It’s long past time for the NHL to consider a ban on fighting. Here are some reasons why.
Hasn’t fighting always been part of the game?
Hockey purists argue that fighting has always been part of the game. But so what? In fact, that’s the problem! The thuggish, goonish atmosphere around hockey is a huge turnoff to large segments of the population. It’s part of what has kept hockey from taking its rightful place alongside baseball, football and basketball as one of America’s favorite sports.
Somehow the purists believe that “it’s always been part of the game” is a winning argument. But of course, arguing to maintain the status quo isn’t convincing unless you can actually explain why the status quo makes sense.
Would a fighting ban cause fans to stop watching hockey?
While a small percentage of fans may look forward to fighting, for most fans it’s an afterthought. They want to see the skill and talent of the players shine through. They want goals and scoring chances.
How many people would stop watching hockey if a fighting ban was instituted? Not many. Chances are most of those people are already watching the WWE or MMA or UFC. And even if those fans do quit watching, they’ll be replaced by many more fans who are excited by the new direction of the sport.
Does the NHL need fighting to police the game?
This is the most common and also most off-base argument for keeping fighting in the sport. Could you imagine if the NFL let its linemen remove their helmets and start unleashing blows upon each other, and then justified it by saying, “We need to allow fighting in order to police the game?”
The NFL polices its game by throwing penalty flags. If that isn’t severe enough, the league hands down massive fines and suspensions. And that system works just fine. There’s no reason the NHL couldn’t do the same. The idea that somehow there would be anarchy on the ice if hockey didn’t have goons to protect its star players is a wild fantasy. Is Olympic hockey anarchy? Is youth hockey anarchy? There’s simply no evidence to back up this outlandish claim.
The NHL just needs a league office with the guts to issue tough suspensions when appropriate. If a player makes a blatant attempt to injure somebody, suspend him for 50 games. You’ll see just how fast the thuggery disappears when players realize the league is serious about eliminating that kind of behavior. It’s really that simple.
If fighting is such an important part of the game, why does it disappear during the playoff run to the Stanley Cup? Policing the game is not a valid reason for opposing an NHL fighting ban.
The pro-fighting crowd’s response
It’s difficult to have an honest debate about a fighting ban in hockey, because the pro-fighting crowd doesn’t even want to acknowledge that such a debate exists. Whenever a commentator suggests that perhaps fighting should be banned, those who support fighting in hockey are either largely unable to provide any logical reason why fighting should remain in the sport, so instead they typically attack the messenger.
Sorry, but “it’s part of the fabric of the game” just doesn’t cut it. And, as discussed earlier, the common argument that “fighting is needed to police the game” is deeply misguided.
Explain what fighting adds to the sport. Explain why the NHL’s regular season goonery is superior to Olympic hockey or even NHL playoff hockey. It would be great to hear some logical arguments for why keeping fighting in hockey makes sense. Right now there aren’t any.
No comments:
Post a Comment