NHL GMs look to end staged fights
"At the end of the second day of their annual meetings on Tuesday, the GMs' recommended that players who fight by appointment will receive a 10-minute misconduct penalty in addition to a five-minute major penalty for fighting. The biggest targets for this measure are players who meet at a faceoff and agree to fight. While NHL referees will be granted wide discretion to decide what is a staged fight, almost all fights at faceoffs will result in the additional misconduct penalties."
~~
It sounds like this rule is a go for next season. I do wonder, however, if all it will accomplish is necessitate that the goons skate around a bit more before doing their dance routine.
Still, a decent first attempt.
8 months ago
James Mirtle
48 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
It's not even the staged fights that bother me so much...
i cannot stand how after every hard, clean hit there is a scuffle/fight….it drives me nuts.
by allstar397 on Mar 10, 2009 3:30 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Re:
Annoying indeed, but what bothers me even more is how there’s always a scuffle in front of the net. If you’re a player and the puck is in the goalie’s crease, what else are you supposed to do but try to poke it in? The whole mandatory macho bulls**t show is incredibly irritating to me
by Costa24 on Mar 10, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just like when the icing rule was first introduced after the lockout...
…players WILL find a way to get around this.
Defending Big D an SBN Dallas Stars Blog | TheStarsFans
by Brandon Bibb on Mar 10, 2009 3:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thinking about it a bit more, all this may accomplish is boosting the PIM totals for fighters. I’m not sure many teams would be all that concerned about an additional misconduct for a guy who already contributes little on the ice anyway.
by James Mirtle on Mar 10, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great comment from over at KK...
“What’s another 10 minutes when a lot of the fighters only play 5 minutes a game anyways?”
"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov
by PRC on Mar 10, 2009 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Brashear/Godard/Orr/Cote/etc were already going to be parked back on the bench after returning from the box anyway. A game misconduct would make a tiny bit more sense because at least that makes the bench spot even more of a waste, although the farther into the game you go, the less of a deterrent it is to lose a dressed player.
by matskralc on Mar 10, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed. An additional minor penalty would go a lot further in curbing the behaviors in question.
by Kent Wilson on Mar 10, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean an extra two to just one of the fighters? An extra two to both doesn’t seem like it would affect anything. I don’t know how you’d go about giving an extra two to just one participant in these staged fights, though.
by matskralc on Mar 10, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your notion…Pure enforcers like Godard and Cote are playing 3-4 minutes a night anyways, it’s not going to make much a difference if they get an extra misconduct.
How about the captains of each team have to serve a coincidental minor for a stage fight (if no captain designated the other team gets to choose one of the three alternate captains).
It screws with the game by punishing guys who have nothing to do with the fight, but if teams were losing their captain (and usually best player) for it maybe it would make a wave. Of course, both captains are off the ice at the same time, so it’s kind of a wash.
by Hooks Orpik on Mar 10, 2009 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s an interesting take. If captains got dragged to the box, too, you can bet fights would drastically decrease.
I basically favor just severely draconian rules similar to (but way harsher than!) what JustinM posted below. First, call the penalties the way they should be called (this is really the biggest problem). And start handing out long suspensions to everybody that fights. 10 games, easy, and they have to stay on the active roster and be scratched every night. Second offense, 25 games (still gotta scratch the player every night) and fine the coach and the team. Third offense, one year ban. And, yep, you still gotta scratch that player every night. Fighting would stop almost instantly, especially when you start threatening teams’ roster flexibility.
by matskralc on Mar 11, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That certainly works if you’re trying to eliminate fighting from the game entirely. However that’s not what the GMs are trying to accomplish – thankfully.
by Habs on Mar 11, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I'm trying to eliminate fighting from the game entirely
I’d rather watch fourth lines with talent.
by matskralc on Mar 11, 2009 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have little problem with what you’re proposing. However, I think the GMs will try to figure out a way to eliminate fighting without actually saying that’s what they’re doing, because I really don’t think they have the intestinal fortitude to lock horns with the NHLPA so soon after the last time, because there will be jobs lost as a result of such a thing. I gave them the way to do that, no muss, no fuss.
If they wanted to just get rid of fighting and be completely forward with what they’re doing, then yes, your idea makes a lot of sense.
Pittsburgh Black And Gold -- So new, it still smells like paint!
by JustinM on Mar 11, 2009 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NHLPA seems more interested in getting rid of the goons than the GMs.
by James Mirtle on Mar 11, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that could be as simple as: goal scoring is what fans want to see (contrary to the “fighting sells” theory). Replace talentless goons with guys who have the ability to score goals (because this is precisely what teams would do…fourth lines would become havens for hangers-on and prospects…i.e. guys with some talent as opposed to guys with no talent other than being able to dance with skates on), more guys are scoring goals, goalscorers make more money, which is the best result for the union. And further, because goalscoring attracts more casual fans, revenues go up and therefore so do salaries.
by matskralc on Mar 11, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of it has to do with the general feeling among the players, and they quietly don’t want the dancing bears on ice either. You just won’t hear them say it publicly.
by James Mirtle on Mar 11, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh. Weirdly, I was thinking of it on a macro level, the unit as a whole instead of it’s parts. Sort of more like why the union heads might take that position. I’d completely forgotten that I’d seen you mention that quite a few times. Why exactly don’t the players (generally) like fighting?
by matskralc on Mar 11, 2009 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Staged fights between players who bring little to the game on the ice. That’s my impression, and it may differ from other reporters, but we’re seeing the NHLPA come out against those types of bouts for a reason.
It’s because the players are asking for it.
by James Mirtle on Mar 11, 2009 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would guess that, all things being equal, most people don’t like getting punched in the face, and they don’t like breaking bones in their hands.
One thing to keep in mind about hockey fighting is that, to the extent that punches actually land, it’s as dangerous to the guy doing the hitting as it is to the guy getting hit. If you look back at the days when boxing was bare-knuckled, they threw far more punches to the body than they do today. Heads are hard, and hands are fragile. Hockey players wear too much padding to make body punches useful, though.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 11, 2009 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would guess that, all things being equal, most people don’t like getting punched in the face, and they don’t like breaking bones in their hands.
That’s pretty much exactly what Andrew Peters told me about being a fighter.
by James Mirtle on Mar 11, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the league is not against fights as a whole, why do they have anything these kinds of fights in particular as opposed to the rest?
by Costa24 on Mar 10, 2009 4:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Because they’re deemed more unnecessary.
by James Mirtle on Mar 10, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And they’re not even great entertainment. Give me a passionate fight between two guys whose roles aren’t to specifically do that.
"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov
by PRC on Mar 10, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And they slow down the pace of the game.
by David M. Getz on Mar 10, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree totally
These are first steps, face-saving steps. That’s why you even see Brian Burke towing the bulls***t line. Cause he knows this will affect very little, and is basically a PR move. Penalties that do not affect the play on the ice are meaningless. Basically, they are telling referees to enforce the instigator penalties. And nothing about the helmets? Way to go out on a limb here guys. Let’s get all the GMs together next month and have them proclaim they are going to give the refs “wide discretion” in enforcing holding penalties.
In a few years, fighting will still be mainly between two goons who generally offer nothing to the game, and the NHL will someday realize that there is no in-between. You either accept fighting as part of the game or you ban it completely.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.wordpress.com/
by poploser on Mar 11, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best solution...
Blades of Steel rules! Only the loser of the fight gets the penalty!
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Mar 10, 2009 4:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I CONCUR!
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Mar 10, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, this is all so much crap. If they really wanted to curtail fighting without actually banning it, which they seem to be too weak to do (and yes that’s exactly what it is), they could do a multi-part plan:
1. Mandate cages or full-face visors for all players.
2. Suspend anyone for five games without pay if they remove the helmet in order to fight.
3. Mandate that any player under suspension must be on the NHL roster as a scratch so that they take one of the 23 roster slots.
4. This is the important part and the key to the whole thing: enforce the existing rules as written. No more looking the other way on a high stick, no more ignoring elbows, call slew-foots the match penalty they’re supposed to be, and so on.
You want to clean up the game, you do that. If you’re just interested in appearing to give a crap without really changing anything, they’re doing a great job of that already.
Pittsburgh Black And Gold -- So new, it still smells like paint!
by JustinM on Mar 10, 2009 5:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a bad rule because it won’t change anything.
If two guys feel like they need to go, for whatever reason – settle a score, set a tone, or just to pad their stats and justify their ice time — they’re going to go. They’ll just figure out when they can fight, and wait for then.
How many steamboats? Three? Five?
Oh, there has to be contact? OK, we’ll stand here and shove each other for a few seconds.
Has to be part of a play? Fine, we’ll skate a few strides and “accidentally” bump into each other.
Of course, you could always say that fights will only be allowed if something on the ice warrants it. And if so, then I guess guys will just go out and make things happen on the ice that warrant it. Oops.
The NHL identified a problem. Too bad the solution won’t fix it.
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Mar 10, 2009 8:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yup – another bold move by the GMs. The NHL will never be the same. /sarcasm
by hockeycountry on Mar 10, 2009 8:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why
don’t they just make the enforcers fight with giant foam Nerf gloves?
Seriously…can’t wait to see what part of the game is screwed up next.
by feelingkettle on Mar 10, 2009 9:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You know...
NHL referees will be granted wide discretion to decide what is a staged fight
Hypothetically “wide discretion” could lead to something like this:
“Let’s see, who’ve we got here? Orr and Cote, eh? That does it: staged fight. See you next period, ‘gentlemen’.”
…unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, unless the misconducts eventually increase in severity, this isn’t actually a ‘punishment’, other than making the goons feel lonely for a longer stretch…
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Mar 10, 2009 10:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they’ll start leaving a book in the penalty box?
by James Mirtle on Mar 10, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stu “Grim Reader” Grimson? :)
Pittsburgh Black And Gold -- So new, it still smells like paint!
by JustinM on Mar 11, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, you mean that wasn’t his name?
by James Mirtle on Mar 11, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better to make sure they have the fight after the 5 minute mark of the period… then they can just go back to the dressing room and kick it until intermission.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Mar 11, 2009 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two minutes extra for drawing blood?
If one fighter get cut, the other will serve an extra two minutes just as he would if it was a high stick. Actually, it could be 2+2, roughing and the blood.
by Ghwomb on Mar 11, 2009 1:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t agree with that… you’d be penalizing a fighter for being good at what he’s doing. Doesn’t make a lot of sense…
by Habs on Mar 11, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you’re saying is, it’d be perfect for the new NHL.
by feelingkettle on Mar 11, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t lie this rule at all to be honest. I think there are going to be some pests that are given a free ride so long as they just don’t make eye contact. I’m thinking that this solution for the Sanderson tragedy will turn into more Steve Moore tragedies where a guy is chasing another guy around the rink and makes a dumb play from behind like Bert did.
Regarding tough, but clean hits and sticking up for your teammate, I believe it has its place. There are hits where the player delivering it has the opportunity to put someone out of the game, or let up and just put them on the ice. If option A is selected, have a player on the ice go right after him, or line the goon up on the next draw and make sure he knows that thats unacceptable.
by Johnny Thunder on Mar 11, 2009 2:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The revenge for a clean hit is a clean hit. The revenge for a dirty hit is a power play goal. Neither of those needs to involve two big guys stopping the game so they can grab each others jerseys and fall down.
by matskralc on Mar 11, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somehow, football manages to get along with extreme physical play and suspending people for fighting. Are the people running hockey really dumber than the ones running football, such that they can’t figure out how to do it?
Wait, don’t answer that.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 11, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, if you consider the history of the game, fist fights were considered the lesser of two evils back in the early ‘20s when the first fighting rules came into play. It was either that or guys would just keep clubbing each other with sticks like they’d been doing, and at least two people had already died from that, pre-NHL.
That the game is much, ah, calmer than it was almost 90 years ago is a much more valid argument than, “hockey people are stupid.”
by Doogie2K on Mar 11, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanShots on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
