Why is it OK to fight in hockey, but no other sports???

90
10
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Seriously... the "Malice in the Palace" was made out to be World War 3, while fights happen in hockey all the time, and refs mostly just watch it fora while before intervening. Why???

Is it because no one cares about hockey?
 
Fighting has been a part of ice hockey since the sport's rise in popularity in 19th century Canada.[1] There are a number of theories behind the integration of fighting into the game, the most common of which being that the relative lack of rules in the early history of hockey encouraged physical intimidation and control.[1] The implementation of some features, such as the blue lines in 1918, actually encouraged fighting due to the increased level of physical play. Creation of the blue lines allowed forward passing, but only in the neutral zone. Therefore, puck handlers played at close quarters and were subject to a great deal of physical play. The emergence of enforcers, who protected the puck handlers and fought when necessary, followed shortly thereafter.[8]

In 1922, the NHL introduced Rule 56 which formally regulated fighting, or "fisticuffs" as it was called in the official NHL rulebook. Rather than ejecting players from the game, as was the practice in amateur and collegiate hockey, players would be given a five-minute major penalty. Rule 56 and its language also filtered down to the minor professional and junior leagues in North America.[8] Promoters such as Tex Rickard of Madison Square Garden, who also promoted boxing events, saw financial opportunities in hockey fights and devised marketing campaigns around the rivalries between various team enforcers.[11]

In the current NHL rulebook, the archaic reference to 'fisticuffs' has been removed; fighting is now governed under Rule 47 in the NHL rulebook. Referees are given considerable latitude in determining what exactly constitutes a fight and what penalties are applicable to the participants. Significant modifications from the original rule involve penalties which can be assessed to a fight participant deemed to have instigated the fight and additional penalties resulting from instigating a fight while wearing a face-shield.
 
actually the nba let them fight (doesnt punish hard) until after the Rudy incident
 
Originally Posted by 715 asterisk

Horrible example.

How are you going to compare players vs. fans to players vs. players?
Players have brawled with fans in the penalty box before. There's a lot of serious injuries that occur in hockey from fighting and variouscheap shots. But for whatever reason it's accepted and overlooked. But then again I guess there's a reason why hockey will never be taken seriouslyas a major sport in America.
 
There's a lot of serious injuries that occur in hockey from fighting and various cheap shots.


you can nullify "cheap shots" because that happens in every major sport....also, please enlighten everyone as to how many "serious"injuries happen in an actual hockey fight. It RARELY happens. There is more clutching and grabbing than anything, and the refs do a damn good job in steppingin to break things up...also, there is a code that goes along with many of the heavyweights in the NHL...the fights are premeditated and a lot of times theyare used to swing momentum etc....check this vid




bottom line:

It's tradition.
 
Like I said there's a reason why hockey will never be taken seriously as a major sport, obviously nobody cares about it enough to make it an issue. If thissame stuff happened in any of the major sports, fans and media would be in an uproar. Everytime there's a fight in basketball there's a full blowninvestigation on our society.
 
It's an example of how mechanical and idiodic precedent and tradition can sometimes be.

"We'll let these guys stop in the middle of the game and punch each other out, even though it does nothing for the game but slow it down, because,hey, that's how we've always done it! Besides, the fans go crazy and hockey players are supposed to be toothless anyway!"

smh.gif
 
Originally Posted by eaglebball1499

It's an example of how mechanical and idiodic precedent and tradition can sometimes be.

"We'll let these guys stop in the middle of the game and punch each other out, even though it does nothing for the game but slow it down, because, hey, that's how we've always done it! Besides, the fans go crazy and hockey players are supposed to be toothless anyway!"

smh.gif
wow seriously? i dont see what the big deal is. if people cant watch fights, dont watch hockey, simple. its a rough sport, and fighting is allowedbecause like people have said, its part of the game. why are beanballs allowed in baseball? you do it to intimidate. in hockey, fighting does something similarand it fires up your squad. people have no idea how momentum can swing when your teammate goes out there and mixes it up and knocks out another dude. it fireseveryone on the team up. someone takes a cheap shot at your star player? you send an enforcer out there to set him straight. whoever said fighting wasnt a partof sports anyway? isnt boxing a sport? dont even give me that "oh but in boxing, fighting is an art" hockey isnt some sissy sport like basketball. todude who made the claim that hockey isnt taken seriously so they allow fighting, just becuase basketball has rules against fighting doesnt make it morerelevant of a sport. basketball is more relevant of a sport in america because more people can afford to play basketball than hockey, so obviously more peoplewill tend to like basketball over hockey.
 
Seriously... the "Malice in the Palace" was made out to be World War 3, while fights happen in hockey all the time, and refs mostly just watch it for a while before intervening. Why???

Is it because no one cares about hockey?

It's an example of how mechanical and idiodic precedent and tradition can sometimes be.

"We'll let these guys stop in the middle of the game and punch each other out, even though it does nothing for the game but slow it down, because, hey, that's how we've always done it! Besides, the fans go crazy and hockey players are supposed to be toothless anyway!"



you guys need to watch more hockey
 
Originally Posted by eaglebball1499

It's an example of how mechanical and idiodic precedent and tradition can sometimes be.

"We'll let these guys stop in the middle of the game and punch each other out, even though it does nothing for the game but slow it down, because, hey, that's how we've always done it! Besides, the fans go crazy and hockey players are supposed to be toothless anyway!"

smh.gif

I agree, there's no reason fighting should be allowed in any sport including hockey. I personally think part of the reason why fighting is allowed isbecause the NHL struggles to draw fans in the US and some people tune in just to see some physicality. Even if the NHL tried to outlaw fighting theplayer's union would oppose the idea because fighting provides jobs for 2-3 players on each team.
 
Dont be a smart a/ss, you know what I mean.

Football is a physical sport, but fighting isn't allowed.

You can still have a physical sport without fighting.

The momentum argument is old and played out. How's this for swinging momentum...how about scoring a goal for your team?

If you watch international hockey and the Olympics you'll see a better product than the NHL. Hardly any fighting, not as many penalties, bigger ice rink =more room for the skilled players to practice their craft. I shudder ever now and then when I think about how poor the quality of the NHL would be if Europeanplayers hadn't come over seas to play. While North America is blessed with some exceptional players like Crosby, Lecalvier, Heatley + some others,it's the skilled, less physical, non fighting European "sissies" that make the NHL entertaining to watch.
 
I personally think part of the reason why fighting is allowed is because the NHL struggles to draw fans in the US and some people tune in just to see some physicality.


You're making it seem like the NHL recently came up with fighting as a gimmick to draw fans. As much as you want to argue that "tradition"shouldn't be mentioned, it's an important word/aspect of what it actually means to the league. Pre lockout, the NHL was doing just fine with networkdeals on ESPN and NBC. Now it isn't the case as they lost MANY casual fans due to the work stoppage. They have new stars in Ovechkin and Crosby that theyare trying to rebuild the leagues image off of. The loyal NHL fan will always be there....it's just trying to "re-lure" (I don't know ifthat's a word
laugh.gif
) the casual fan who was showing interest in the sport before they shut it down for the year.

While North America is blessed with some exceptional players like Crosby, Lecalvier, Heatley + some others, it's the skilled, less physical, non fighting European "sissies" that make the NHL entertaining to watch.


However, many people who follow the sport would argue that the saturation of European players NHL hasn't done much for the game due to their diving andlack of __________. Fighting makes up such a small part of what the NHL is all about. It DOES swing momentum.....much like a huge dunk on someone's head,the rest of your team can definitley play off of the adreneline that a fight can garner....

I'll get in to it a little more...
 
Nah, I meant to say that the NHL hasn't abolished fighting to keep the casual fan interested. I dont like the tradition argument at all, it's such ahard headed logic.

As you said, the loyal NHL fans are keeping the league alive but the reason why other North American sports are thriving is because they are able to markettheir sport more effectively which lures more casual fans. I think if the NHL marketed its stars like Crosby, Ovechkin etc. and emphasized the speed + skill ofthe game the league would be better off rather than promoting fighting.
 
I think if the NHL marketed its stars like Crosby, Ovechkin etc. and emphasized the speed + skill of the game the league would be better off rather than promoting fighting.


But look at what a huge deal it was when Crosby dropped the gloves and whooped up on Andrew Ference a few weeks back. It made front page on ESPN.com and it wasone of the top stories on Sports Center the next day....the marquee fight between LeCavalier and Iginla during the Stanley Cup finals was applauded by peoplearound the league and those who were casual fans....
 
Fighting in Hockey is a tradition?
laugh.gif

Bottom line is it's allowed because it draws fans to US hockey. The vast majority of US hockey fans don't know 2 sh* * s about hockey as a sport andonly go to see the hitting and fighting.
 
because hockey is the @#*@. plain and simple. it isn't a wimp sport like basketball where you drive to the lane and barely get touched and it's a foul.real men play hockey.
 
who cares, hockey sucks ayway..they need any and evrything they can get to draw viewers...i'll be happy when they have another lockout back in '06..Thebest winter of my life...sportscenter was
smokin.gif
that year
roll.gif
none of that hockey night on wednesdays and thursdays with barry melrose and hismullet
laugh.gif
 
in the 70's a Boston Bruin climbed into the stands at MSG and took a fan's shoe off and beat him with it....I forget the guy's name but he is ananalyst for NBC now.
 
Back
Top Bottom