In Defense of Fighting

The meetings of the NHL general managers happened earlier this month in Toronto and, much to the surprise of your dog, fighting was discussed.  Lightning GM Steve Yzerman, himself a former great player who belongs in the top 20 of the game, has proposed a ban on fighting whereby players engaging in fights will receive a match penalty.  This would throw them out of the current game and keeps them out of further games until the NHL brass schedules a disciplinary hearing.

This debate has raged for years, without anything truly changing.  But, an announced lawsuit by former NHL players about concussions, the hot-button issue when trying to shake down the game that gave you a fairly good livelihood, could actually precipitate some significant changes in the sport.

Based on the title above, you know where I’m going, but I think it fair to point out a large group of peons in this debate.  I refer to those who steadfastly utter the following: “Because it’s been done that way for years!”  I won’t accept that.  The large number of head injuries and our growing sense of concussions require a more creative response than that.  Hockey has a very proud tradition, having been played since the very early 1900s, but in the modern game the reformers have some decently compelling arguments that need to be addressed.

An ideal policy about fighting will try to achieve the following objectives; (1) reduce all-around injuries in hockey; and (2) properly penalize players that engage in violent behaviors and break the rules.  Those are not tough objectives and the current policy meets them.

Many reformers now point to some truly vicious injuries suffered at the fists of other players.  George Parros slammed his head on the ice this season and Nick Kypreos was knocked out on his feet and broke a cheekbone when he collided with the ice.  There are dozens of these incidents, and with each new installment the chorus grows.  But these are exceptionally unique scenarios, and the majority of concussions suffered in the NHL result not from fights but from incidental (or intentional) blows to the head.  Those are plays that truly need to be weeded out from the game, and fighting plays a part in doing so.  Here’s why:

A lot happens in a hockey game.  Sticks, gloves, skates, pads, and a small rubber biscuit all move at the same time.  And for all those nuances, only two men can call penalties.  For eleven men on the ice, two referees.  In the NFL, there are seven.  Those NHL referees must also do what many NFL referees do not: they have to stay out of the way.  With no sidelines, hockey often tangles its zebras in a herd of lions, forcing some fancy footwork and pirouettes to escape the carnage.  There are a multitude of factors contributing to hockey referees missing not just penalties, but dirty hits.

There are many good examples of this.  Three come particularly to mind: Tie Domi’s elbow on Scott Niedermayer in the 2001 playoffs, Claude Lemieux’s vicious hit on Kris Draper in 1999, and Raffi Torres’ missile act on Marian Hossa in 2012.  Those were missed on the ice, resulting in bad injuries for everyone and huge playoff ramifications.  While we can discuss the state of officiating all we want, there is one truth: Domi would never have attempted such tomfoolery had Scott Stevens not been in the penalty box already.  What happened to Lemieux the next year?  Darren McCarty gave him what the NHL should have given him…an early exit to the dressing room.

Jarome Iginla, former Calgary great and waffling trade participant, recently told SI.com that fighting cuts down on dirty play because it acts as a deterrent.  If you play dirty, says Iginla, you will pay for it.  While the question of deterrents and incentives largely dominates the political world, the confined space of a rink allows for real deterrents.  A dirty player’s actions are seen by all.  We see this writ small in our nightlife: would you antagonize a guy who has a friend much bigger than you?  No, unless you’re stupid (and there are definitely very idiotic NHLers out there).

Many point to the aforementioned Parros injury as the need to eliminate “stage fights” in which two tough guys square off.  They say these are examples of barbarism in sports and the NHL should do more to make these die.

Forgive me, but what is barbaric about two grown men, knowing the stakes and risks, dropping their gloves and having a bare-fisted thumping match.  If that’s barbaric, then what is boxing?  An import from Candyland?  NHL enforcers that square off in this manner do not dive around the issue of contention, but rather they face each other, man to man.  I see no difference between this and boxing except for the ice and three inches of glove padding.  For that matter, the NFL has until recently been fine with running at a receiver and hitting him as hard as you can.  That causes way more head injuries than fighting, so which sport is truly barbaric?

The larger point about the NHL not doing enough is similarly misguided.  The institution of the “third man in” rule provides an ejection to any third player who joins a fight with two combatants.  Players receive ten game suspensions for jumping off the bench into a fracas, and their coach is fined.  As of this year, all players must keep their helmets on when fighting or risk ejection.  In short, the NHL has provided proper incentives to keep fighting contained.  Sure, there will be sucker punches and similar moments, but that’s where the pugnacious teammates come in.  There are fewer injuries because overall there is less dirty play, and those players who might try to push the envelope are always penalized in some fashion.

This of course does not prevent dullards like Chris Simon and Todd Bertuzzi from really hurting people unnecessarily.  The plays of those two caused bad injuries, but just because fighters engage in that behavior sometimes does not immediately imply that fighting needs to be eliminated.  In both those cases, the NHL handed down large suspensions (25 to Simon, Bertuzzi missed about 20 games) which, in a sport full of so much intensity, made a conscious effort to brand the behavior as improper.

There are a few other objections that are raised.  In no particular order, some say fighting would be illegal on the streets.  The stage fights might get you a one night stay in jail, but the true street assault is the sucker punch or stick slash.  Those are illegal in the NHL too, and they penalize them heavily.  Others believe it is just a fan gimmick and that the sport should stop the “brutality for the sake of fans” attitude.  While fans enjoy fighting, they care about winning more.  Red Wings fans have been plenty happy with their team not fighting and yet competing every year for the Cup under Mike Babcock.  I will also point out that a little fun for fans is not unheard of.  The IOC allows beach volleyball players to wear bikinis, so where’s your indignation about that?  You are probably too busy watching Sweden vs. Greece on NBC, so I’ll check back later.  Selling violence and selling sex appeal are not the same thing of course, but don’t raise your hackles about the barbarism of one sport when another very clearly feeds on our most primal instinct.

There are others. But, it’s time to accept that hockey has a great policy currently that achieves real objectives while not stifling the intensity of the sport.  I will also point out a ban on fighting is completely unnecessary, as the “goon” is dying out.  There’s no need to add a bureaucratic layer when the teams and GMs of the NHL are already on that train.  Let them go their way, and we’ll enjoy the game as is.