SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Joel1

Joel Mann
Membre depuis
3 févr. 2017
Équipe favorite
Flames de Calgary
Deuxième équipe favorite
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Messages dans les forums
39
Messages par jour
0.0
Forum: NHL5 avr. 2017 à 17 h 30
Sujet: Why has fighting not been removed from the NHL yet?
Fighting does still have a place in the game, albeit not the one it used to have.

In my opinion, while it no longer deters dirty play, it does hold opponents accountable for what they do on the ice. So if a player throws a dirty hit and the ref doesn't catch it, then starting a fight can ensure that the player has to answer in some way. The player who threw the hit risks losing the fight, which is both tiring and humiliating, and if a player's physical and mental conditions are down, the other team can take advantage of that. Also, you seem to think it kills momentum. Yes, it stops the game, but depending on how the fight ends, whoever comes out on top may make it so that their team doesn't miss a beat.

Why is that? It's because fighting also gives an energy boost. There's a reason why, in the NHL video games, fighting restores your players' energy levels. I know that watching at home, there are times where I start to fall asleep because a game is getting boring. At an Islanders game before, I started to fall asleep because I was exhausted earlier in the day, but all that changed when I saw the fight happen; I was no longer tired! I presume it's the same for the guys on the bench, especially because they're closer to the action than me.

For arguments against fighting, concussions are a big thing. Old time hockey fans will use the slippery slope and claim that cutting down on fighting will increase dirty hits. That argument falls flat because, in practice, fighting doesn't deter dirty play like it used to. The refs are too strict nowadays. I know that if I wanted to throw a hit on a player, I'd be no less likely to do so if a team had, say, Tanner Glass, rather than Sidney Crosby, on the ice. In fact, pretty much all opposing players would rather face the clueless Glass over the elite Crosby.

Those concussions are pretty nasty, too. The deaths of Boogaard, Rypien, Belak, and Montador, as well as the retirement of Parros, serve as proof that repeated blows to the head come with inherent risk. While a single dirty hit can do more damage than a fight (like Chara on Pacioretty), if the fights happen often enough, oftentimes a player won't realize the damage it's doing until it's too late.

It's also down because skilled players do not really have a need to fight. A lot of traditional enforcers can't even play a regular shift without being detrimental to their team. Thus, fighting will phase itself out unless enough good players teach themselves to fight, which is impractical because if I was the Penguins GM, I'd want Crosby on the ice for a 2:00 power play, and not in the penalty box.

So, is fighting still a big thing in ice hockey? Not really. But should it be phased out? No. There are still good reasons to fight, and even if there weren't, with the way the game is trending, it'll be gone sooner than we may think.

More opinions: the instigator rule is stupid. For example, if a player throws a dirty hit that goes uncalled and the opponent responds with a fight invitation, then why should the opponent, who did not throw the dirty hit, be penalized while the other guy gets off scot-free? On the flipside, I'd be cool with requiring everyone in the NHL to wear a visor. We have seen what visors can do; heck, if Parros had a visor, he wouldn't have hit the ice face-first when he fought with Orr that night. Players have adapted to fighting opponents with visors, so it's not like this extra safety measure would significantly hinder the ability to land a punch. Uppercuts and side shots do the job just fine.