“The two players stare and linger around each other. One or both nod. The sticks drop, the gloves come off and the fists come up. The crowd rises to their feet and cheer. Hockey is dying.
 
Now, l am not going to start here and debate whether fighting should or should not be eliminated from the game of hockey. My view on the matter will be made clear but what I want to discuss is something in the midst of the debate. There was something bothering me for the past few weeks. Well, more like something has been bothering me for a long period of time but has begun to surface more in the last few weeks. Yet I could not exactly put my finger on what it was.

I knew it was in the category of violence in hockey, i.e. fights, headshots, knee on knee hits, etc. but I was not sure exactly what about it that was annoying me. I continued to watch and attend games with this gnawing feeling in the back of my mind. And then a few days ago, I realized what it was. It was how easily logic and reason are thrown out by the NHL when it comes to this debate, which makes me feel like the people selling this product think I (we) are stupid.
 
Violence in hockey is a hot topic right now. It is not without controversy and everyone has an opinion on it. Most seem, ironically, willing to fight to the death to defend their point of view. So I know I am delving into a subject that is potentially going to get me some backlash and angry comments. My objective here is not to upset or insult but to share my thoughts on the matter, which after all is the reason why we blog about things.

 
First of all, most people, including myself, when they say they are against violence in hockey, they are not saying they want to eliminate all the “physicality” from the game. We do not think that legal checks, battles along the boards, etc. need to be eliminated. Rather it is the “violence” as I mentioned above; “staged” fights, headshots, (intentional) knee on knee hits, etc. that we would like to see gone from the game.

Just to clarify, when I say “staged” fights, by this I mean the fights that take place between two goons after talking about it for a bit. I do not mean the bouts that erupt sporadically after a bad hit or the like. Those I do not think will ever be fully eliminated from the game. But the violence I mentioned above I think needs to be gone. It takes away from what makes the game of hockey the greatest game in the world. And if the consequences for these violent acts were more severe than they currently are, they probably would drop drastically.

But I will get into that a little more later. So when someone says they are against violence/fighting in hockey, to respond that they want to take everything physical out of the game is incorrect. So here is what I do not get, the illogical defenses given by those at the highest levels of the game’s institution, i.e. the NHL, as to why there is no reason to change the game the way it is now. I do not understand how they can look at the game, in its current state with regards to violence, and think nothing is amiss. Sidney Crosby, Claude Giroux, Colby Armstrong, Marc Savard, and Marc Staal are just several names of NHL players who have missed time playing this season due to concussions.

These are players who are key to their teams’ successes and so their absence is tremendous. Sidney Crosby and Marc Savard have been out since last season, with Crosby having had a short return this season before stopping again due to the return of post-concussion symptoms. Marc Staal just returned to the Rangers’ lineup at the 2012 Winter Classic on January 2nd after getting concussed last season on February 22nd, 2011. That is almost a year’s length in time that he was out. Yet, while players continue to drop like candy, the NHL thinks everything is hunky dory.

The punishments for those who cause serious injury to other players baffle me. While injuries (including those other than concussions) can keep players out of the game for such long periods of time, as demonstrated above, what are the consequences given to the players who cause those injuries? A few games. Sometimes they are not even punished for their crime.

Dan Carcillo

Chicago Blackhawks’ forward Daniel Carcillo was suspended 3 times this season. The first time he was assessed a 2-game suspension and the last one just 7 games. This is not his first season of getting multiple suspensions. This is an example of what I mean when logic and reason go out the window. I would like to know why the NHL thinks that the suspensions they are handing out have any effect on players “behaving” themselves better? Carcillo obviously did not think it was too much of a price to pay to seriously injure another player as he has done it so many times now. How does the punishment fit the crime?

Players are injured and miss months of being able to play, while the culprit sits out only for a couple of weeks, max. In 2006, during an NBA game between the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers, a brawl broke out between players on the court. 9 players were suspended including Pacers’ player Ron Artest who got the most, 86 games (73 regular season games and 13 playoff games). And guess what? There has not been an altercation like that since. The suspension was so severe that no one would want to risk that much for violating the rules.

But if that had happened in the NHL, I would guess he would have gotten maybe a 3 or 4 games suspension. After all, Carcillo seriously injured someone and got 7 games and in the NBA altercation no players were hurt, so it probably would be fewer. Where is the logic?  I also do not get how players who seriously injure other players are fined merely a few thousand dollars some times, while John Tortorella was fined $30,000 (!!!) for just saying something negative about the referees from the Winter Classic. I get that you are not supposed to “question” the “authority” but how is saying something worse than physically harming someone?

Gary Bettman, commissioner of the NHL, said when asked if fighting is dangerous, “Maybe it is and maybe it’s not. You don’t know that for a fact.” Seriously?!? Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:  danger: exposure or liability to injure, pain, harm or loss. 

How does that not fit with two huge guys trying to punch each other in the head as hard as they can … wearing skates … on ice??? This is what I mean by the NHL thinking I am stupid. The commissioner of the NHL thinks that he can say that two people fighting (forget about that added effects of skates and ice) is not “dangerous” and that me, as a fan, is supposed to accept that as a valid answer. Of course it is dangerous! That is why we do not see skilled players like Patrick Kane, Claude Giroux, or Steven Stamkos being sent out onto the ice to fight each other. That is left to the goons like Steve Ott or Colton Orr. 

Also, why is it taking so long for the NHL to deal with headshots? They say they need time to analyze and study it. “Things cannot change overnight.” And so forth. Again, what am I an idiot? The NHL has proven that when it wants something done it can do it, even overnight. The “Sean Avery” rule was created overnight. When Avery used his stick to block the view of Devil’s goaltender Maritn Brodeur, the very next day the NHL put out the rule (though they called it a “reinterpretation” of a rule) making that play illegal.

In 2010 the NHL was quick to intervene when the New Jersey Devils tried to sign forward Ilya Kovalchuck to a 17-year deal. The NHL quickly rejected the deal and forced the Devils to come up with a new one. In 2002 the NHL was fast to make changes to the arenas when tragically a little girl died as the result of getting hit in the head by a puck that shot out of the rink. So when it wants to (or feels pressure to) the NHL can move very quickly. So why is player safety not a good enough reason?

I love hockey. I will say it over and over again (because apparently there are those who believe that if you are against violence in hockey you hate the sport). I do not believe that fighting will ever be truly eliminated from the game and I do not want to see the physicality removed either. I do not want to see any player on any team (even the Islanders) get injured so badly that they miss months or never return to the game. I just want players to play by the rules and for the league to not treat me as if I was dropped on my head.”

Follow Scott, #87, on twitter: @moridin87

Offseason of Hurt begets the internalization of External Criticism

“On my wrist, I sport a reminder of this summer. The simple red wristband says ‘Love for Lokomotiv’ which is a tribute to the Russian plane crash which killed an entire hockey team there, comprised almost exclusively of former or future NHLers.

It stands to reason that would make this the darkest offseason in the history of this game I’ve had a love affair with since I was 12. Unfortunately, it was already the worst offseason the NHL had ever endured before that ill fated flight.

Derek Boogaard

On the eve of the NHL Draft, Rangers Enforcer Derek Boogaard was found dead, victim of a mix of prescription drugs and alcohol. Later in the offseason, noted tough guys Rick Rypien and Wade Belak would both be found dead of similar circumstances.

The offseason prior, Bob Probert, one of the toughest hombres ever to put on skates, a mythical retired enforcer for the Red Wings, passed away, and posthumously, much of the news that came out of his autopsy was about a heartbreaking picture of an addled brain from repeated concussions over the years.

None of this news occurs in a vacuum, and in the recent months, the NFL and professional wrestling have endured numerous deaths of alums of those professions, stemming at least in part from concussions due to the physicality of their endeavors. How long could the NHL ignore the mounting pressure? Well, as most big companies do, they showed a staggering ability to shrug off external criticism. After all, the fans never booed at the start of a fight, right? The funny thing about external criticism is eventually it gives way to internal discussion and whistle-blowing.

Jim Thompson

Enter Jim Thompson, Chris Nilan, Stu Grimson and Georges Laraque, all of whom threw down dozens of times in defense of their teammates. Thompson, the pinnacle of his career being 4th line enforcer for the enforcers, had lead a troubled road since leaving the game. “I went through periods of depression,” he said. “I’m a recovering alcoholic.

I believe a lot of my demons, if you will, came from hockey ending and the head blows and certain things that I wasn’t aware of.”  Reading that quote in the context of this summer is gut wrenching. Thompson is now a devout anti fighting advocate.

Stu Grisom

Laraque would use his new soapbox to champion equipment changes and a better league support program for the affected. Grimson was just candid about what he’s gone through and how his life is now. These men all spoke out in light of recent events, and were not immune to the vitriolic reaction which has framed both sides of this debate for the last 25 or so years.

The old guard, as best represented by Don Cherry, venerable old Bruins coach and perhaps the most recognizable hockey voice in Canada, roared back: “I hate to say this when the kids are listening — with Georges Laraque said about … but the bunch of pukes that fought before: Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan and Jim Thomson. ‘Oh, they reason that they’re drinking drugs and alcoholic because they fight.’ You turncoats. You hypocrites. It’s one thing I’m not, it’s a hypocrite. You guys … you were fighters and now you don’t want guys that make the same living you did.” This is where we are at. Fighters are saying we need change. And old voices, of generations gone by, like Mike Milbury and Don Cherry are vilifying the men who have paid the price with their blood.

Full disclosure: I love Don Cherry. The man IS hockey. He’s a hero of mine. He couldn’t be more wrong here, however. Cherry is a throwback, he is also something of a war profiteer, selling his ‘ROCK’EM SOCK’EM’ video series for years on hockey’s biggest hits and most intense brawls. The league has lost some of its sons, there are internal voices clamoring for change in chorus with the external ones and just as many voices telling those voices to ‘shut up’. With all these cards on the table, where do we go from here?

Knockout Punch

Now that the debate has been framed and the issues have been made clear, I can finally state where I come at this: Not as someone who hates hockey, who wants to change it drastically to suit corporate sponsors, who thinks it “needs to do X to capture a more mainstream audience”, or any of that. I come at it as someone who loves it, cherishes it, considers it the greatest sport in the world, and reveres the game and it’s players. I would love nothing more than to continue to write passionately about this game until I die. Even though I am as devout a fan as you’ll find, my rose tinted visor has allowed me to see some things that need to change. Thankfully, some of them already have.

These are the recommendations I’ve come to, thanks to the large volume of sources you’ll see in the bibliography:

• The players need to have more faith in the system of supplemental discipline. The system needs to reward that faith by properly handling incidents that could lead to a series of escalating incidents like what went down between the Islanders and Penguins last year.

• There needs to be more thought in terms of protecting the player on the business end of equipment. For too long, equipment manufacturers have sought to disconnect their clients from the game by making them immune to the contact of their own hits, it’s why an elbow pad to the chops feels like being cracked in the face with a bag of concrete. If players feel the repercussions of their cheapshot, they are less likely to deliver it, which means there’s less to retaliate to.

• Bench the instigator Rule, it’s outlived it’s usefulness. If two players both want to shake the game up with a fight that freely occurs during the game, let them. Trying to dissuade them just leads to more fights. Let the boys blow it out of their system and call it a day. Bottling it up leads to it boiling over.

• The elimination of the enforcer is occurring naturally, it doesn’t need to be mandated. Teams cannot carry a player who cannot skate anymore in today’s NHL. If one were to legislate it, dropping teams to 17 skaters dressed (19 including goalies) would solve it right quick, but I honestly don’t believe it’s necessary.

• After their careers, they need better support. This was one of the fundamental issues that drove the NFL and NFLPA into such a bitter war over their last work stoppage. The leagues owe it to their players who are in essence their product, to provide them with benefits and counseling after their playing days.

• A fighting ban is ridiculous and impractical. Tensions will always boil over in a game that is so fast, so physical, and so emotional. What one can do, is make it a ten minute major instead of a five, ensuring the player’s chance to get into another fracas is severely curtailed. There’s nothing that can change the momentum of a game, a series, or even a season like a fight. It’s a declaration, a call to arms, and a warning all in one.

However, it’s also essentially unarmed assault on a unforgiving surface in full view of thousands of witnesses that has very real consequences on the combatants far after the horn sounds. For all of these reasons, it has to remain part of the game, but a tightly controlled, properly supervised facet, the players are owed that much.”

And you owe Vinny a follow on twitter: @RoseTintedVisor

Bibliography

• Bernstein, Ross. The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL. Chicago: Triumph , 2006.
• Botte, Peter, and Alan Hahn. Fish Sticks: The Fall And Rise of the New York Islanders. New York: Sports Publishing LLC, 2002
• Buccigross, John. “The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL.” ESPN.com 8 Jan. 2007. 28 Oct. 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=buccigross_john&id=2724254
• Cherry, Don. “Coaches Corner.” Hockey Night in Canada. CBC Sports. 6. Oct. 2011.
• Cohen, Jason. Zamboni Rodeo: Chasing Hockey From Austin to Albuquerque. Vancouver: Greystone, 2001.
• Fishler, Stan, and Tom Sarro. Metro Ice. New York: H&M Publishing 2001.
• Fitz-Gerald, Sean. “ ‘As a Fighter in Hockey, You Live in Fear.’ ” NationalPost.Com 5 May 2011. 21 Oct. 2011. http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/05/05/as-a-fighter-in-hockey-you-live-in-fear/
• Jones, Chris. “The Survivor.” Grantland.com 14 Sept. 2011. 22 Oct. 2011 http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6958966/the-survivor
• Kelly, Cathal. “After Belak’s Death, NHL Must Finally Take Action.” TheStar.Com 01 Sept. 2011. 26 Oct. 2011. http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/1047673

Game Misconduct: The Past and Future of Fighting in the NHL

Hockey is more than a game; it’s a way of life for our neighbors to the north and large percentages of the Northeast and Midwest of this country. The fundamental question to look at with that in mind, is does the role of fighting help hockey or hinder it’s growth at this point? Has it outlived its usefulness? First, we shall look at what role it’s played in shaping the game so far. Then we’ll move on to the current parameters of the debate and finally, my own conclusions based on everything I’ve absorbed.

“I had the idea that I should beat up every player I tangled with, and nothing ever convinced me it wasn’t a good idea.” – Ted Lindsay, Detroit Red Wings Hall of Famer.

Hockey is a sport unlike any other. It’s designed to incorporate several skills which show off the otherworldly abilities of its participants. One aspect of hockey that separates it from the other 3 major sports is speed.

Typically, with commercial breaks, the average NBA and NFL contests (that end in regulation, of course) run approximately 3 hours. In baseball, a typical MLB game now hovers around the 4 hour mark.  In the NHL, the game will be done, again barring overtime, in 2.5 hours. The reason hockey moves with such speed as compared to the other sports is that player substitution occurs during play, and isn’t confined to stoppages or to delays in the flow of the game.

Typically, a team will dump the puck into the attacking portion of the ice and change all 5 (or as many skaters are feasible) before the opponent can retrieve the puck and manage to move it the 200 feet back towards the net the changing team is defending.

This process of changing ‘on the fly’ as it is known in hockey parlance dictates that each team must have upwards of 11 forwards and 6 defensemen who can play their fair share of minutes out of 18 skaters they dress on a given night (The goaltender does not change, unless performance or injury dictates, so your starting goaltender remains in your net all night and your backup goalie plops down at the end of the bench or in the tunnel, merely an interested spectator).

If you do some quick mental calculations, you will note that I mentioned 18 skaters, and proceeded to say that 11 forwards and 6 defensemen take regular shifts on most NHL teams. That means there’s an 18th guy on the bench, usually sitting next to the backup goalie. Now, I’ll explain who this guy is and why his job sucks.

Fights and the Fighters Who Fight Them

This gentleman has one of the most thankless jobs in sports. Depending on what side of the debate a person falls on, this player is typically referred to as a ‘goon’ or as an ‘enforcer’.  It’s pretty easy to figure out which side uses which term. We will get into the sides of the debate shortly, how the terms of engagement and the battle lines have changed over time, and where it stands today all in due time, but for now, we’ll get a microcosm of the player him self’s world view.

He is typically the guy at the pregame skate in charge of getting everyone else fired up. He is typically one of the loudest voices in the dressing room. He functions as the DJ on the radio most nights. He’s charged with getting the team amped up while keeping them loose. He’s charged with watching the ice like a hawk for anything that bears his involvement. More often than not, that stuff occurs behind the play that everyone else is watching. There are 4 referees (or zebras as they are dually affectionately and derisively known) and they are almost always watching the play around the puck.

They can, and often do miss the rough stuff back in the other zone where another player, doubled over after a collision with a goaltender may give the goalie a shove. Or another player may elbow that player in the chops. It is the job of the enforcer to note the things that have been done out of the all too often less than vigilant eye of the officiating crew and settle those accounts. However, as noted earlier, this man doesn’t see a regular shift.

The typical enforcer/goon gets anywhere from three to eight minutes off ice time a night. That’s not exactly a huge amount of time to settle a score or send a message. Sometimes, the enforcer’s tour of duty is completely without incident. Sometimes, he’s out there to start something rather than settle it. The nature of his role leads to him being asked to turn the momentum of a game or sometimes even a season with a hit or by dropping the gloves and squaring off with his counterpart. To understand this
barbarity, one most understand there are two moments when time seems to stop around a hockey arena and the building becomes something  from a scene in “Thunderdome”.

On a goal (by the home team), the place reaches decibels that can make your ears bleed. Using one of our nearby venues as a measuring stick 16,294 get on their feet and salute the conquering heroes as they return to the bench. It’s a wondrous moment where the home fans are as revved up as the boys on the bench, but it’s not the only time one can see that bond between team and fan.

Dropping the Gloves: The Making of a Fight 

“On nights you knew you had to fight, there were nerves, you never slept the night before. But you dealt with it or you didn’t. You don’t really get over it, you just go out and do your job.” – Wade Belak

The other moment in the game that time stops is when one player gives what can simply be described as “the nod” toward another player. They circle for a second or two, sizing each other up. The crowd is coming unglued now, home and road fans alike. The challenged will either accept or skate away, determining it is not the right time for himself or his team.

But should the challenged toss his stick aside, the waiting in the crowd stops and the frantic energy reverberates around the building. Once that stick hits the ice, the gloves are chucked aside scant milliseconds later. The player who initiated this challenge will return in kind, and it’ll be on. This is where the referee or linesman begins a mad dash towards the ensuing confrontation to make sure it stays within the accepted norms and doesn’t become a one-sided bloodletting where a player could be exposed to potentially serious injury.

In reality, it’s a noble but futile notion. Two men who are essentially well paid prison guards are about to engage in bare knuckle fighting on a 200 foot stretch of rock hard unforgiving frozen water. Somebody is extremely likely to get hurt. The anticipation is over and it’s go time. They circle, feeling each other out. Each waits for the first salvo, not wanting to expose themselves to a counter punch, but they both know, that should they wait too long, the zebras will have the ability the chance to break this up.

Invariably, someone fires off a punch. Typically, in today’s hockey world, most of these guys have become proficient with throwing punches with both hands, so usually it’s an offhand jab to set up something else. The other party bides his time, taking it or ducking it. Each looks for that shot squarely to the jaw to put this one away decisively. That punch may come. It may not. Regardless, when they’ve danced this dance, which seldom lasts more than 60 seconds or so, they are saluted by the adoring public and the sound of 36 sticks tapping on the ice, both benches joining in the adulation of their ‘sheriff’.  These 2 players are now escorted to the penalty box or ‘sin bin’ as it is known to serve a 5 minute penance to atone for their infraction.

More oft than not, play remains 5 skaters aside after a fight, but sometimes there are additional charges that result in a team having to ‘kill off’ a penalty.  Some of these infractions include, but are not limited to: one player engaging in fisticuffs with a visor while his opponent did not have one (You are expected to remove that incident to fighting so as not to have an unfair advantage),failure to secure the fight strap to your pants (it keeps a player from tearing his own jersey off, which would render him
difficult to grab), the charge of being the third man in (which simply means that one of the players wasn’t an initial participant and came to the defense of an overmatched teammate) and lastly, the scourge of old-time hockey, the instigator rule, which we’ll get to in a bit.  Additional penalties may stem from the incident that led to the fracas, be it a questionable hit or some other breaching of hockey etiquette.

It’s not always the enforcer/goon who partakes in the fisticuffs. Sometimes, an energy player (a player with slightly more skills than your enforcer but not a superstar) will be involved, or a defenseman or forward will throw a big hit the other team objects to and it’ll stem from that. Other times, the hatred, the passion of a rivalry takes over, and you end up with a spectacle known as a line-brawl,  where each of the 5 skaters on the ice pair up with their counterpart and there’s an all out Donnybrook.

Occasionally here, you get the white elephant of hockey fights, a goalie fight. These are seldom flashpoint incidents, reacting to one thing or another. Rather, these are slow builds. They stem from ‘last Tuesday’, or the April prior when you were playing out the string and they were gearing up for the playoffs. Regardless, there’s a breadcrumb trail. You can see it building.

Typically, the league can too, and it’ll attempt to deescalate the situation by contacting both teams and imploring cooler heads to prevail, assigning it’s best referees to police the action, or through supplemental discipline to ensure the likely combatants on either side are dissuaded from stirring the pot. If the league fails to act decisively,
the team that feels wronged will. And often times, it’ll act with swift and devastating efficiency.

The New York Islanders perpetrated one such ‘collection of a debt’ on February 11th of this past year. The week prior, their goaltender had been knocked unconscious and sustained a fracture of his cheekbone while fighting the goaltender for the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Isles goalie was attempting to get one of the Penguins to answer for an objectionable hit from earlier in the game which had led to a concussion.

Likewise, several Islanders were steaming from hits that had gone unpunished earlier still that season or even way back from the season prior.  Having come to the conclusion that the league was not inclined to reign in one of its more profitable franchises for skirting the rules and bullying one of its also-rans, the Islanders, in a tradition harkening back to their glory years of goal scoring and pugilism, unleashed a 9-2 drubbing upon Pittsburgh and then took to settling the fisticuffs portion of the ledger. 

What happened that night was something reminiscent of the cult classic ‘Slapshot’, where there were 9 fights, over 10 ejections, 3 suspensions , team fines and a laundry list of barbs fired back and forth through the media.

Coupled with the brawl filled between the Bruins and Les Habitants De Montreal earlier that week, ‘old time hockey’ was back in the public eye. Furthermore, the media had some ammunition to reignite the debate on fighting in hockey.   For their part in the setting off the firestorm and ensuing controversy, the Islanders were entirely unapologetic. The media were abhorrent, whilst the fans of the league saw something long-lost coming back and reacted largely with… glee.

To be continued. 

Follow Vinny on twitter or be prepared to drop the mitts: @RoseTintedVisor