Other NHL games 2013-2014 season

[Idoit40fans]

If they would have left their helmets on, Parros wouldn't have been hurt. Ban fighting.

[pittsoccer33]

http://deadspin.com/fighting-in-hockey- ... 1440089360" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fighting gets the crowd excited! Except when 21,000 fans are gaping in stunned silence because a stretcher is out and a player is heading to the hospital

My sentiments exactly. Its time for it to go.

[GSdrums87]

2 guys collided in the air going for a rebound in a basketball game. One player landed wrong and broke his ankle. Ban jumping.

[tfrizz]

Take THAT, Ray Emery!

[pittsoccer33]

Somebody is going to be killed in an NHL arena in a staged side show fight. It's happened recently in juniors. It nearly happened to Steve Moore. Maybe you'll sing a different tune when ESPN is wall to wall with coverage of the death and the other player involved is being brought up on various charges.

No other sport needs to devolve into bare knuckle boxing to make sure the rules are enforced. The right guard on a team doesn't attack the opposing free safety when he blasts a receiver coming over the middle.

[GSdrums87]

Maybe. But probably not. Shoddy officiating = fights = players and fans getting a sense of "justice".

[MRandall25]

This wasn't even a typical fighting injury. Parros did it to himself. Had he stopped once Orr went down, it wouldn't have even happened.

Sad to see it happen to a guy like Parros, but he could've avoided it entirely.

[nocera]

It's going to take exactly that before the NHL eliminates fighting completely. It took a fan dying before the NHL put meshing in the end zones.

[Rylan]

There is inherent risk in playing on an unforgiving surface. Add in the fact that the object of the game is to shoot an object capable of murder in its own right with a weapon at an opposing player. If that wasn't dangerous enough, add in blades capable of killing someone and you have a recipe for exactly any play causing someone to be killed. The sport is dangerous no matter what, and aside from a freak incident the NHL has done pretty good at trying to find ways to maintain safety and not eliminate something that is important to the game.

[nocera]

There is inherent risk in playing on an unforgiving surface. Add in the fact that the object of the game is to shoot an object capable of murder in its own right with a weapon at an opposing player. If that wasn't dangerous enough, add in blades capable of killing someone and you have a recipe for exactly any play causing someone to be killed. The sport is dangerous no matter what, and aside from a freak incident the NHL has done pretty good at trying to find ways to maintain safety and not eliminate something that is important to the game.

Right. It's dangerous enough as it is. Why add in beating people in the head with your fists?

[Rylan]

There is inherent risk in playing on an unforgiving surface. Add in the fact that the object of the game is to shoot an object capable of murder in its own right with a weapon at an opposing player. If that wasn't dangerous enough, add in blades capable of killing someone and you have a recipe for exactly any play causing someone to be killed. The sport is dangerous no matter what, and aside from a freak incident the NHL has done pretty good at trying to find ways to maintain safety and not eliminate something that is important to the game.

Right. It's dangerous enough as it is. Why add in beating people in the head with your fists?

Because its just as much part of the game as the other equally as dangerous situations.

[pittsoccer33]

They want to stop head injuries but they allow bare knuckle punches to be thrown. Thats so hypocritical its kind of unbelievable.

Eventually the lawyers and insurance will catch up with hockey, football, and the combat sports. The NFL has the biggest financial target so it will start there. But they will all become uninsurable or the insurance will be so costly you will see non professional programs fall apart.

[pittsoccer33]

Because its just as much part of the game as the other equally as dangerous situations.

Except in every other part of the world that plays hockey. And its against the rules. Abroad they kick you out, fines, suspensions, etc. Here you get a roster spot.

[nocera]

Players playing without helmets was also "part of the game." As was no meshing in the endzones, heck, no glass along the boards was part of the game. The game and society has changed. Concussions are seen as a major issue. NFL just settled a lawsuit with ex-players about it.

I'm not upset that fighting is still in the game, but I would not be at all affected if it was abolished.

[mikey287]

Players playing without helmets was also "part of the game." As was no meshing in the endzones, heck, no glass along the boards was part of the game. The game and society has changed. Concussions are seen as a major issue. NFL just settled a lawsuit with ex-players about it.

I'm not upset that fighting is still in the game, but I would not be at all affected if it was abolished.

Do not confuse rule/regulation changes with fabric of the game material. No meshing/no glass were never things that were "part of the game" they happened to be near the game that was being played...nothing more.

[Rylan]

All were just incidental parts of the game with no real affect on outcomes of the game. Fighting has had a place in the North American game for a long time and has been done to change momentum, the balance of a game towards the favor of one team or another. It is a highly risky thing between two consenting players. Players in essence have the ability to ban it amongst themselves, leave it that way.

[mikey287]

Because its just as much part of the game as the other equally as dangerous situations.

Except in every other part of the world that plays hockey. And its against the rules. Abroad they kick you out, fines, suspensions, etc. Here you get a roster spot.

Different technical upbringings in the sport, not an indictment on our game. Soviets/Swedes during the game's foundation were technical in their approach - favoring small area passing, possession, finely-tuned "plays" as opposed to board play, dump and chase and rugged defense. It meshed well with team personalities and it grew from there.

The game originated over here...mix of technical finesse and brute force - graceful mix. Part of the culture, part of "our" game. Maybe things would have changed a little bit fundamentally had Paul Henderson not been so clutch.

EDIT: Perhaps another thread should be initiated for further discussion + allow others to share their thoughts.

[columbia]

Eventually the lawyers and insurance will catch up with hockey, football, and the combat sports. The NFL has the biggest financial target so it will start there. But they will all become uninsurable or the insurance will be so costly you will see non professional programs fall apart.

I lean towards agreeing with this, as far as the liability aspects.
I like fighting, but I think it will become a bottom-line issue and disappear.

[pittsoccer33]

I will shoot a huge hole through every pro fighting argument you can make

-It prevents cheap shots/helps players police themselves. Except there are still cheap shots. And occasionally careers are ended this way. Matt Cooke wasn't afraid of getting beat up by Milan Lucic when he blindsided Marc Savard. These guys are all pretty tough and have big egos. By and large they are not scared of other players.

-It helps change momentum. It sure does, when the game has to stop for a player to be immobilized on a backboard. All those fights against the Bruins last year and the Flyers the year before didn't seem to help the Penguins much.

-It creates roster spots for players. That would be filled by better skilled players more adept to score goals.

-It sends a message about that a loser team isn't going to give up. As if these aren't pro hockey players who are paid well to play hard and want to represent themselves and their team well and want to win the Stanley Cup. As if their intention to win the next game would somehow come into question if they didn't start attacking opposing players.

Any I forgot?

[mikey287]

I will shoot a huge hole through every pro fighting argument you can make

You will attempt to do so via confusion and misinformation.

-It prevents cheap shots/helps players police themselves. Except there are still cheap shots. And occasionally careers are ended this way. Matt Cooke wasn't afraid of getting beat up by Milan Lucic when he blindsided Marc Savard. These guys are all pretty tough and have big egos. By and large they are not scared of other players.

So measure is the amount of times it didn't happen as oppose to the amount of times it did (the latter far outweighs the former)? Yes, the worst things that have happened in hockey history were not prevented by fighting. Though some of them could have been prevented by actually answering the bell when you're supposed to (Moore/Bertuzzi). The idiom "the exception proves the rule" doesn't actually make sense literally or conceptually.

-It helps change momentum. It sure does, when the game has to stop for a player to be immobilized on a backboard. All those fights against the Bruins last year and the Flyers the year before didn't seem to help the Penguins much.

Hmm...again freak accident to dispel more than one hundred years of history. No one that knows the game is buying this...you might confuse some pinko yuppie (had to channel by inner Don Cherry for this) with this noise, but that's about it...

-It creates roster spots for players. That would be filled by better skilled players more adept to score goals.

Meh, that would require a cultural change from top to bottom which has not been initiated much less enacted.

-It sends a message about that a loser team isn't going to give up. As if these aren't pro hockey players who are paid well to play hard and want to represent themselves and their team well and want to win the Stanley Cup. As if their intention to win the next game would somehow come into question if they didn't start attacking opposing players.

I'm not sure this one really qualifies as anything. Sometimes you get beat 6-0 at home and you need something to rally around...sometimes it's a pretty goal, sometimes it's a big hit, sometimes it's one of the players that doesn't ordinarily fight, fighting...it really does a lot for the bench. More than you'd guess apparently...

[pittsoccer33]

So measure is the amount of times it didn't happen as oppose to the amount of times it did (the latter far outweighs the former)? Yes, the worst things that have happened in hockey history were not prevented by fighting. Though some of them could have been prevented by actually answering the bell when you're supposed to (Moore/Bertuzzi). The idiom "the exception proves the rule" doesn't actually make sense literally or conceptually.

We could go through every game this season and see cheap shots - fist fights aren't stopping them in any way. If a player doesn't want to be in a fight, they won't be in a fight. Better yet, get the hot head on the other team to attack you and put his team down a man for seven minutes. Are the players you coach afraid of getting beat up? If not then this makes no sense.

Hmm...again freak accident to dispel more than one hundred years of history. No one that knows the game is buying this...you might confuse some pinko yuppie (had to channel by inner Don Cherry for this) with this noise, but that's about it...

You're looking at a confirmation bias. Max Talbot fights Dan Carcillo and then the Penguins start doing well. That could just as easily have happened if the glass was broken and a 10 minute stoppage was needed to fix it. Yes, it was really cool that Max said he still believed they could win the game enough to get beat up. And watching his reaction with the crowd was fun. But there are so many times this doesn't happen in a game. It doesn't happen in the Olympics when a team is down. It doesn't happen in other sports when a team is down. But since it's always been there we need to keep defending an easy way to cause brain trauma.

Meh, that would require a cultural change from top to bottom which has not been initiated much less enacted.

In North America. Its the same thinking that lost us Nick Johnson in favor of Steve Macintyre. And if you'll recall, nobody was so afraid of getting beat up by him or Engelland to not cheap shot Penguin players.

I'm not sure this one really qualifies as anything. Sometimes you get beat 6-0 at home and you need something to rally around...sometimes it's a pretty goal, sometimes it's a big hit, sometimes it's one of the players that doesn't ordinarily fight, fighting...it really does a lot for the bench. More than you'd guess apparently...

So how do NCAA programs, the KHL, the SM Liiga, etc get by without it?

[MRandall25]

The NCAA has some of the worst concussion numbers in any of the hockey leagues in North America.

Fighting is also banned in the NCAA.

[pittsoccer33]

So do you think introducing it will help?

I didn't used to think this way. The NYT Derek Boogaard profile caused my change of heart. Ite obvious how much irreversible damage it does to players.

[mikey287]

So measure is the amount of times it didn't happen as oppose to the amount of times it did (the latter far outweighs the former)? Yes, the worst things that have happened in hockey history were not prevented by fighting. Though some of them could have been prevented by actually answering the bell when you're supposed to (Moore/Bertuzzi). The idiom "the exception proves the rule" doesn't actually make sense literally or conceptually.

We could go through every game this season and see cheap shots - fist fights aren't stopping them in any way. If a player doesn't want to be in a fight, they won't be in a fight. Better yet, get the hot head on the other team to attack you and put his team down a man for seven minutes. Are the players you coach afraid of getting beat up? If not then this makes no sense.

Hmm...again freak accident to dispel more than one hundred years of history. No one that knows the game is buying this...you might confuse some pinko yuppie (had to channel by inner Don Cherry for this) with this noise, but that's about it...

You're looking at a confirmation bias. Max Talbot fights Dan Carcillo and then the Penguins start doing well. That could just as easily have happened if the glass was broken and a 10 minute stoppage was needed to fix it. Yes, it was really cool that Max said he still believed they could win the game enough to get beat up. And watching his reaction with the crowd was fun. But there are so many times this doesn't happen in a game. It doesn't happen in the Olympics when a team is down. It doesn't happen in other sports when a team is down. But since it's always been there we need to keep defending an easy way to cause brain trauma.

Meh, that would require a cultural change from top to bottom which has not been initiated much less enacted.

In North America. Its the same thinking that lost us Nick Johnson in favor of Steve Macintyre. And if you'll recall, nobody was so afraid of getting beat up by him or Engelland to not cheap shot Penguin players.

I'm not sure this one really qualifies as anything. Sometimes you get beat 6-0 at home and you need something to rally around...sometimes it's a pretty goal, sometimes it's a big hit, sometimes it's one of the players that doesn't ordinarily fight, fighting...it really does a lot for the bench. More than you'd guess apparently...

So how do NCAA programs, the KHL, the SM Liiga, etc get by without it?

In order:

- Fights very much help stop shenanigans, or the intimidation of having to answer for what you did. It's more than just the obvious "oh Christ..." cheap shots. There are a ton of other things that can and will elicit fisticuffs. If you play dirty and get away with it, you'll get what you deserve in the end - whether you answer for it or you don't.

When I play, I find it important to stand up for my teammates, even though I'm a little guy. When one of our good players gets some unnecessary business, I take the number down. If we can't fight or he doesn't want to go, he'll get what's coming to him regardless.

And yes, on many of my teams I keep a big guy around to keep the peace. At lower levels, there's a lot of benders that are just out there to instigate crap. They'll get chatty, they'll come by the bench, they'll get sticky with some guys, they'll dive, they'll do whatever. I'll send out my peacekeeper to make sure my players don't have to deal with the instigator's antics anymore. If he wants to fight, he's game, if he doesn't, he's going to get what karma intended. Then the **** stops...

Little guys like me don't want to fight 6'4", 220 lb. guys...so you cut the crap out pretty quick or suffer the consequences...it's simple. So, to answer your question, yes. No one wants to get their face caved in even if it yields a power play...

- I didn't look for anything. I didn't even bring up successes. I'll tell you this, there are things in a game that gets a team going and there are things that don't. The glass breaking would not have - in all reasonable likelihood - had any effect on that game in comparison to Talbot fighting Carcillo. You see something like that happen or an event similar and you can feel it on the bench. Now everyone is standing, everyone is into it again, there are things that are just beyond coaching, beyond communication that can happen during games that can change things. That Talbot fight looked to me, from my limited experience (I'm no NHL coach, I wasn't on that bench), like one of those things. I got that feeling sitting in my living room, I remember it distinctly.

I was watching it with a Devils fan and a Flyers fan and I'm always nervous to the point of nauseous watching the Pens in the playoffs, and after Max fought him, I got to the very edge of my seat, I had this huge grin on my face and the Flyers fan asked me something negative about it "why are you so happy, Talbot got pummeled?" or some such and I didn't look over, I just stared intently at the screen and nodded...you could feel what was coming.

Does it always work like that? Hell no. But that one might have changed history right there. But you have to get the circumstance and the timing right. It just has to be the right mix and you don't know it until it happens. You can't plan it. Because I've seen it where a guy like that will fight and my bench won't react to it really at all...you see that in the NHL sometimes too...I'll tell you though, as a coach, it doesn't matter how good of a communicator or motivator you are, you wish you could take those moments and jar them and save them...they're so valuable. Some things are just above you as a coach, I hesitantly admit.

Re: Olympics. Short order tournaments like that rarely can utilize fighting as a means to bolster momentum because there's less of a team concept. Players thrown together, no time to gel, to bond, to feel the need to protect each other in a meaningful way. Not the same circumstances, not a parallel.

- This point I can somewhat appreciate it. It would be helpful if the guys can actually play a little bit too. SMac can't play. It makes him less of a deterrent. Engelland can play a little bit, so it certainly helps. Do these guys catch every single cheap shot and stop it? No. Neither do the refs. And not every single thing needs to be dealt with either...there's a lot of nuance that's missing from the argument. There's more to most games than meets the eye...hockey is no exception.

- NCAA is a mess because the players have the stupid cages and don't have to answer for their cheap, high-school level hits. It's pretty bad as far as high-level amateur hockey goes. Instead reckless hits and excess stick work cause more problems than fighting ever could at that level.

Have you ever watched a KHL game? There is no momentum. One guy tries to carry it through four players, can't do it, the guy that gets the loose puck tries it going the other way, he can't do it....eventually one guy dives, his team gets a power play and they score. That's why it's not heavily attended...it's really not that great of hockey - in part, because there is no feeling. My point is over-generalized a bit, but not by much...watch some KHL and VHL games and tell me what you think...

The SM-Liiga A (now rebranded as simply Liiga) is a much more straightforward league with a fair amount of physicality. Many of the toughest customers in that league were considered fan favorites and brought raucous cheers from flag-waving locals. Even if their play bordered on violent...like Matt Nickerson.

Because of physical play and the threat (albeit much smaller compared to NA leagues) of fighting it keeps an ebb and flow to the game at least...you can be physical, but if you take it over the line, you still might have to pay for it. It keeps the players honest enough.

Additionally, because you aren't allowed to take the gloves off like a man and settle things the right way in that league (you get suspended for a small amount of game(s))...you get Friday Night Sissy Fights like this...

[youtube][/youtube]

[tfrizz]

Not sure if anyone else saw this from last night's HNIC broadcast...