I love fighting. I like the spectacle. I love that extra dimension it gives to the sport. It's truly unique. I wish the instigator rule was not in place. I loved when their was a heavy weight matchup of Probert v. Domi, and seeing who was going to win the belt from the other. I loved that if anyone touched Yzerman Probie would immediately turn into the hulk and smash their face in, no matter what the consequences were for himself. I loved when McCarty turtled Lemieux, because I literally wanted vengeance and blood for what he did to Draper.
But here's why I think your argument stinks Frank. Everyone who I know that is pro-fighting (including myself) whines about how - since the instigator rule - the enforcers ability to protect and scare off the rats is almost completely diminished. Fighting USED to protect stars to an EXTENT, but not anymore, and that's what pisses off pro-fighting advocates and why everyone calls for the repeal of the instigator penalty.
So please, don't act like having McMeatbag on the fourth line/bench is going to protect Datsyuk. All that guy can do is instigate a revenge fight at a later time. And Scuderi can easily just say no at that time, and then we have another possible Bertuzzi-Moore situation on our hands.
If you want the culture of protective fighting you have to:
1) repeal the instigator rule
2) find a guy who can drop the gloves AND play top line minutes
3) time-travel back to the 1980s
Fighting these days is used to possibly change the mood of a game and/or to seek vengeance. And it puts fans like you and I in the stands. That's it.
agreed. i love fighting as much as the next guy but the reality is that in today's game, it serves no purpose other than to entertain the fans
- krsmith17 likes this