That's right. So that is why regular fighting is a part of every level of hockey. (What? They don't fight as often in Olympic hockey? Well, they must not be as good then. They need rexallsc to come and show them how to play.).

Yes it does, and it's because of the stupid instigating rule that this kind of stuff happens. People become more and more careless with their play, and frustration boils over to the extremes because players can no longer police themselves.

Hockey is different than any other sport, it's MUCH faster and can't be left to the refs or league officials to police the game alone. It's not a matter of having 50 fights a game, it's the fact that allowing fights makes players more responsible for their actions... because of the fear factor.

The game has gone down hill ever since they institued the insigating rule to make the game more appealing to the US market. Now we have a league where obstruction is a huge problem, players use their sticks in careless ways, and frustrations boil over. Take the rule out and you WON'T see a huge increase in fighting, but the game will improve... and the skilled players will shine. Want proof, see Gretzky & Lemieux, and who those guys played with.

Well Gretz wants to ban fighting in hockey, for what it's worth.

Does he? Unless he's radically changed his position recently, I don't think you have that right.

I seem to recall Gretzky dropping the gloves 2 or 3 times himself. It wasn't pretty, but obviously he felt it was needed.

I'll say it again: the Bertuzzi sucker punch has nothing to do with fighting in hockey.

Read his autobiography. It's from back when he was a King. If he radically changed his position, then he'd be for fighting in the game.


When in Rome...

If thats true I hope the guy realizes he would never have been the player he was without the guy he played with that protected him.

I believe that there does have to be fighting. It has been around the league even before any of us were born. I don't feel we should go back to the 70s and 80s but it's a part of the game, and has been for decades. This wasn't a fighting incident with Bertuzzi...it was malicious head hunting. If it was a fight, and moore got hurt, that would be something else...BUT, I haven't seen too many fights in the last 20 years that have ever done this much damage to a player.

Fights are safer that headhunting.

It has to do with the whole attitute that fighting brings to the game. A kind of legalized lawlessness, that's only a hop, skip, and a jump from a sucker punch.

Yeah, but it gives everyone the opportunity to argue it should be thrown out. You generally see this from people who have little to no exposure to the game, and who've never played it...

And if you knew anything about the history of the game, and the role fighting actually plays in the game you'd understand that anti-fighting rules (instigating rule) has made things like the Bert Incident, obstruction, and careless stick use dramacticly go up.

Well you can also look on this thread to see people who say they aren't going to be fans of the NHL (and watch international or amateur) hockey until fighting is gone. Keep fighting won't do anything to the popularity of the sport in Canada, but will continue to marginalize hockey in the US, until it gets eclipsed by soccer and falls into 5th place.

Yes, it's a part of almost ever level of hockey. The only ones that don't really fight are the lower divisions that don't have much contact (and don't allow checking).

As far as the Olympics, there are a few reasons. One, a lot of the teams are European, and those players are traditionally soft (but they love to use their sticks)...and since the teams can pick their best, they often pick the most skilled players, since there is no talent dilution like there is in the NHL (where you need grinders).

That's fine with me. Hockey shouldn't change the game for ratings that it's not going to get anyways. Some people won't watch hockey because of fighting, some won't watch baseball because they find it boring. Some won't watch basketball because of the perceived lack of team play...not ever sport is for everyone.

I'd argue the opposite. Fighting brings a sense of accountability. Things like the instigator rule, face shields and (especially) referees who won't call the rulebook -- those bring the legalized lawlessness.

I disagree.

Yup! :)

I like your last 2 comments Joe Canadian, but I am a bit confused as to what side of the fence you are sitting on.

It seems that you would prefer fighting to be left in rather that have the bert incident and other "non-hockey" acts on the ice continue or become more frequent.

Just checking.

I agree with you on everything except the shield issue, if I was in the NHL I'd wear a shield.

The last time I checked, fighting didn't have anything to do with the game. They don't give you points for "fights won". Fighting also doesn't happen during the play (it does, but it stops the play).

It's just one of those "accepted" side things.

Yes. Taking the instigator rule out (which is an anti-fighting rule, basiclly) and you won't see a huge increase in fighting over the long haul. The Moore hit on Nazy could have been dealt with in that game, where someone could of squared off with Moore, fairly. Instead it boiled over and the frustrations grew over a number of weeks... then we see idiotic moves like what Bert did. The rule has also been the contributing factor, IMO, for the players being completly careless with their sticks... leading to serious eye injuries.

Fighting is part of the game, it's much more than the players being allowed to police themselves. It's an anti-dumbass measure :), so that people play the game thinking that there is consequences for their actions.

Don't patronize me. If you take out ALL fighting, you'd have a cleaner game. If fighting is so much a 'part of hockey', then why don't you see international leagues fall apart without it?

You also see an insane amount of stickwork in international leagues.

European hockey, and hockey are two different animals. But again if you knew more about hockey you'd know that :p :D.

Late to the discussion, but I would have to say that although I agree that the quality of the NHL player is a level above that of a the college player, I would much rather watch a college game than a pro game because I think college has a much more entertaining product.

The college game is more wide open. Fights and roughing delays don't slow the game down. There is the whole "college atmosphere" that brings the game to life. The quality of play is of course a level below the pro game but the structure of the game makes it so the game flows better. I can't stand the NHL regular season, but enjoy the college season. And while I like pro hockey playoffs, I love the college hockey tournament.

Part of it also has to do with becoming a father. Becoming a parent makes you so much more aware of how much violence and cruelty there is in our society--in games, in sports, in our speech. I wouldn't want to take my son to a pro hockey game for a long while because of the likelihood that a fight will break out. I would happily take him to a college game.

Regarding the hit...

(This is coming from someone who thinks the NHL should clean up their act regarding violence in the game). I just saw the punch for the first time. After reading this discussion, I have to admit that I was surprised at how "light" the hit appeared to be. Yes, it was a sucker punch from behind, but it almost seemed to me that Bertuzzi rode Moore's head into the ice more because Moore fell passively to the ground rather than an intentional wish by Bertuzzi to drive him down. I couldn't help thinking that this would be a non-story if Moore's neck had not broken. Obviously Bertuzzi must have really connected with the punch and the appearance of the violence doesn't diminish the cruelty of the action, but I have to admit I was surprised at how visually mundane the hit appeared to be.

I'm glad to see that Bertuzzi got a relatively severe suspension. Maybe this is a start. Hockey's a great game without the fights and extracurricular violence.

Well, if you take out everything that you don't get points for, then there goes hitting, passing, backchecking... basically everything other than shooting. As far as the play stopping, that happens for every penalty.

There are good arguments against fighting in hockey, but I've never though that "it's not part of the game" was one of them.

But shouldn't be is what I'm saying. Especially with the influx of European/Russian stars.

I guess I have to point out that I've never played hockey. That apparently disqualifies my opinion, so I wanted to get that out there.

If the league wanted to, they could eliminate fighting. I know that they never will, but they could.

I just don't see why the accountibility has to be left up to the players. The officials should control that, and if they can't, then isn't that an inherant flaw in the game? I just don't see why there HAS to be fighting.

I had essentially the same first reaction to the hit. I still don't think Bertuzzi "drove Moore's head into the ice", and I'm frustrated that the media keeps portraying it that way. I guess it sells more papers, much like saying Bertuzzi is 60 lbs heavier than Moore (he's not) and towers over him (well, I guess if one inch is towering).

I can tell you that the punch was a big story in Canada before the news came out about Moore's neck (nobody knew he'd broken it until Tuesday). But you're right, no broken neck = no discussion of it on Regis and Kathy Lee.

It's not that it disqualifies your opinion. But compare it to an 'outsider' who's never played or understand the minute details of football or baseball coming in trying to change those particular games.

The two sides are never going to agree on this - but it does appear the majority of people who are big hockey fans think fighting is part of the game and the majority who aren't use fighting as an excuse as to why they aren't.

Make of that what you will.

Oh and I'm in Europe and European hockey is unwatchable... and very dirty when it comes to stickwork and cheapshots. Definitely not a good argument to take fighting out of the game.

Ok then on thats we'll have to agree to disagree.

Uhhhhh...ok. Let's get used a league with even more hooking, slashing, etc.

Thank you!

Like College Hockey?

It isn't the fighting that is lowering ratings for the NHL. It is diluted talent, excessive interference that isn't called tightly and goalies that are too good and have too many pads on to allow for more scoring. Fighting helps police the game and probably brings in as many fairweather fans as it turns off.

How many college hockey games you been to lately? At the UMass games, there is more clutching/grabbing/hooking than any pro game. And there have still been 2 fights this year.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, it does not get any more gutless than sucker punching a guy like this - it was a pathetic indefensible act. I'm more a Canuck fan than a Avs fan so I'm not joining in the anti-Bertuzzi pile on for any homer rationale either, this event hurts all hockey fans.

Well, somthing has to be done, because this can't ever happen again. It's not like hockey can afford anymore bad publicity.

Like a year with no NHL?

Like the other three big sports are having an influx of good publicity? :D

Pretty good article here (hxxp://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040310.wduha10/BNStory/Sports) calling for NHL seriously penalizing any blow to the head - including Moore's original hit on Naslund. I'm a Devils fan and I have to admit my past enjoyment of Scott Stevens checks are partially due to blood lust on my part, and when I stand back and think rationally (basically every time one of his checks resulted in injury) I am ashamed of that side of me. Many other NHL players aim for the head as well, trying to go for a concussion - it's so common that the EA NHL series tends to have players leaving the ice (going for the head) on many checks.

Just saw the Michigan/Mich State game. Better than any NHL game I've seen all year.

Let me respond to this with a personal story that somewhat relates to the Bertuzzi story (but on a way smaller scale).

I played a couple seasons in a very competitive floor hockey league. It sounds lame, but the talent level on the better teams (not mine, but the good ones) was very high. Anyways, being a relatively small league (8-10 teams I think), we played the same teams up to 4 or 5 times over a couple months. Naturally, every team has their a-hole, and familiarity breeds contempt, and well, near the end of the season play got pretty rough. The league, however, had a no fighting policy. Getting in a fight cost the player $25 and risked suspension or ejection from the league.

So anyways, in a close game near the end of the season the other teams a-hole elbows me in the face. No call. I look to the ref and complained, he claimed he didn't see it. Same shift, not even near the play, and DIRECTLY in front of the ref the guy elbows me HARD in the face again. No call. Now I'm pissed, but I can't drop 'em or else I'm done and paying money. So in a rage, I chase him into the corner (he's heading to the puck) and cross check him from behind into the boards. He went head-first, but was luckily uninjured. I got a 2 minute minor. I also didn't get elbowed in the face again.

After the game, I was completely horrified by what I'd done. We don't wear helmets, and I'd just hammered a guy from behind into the boards! But at the time, it seemed like the only way to let this guy know that I wasn't going to tolerate his crap. The ref certainly wasn't going to stop him.

Now, had fighting been merely a 5 minute major, I likely would have dropped them and tried to handle it that way. I don't know if I would have won the fight or not, but at least I would have sent my message in a way that at worst causes a bloody nose or a black eye.

Removing fighting from hockey will never solve incidents like what Bertuzzi did. And I will stand by my opinion that I think it would only cause them, or stick infractions or whatever, to increase.

Agreed. I just don't think banning fighting would fix anything. As I said elsewhere, a sucker punch has as much to do with fighting as a high stick has to do with a slapshot. Banning fighting might be good PR right now, but it doesn't address the problem.

And I'll go even further... as much as hockey desperately needs to avoid bad PR, I don't think you can prevent this sort of thing from happening. From time to time, in any sport, someone will go too far. When they do, by all means come down on them like a ton of bricks. But no matter how hard you hit the offenders, someone else will come along in a year or two and do it again. I don't think it's fair to judge the success or failure of this suspension based on whether anything similar ever happens again. The idea of "sending a message" only goes so far.

Already factored in, Bishop! :D

Yes! Bring back the 80s/early-90s!!!

Good for you. You prefer college, I prefer NHL. Why can't we leave it at that? You have the game you like, I have the game I like. Why must the game I like be changed to be more like the game you like?

There are people who prefer college football to pro football. I don't hear anyone screaming to change the NFL rules to be more like college. Same thing here. People have their own, personal flavors. Let everyone have their flavor.

It's happened before, it'll happen again.Matt Johnson ended Jeff Beukeboom's career (he still has headaches, too) with a punch as bad, if not worse. Tony Granato (coach of the Avalanche) chopped Neil Wilkinson with his stick, tomahawk style (two hands)...the game survived.

It will happen again, and hockey will go on.