be, and not wish that retribution was exacted? (Ideally, the retribution would be a vicious, but clean, hit in the other direction, but there’s not always an opportunity for that.)
My point (long-winded, I know) is: do most fans really not want to see this type of behavior? Even clean hits are faster and more violent than ever in the modern game.
by Stephen Pepper on Feb 10, 2010 1:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Legality should not be responded to with illegality, which is exactly what fighting is. Illegal. Against the rules. Fighting is not “allowed” in hockey. To be sure, they could make the punishment far more than what it currently is, but fighting is not “condoned” any more than, say, larceny or driving while intoxicated are in society generally.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Even though there’s a penalty against fighting, said penalty is a joke in most cases. Both guys get 5 minutes and neither team is short handed. It’s more like a break between rounds in a bout. The reason I look at it this way is that while you say it’s “illegal” there is still a “code” where fighting is somehow “honorable” to some players and a lot of fans. The fact that refs let them hug each other and try to get punches off until one person falls down is an indication that it’s not illegal, merely frowned upon.
If this were any other sport a punch would get the player penalized, multiple punches would get both players ejected.
I could go a season w/o seeing a fight and I’d never miss it. Next time Greenie gets run, I’d like for the miscreant and the opponent’s top D to spend the rest of the game getting drilled at every opportunity.
I have never heard a single complaint about football’s insufficient aggression vents, though fighting is completely banned. Shall we take it for granted hockey players (and fans?) simply lack the mental discipline to get their kicks within the game? It’s not exactly ‘tiddly-winks, until the gloves get dropped’…
Personally — as long as fighting is in the game — one of those “staged” fights between two designated tough guys bothers me 10,000 times more than a fight precipitated by a clean hit.
by Stephen Pepper on Feb 10, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
That's vaudeville.
Those dancing bear bouts bore me to death. Should be another 2 for delay of the damn game.
There’s a certain balance here that might not be a bad one. Let’s say you’re John Erskine and you see Mike Green get blown up with an illegal hit. You can either (a) trust in the refs and take the power play, or (b) take the law into your own hands and beat the snot out of the guy, taking a penalty yourself in the process.
If things end up at 4-on-4 when Erskine takes option (b), I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. It’s vigilante justice, and I’m not sure it makes sense for a team to be able to get the benefit of both legal (power play) and vigilante (beatdown) justice. Maybe it’s right that Erskine has to choose, in that split-second, between the two.
In effect, you’re “declining” the penalty and taking the corporal punishment option instead. And if Erskine picks the wrong time (because the hit on Green was legal) or if he loses the fight, well, shame on him.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
Here’s how you do it… Instigator washes out any fighting major for the other guy. If a guy wants to stick up for someone he feels has not been treated nicely on the ice, he’s got to be willing to sit for 7 min, or do it the proper way and get your revenge during legal play on the ice.
Harsh, yes. But if you want to get rid of it, this is how you have to do it. Maybe instigator is a 0 min penalty, but the 5 min stands. Who knows.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
