Survey the Internet to learn what fans, players, NHL
management, parents, media—an overlapping cross-section of the hockey
kingdom—think of fighting in hockey, more specifically whether fisticuffs
should be banned from the NHL. I did so because in the last year or two, I’ve
become more conflicted about the answer to this question: Should
fighting be completely banished?
When I was a teenager, I loved watching the replay of my
favorite players pummeling an opponent who had it coming to him. Slap Shot: The more foil and high-sticking
and blood the better. And now, as a forty-eight-year-old fan, I still love it.
At least part of me does. My hypothalamus and pituitary and adrenal glands
activate those fight-or-flight hormones and I crave the combat. Retribution.
Make the opponent accountable. Stick up for your teammates. The surge, however,
lasts a few seconds before I’m repulsed. I don’t like the way it makes me feel
when I watch players drive their knuckles into their opponents skull. I don’t
want anyone to get hurt. And I don’t enjoy who I become. Sometimes I turn away
or leave until the game begins again.
So back to the question: Should we ban fighting? The
National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA) responded to that
closed-ended query with a resounding “no.”
I wonder if we’re asking enough questions. If we want to
make our ever-evolving
sport the best it can be, let’s ask ourselves the following:
The two percent of NHL players who answered the question du jour with an ay: Why? And of those
who said nay, how many have ever dropped the gloves? Is there a better way to
phrase that question to them or maybe one question isn’t enough?
Why don’t we demand that fighting become part of the college
game? High school hockey? If pucks and pugilism go hand-in-hand in the NHL and
in the Canadian Hockey League (for
now), why not peddle the adrenaline rush to the younger set? Is fighting
part of the game or not?
Maybe professional players could fight with their gloves on?
All the hay-makers, jabs and uppercuts but less risk of brain damage. Our
hypothalami would still be happy, right? Why not test this theory in the AHL
the proving ground for the shootouts that conclude would-be NHL tie games.
Are players, trainers, and team doctors required to learn
about the risk of injury, to be educated on the potential consequences of not just
fighting but also playing today’s fast-paced game? Shouldn’t there be a video
on the worst-case scenario?
Inadvertent high sticks, no out-of-bounds, blocking shots,
artery-slicing blades: Isn’t our sport dangerous enough?
Why does the NHL punish and promote fighting? If we want
that hypothalamus high, then why bother with the punishment? How do we
reconcile the incongruity?
What if owners and general managers stopped selling beer
after the second period? Would fans be less inclined to call for an opposing
player’s head?
Is it possible to “enforce” the rules created to protect players’
safety without fighting? What if, for every disciplinary decision, the NHL
proposed two or three options and then poll the NHLPA?
Why don’t the players who most often bare their knuckles get
more credit for their finesse? Do they need to fight to be effective and
respected?
Now that I’ve seen the images of a dead
hockey player’s brain, watched his brother’s reaction, felt the
helplessness of his parents, and listened to both scientists and the NHL’s
response, I recall poet Maya Angelou’s oft-quoted insight into human behavior: “When
you know better, you do better.”
Maybe I watch too much Oprah, but when I hear fans screaming
for an opponent’s head, I question my own thoughts (not so far-removed from those
fans) as I root for my team.
I still love Slap Shot.
I’m keeping my copy of Goon.
I love all that makes our game unique: the speed, short-handed goals,
vulcanized rubber, the guts it takes to block shots, goalie masks. Almost all
of it. And even then, I kind of like the slug fests for a few seconds—but then I
lose my appetite.
If we know better, do we do better?
2 comments:
For too long no one has questioned the NHL or the NHLPA on the why fighting remains in the game. Yes you can find anti-fighting articles and blogs going back several years, but few of them attacked the supporting issues; pressure relief, momentum changing and player enforcement of the game. But that's changing as stats and studies begin to show that all of that support is based on myth and perception. More recently concussions and player safety has put additional emphasis on the debate.
Why doesn't the NHL and NHLPA simply show some leadership and address fighting publically, either for or against. Other than a few cursory comments from Bettman or anonymous polls from players, their true feelings are unknown. I think that they feel insulated by a culture of fighting that started 40 years ago. Check out my blog for some recent history on how fighting changed since the 1970's - http://itsnotpartofthegame.blogspot.ca/2012/04/how-did-we-get-here.html.
The NHL and NHLPA can come out and state that fighting must be eliminated, and alienate hard core fight fans. Or they can could openly put their support behind the enforcers and risk condemnation from the media and medical experts. I can't see them choosing the latter and I hope they put their voices behind the former. Continuing to ride the middle is not an option.
What a fantastic post, Jim. Straight from the heart and very well thought out. I particularly like your personal and candid approach.
Post a Comment