I agree with Adam Wodon.
I can't speak for juniors, but with regard to the NHL, which tacitly allows
fighting, most fighting isn't done "correctly". Most fights in the NHL
involve two fighters, not "little guys who run around using their sticks as
weapons". The dirty players are NOT held accountable by the presence of
fighting. THEY don't get the snot beat out of them. The fighters beat the
snot out of each other. Even if it's intended the way you say, the typical
sequence of events would be: (1) Player 1 (a fighter) on team A challenges
player 2 on team B (a dirty player) to a fight. (2) Player 2 stands around
looking tough, waiting for . . . (3) his teammate player 3 (a fighter) to
intervene and (4) Player 1 and player 3 fight. There is no consequence to
player 2.
The dirty players (incidentally, not limited to "little guys," that's an
unfair stereotype, unless you're speaking metaphorically with reference to
their courage, not their physical size; Ulf Samuelsson comes to mind)
typically don't "drop their gloves" or if they do, they grab a jersey and
turtle; they don't get the snot beat out of them.
Last I knew, slashing, high-sticking, and "using your stick as a weapon"
were all penalties. So I don't understand what you mean by there's no
action that you can take, unless you mean that players can't call penalties.
The solution to that problem is obvious; the refs should just make the damn
calls.
If you allow fighting, I'd also like to know how to make sure that it's used
correctly. If it were only used "correctly" I wouldn't mind it.
But I know that most fight situations aren't some sort of retribution
against a consistently dirty player, with the dirty player getting his due.
Most fight situations, especially in college, high school, and youth hockey,
are simply a matter of undisciplined players spontaneously escalating minor
pushes and shoves into fights. In my opinion, that is not (using your
terms) a "policing mechanism" nor is it a correctly used tool. It is a
result of lack of discipline and occasionally a result of bad officiating.
The result, for me, is to believe that the game misconduct is appropriate.
Clay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Lisko [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 9:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Fighting (Sorry for the delay)
>
> I may be late with this reply but I have been away for a while.
>
> Fighting in hockey (college, junior, pro) if done CORRECTLY is a very
> useful tool. I am not sitting as an advocate of goon tactics, but fighting
> can serve it's purpose.
> i.e.) The most common issue today are the "little guys" who run around the
> ice using their sticks as weapons. If this occurs in college, what action
> can you take to stop it? NONE! But if the player knew that if they
> continued using their stick that way, there might be the chance that a
> player may grab him and beat the snot out of him, he'll stop.
>
> I think that fighting for the most part is misunderstood. If used as a
> "policing" mechanism for the players who act in an improper manner
> (slashing, high-sticking excessively), the fighting will serve the purpose
> it was intended. When players know that their actions may be accountable
> by
> having to drop the gloves, you'd be surprised how quickly the sticks and
> attitudes of many players change.
>
> I think that college should review having fighting back as a Game
> Misconduct (removing you from the current game only.) We had rules back
> in
> Canada which stated that if a fight occurred with 10 minutes or less
> remaining in the game, you would sit out the next one also. This stopped
> the guys from dropping the gloves with a minute to go and playing the next
> game.
>
> Just my two cents..
>
> Craig Lisko
> Ferris State 1990-1994
>
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
