by Chris Bodenner
A reader makes an essential point:
Lost in the discussion is that the NHL and the Canadian Medical Association have studied concussion for some time and consistently find that fighting has been identified as a lesser contributor to player concussions than legal hits. (By the way, "Boxing On Ice" is far more cerebral than that representation; I urge you to read Adam Gopnik's essay on "why hockey is the smartest game in the world.")
Another differs:
I am sorry, but none of the other readers have yet managed to explain why fighting is necessary. You can argue that it is fun to watch or when playing that it is fun to do, but that doesn't make it necessary.
I played field hockey in high school. This sport is played on grass, so the players do not move as quickly, but they do wield lethal weapons in the form of sticks. The ball is also dangerous, in that on a good hit it can break bones. Almost every rule in field hockey is geared toward safety of the players, but the biggest difference in rules from ice hockey is that fighting, like in most sports, is not a part of the game.
Do some players get away with dirty plays? Sure. Refs can't be everywhere. One time a girl nearly broke my foot on a dirty hit, and the ref didn't see it. At no point did anyone suggest we send someone out to enforce the rules through a fistfight. That is ridiculous. Your coaches tell you to move on and keep your focus on the game. This is how it is in most sports.
It seems hockey has just made a conscious decision to ignore basic sportsmanship and general understanding of how we treat other players. That is fine. Just stop pretending that it is a necessary part of the game. It's not. It's just part of NHL culture. Other dangerous sports (including non-NHL ice hockey competitions) can play without fighting. So could the NHL, but only if it wants to.
Another is on the same page:
Lacrosse players wield deadly weapons as well and there isn't nearly the culture of fighting (while there's still some) as there is in hockey. And frequently the players participate in both sports, so it's not an issue of self-control. Any arguments FOR fighting in hockey are unjustifiable. They are using ritual, tradition, and culture to excuse something that should have been removed from the game long ago. And this coming from a guy that loves watching fights.
Reminds me of a great quote, can't remember from whom, and I'm paraphrasing: "Boxing is a brutal, awful sport that should not be embraced by modern culture, but until they ban it I'll watch every match I can."
Another:
While I tend to agree with one of your previous reader’s comments regarding the consensual nature of NHL fighting and the entertainment value of it, there is one area that I struggle with it: its influence on youth hockey.
Those of us who coach youth hockey spend hundreds of hours every year working with kids on developing a love of the game’s grace and skill, and we struggle with how much kids want to emulate the more negative physical aspects of the game. It’s probably hard for your readers who don’t live in ‘Hockey Country’ to understand, but youth hockey is not just another kid’s activity. It’s an entire lifestyle that involves countless hours on the ice and even more hours watching and daydreaming about professional hockey.
My big concern is that the culture of retaliation filters down through the age groups. I have seen fighting at the "old man league" level, at the high school level, and – most disturbingly – at the elementary school levels. I have personally coached 10 and 11 year old kids who have taken a swing at another player, and when I ask them what they were thinking, they say they were "just defending their teammates". As a coach you do your best to explain that these aren’t values that your team plays by and explain the value of hard work and fundamental skills, but you’re fighting the influence of 82 games a season where the enforcer gets the biggest fan reaction.
On that note, another reader points to a Youtube showing a player grabbing and slamming another's head into the glass barrier:
Here's a sign of how far the NHL has yet to go on the head injury front. There ended up being no injury on the play, but that's more luck than anything. Weber got a mere $2,500 fine rather than a suspension for that. At issue is a reluctance to deal out punishment in the playoffs at the same rate as in the regular season. The lesson for players to draw from the disciplinary outcome is likely not to be a good one.
Another adds, "If you want a recent example of a player getting hit through the glass, here you go." Another makes an interesting point:
I am dilettante boxer, and the physics of punching explains much of why fighting is allowed in hockey. To punch at all hard, you need to be able to plant your feet, which you can't do in skates. So hockey players can whale on each other – which fans love to watch – without doing the kind of permanent damage that usually results from fighting. Were hockey-like fights to break out in sports in which players can plant their feet, they would regularly carry players off on stretchers, which fans would not stand for. Case in point: Kermit Washington nearly killed Rudy Tomjanovich with one punch during a 1977 NBA game. A similar punch thrown on skates would do much less damage.
One more reader:
Considering that the vast majority of my hockey buddies wouldn't have a clue about The Dish, or who Andrew Sullivan is, I'm astonishingly pleased with the interest this thread had received. But no discussion about violence in hockey is complete without Jules Winnfield teaching the "Inglewood Jack".
Seen above. Lastly, I can't help but plug one of my favorite ads:
The Dish 