GM's want to give 10 minute misconduct penalty for fighting

[Guest Shoreline]

This is dumb, and it's actually not clear just what management from around the league wants..

I'm wondering though why give us such obviously podunk bulls*** statements like they want to keep fighting in the league and then turn around to reduce/eliminate fighting by some stupid rule that can easily be evaded? Is it an appeasement to the sensationalist media? An obviously serious step toward eliminating fighting would be a very easy mandatory face cages.

Mixed messages indeed.

[sureWhyNot 19]

so, Burke has too few real men in his new team and starts a campaign against fighting, right?

wonder what was his take when he was with Disney Ducks... ?

I'm for staged fights and against instigator. what I want to be out of the game is head hunting,

including cases of specific "player physics" (yes, I mean this dirty bastard Pronger).

this should result in automatic suspension of multiple games, and repeated offenders should

be banned from the league.

it's OK with me when big boys want to face each other and share some hacks. they know

their role and understand the risks. on the other hand I'm completely agains chickens who attack

unexpecting opponent (read: Tootoo's or Sindy's) or who target vulnerable body parts.

make it 4 minutes for high-sticking, make it 4 for fighting unaware player (sure, there's huge

gray zone here, but which penalty rule has none?) and make it 4 for kneeling. this is what's

most dangerous in this game.

but stay the f* out of fighting. there's place for it in hockey. don't make it some soccer or handball

where players do a lot of dirty job undercover. leave the fighting aspect of the game transparent.

I've watched enough soccer in my life to see how removing fights from the game results in drastic

growth of dirty and brutal plays when refs are not watching. plese keep the hockey away from this!

Good god you speak the truth. Amen to that!

[Vladifan 680]

I was thinking that the McCarty/Lemieux fight took place right after a faceoff? If so, if that rule had been in effect then, we just might not have won the Cup in '97.

And if that's how it happened, I have mixed feelings on their proposed rule changes.

[55fan 5,133]

I was thinking that the McCarty/Lemieux fight took place right after a faceoff? If so, if that rule had been in effect then, we just might not have won the Cup in '97.

And if that's how it happened, I have mixed feelings on their proposed rule changes.

I believe their rematch did, but not the original fight. That started with Larionov/Forsberg fighting and the place went nuts.

They have some lovely videos on you-tube of the whole thing.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Referees discretion had some merit when they all werent idiots, but I would be sick if they let them had out penalties for fights at their discretion. I understand where there coming from, but I dont like the idea. Trying to get new fans to the game isnt going to help by taking away fighting or making it harder to do. Dont fix what isnt broken, 3-4 FREAK ACCIDENTS IN 100 YEARS OF CONTACT HOCKEY. That is all, one happens this year and everyone hits the panic button and fighting becomes the hot button topic. Another good thing that the Bettman NHL has done, I wish they'd leave the good state of Hockey as we know it to someone who isnt a complete tool, god you dont even understand the NBA let alone hockey. Talk about things that are really hurting the game, not fighting. Again, I understand what your getting at, but leave it be for the love of god.

Honestly, listening to these GM's on TSN, I cant believe where the game has gone. Am I jumping the gun on this? Probably, but having my favorite game in the world screwed with every year, is starting to grow irritable.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Well look on the bright side; this won't affect us Wings fans in any way

[uk_redwing 495]

All of you saying how staged fights are pointless and support getting rid...you didnt enjoy Janssen v Downey then?

[Datsyerberger 279]

All of you saying how staged fights are pointless and support getting rid...you didnt enjoy Janssen v Downey then?

Oh, I definitely enjoyed it, of that there is no doubt.

However, the Romans enjoyed to the death gladiatorial combat and so forth. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily make it right.

[uk_redwing 495]

Oh, I definitely enjoyed it, of that there is no doubt.

However, the Romans enjoyed to the death gladiatorial combat and so forth. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily make it right.

You could say that about anything

[akustyk 84]

However, the Romans enjoyed to the death gladiatorial combat and so forth. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily make it right.

with nowadays standard - sure. but ancient world had it's own rules. cruelty was definitely there and had it's place

[eva unit zero 271]

Those of you who are acting like increasing the penalties for fighting would cause people to stop watching hockey altogether are misinformed. Yes, fighting is entertaining and many people do enjoy a good scrap...but quite a few games are played without a fight occurring, the games are even begun without the expectation of a fight, yet there are plenty of fans in attendance and the TV ratings are far from poor.

A 10 minute misconduct for each player for fights begun off the faceoff would be reasonable. As far as how you would call the additional instigator penalties Burke asked for, who knows because as was mentioned earlier how do you have a fight occurring in retaliation for a penalized dirty hit without it being "staged", such as waiting for the player to come out of the penalty box or matching up on a faceoff later in the game.

[Lovin Jiri Fischer 147]

Ummm I think players are still gonna do it anyway. Aren't most fighters proud of their PIMs since they don't put up points anyway?

[uk_redwing 495]

but quite a few games are played without a fight occurring, the games are even begun without the expectation of a fight, yet there are plenty of fans in attendance and the TV ratings are far from poor.

Really? 7/10 of game this season have had a fight excluding preseason. Many of those with more than 1 fight...so only 30% of games have been fightless.

Btw TV ratings for wings games are down over 20% this season. Just food for thought.

[sureWhyNot 19]

Oh, I definitely enjoyed it, of that there is no doubt.

However, the Romans enjoyed to the death gladiatorial combat and so forth. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily make it right.

Ha ha, wow. Now if that isn't a great argument to use I don't know what is. I mean the two are comparable -- wait, no they aren't.. At all... I mean if you want to really get dirty with this then we could get into the whole fact that 90% of the Roman's subjected their prisoners to the gladiatorial games you speak of. Now, if you want to make a comparison to the death penalty that is used in modern day society and the Roman gladiator practices you might have something - al be it a stretch - but maybe something. However in regards to hockey fights and gladiators in ancient Rome -- well you just sound funny.

Those of you who are acting like increasing the penalties for fighting would cause people to stop watching hockey altogether are misinformed. Yes, fighting is entertaining and many people do enjoy a good scrap...but quite a few games are played without a fight occurring, the games are even begun without the expectation of a fight, yet there are plenty of fans in attendance and the TV ratings are far from poor.

A 10 minute misconduct for each player for fights begun off the faceoff would be reasonable. As far as how you would call the additional instigator penalties Burke asked for, who knows because as was mentioned earlier how do you have a fight occurring in retaliation for a penalized dirty hit without it being "staged", such as waiting for the player to come out of the penalty box or matching up on a faceoff later in the game.

Once again -- WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Here are the average fights per game each season since 1992:

1992-93 - 0.71

1993-94 - 0.85

1994-95 - 0.88

1995-96 - 0.80

1996-97 - 0.93

1997-98 - 0.87

1998-99 - 0.66

1999-00 - 0.57

2000-01 - 0.61

2001-02 - 0.70

2002-03 - 0.56

2003-04 - 0.70

2004-05 - No season

2005-06 - 0.41

2006-07 - 0.44

2007-08 - 0.59

2008-09 - 0.68 (projected)

If fight totals go up again next year it will mark the first time in 20 years that fighting has increased in four consecutive seasons. Your notion or should I say, statement, that the majority of games do not have a fight is misleading in the sense that while only 43.7% of NHL games this year have included a fight, when the number of multiple fight games are thrown in that number increases nearly 16%.

So technically a little less then half NHL games go flightless (good lord the Wings are helping this out) the overall instances of fighting is greatly increasing in regards to the last 4 years -- with all signs pointing to an increase yeat again next year. This allows one to conclude that fighting is growing more popular in the sport yet again.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Ha ha, wow. Now if that isn't a great argument to use I don't know what is. I mean the two are comparable -- wait, no they aren't.. At all... I mean if you want to really get dirty with this then we could get into the whole fact that 90% of the Roman's subjected their prisoners to the gladiatorial games you speak of. Now, if you want to make a comparison to the death penalty that is used in modern day society and the Roman gladiator practices you might have something - al be it a stretch - but maybe something. However in regards to hockey fights and gladiators in ancient Rome -- well you just sound funny.

You missed the point, actually. I was quite aware what I was pointing out was a ridiculous, over-exaggerated example. This was to counter the notion the poster to which I responded seemed to state that those of us that wouldn't mind seeing this go into place did not enjoy the Downey-Janssen fight.

[Shaman 713]

I think its pretty cut and dry which is staged and which isnt....(note that if youve ever had seats on the glass you can tell who wants to fight who by the great 4 letter words you hear) I mean 'You wanna go?' and 'God luck' is pretty clear its not because someones pissed, its just to fight for the sake of it. I think this rule should be called just like a Goal is called, clear evidence, like you need to say its a goal that its clearly across the line, this penalty should only be called when there is clear evidence that the fight was just for the sake of fighting.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Shaman464

[Guest micah]

No NHL has had the occasional fight afetr a "clean" hit for over 90 years - what's the compelling reason to try and change that now?

Players commonly fighting off the faceoff is a direct result of the instigator rule. Players started fighting off the faceoffs because the Instigator rule was so strangely enforced durring the '90s - oftentimes players who quite clearly did not start the fight got the penalty - it was a very difficult thing for the refs to catch because fights so often broke out behind the play, and refs often immagined things that just didn't happen. Thankfully, the instigator penalty is rarely enforced today.

How about this rule? Drop the instigator penalty and allow the game to be played as it was for the majority of its existance. Even with no instigator penalty, Gretzky wasn't getting jumped by tough guys. Every team was a ballanced team - if you had weak skilled players, you also had to have some burly guys who weren't afraid to stand up for the weaklings. Just like how the world works. If you want to have a rich, prosperous country, that comes with a cost - you better be able to defend it. If you have a nice car and you want to keep it nice, you better have insurance. Dave Semenko was better insurance than some stupid legislation could be - more entertaining too.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

The way that the game is played has changed. The way the players fight has changed, maybe the way the rulebook reads should change too. With the addition of face shields, a new "hugging" style of fighting, and just a plain "little *****" style of enforcing has forced that these changes. You have players that instigate fights and hide behind a piece of plexi-glass so they don't get hurt. Now the "in thing" of fighting is to grab the other guy by the collar and hold him as far away from as possible and then short shot him with that hand. Then you add the players who chop at the top of opponents skates or cross-check after the play and then turtle. Fighting has always been part of our game, but so was gentleman like conduct. ( as much as can be expected by a guy you are trying to pummel and vice versa) Now what do we have?

[Spinner 6]

Really? 7/10 of game this season have had a fight excluding preseason. Many of those with more than 1 fight...so only 30% of games have been fightless.

This stat must not include the Wings unless Wings games are the majority of the 30%.

I personally think they should just leave the rules on fighting alone. Whether staged or not, most fans love it. I don't know anyone who has changed the channel during a fight. It's not like they beat each other to the death. My wife, who hates fighting per se, will watch a fight during a hockey game because 1. it's for the most part a controlled environment to where anyone rarely gets seriously hurt and 2. It's very entertaining. Yes, the fighting after a clean hit needs to stop but other than that let it go.

[Guest micah]

The way that the game is played has changed. The way the players fight has changed, maybe the way the rulebook reads should change too. With the addition of face shields, a new "hugging" style of fighting, and just a plain "little *****" style of enforcing has forced that these changes. You have players that instigate fights and hide behind a piece of plexi-glass so they don't get hurt. Now the "in thing" of fighting is to grab the other guy by the collar and hold him as far away from as possible and then short shot him with that hand. Then you add the players who chop at the top of opponents skates or cross-check after the play and then turtle. Fighting has always been part of our game, but so was gentleman like conduct. ( as much as can be expected by a guy you are trying to pummel and vice versa) Now what do we have?

Instigating while wearing a shield is the one fight-rekated recent rule change that I appreciate. If you're in a fight for any reason other than being jumped, you better noe have a visor on.

The game today and the fights today are FAR more gentlemanly than they were 50 years ago. Stickfights and bench-clearers were once relatively common, now they're unheard of.

The league has mannaged to remove just about all the danger from a fight that they can and still call it a fight, but some still don't think it's enough. I relly enjoyed the games I watched in the 80s more than the game I'm watching today. I'm a crumudgeon, I guess.

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

This would a stupid idea. WOW!

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Burke's right. The fights right at the drop of the puck are stupid and serve no real purpose. If they're going to sacrifice some aspect of fighting to appease the baying idiots calling for the end of fighting then get rid of the pre-arranged BS fights off the face-off.

I think it'd be near impossible to to police this.

Take this hypothetical situation. Let's say you have Cam Janssen and Aaron Downey. Neither plays a whole lot. Let's say Downey has creamed 3 Blues players and gotten a penalty for boarding already and hurt one of the Blues' players. Let's say they just happen to finally get on the ice together and Janssen finally has a shot to do something about it. Now, we're going to penalize Janssen for trying to put an end to somebody running his teammates?

And technically, 99.9999& of fights happen after a faceoff. So in reality, all fights would be penalized. So what can you do? Say you can't fight within 10 seconds after a faceoff? That's ridiculous.

There's too much room for misinterpretation and it'll just be impossible to find a good solution via this route.

I am in agreement that as much as I hate the instigator, the fights after every clean hit, while sometimes exciting, are getting out of hand. The instigator is here to stay. So if there's a clean hit, followed by a fight, just have the refs hand out an instigator every single time. Now, if you rock somebody and his teammate comes up and shoves you and gets you to go, you each get 5. The refs don't call the instigator literally unless you drop the gloves first and start swinging at the other guy. IMO, if your teammate gets drilled and you go up to the guy who hit him, even if he agrees to fight, you've still "instigated" it so therefore call it every single time. That IMO would work.

[Guest micah]

I disagree, the instigator penalty should never be called when two men fight willingly, iit should only prevent cases where one guy forces another to fight. If Donnal Brashear jumps Pavel Datsyuk, forcing Pavel to drop his gloves and make a (likely rather pathetic) attempt to defend himself, Brash deserves the 2, 5 and 10 package. If Brashear comes up to Downey and says "hey man, wanna go?" and harasses him until he agrees to fight, that ought not be instigating. that's classic pest work, and I think it has a place in the game. Anytime two men fight by mutual consent, even if one player had to be coerced, that oughta be matching 5s. when one guy starts beating on another guy who either isn't prepared or isn't willing to fight back, that's the only time I want to see intigator penalties called. actually, I'd rather not even see them called then, I'd like to see it handled how it was handled when guys like Gretzky were at their prime, but I don't think that's coming back. Hockey has been sissified plenty since the good old days, I hope they don't make it worse.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I disagree, the instigator penalty should never be called when two men fight willingly, iit should only prevent cases where one guy forces another to fight. If Donnal Brashear jumps Pavel Datsyuk, forcing Pavel to drop his gloves and make a (likely rather pathetic) attempt to defend himself, Brash deserves the 2, 5 and 10 package. If Brashear comes up to Downey and says "hey man, wanna go?" and harasses him until he agrees to fight, that ought not be instigating. that's classic pest work, and I think it has a place in the game. Anytime two men fight by mutual consent, even if one player had to be coerced, that oughta be matching 5s. when one guy starts beating on another guy who either isn't prepared or isn't willing to fight back, that's the only time I want to see intigator penalties called. actually, I'd rather not even see them called then, I'd like to see it handled how it was handled when guys like Gretzky were at their prime, but I don't think that's coming back. Hockey has been sissified plenty since the good old days, I hope they don't make it worse.

Micah, I agree in principle. But what you are talking about is not the same as what I ama talking about. And the point is that folks are trying to find a way to curb fighting. IMO, this is one of the least intrusive ways of doing.

Re: your examples: In the Datsyuk example, of course 2 + 5 + 10 is the way to go. In the Brashear/Downey example of course that should just be 5 and 5 for each guy.

But that's the status quo and people are trying to change the status quo. So how do you eliminate some fighting w/o changing the nature of the game or doing it in an obtrusive, impossible to police effectively type of way?

IMO, you can't give penalties for fighting after a faceoff. All fights technically occur after a faceoff (well 99.99% of them anyway), so there's too many variables to do this effectively.

IMO, the one area in which you I think you can eliminate some fights to appease the non fight crowd, yet not butcher the nature of the game, is to give an extra penalty for initiating a fight after a hit.

As it stands now, if somebody gets creamed, even legally, many times a teammate will skate right over to the hitter and in some way, shape or form get that guy to fight. My view is that by skating over to that guy, in that moment, given those circumstances, you are most certainly "instigating" a fight there. So even if the hitter agrees to fight or sees you coming and drops the gloves willingly, you still instigated a fight and you should get the extra penalties.

As a hockey purist I don't like this suggestion. But as a pragmatic person, trying to appease the calls for less of the so-called "staged" fight or the senseless fights, ie the ones that happen after a clean hit where apparently, in today's NHL you cannot throw a clean hit without having to fight afterwards, I think this way you might curb some of the fighting.

I for one love a big hit. And I love when a player sticks up for his teammate after a cheap shot hit. But when a guy gets cleanly blown up, and his teammate rushes in and instigates a fight with the hitter, it just pisses me off b/c where is the toughness anymore? You can't hit anybody clean without having to fight? That's ridiculous. If you get smoked or a teammate gets smoked...legally that is...then go cleanly smoke one of their guys.

I'm just trying to find a solution to curb some of the fighting as it's apparent now the league, the players, the GM's are trying to find a way to stop some "types" of fights.

[sureWhyNot 19]

I don't think they should change a thing.

It is beyond tragic what happened to Don Sanderson, but it didn't happen in the NHL, and if sports were to base their rules and rule changes on freak accidents that occured at a recreational/amateur level every game would change as we know it.

You would have football making rule changes based on freak accidents in high school games, Baseball would change how we know it if amateur/rec level accidents dictated the MLB's rulebook, etc.

What happened to Sanderson is absolutely, and unequivocally nightmarish -- something that no family should have to go through. But with that said, what was he doing even fighting in a senior league? And do the actions of guys who play hockey part time, or purely for recreation really deserve a hand in the NHL decision making process?