The NHL and the North American levels of hockey are at war with itself over tolerable levels of violence in the game. Questions are now being asked loudly about the future of fighting and the definition of acceptable hits.
After several suicides of high profile enforcers over the past several years, attributable to depression caused by CTE, the loss of several players to concussions, including Marc Savard and Chris Pronger, there has been much discussion. There has also been some movement from the NHL Department of Player Safety to punish hits to the head, as evidenced by Deryk Engelland’s impending suspension for his hit on Red Wing Justin Abdelkader.
A few years ago, Engelland would have only received a pat on the back for hard play.
Proponents of fighting claim, with some credibility, that fighting allows players to police the game, keeping cheap hits and stick incidents to a minimum.
Opponents claim, with credibility, it makes the sport look silly, as no other sport allows its participants to punch each other, sit down for five minutes, then do it again.
If the NHL wanted to remove fighting, it could. Today. Simply ban it. Like many junior leagues and international competition, make the penalties more severe than the benefit of the act.
NHL discipline could also take the place of fighting. Again—make the penalties more severe. Would Bruins tough guy Shawn Thornton have assaulted Pens D-man Brooks Orpik if the penalty would be 40 games? Or a season? Uh, No.
The game is evolving. The unwritten rules or player code of conduct now demands players answer for clean hits. Boston fanboys were calling for Orpik to also be suspended for injuring Bruins forward Loui Erikkson. The hit was clean, but Thornton’s job demanded that he make Orpik pay a price for knocking Erikkson out of the game.
In most games, a big hit now necessitates a scrum, a face wash and at least a few punches.
Yet, look at the marketing of the NHL! EA Sports NHL 14’s newest web banner touts “game changing hits!” With no small irony the add features a Philly Flyer leveling the Bruins not so jolly giant, Zdeno Chara.
Many fans claim to abhor fighting and violence in the game. Sure, I’ll believe that when I see fans booing or showing indifference during a fight.
Players do police themselves inside the locker room and on the ice. It is largely successful. The NHL failing is in protecting its players with stiffer penalties for actions, which are clearly outside the lines.
Physical aggression is human nature. No amount of politically correct sentiment or finger wagging can deny humanity occasionally needs to use force and our enjoyment of it as entertainment.
Hockey benefits from frontier justice. It is the last sport, which actually has a level of unpredictable danger. Long ago, sports like NASCAR and the NFL lost the “wild” nature of competition, for their own preservation and benefit. However, the NHL, despite the evolution of the 1-4 “trap” and ever increasing technical proficiency caused by all encompassing coaching, still has a wild element in which anything can happen.
While fighting advocates and opponents lob cliché’s and mockery at each other, the battle looks more and more like a microcosm of our world. The war within hockey is simply the war within our society; the conflict of reality versus a comforting safety. Are we responsible to protect ourselves or should we turn over that responsibility and accompanying freedoms to a larger authority?
Are we comfortable with zero tolerance policies imposed upon us by authority?
I prefer to own responsibility, thank you. And I prefer to allow hockey players that same right. As we’ve seen, higher authorities just never seem to get it right
