On Fisticuffs

How long did you think it'd take for the 'ban fighting" debate to start this season? Did you guess halfway into the first game of the season? If so, you're either lucky, or you should come to Saratoga with me next summer and give me betting advice.

That's right. A period and a half into the season. At that point into Tuesday night's Leafs-Habs game, George Parros stopped fighting Colton Orr and instead took on a losing battle against gravity, slipping and falling face first onto the ice. He suffered a concussion and a cut chin, but his mustache was uninjured. Orr didn't knock him out with a punch, or throw him down to the ice. Parros slipped. He could have caught an edge during a shift, or tripped over a dropped stick/helmet/glove. You're standing on thin blades on a slippery surface, it's honestly weird that there's less random falling over in hockey. But he didn't. This happened in the middle of the fight, which brings up the debate that we see every season. 

It's easy as hockey fans to jump on the media for saying that we should ban fighting, especially when it comes from outlets such as Fox Sports 1 and ESPN, who don't really cover hockey. Add into that argument the fact that both networks tend to air, promote, and to an extent glorify other, more violent sports, such as boxing, or mixed martial arts. But I don't want to draw that out anymore than I just did. The calls to ban fighting are starting to come in from team executives as well. Not from players, but from higher up in certain teams. 

Does professional hockey really need fighting? Both sides make a lot of sense, but honestly, I tend to lean a towards yes. Granted, I'm a bit of a lower division college hockey nerd, and the college game gets on fine without fights. Of course, college hockey also mandates full facial shields or cages for every player.

You can counter that very simply. Canadian junior leagues DO allow fighting, and more NHL players tend to come out of CHL organizations than from NCAA programs. It's just a fact of life. More players are coming into professional hockey having had the fighting experience for a few years than not.

So why do you need fighting? Ask yourself what happens if you take it away. What does a team do to combat a borderline hit to one of its star players? In a world without fighting, you either send a guy out with intent to injure someone on the other team, or start the fight anyway, which would then lead to massive suspensions. I don't like that first scenario one bit, but that's how I can see it playing out. Revenge hits, more retaliation, more injuries. A world where Matt Cooke and Raffi Torres are useful players. Nobody wants that. 

I get the argument against it, I really do. Look, I read that New York Times piece about Derek Boogaard, and I'll admit there were a few points where I was a teary-eyed mess reading about what some of these guys go through. CTE is a frightening thing. The NFL has very publicly been trying to lead the way for sports to decrease the amount of hits to the head, especially after the suicide of long-time star player Junior Seau. Rule 48 has attempted to do the same. 

I don't want to argue that fighting should be in place because of tradition. That's crap. Look at how sports have changed for the better through the years. Designated hitters, the shot clock in basketball, instant replay in football, free agency, etc. Tradition isn't a valid argument against why DC's NFL team should keep its racist nickname, and it's not why hockey should keep fighting.

Fighting is a semi-legal way to get back at the other team for a questionable hit on one of your guys, most of the time without risking serious immediate injury. It can be a huge momentum boost. We certainly don't need more of it. I'm all for keeping fighting in the sport, but only if we can lower the amounts of fights. 

That gets done by changing the rules a little bit, mostly by changing the penalties. Maybe up the fighting penalty to a 10 minute penalty, and include a suspension. It might sound a little harsh, but it changes the game up a bit. You're losing a fourth line guy for 10 minutes at a time, maybe you don't have him later in the week. The harsher penalties discourage your top-tier players from fighting, as losing them for that period of time most likely negates any momentum boost you got from winning said fight.

Sure, lowering the amount of fights may drive away a certain demographic of casual fan from the sport, but I'm okay with less douchebags in the 300 level who only go to the game to down $9 beers and watch fights. Stick with UFC, guys.