Todd Bertuzzi breaks Steve Moore's neck

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

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'd like for Joe Canadian and/or rexallllll or others to discuss this a little further. I'm a CASUAL fan (watch a few games a year and maybe the Stanley Cup if I know it is on) but am curious why the PLAYERS are the ones who have to have the responsibility of delivering consequences? I can't think of another sport (I'm sure you guys will come up with tons) where the players and not the officials or the league are responsible for doling out punishment. Why does the threat of getting beat up have to be the deterrent?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

I can't think of another sport (I'm sure you guys will come up with tons) where the players and not the officials or the league are responsible for doling out punishment.

In baseball, if a guy hits a towering home run and the next batter takes the first pitch in the ribs, what happens? The other pitcher knows he has to respond in the next inning.

If Terrell Owens scores a touchdown and spikes the ball in Roy Williams face, what's going to happen the next time TO goes over the middle? Williams is going to be looking to light him up.

This sort of thing goes on in sports all the time. It may be more pronounced in hockey, but it's certainly not unique.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In baseball, if a guy hits a towering home run and the next batter takes the first pitch in the ribs, what happens? The other pitcher knows he has to respond in the next inning.

If Terrell Owens scores a touchdown and spikes the ball in Roy Williams face, what's going to happen the next time TO goes over the middle? Williams is going to be looking to light him up.

This sort of thing goes on in sports all the time. It may be more pronounced in hockey, but it's certainly not unique.

Yes, and if the pitcher hits the batter intentionally, the pitcher can get tossed from the game.

And if Roy Williams hits him late, or leads with his helmet, Williams will draw a penalty for his team.

The fear of retribution from the other team doesn't keep them from hitting a homerun, or spiking the ball. According to some, it is the fear of retribution that keeps the game clean. What I'd like to know is why that retribution can't be an official doling out a punishment such as putting them in the penalty box or kicking them out of the game. Why does getting beat up by the other teams goon have to be the consequence for a dirty hit?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In baseball, if a guy hits a towering home run and the next batter takes the first pitch in the ribs, what happens? The other pitcher knows he has to respond in the next inning.

If Terrell Owens scores a touchdown and spikes the ball in Roy Williams face, what's going to happen the next time TO goes over the middle? Williams is going to be looking to light him up.

This sort of thing goes on in sports all the time. It may be more pronounced in hockey, but it's certainly not unique.

EDIT: heh...see Bee's comments!

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

I'd like for Joe Canadian and/or rexallllll or others to discuss this a little further. I'm a CASUAL fan (watch a few games a year and maybe the Stanley Cup if I know it is on) but am curious why the PLAYERS are the ones who have to have the responsibility of delivering consequences? I can't think of another sport (I'm sure you guys will come up with tons) where the players and not the officials or the league are responsible for doling out punishment. Why does the threat of getting beat up have to be the deterrent?

I have a two-part answer:

1. Since you're up against a guy numerous times in a game, it's really easy to get after him. It's a really, really intense sport. You're right up on someone all game, and I've been in the same position as Bertuzzi before. I didn't hurt the guy as bad, but I've cheap-shotted a few people, and been the victim of it as well...I don't condone Bertuzzi's actions, but I can understand what happened. Sometimes you just lose it on the ice...it's an intense sport.

As far as the officials, I think one of the keys to getting back to an exciting, open-ice brand of hockey (see 80's and early-90's) is the officials. They must call the interference away from the puck. The clutching,grabbing, etc. is out of control.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Yes, but if the ump knows you are trying to hit the batter, he can toss you out of the game. And if Roy Williams goes helmet first into TO's chest, he's going to sit for a few games.
In hockey, retribution is not only expected, it's condoned.

I think it's a lot different.

Really? Bertuzzi didn't get suspended? Legal hits are condoned. Fighting is condoned (take two to Tango!). Illegal hits and cheap shots are not.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I have a two-part answer:

1. Since you're up against a guy numerous times in a game, it's really easy to get after him. It's a really, really intense sport. You're right up on someone all game, and I've been in the same position as Bertuzzi before. I didn't hurt the guy as bad, but I've cheap-shotted a few people, and been the victim of it as well...I don't condone Bertuzzi's actions, but I can understand what happened. Sometimes you just lose it on the ice...it's an intense sport.

As far as the officials, I think one of the keys to getting back to an exciting, open-ice brand of hockey (see 80's and early-90's) is the officials. They must call the interference away from the puck. The clutching,grabbing, etc. is out of control.

Valid points, but it still doesn't answer the question. Yes, you go up against a guy repeatedly over the course of the game. That happens in basketball and football as well. However, it doesn't explain why players need to be the enforcers rather than the officials.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Valid points, but it still doesn't answer the question. Yes, you go up against a guy repeatedly over the course of the game. That happens in basketball and football as well. However, it doesn't explain why players need to be the enforcers rather than the officials.

Because the officials don't/won't call everything. Because you're sending a message.

Honestly...it just feels natural when you're out on the ice...

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Because the officials don't/won't call everything. Because you're sending a message.

Honestly...it just feels natural when you're out on the ice...

So a possible resolution would be to have officials call cheap shots, hooking, high sticking, slashing, etc. and dole out an appropriate penalty. Wouldn't that send a message? I'm not sure what, if any penalty Moore got, but if he had been put in the penalty box, or thrown out of the game, would Bertuzzi have felt as much need to give Moore some payback? I wouldn't think so.

Oh and just because it feels natural is hardly justification for allowing revenge.

[sabotai]

Hockey is very fast. When you watch it on TV, it doesn't convey how fast the game really is. When I went to a game a few years ago, it was the first time I sat close (row 11, I think it was). I've sat in the upper section before at a hockey game, but when you're down there...those guys move FAST. And there's 10 of them.

There are only 3 officials. The game is simply too fast for 3 people to see everything. I would bet that they don't even see, collectively, more than half of what happens.

You can't put more officials out there...they'd get in the way. They already do! Putting more out there will clutter up the ice and the game will become "let's see who can accidently hit the official with the puck the most" contest.

The only way to keep players from not taking cheap shots when the official isn't looking is the fear that you will get your clock cleaned.

At the before-mentioned game where I sat in the 11th row, there was a player on the opposing team who kept hacking at LeClair. He was doing it all game long. Never got a call from the official. In most cases, that'd be the end. He would just keep hacking because no one could come up and stop him. Except in this case, he hacked at Primeau halfway through the 3rd...and got his ass sufficiantly kicked. Had he not hacked at Primeau, Primeau wouldn't have been able to do anything...no Flyer would have. So you have this guy hacking away everytime the officials are not looking.

You need this because in hockey, the officials just can not see everything, and you can't add more. The game is just too fast.

[sabotai]

dola,

And what Bertuzzi did had nothing to do with using fighting as a payback. The payback fight had already happened. It was just a cheap shot, plain and simple. And if it didn't cause major injuries, I would expect to see a Colorado player throw down with Bertuzzi in that game or a later rematch as retaliation.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Hockey is very fast. When you watch it on TV, it doesn't convey how fast the game really is. When I went to a game a few years ago, it was the first time I sat close (row 11, I think it was). I've sat in the upper section before at a hockey game, but when you're down there...those guys move FAST. And there's 10 of them.

There are only 3 officials. The game is simply too fast for 3 people to see everything. I would bet that they don't even see, collectively, more than half of what happens.

You can't put more officials out there...they'd get in the way. They already do! Putting more out there will clutter up the ice and the game will become "let's see who can accidently hit the official with the puck the most" contest.

The only way to keep players from not taking cheap shots when the official isn't looking is the fear that you will get your clock cleaned.

At the before-mentioned game where I sat in the 11th row, there was a player on the opposing team who kept hacking at LeClair. He was doing it all game long. Never got a call from the official. In most cases, that'd be the end. He would just keep hacking because no one could come up and stop him. Except in this case, he hacked at Primeau halfway through the 3rd...and got his ass sufficiantly kicked. Had he not hacked at Primeau, Primeau wouldn't have been able to do anything...no Flyer would have. So you have this guy hacking away everytime the officials are not looking.

You need this because in hockey, the officials just can not see everything, and you can't add more. The game is just too fast.

Yes, I realize that adding more officials on the ice isn't really a good solution. Would it be possible to add off-ice officials? Perhaps one on each end of the rink, specifically looking at action away from the puck?

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but just tossing it out as a possibility.

So far, this response seems to be the best explanation offered as to why fighting needs to be in the game.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

So a possible resolution would be to have officials call cheap shots, hooking, high sticking, slashing, etc. and dole out an appropriate penalty. Wouldn't that send a message? I'm not sure what, if any penalty Moore got, but if he had been put in the penalty box, or thrown out of the game, would Bertuzzi have felt as much need to give Moore some payback? I wouldn't think so.

Oh and just because it feels natural is hardly justification for allowing revenge.

The officials usually do call cheap shots. It would be nice if they called everything else...

As far as Bertuzzi, I don't think anyone is really defending his actions.

As far as what "feels natural"...I was referring to fighting someone on the ice...I wouldn't call what Bertuzzi did a "fight"...

[DeToxRox]

as someone who actually plays hockey.. lets bring up some points

how many NHL fights have people been hurt? I am talking clean, one on one fights. nothing cheap about them. a few cuts, thats it. never have i seen a guy (besides steve kariya, and he shouldn't be fighting as it is) get really hurt in a fight.

what do fights accomplish? they motivate your team for one. if you're playing with no heart, what better to pick up the squad then with a fight. i play, i know. if you don't play then DO NOT tell me otherwise.

if you have a guy get ko'ed, whos a star player, clean or not. you fight. you have one guy fight and tell them you're not taking giving in and thats it.

Fighting is in the NHL for a reason, but excessive fighting is another thing.

Fact of the matter is, fighting isn't even that common in hockey. Well, as much as you people who don't watch it would believe.

If you see one game a year and theres a fight in it, you're not qualified to really share an opinion that its' ruining the game.

I just don't like all the naysayers who really don't know what they're talking about because they don't pay much attention to the game as it is.

[DeToxRox]

and on bertuzzi. he got what he deserved. that isn't fighting. that's assault.

[druez]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

The 'code' factor has already been completed, Moore already faced off with someone else. There was nothing wrong with Moore's hit on Naslund, Nazy even admitted the hit was clean and perfectly acceptable... so we shouldn't even be talking about this. But obviously the Canucks felt someone took liberties with their star... and the 'code' came into play. Bert crossed the line, he should be punished AND forgiven, but he's the one who did something wrong NOT Moore.

Actually Moore is one of the goonish types of players. He fought a much smaller guy in his first bout. But, when someone who was known as a tough guy wanted to fight him he wanted know part of it. Thats called being a wuss.

[druez]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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.).

Many olympians now, play in the NHL

[klayman]

Originally Posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle

how many NHL fights have people been hurt? I am talking clean, one on one fights. nothing cheap about them. a few cuts, thats it. never have i seen a guy (besides steve kariya, and he shouldn't be fighting as it is) get really hurt in a fight.

Ask Nick Kypreos what can happen. I once saw Dave Brown destroy Stu Grimson, shattering his cheek bone among other things. Jarome Iginla took almost a year to rediscover his scoring game after breaking his hand in a fight. Players get hurt all the time. It's lunacy to think otherwise and it cannot seriously be used as a reason to have fighting included in the game.

[druez]

Guys, there is a sport called "BOXING" if you take fighting out of hockey because its violent, then you should make boxing illegal, karate illegal, Ultimate Fighting Illegal etc....

Here is the thing, You aren't going to make tradional hockey fans happy by taking fighting out of the sport. If anything you will loose hockey fans. Most of you paying lip service to the fact you would watch hockey if there was no fighting are full of crap. You just spout that nonsense off because you want to bash hockey.

There isn't even an average of 1 fight per game in hockey. So if they goto fight just close your eyes like a chick at a horror movie.

[DeToxRox]

Imagine playing 82 games a year. You get annoyed, you get antsy. Would you rather guys not fight and just beat the hell out of each other with sticks? I am upset, lets bash this guy in the skull with a piece of wood.

The results of injuries w/o fighting could be much, much worse.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by klayman

Ask Nick Kypreos what can happen. I once saw Dave Brown destroy Stu Grimson, shattering his cheek bone among other things. Jarome Iginla took almost a year to rediscover his scoring game after breaking his hand in a fight. Players get hurt all the time. It's lunacy to think otherwise and it cannot seriously be used as a reason to have fighting included in the game.

Ask Nick Kypreos what he would be doing if there wasn't fighting in the NHL...because he wouldn't be in the league. Same goes for Stu Grimson...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

Fighting is part of the game...period.

Nope. People say it is, but it is clearly not the case. Both Collegiate and Olympic hockey exist without it. I mean if it is part of the game show me where it is mentioned in the rules, other than the penalty section.


I am not a big time hockey fan, but I really do enjoy playoff hockey. Fighting only detracts from an otherwise very entertaining sport. I am also reluctant to bring my daughter to local hockey(semi-pro) games because of the extraneous violence inherant to that level of play.

Throwing a punch is not part of any sport that doesn't take place in a ring.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Both Collegiate and Olympic hockey exist without it.

And relatively few people in the U.S. give a flying #%@% about either.

One is a primarily regional, not national, activity.
The other is an event that only generates significant interest from a nationalist perspective.

College hockey and pro hockey are two different sports, plain & simple AFAIC.

[bhlloy]

OK then... fighting is a big part of the North American game. You think Euro style hockey is better, I think it sucks. Can we not agree to differ?

If something has to be in the rulebook to be part of the game, why is nailing a reciever in football when a pass is over his head applauded as such a good play? Why is a brush back in baseball (which sometimes leads to worse injuries than you see in hockey fights) applauded as a necessary way to get one over on a batter? Neither of those things are explicitly in the rulebook and potentially lead to very serious injuries.

The comment about punching people only belonging in a ring IMHO is hypocritical to say the least - either you are against violence as a sport or you aren't

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Yes, and if the pitcher hits the batter intentionally, the pitcher can get tossed from the game.

And if Roy Williams hits him late, or leads with his helmet, Williams will draw a penalty for his team.

And if a hockey player sucker punches another guy, he can be suspended for the season, cost his team a chance at a Stanley Cup, and be fined a half million dollars.

The lesson: actions have consequences. In all sports.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

....
If something has to be in the rulebook to be part of the game, why is nailing a reciever in football when a pass is over his head applauded as such a good play? Why is a brush back in baseball (which sometimes leads to worse injuries than you see in hockey fights) applauded as a necessary way to get one over on a batter? Neither of those things are explicitly in the rulebook and potentially lead to very serious injuries.

The comment about punching people only belonging in a ring IMHO is hypocritical to say the least - either you are against violence as a sport or you aren't

Nailing a receiver when the ball is thrown over his head is a good play when the receiver has a play on the ball. Meaning he touches the ball. Meaning the hit is a good play because the catch is prevented. There are how many rules about bean balls in baseball? The league has implemented them because it has an interest to protect the players.

Also that hypocritical comment is a joke right? Cause I never said I was against violence in sports. I love violence in football and hockey for that matter. My position is that fighting shouldn't be tolerated in any sport that doesn't take place in a ring.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Ask Nick Kypreos what he would be doing if there wasn't fighting in the NHL...because he wouldn't be in the league. Same goes for Stu Grimson...

And is that another argument for including fighting?

I'm on your side, in that I don't think fighting should be banned from the sport, mainly cause I am fearful of the stickwork and cheapshots that would increase. But when arguments for keeping fighting in the game include "People don't get hurt" and "It gives Grimson a roster spot", I start leaning to the other side.

[ISiddiqui]

Why must the game I like be changed to be more like the game you like?

'Cause I'd like the NHL to survive. I enjoy rooting for my team, and I'd like to see them play a beautiful style of game (though it may be detrimental for my team). I'd like to see the game prosper in the US and not fade away. Hell, the reason my team still exists is because they won a Stanley Cup when there was talk of moving them. Teams in the Southern US aren't doing so well, mostly because of the reputation hockey has for 'anything goes'.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There are how many rules about bean balls in baseball? The league has implemented them because it has an interest to protect the players.

But they still happen. All the time. Should we make every hit batter an automatic 20 game suspension? Or do you accept that it happens, and let the punishment fit the crime?

The NHL has rules against fighting. There are automatic majors, roughing minors, instigator penalties, automatic game misconducts in certain cases, automatic suspensions under certain circumstances. Fighting isn't allowed in hockey any more than clipping is allowed in football. Yes, the penalties could be more severe, but let's not pretend that there aren't any rules about fighting.

[druez]

Dude, no offense but the game doesn't do well in the South because you weren't exposed to it growing up. Its not part of the southern culture.

For hockey to survive they need a salary cap period. Hockey thrives in the North East and Central parts of the US. It does well in Canada. The only problem with Canada is their dollar and taxes. Teams can't afford to keep good players. Salary Cap and Revenue Sharing = Hockey's success. I would also advise the NHL to drop about 2 to 4 teams.

The south, especially here in Texas is all about anything goes. I mean the damn rodeo is the biggest event of the year. I mean guys promote the sport of hockey on the radio by some redneck going "they carry sticks and every once and while someone gets a whoppen."

Most of the people here I talk to just don't understand the game, my friends that I did get to watch some playoff games were like wow this is great.

[ISiddiqui]

Dude, no offense but the game doesn't do well in the South because you weren't exposed to it growing up. Its not part of the southern culture.

I don't really think that is it. If a game needs to be a part of a region's 'culture' then it'll never survive in the Southern US (which isn't just 'The South', but also the 'Southwest'). Hell, I'm from Jersey and we weren't really exposed to it too much growing up, but it does fairly well there.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Teams in the Southern US aren't doing so well, mostly because of the reputation hockey has for 'anything goes'.

See, I just don't buy this. No doubt the NHL is failing in the US, especially in the southern US. But I think the list of problems is a long one. Primarily the low-scoring, clutchy, just plain boring style. The lack of a decent TV contract, the fact that the sport just doesn't work well on TV, the fact that so many players have unpronouncable names and barely speak english, the general lack of history... let's face it, you could eliminate fighting tomorrow, and TV ratings in the US probably won't budge at all. We can argue right and wrong until we fall over, but from a practical marketing point of view, fighting isn't the issue.

Besides, NASCAR, football and pro wrestling have big followings in the US, especially down south. Tell me again how violence can't sell there?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

'Cause I'd like the NHL to survive. I enjoy rooting for my team, and I'd like to see them play a beautiful style of game (though it may be detrimental for my team). I'd like to see the game prosper in the US and not fade away. Hell, the reason my team still exists is because they won a Stanley Cup when there was talk of moving them. Teams in the Southern US aren't doing so well, mostly because of the reputation hockey has for 'anything goes'.

No, teams in the Southern US aren't doing well because 1) There is no ice hockey in the south. It hardly ever snows down there so I doubt kids are growing up dreaming of being great ice hockey players and 2) There is no history to the teams there.

If hockey has a reputation for "anythign goes", I've yet to heard it. And anyone spreading that around is a total moron who obviously have never seen a pro hockey game.

What makes you so sure that if they changed the game to be more liek college, that would make the league more popular? How many people out there who say they would watch hockey if it weren't for the fighting do you think actually mean it?

If college hockey is so much more appelaing to pro hockey, why doesn't it get shown on TV more? Why doesn't it get better than NHL ratings when it is on?

[sabotai]

And FWIW, I grew up in Jersey and was exposed to hockey a lot.

[druez]

I grew up in Jersey too long time flyer fan here.

[druez]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't really think that is it. If a game needs to be a part of a region's 'culture' then it'll never survive in the Southern US (which isn't just 'The South', but also the 'Southwest'). Hell, I'm from Jersey and we weren't really exposed to it too much growing up, but it does fairly well there.

Holy crap, how could you not be exposed to it. South Jersey is one of the only places that have street hockey leagues. The flyers are such a part of Philly's identity its amazing.

In face its probably Eagles, Flyers, Phillies and 76ers in terms of fan popularity. But all 4 sports do well philly is a sports town.

[ISiddiqui]

What makes you so sure that if they changed the game to be more liek college, that would make the league more popular? How many people out there who say they would watch hockey if it weren't for the fighting do you think actually mean it?

A lot, IMO. Plenty of people have told me they like the game, but all the fighting is something they really don't want their kids exposed to... and they'd like to go to games as a family.

If college hockey is so much more appelaing to pro hockey, why doesn't it get shown on TV more? Why doesn't it get better than NHL ratings when it is on?

Because it is a college sport played in a very limited geographic area. Who am I gonna root for? My alma mater (Rutgers) has a team, but aren't really that great. I mean is someone from Duke going to have anyone he can really root for? College sports have fans from the people who went there.

[ISiddiqui]

Holy crap, how could you not be exposed to it. South Jersey is one of the only places that have street hockey leagues. The flyers are such a part of Philly's identity its amazing.

On the shore, I never saw a street hockey league. Soccer was really, really, really big in my area.

And the hockey fans in the area are divided between the Rangers, Flyers and Devils. The Devs have most fans down where I'm from.

[druez]

[quote=ISiddiqui]A lot, IMO. Plenty of people have told me they like the game, but all the fighting is something they really don't want their kids exposed to... and they'd like to go to games as a family.

I don't buy that. I mean do these people go see a football game? Football is just as violent if not more so.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't buy that. I mean do these people go see a football game? Football is just as violent if not more so.

Yes, but it is the flow of the game. The guys are being hit, so they don't gain another yard. Fighting in hockey is a side show. At best it is a deterrant... don't hit my guy so hard. It doesn't serve any other purpose. And the cheering and hype on it smacks of bloodlust.

Hits in hockey aren't problematic to them either... because it is to prevent the player from scoring or recieving a pass which would put him in a good position. Fighting is apart from that.

[druez]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On the shore, I never saw a street hockey league. Soccer was really, really, really big in my area.

And the hockey fans in the area are divided between the Rangers, Flyers and Devils. The Devs have most fans down where I'm from.

Ice Hockey was huge in the shore towns. Bricktown used to host a league that drew people from all over. The collesium is where the flyers practice in voorhees.

Ocean City, Sea Isle City and Brigantine all had street hockey leagues btw. You must be from up north to central Jersey.

But hockey is huge up there. The rangers, islanders and devils are all from the same 100 mile radius. Thats 3 teams.

Flyers are only 1 and half hours from the devils stadium.

[ISiddiqui]

No, I was from Toms River... and never heard of the Brick league. Like I said, soccer was huge and so was baseball (League League sucess and all that). Never heard of all this hockey hubbub... well except when the Devs won the cup and Dowd was from Brick. That's about it.

[druez]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes, but it is the flow of the game. The guys are being hit, so they don't gain another yard. Fighting in hockey is a side show. At best it is a deterrant... don't hit my guy so hard. It doesn't serve any other purpose. And the cheering and hype on it smacks of bloodlust.

Hits in hockey aren't problematic to them either... because it is to prevent the player from scoring or recieving a pass which would put him in a good position. Fighting is apart from that.

What is the average fights per game I wonder. Probably like 1 out of every 3 games "Maybe?" if not less there is a fight.

[ISiddiqui]

What is the average fights per game I wonder. Probably like 1 out of every 3 games "Maybe?" if not less there is a fight.

It's still there. It can still happen at any game. That ain't the case for football, where it is banned and severely punished, so it is extremely rare to see a fight.

[sabotai]

Parent's don't want their kids to see people fight, but it's ok to let them see people getting checked or blocked from the blind side? Ok to see them get repeatedly knocked on their ass? It's ok for kids to see that..but heaven forbid they actually see a fight.

No, I don't think most of those parents would be taking their kids to a hockey game either way. Especially after they see all of the cheap shot tactics that will be used if you ban fighting from hockey. Can't have people fight 1 on 1, but perfectly fine for someone to take their stick and hack at someone's knees when the ref isn't looking...

That ain't the case for football, where it is banned and severely punished, so it is extremely rare to see a fight

Ever been in the stands at a football game? They'll see a fight or two at a football game, but it probably won't be on the field.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by druez

What is the average fights per game I wonder.

Stats from www.hockeyfights.com:

Regular Season Stats	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	Projected 2003-04
Games	1230	1230	1043	1230
Fights*	803	668	705	831
Fights Per Game	0.65	0.54	0.68	0.68
Games With Fights	519	464	448	528
Percentage of Games with Fights	42.20%	37.72%	42.95%	42.95%
Games With More Than One Fight	172	139	155	183
Number of players who fought**	348	321	328	-

* A fight is counted when at least one player involved receives a fighting major.

** This is the number of players who have been involved in a fight during the course of the listed season, and does not always exactly match the number of players who have received a fighting major.

[druez]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's still there. It can still happen at any game. That ain't the case for football, where it is banned and severely punished, so it is extremely rare to see a fight.

Its not that punished, worst thing that happens is you get kicked out of the game.

[druez]

Good stuff man. So 4 out of 10 games about....

Originally Posted by klayman

Stats from www.hockeyfights.com:




* A fight is counted when at least one player involved receives a fighting ** This is the number of players who have been involved in a fight during the course of the listed season, and does not always exactly match the number of players who have received a fighting major.

major.

[ISiddiqui]

Parent's don't want their kids to see people fight, but it's ok to let them see people getting checked or blocked from the blind side? Ok to see them get repeatedly knocked on their ass? It's ok for kids to see that..but heaven forbid they actually see a fight.

Well yes... checked or blocked from the 'blind side' is within the flow of the game. Fighting is a seperate act of pugilism, which has nothing to do with the flow of the game. Take it to the boxing ring.

Its not that punished, worst thing that happens is you get kicked out of the game.

And another game or so. Kicked out of a football game with a 16 game season is far greater a punishment than leaving the ice for 5 minutes of a 82 game season.

major.

Indeed... In almost half of all hockey games there is a fight.

[sabotai]

Well yes... checked or blocked from the 'blind side' is within the flow of the game. Fighting is a seperate act of pugilism, which has nothing to do with the flow of the game.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If kids can understand the reasons for checking, they can understand the reasons for fighting. Unless, of course, these parents are total idiots (which wouldn't surprise me)

Just because something isn't involved "in the flow o fthe game" doesn't mean it should be taken out. That's just nonsense.