Eric Burton writes:
>   I disagree with you on that one. I attend UND and the Fans go
>nuts when there is a scrum in the corner or at center Ice.
 
I certainly agree with you, crowds in general seem loudest and most
interested when there are altercations.  However, we also know that
people will gather around to watch one person beat another on the
street, yet I don't think too many people would argue to legalize
street fighting.
 
>I think that
>the NCAA is watering down hockey with their weak rules. Hockey is a
>physical game, it is also a game of intimidation.
 
I am perhaps one of the strongest proponents of physical hockey you
will find.  My ideal team would have its strengths in both hard-hitting
(but clean) physical play and a demonstration of skilled playmaking,
stickhandling and shooting.  I am not one of those who would prefer to
see college hockey gravitate towards the style of no-check leagues,
although I know there are people like that out there.
 
But there is a difference between hard physical play and intimidation,
and useless fighting.  A strong physical team truly intimidates the
opponent by causing them to look over their shoulders and expecting to be
hit every time they have the puck.  When you feel this way, you play
differently - you tend to hesitate for a split second, which can make
the difference between blowing past a defenseman and being tied up at
the blue line.  You also will have trouble setting up in front of the
net if the opposing defenseman is ready to knock you on your back.
 
Basically, fighting doesn't equal intimidation.  It never will, unless
the rules change to allow a defenseman to punch you in the head as
you try to set up in front.
 
As well, the NC$$ actually has not banned fighting.  Banning fighting
would involve suspending a player for the rest of the season or
forever, which some rec leagues actually do for fighting penalties.
In the NC$$, you get only one game (more for more incidents).  If you
think that the action is justified enough, then more power to you and
go for it, but I don't know that I've ever seen a situation where a
guy really needed to drop his gloves and go after someone.
 
Along the same lines, I'd like to see referees do a better job of only
handing out fighting penalties where deserved.  It's not right for a
player to get a DQ just for defending himself, and there is no reason
why anyone should not be expected to try to do this.
 
The NC$$ is not watering down hockey.  It is merely saying that the
line has been drawn earlier than in the NHL (one fight as opposed to
three - even the NHL doesn't think you should be able to beat up
as many as three people in a game).
 
I'm also not sure what makes hockey so different from, say, football
that fighting should be okay in hockey and not in football.  But this
is another issue.
 
>By not having some
>fighting in college hockey you will end up with a European brand of hockey
>which involves a lot of stick work.
 
It is interesting, I was just commenting on this the other day to
someone - I was saying that there is no way that there is less
stickwork in the NHL than in college.  Stickwork can still be better
controlled in college, but it is often downright frightening in the
NHL.  I see players go from college to the NHL and their sticks rise
3-4 inches somewhere in between.
 
I have heard the argument that fighting controls stickwork because the
NHL has fighting and supposedly lower sticks while Europe has no
fighting and higher sticks.  We are quickly finding out that there is
actually no correlation between the two other than coincidence.  First
of all, sticks have come up greatly in the NHL since about the 1960s,
and fighting still exists.  And more importantly, with more and more
players crossing the ocean to play in North America or Europe, the
level of stickwork is evening out (if there ever was a real difference;
many who have watched a lot of both brands of hockey say there never
was one).  If the pro-fighting argument were true, you would expect
that stickwork would die out among Europeans who came to North America
as they got pummeled by their NA brethren.
 
The truth is that as I have said many times, players will get away
with whatever they can get away with.  If players are called for stick
penalties, they will cease; if players are called for fighting, it
will stop.  When the NHL has decided to crack down on things, it has
been successful.  A perfect example is bench-clearing brawls, which
were rather common in the 1970s but which gave the game a bad image
even among longtime fans.  I suspect that if longtime fans expressed a
desire to see fighting go away, the NHL would eliminate it tomorrow
(if they were playing).
 
Stickwork in college is not as bad as it has been in the past nor as
bad as in the pros because referees call it more often (though still
not enough).  Aligning the fighting rules with the NHL rules would not
have the slightest effect upon the amount of stickwork.  I have seen
enough college and pro hockey by now (10 and 20+ years) to know that.
If someone is going to hack you, the threat of a penalty will deter
him more than the possibility that you might be angry enough to try to
beat him up.  Heck, he might welcome the opportunity to try to beat
*you* up instead.
 
> There a lot of people I know that
>don't like the European brand of hockey we like a hard checking brand of
>physical hockey and frankly I think that more people would like to see an
>occasional fight in a game and not have the player get severly punished
>for it.
 
You know, I think this is true - that many fans would like to see
fighting rules loosened.  I am not one of them...and certainly,
allowing fighting in hockey would go against the basic principles the
NC$$ stands upon.  These are the same principles that resulted in the
full Itech and in the NC$$ not sanctioning boxing as an intercollegiate
sport.
 
I've just got to throw this in...it made me incredibly angry several
years ago to see the Boston media and fans take to former RPI captain
Graeme Townshend as their next brawler.  It was really too bad because
Graeme is the nicest guy and was not like that at all in college.  But
after college, he was told that if he was going to make the team, he'd
have to become a fighter, and he wanted more than anything to have a
chance to show he could play.  Now this is what most people think of
when they think of Graeme - except for those who followed him in
college, of course.  It does make me angry and it points out the main
problem I have with pro hockey: pro hockey is about beating people up.
It's not as bad as it used to be, but it's still worse than it was
30-40 years ago (from what I hear).
 
But college hockey, IMO, is closer to the way the game should be
played.  The best teams hit hard and cleanly and they also score
beautiful goals.  They don't have to resort to dropping the gloves to
prove what they can do.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93