37 replies to this topic

[RedWingsDad]

Hockey wouldn't be hockey without fighting. I'd hate to see it leave.

Truth. My primary interest in hockey is the fighting and grit... it's what appeals to me and gets me out of my seat. Pacifistic, girly, European style hockey is uninteresting to me. They have already partly sissified the game by penalizing clutching and grabbing and for calling penalties on every little itty bitty iota of contact away from the puck... if they also move towards eliminating fighting they will likely lose a fan (me).

[number9]

The OHL has taken step in another direction...for now; from ontariohockeyleague.com:

didn't know we were playing soccer

Drastically change the game I grew up playing? my father grew up playing? and his father grew up playing? no thank you. hockey without fighting ISNT HOCKEY. its a domino effect.....changing the fighting aspect results in shifts in many other aspects of the sport as well. If you can't take the fighting to the point you need to never see it, GO WATCH SOCCER

[Dabura]

Pacifistic, girly, European style hockey Red Wings hockey is uninteresting to me.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[cusimano_brothers]

From TSN:

But just five weeks into the 2012-13 season, the new measure has had a dramatic influence on the numbers of fights across the league.

Fighting in the OHL is down 32.1 per cent after 119 games, compared to the same number of one year ago.

This move doesn't seem to have affected the quality of hockey.

[esteef]

From TSN:



This move doesn't seem to have affected the quality of hockey.

The article doesn't mention "quality of hockey" at all. It just says because of the new rule (more than 10 fights a season = suspension) fights are down compared to the previous year, so far. Well duh?

esteef

[cusimano_brothers]

The article doesn't mention "quality of hockey" at all. It just says because of the new rule (more than 10 fights a season = suspension) fights are down compared to the previous year, so far. Well duh?

No, I did.
The purpose of the new rules is to cull those whose names are habitually on the list of the OHL's suspension list. So far, it seems that
players aren't taking the same risks leading to suspension that they did last year. That's all.

[Nev]

Question for all those who grew up in the North American hockey system - at what age do kids start fighting?

Follow-up question: How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with "except when you're playing hockey"? Especially in a very liberal country such as Canada?

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Truth. My primary interest in hockey is the fighting and grit... it's what appeals to me and gets me out of my seat. Pacifistic, girly, European style hockey is uninteresting to me. They have already partly sissified the game by penalizing clutching and grabbing and for calling penalties on every little itty bitty iota of contact away from the puck... if they also move towards eliminating fighting they will likely lose a fan (me).

If you can't beat 'em, beat 'em up. I find it somewhat unsportsmanlike.
Also, clutching and grabbing was pure garbage to watch. Dumping the puck followed by scrum in the corner is not the most entertaining brand of hockey.

[number9]

Question for all those who grew up in the North American hockey system - at what age do kids start fighting?

Follow-up question: How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with "except when you're playing hockey"? Especially in a very liberal country such as Canada?

As soon as their balls drop

How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with the overwhelming amount of violence in the news, tv shows, movies, video games, music, and sports? fighting in hockey has nothing to do with how liberal Canada is btw

[sleepwalker]

How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with the overwhelming amount of violence in the news, tv shows, movies, video games, music, and sports?

Not to mention the two main "father figures" as it were, other than the actual parents that children have is their country and religion, and both, no matter where you are, have throughout history and to this day use extreme violence, death, and destruction to "solve" most of their problems. Not that I condone violence, but you can preach non-violence all you want, but it is really just "do as I say not as I do" type thing.

[newfy]

Question for all those who grew up in the North American hockey system - at what age do kids start fighting?

Follow-up question: How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with "except when you're playing hockey"? Especially in a very liberal country such as Canada?

Refs will generally break up any fights right away until bantam rep hockey which is about 14 years old. At that point depending on the size of the kids they can stay out. So basically once you become a teen you can choose to fight in Canada however if one guy starts beating on someone else that doesnt want to refs will jump in right away.

And I actually think hockeys attitude towards fighting makes the country less violent. Kids will shake hands after a fight and theres a bunch of stories about the respect fighters have for each other and grabing a beer together after a game. I've shaken hands with plenty of guys after I fought them in hockey and Lacrosse

[RedWingsDad]

If you can't beat 'em, beat 'em up. I find it somewhat unsportsmanlike.
Also, clutching and grabbing was pure garbage to watch. Dumping the puck followed by scrum in the corner is not the most entertaining brand of hockey.

Violence in the NHL is measured and controlled by rules and penalties. If someone did something truly unsportsmanlike, and got caught, there would be repercussions. Hmm, well.... visions of Weber smashing Z's head in the boards just flew through my mind... so let me clarify and say that there should be repercussions, according to the rules.

I was more entertained by hockey prior to the crack down on physical contact and clutching and grabbing.

[Nev]

As soon as their balls drop

How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with the overwhelming amount of violence in the news, tv shows, movies, video games, music, and sports? fighting in hockey has nothing to do with how liberal Canada is btw

Not to mention the two main "father figures" as it were, other than the actual parents that children have is their country and religion, and both, no matter where you are, have throughout history and to this day use extreme violence, death, and destruction to "solve" most of their problems. Not that I condone violence, but you can preach non-violence all you want, but it is really just "do as I say not as I do" type thing.

Thanks for not answering the question and pointing the finger at everyone else "doing it"

Refs will generally break up any fights right away until bantam rep hockey which is about 14 years old. At that point depending on the size of the kids they can stay out. So basically once you become a teen you can choose to fight in Canada however if one guy starts beating on someone else that doesnt want to refs will jump in right away.

Thankyou for a proper answer.

[sleepwalker]

Thanks for not answering the question and pointing the finger at everyone else "doing it"



Thankyou for a proper answer.

Ok, I'll give you an answer, but you probably won't like it. You asked:

How do parents reconcile the message of "don't use violence to solve your problems" with "except when you're playing hockey"?

Maybe things are different over there, but on this side of the pond, a lot of parents choose to be honest with their children and let them know that while violence should be an absolute last resort, and you shouldn't use violence to solve your problems, sometimes in hockey, (as in life) violence is inevitable. If someone attacks you, you defend yourself.

Edited by sleepwalker, 26 October 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[F.Michael]

Hmm...

What would I rather deal with...Taking on a guy like Bob Probert in his prime in a "mano e mano" fight - both as willing combatants...Or taking a blind shot into the boards head 1st from the likes of a Claude Lemieux, or Matt Cooke?

[Nev]

Ok, I'll give you an answer, but you probably won't like it. You asked:



Maybe things are different over there, but on this side of the pond, a lot of parents choose to be honest with their children and let them know that while violence should be an absolute last resort, and you shouldn't use violence to solve your problems, sometimes in hockey, (as in life) violence is inevitable. If someone attacks you, you defend yourself.

But why do other "violent" sports such as rugby and the NFL not have fighting? Rugby players play a sport every bit as physical as hockey, a sport where physicality and physical intimidation are every bit as important, yet fighting is not part of the culture.

[number9]

But why do other "violent" sports such as rugby and the NFL not have fighting? Rugby players play a sport every bit as physical as hockey, a sport where physicality and physical intimidation are every bit as important, yet fighting is not part of the culture.

maybe cause....uh.....it's a different culture

I don't know much about Football or Rugby but if they choose not to allow fighting cool, good for them, I don't care. I just hope they keep their pansy sport to themselves and don't meddle with mine.

[F.Michael]

But why do other "violent" sports such as rugby and the NFL not have fighting? Rugby players play a sport every bit as physical as hockey, a sport where physicality and physical intimidation are every bit as important, yet fighting is not part of the culture.

There's no "out of bounds" in hockey (play continues thus the emotions can get outta hand), and in hockey the players carry what can be deemed as a weapon.

Until recent years - in American/Canadian football you can "get even" on the very next play by hitting that opponent as hard as you can - potentially causing an injury, and that's pretty much accepted.