Because if you have and you still believe
fighting has no place in the game, you’re a better man than I.
 |
| Even at 5'10" & 180 pounds, you didn't want to mess with 'the Rocket. |
Fighting has been a part of hockey since the
beginning. Going back to the fifties and
sixties, all players had to fight if the need arose. Everybody had to be prepared to defend
themselves at any time and if you weren’t a tough son of a bitch, you wouldn’t
be in the league for long.
The 60’s turned to the 70’s and fighting became a
strategy as much as a necessity. Teams
like the Broad Street Bullies in Philadelphia and the Boston Bruins used
fighting to intimidate their opponents.
Philadelphia actually used a combination of skill and intimidation to
bully their way to a couple of Stanley Cups.
Even the fans weren't safe from being beaten by their own
shoes in the 70's. Yes, Milbury was even more of a
meathead back then.
These rules helped define the next generation of
fighting which ruled the 80’s and 90’s, that of the enforcer.
This was when the role of the fighter actually
became solidified. Each team had one or two players whose sole job was to
enforce the unwritten rules of hockey.
If an opposition tried to hack a star or touch the goalie, the enforcer
would drop the gloves and try to teach the offending player a lesson. If the offending player’s action was
grievous enough, several players might wait their turn to try and beat the
lesson into the player.
 |
| The 'Evil Overlord' Gary Bettman, does he really know what's best for hockey? |
In 1992, in an effort to further curb the
violence in hockey, one of the most controversial rules in hockey was
instituted, the ‘instigator’ rule.
Political correctness was paramount at the time. Evil Overlord, Gary
Bettman, took the NHL into an expansion phase and the theory was floated that
hockey would never be accepted in the new American cities without the
perception that hockey was ‘cleaning up the game’.
Now, players who dared instigate a fight would
receive a two minute minor and a misconduct as well as the fighting major. Three such penalties in a season would lead
to suspension.
It was at this point the reasons for fighting
became perverted and the rats seemed to flourish.
The new regulation discouraged players from
policing themselves. It was supposed to
allow fights to occur because of the nature of the game as a spontaneous act of
two players mad at each other and not involve an unwilling combatant.
Unfortunately the players inclined to fight are
the team goons, large behemoths who sit on the bench for 55 minutes a game,
then fight when the two coaches decide to get some emotion into the game or to
show team resilience.
Fighting became less about serving a purpose and
more about entertainment and emotion.
This was how fighting served a purpose. Gretzky felt safe because
Peplinski only had to grab him and Mcsorley would punish him.
So how do I feel about fighting? Really the only way to answer that is by
giving you my own experiences— after all, drawing on our own frame of reference
is how we form opinions.
I was a fairly decent, but nowhere near a great,
amateur player. When I played my last
year of minor hockey, where fighting was not allowed, I was 17 years old. I was an offensive centre at or near the top of
the league in scoring.
We faced an old foe with a ‘cagey’ coach who had a
plan. On the very first shift of the
game I found out what it was. As I
carried the puck through the neutral zone, one of their players put his stick
between my legs and yanked as hard as he could.
I ended up flipping over on my back and sprawled on the ice.
The opponent received a two-minute minor but they
didn’t care, their message was sent. For
the rest of the series any time one of their players was near me or checking
me, I got a quick hook, hack or slash to my jock strap.
Some were little tugs, some were big tugs and
some were vicious. They took three to
four penalties a game pulling at my balls, I took a couple of penalties a game
throwing a gloved punch. It took every
ounce of my control to not do anything vicious in return.
With no meaningful way to prevent them, I was
completely thrown off my game. We lost
the series and I was completely ineffective.
Strangely being preoccupied with men jabbing your nuts will do that to
you. I did end up with matching bruises
on either side of my jockstrap as a souvenir for the series, so I guess there’s
that.
 |
| Whenever it gets boring, I promise hot hockey chicks. It gets better I promise. |
Later in my adult hockey career, I again led the
league in scoring and was also cut seven times by ‘accidental’ high sticks in
35 games during the season. Sick of the abuse, I asked to play with the two
wingers who were over 6’1” and 200lbs each.
We played together for seven years and I was cut only two more times
total.
So how does my self-indulgent stroll through
memory lane relate to fighting at the NHL level?
First, opponents do things with their sticks that
make fighting necessary unless you want to see escalated stick work back.
Second, just the fear of retribution makes players a little more cautious than
they would be otherwise.
These aren’t things I’m guessing at, they’re
things I know as fact from my time playing hockey. Did my wingers fight for me? Maybe twice in
our time together, but the important thing was they sure let the other team
know it was a possibility when I was taking any abuse— the threat helped me
perform with a comfort level I didn’t have without them.
In the days before the instigator rule, fighting
served a higher purpose. If a player was
playing the game in a cheap or dirty manner someone tried to beat the crap out
of him and let him know those kind of antics won’t be tolerated. If the player didn’t get the message on the
first try, a team might send several players over the board during a game to
convince the guy to stop his cheap tactics.
The other even more important purpose of fighting
was to allow the star players the freedom to play without the fear of
intimidation or being checked too vigorously.
Before the instigator, trying to intimidate or relentlessly pester a
star player was a dangerous proposition.
Anyone that was thought to be taking liberties with the great players of
the day was instantly grabbed by the enforcer or the nearest tough guy on the
team and taught a lesson on why that player was untouchable.
Then came the instigator rule and fighting’s role
changed. If you want to spontaneously
fight that’s okay, but fighting to protect a player or avenge a perceived wrong
is not okay. The league will do the
policing either by in game penalties or suspensions.
Unfortunately what this did was open the door for
more cheap plays and more rat-like players.
Players like Brad Marchand, Matt Cooke and Jordin Tootoo were allowed to
flourish knowing they could hack and whack at will and not have to back up
their actions because they could just skate away.
Sean Avery plays the game without honour and runs
when confronted about his antics
Here’s what Luc Robitaille had to say on the
subject, "Fix that instigator rule, make it more lenient, and a few guys
will be more watchful," said Robitaille, now in the L.A. King’s front
office. "The pest role today is very popular, but 20 years ago if you were
a pest three games in a row, and (Detroit enforcer) Bob Probert grabbed you,
the next thing you know you were a little more careful."
Did cheap shots happen back then, of course, but
they weren’t as prevalent. You can certainly find video evidence of cheap shots
but that doesn’t mean it happened as often, it just proves that it
happened.
Most of the writers that are anti-fighting or
pro-instigator rule will ask where’s your statistics to prove the instigator
rule caused more cheap shots? Let me reverse that for just one moment, where’s
your evidence it doesn’t? Finding a couple of instances a year from the past
seems anecdotal to me, Brendan Shanahan has amassed a library of over 30
incidents this season alone.
Another unfortunate side effect of the instigator
rule is that too often it has made fighting a gimmick. It’s just two big goons squaring off for no
real reason at all. The coaches will
give their fourth line one of their three shifts in a game and the two goons
will look at each other before the puck drops, nod, then throw down their
gloves as soon as the puck’s down.
These are the types of fights that serve no purpose and
definitely help the anti-fighting cause.
Some might say fighting belongs in the UFC
octagon or the boxing ring, to those I ask, why is fighting okay there but not
on a hockey rink? Fighting is a part of
hockey like fighting is a part of MMA or boxing; to me it’s hypocritical to say
that violence is okay here but not there.
Either you think fighting is barbaric and causes ‘preventable injuries’
or you don’t.
A classic example of how fighting could have
diffused an ugly situation but instead got escalated is the Bertuzzi - Moore
fiasco.
When Steve Moore hit Marcus Naslund, it was clear
his intent was to ignore the puck and hit Naslund in a vulnerable
position. In the old days he would have
known that that hit would mean he had to fight, right there and then.
If you have the guts to hit a guy in a manner
that can hurt or debilitate the player, you better have the guts to face the
repercussions. The likelihood is Steve
Moore never would have made that hit in the first place, because he never would
have wanted the abuse that would have ensued.
Also it could have ended right there but the
Canucks were more worried about taking a stupid penalty than sticking up for
their star lying prone on the ice. Brad
May actually grabs Moore then realizes he’s going to take several costly
penalties in a tight game and lets him go.
When McSorley took a run at Gilmore in the playoffs,
Clark took him on right there and the issue was settled.
Moore then spent the remainder of that game and
another running from Vancouver’s repeated challenges. Finally after 2 games of
ducking Vancouver, a fight seemed inevitable so Moore decided to accept the
invitation of the smallest, wimpiest player he could find.
A 15 second wrestling match against Vancouver’s
smallest player wasn’t going to make up
for concussing Vancouver’s star player.
The lesson here was clear though, had there been
no instigator the incident may never have happened because Moore may have had a
fear of what might happen if he targeted Naslund’s head. Further it would have
ended then and there because Brad May would have taken care of business as soon
as it happened. If not right then, then
during the next shift.
Instead the Canucks challenged him a dozen more
times after that fight and Moore ran from them all before Bertuzzi
snapped. I’m not making excuses for
Bert’s act, he could have been suspended for life and I would have been okay
with it.
I’m not one who condones actions that cause
serious injuries but I do understand why they happen. When you allow situations
to fester, you can’t be surprised when the response isn’t as measured as the
original action; sometimes revenge goes much further, right Duncan Keith?
 |
| Kids there's nothing 'old school' or honourable about this hit. It was always dirty and cheap. |
The problem as highlighted by the Keith
suspension, the punishments are rarely long enough or costly enough to really
make a guy think twice.
Another problem occurs because fighting happens
too often for the wrong reasons, even hockey experts have lost the plot on why
fighting existed. As an example I refer you to a line from a recent Puck Daddy
on Yahoo Sports article, “Again, the initial
hit doesn't exonerate Keith, but it's also going to be part of the context for
a suspension. The Department of Player Safety can still be a very old school
place; and would it surprise you at all if they viewed a retaliatory elbow
differently than a non-instigated one? Because while Sedin's hit wasn't
suspendable, it damn sure wasn't innocent either.”
Here’s an excellent writer from one of the most
reputable blogs on hockey insinuating a retaliatory elbow minutes after Sedin’s
original hit was somehow ‘old school’.
If this is what hockey experts are saying it’s no wonder people are
confused. Let me clear it up:
Old school hockey is not a flying elbow several
minutes after the original infraction, old school hockey is dropping your
gloves the moment the first hit occurred and letting that player know right
there and then not to target your head.
If the player that was hit didn’t do it, his teammate likely would.
Another thing that gets lost in this argument,
hockey is the only professional sport where players carry weapons. As professionals, they can wield it in ways
you or I can’t imagine. They know what’s vulnerable and exactly how to inflict
all manner of pain on their opponents.
Fights based on emotion should always be a part
of the game. If not, stick work will increase and you’re kidding yourself if
you think otherwise.
If you know your hockey history, the Red Wings had been close but were
thought to be too soft to win it all. Colorado had pushed them around
and this brawl was seen as the defining moment in their evolution.
99 percent of players polled said fighting belonged in hockey in a recent Sports Illustrated poll.
99 percent!
That’s not a few, or a small majority. That’s basically every player who’s had a
stick stuck in his nuts realizing there’s a need to allow a response that
doesn’t involve escalated stick work.
As for the instigator rule, again those who are
anti-fighting will tell you it will only bring the knuckle draggers back and
turn the game into ‘thugs on ice’. I
don’t believe that.
The game has changed; if you can’t keep up with
the pace, you will have no place in the game.
Will it stop cheap shots? Not all of them, that’s not possible. But will it make guys think before they try
it? Maybe, I know I’m less likely to try
something if I think I’m going to be repeatedly punched in the head as result
of my action and I bet some NHLers would too.
 |
| Wayne Gretzky's opinion will always be the one I value the most. |
Wayne Gretzky has an interesting take, he thinks
we should drop the instigator on a trial basis just to see if it can help to
lessen the cheap plays and help protect the stars: "Let's
try it back in the game for one year just to satisfy everybody's
curiosity," said Gretzky. "I was lucky enough to have a guy like
Marty McSorley. That was part of the game and part of what went on in our
sport. Now if we all think and everyone feels that the instigator issue will
change things, then let's try it for a while."
To me this is the best solution
since it would give more clarity to the situation and perhaps give one side or
the other the statistics they need to prove their case.
Until then, I ask those that would like to see fighting banned
in hockey, ‘how many times have you been hooked in the nuts?’
No comments:
Post a Comment