The rules and regulations regarding fighting in college hockey seems to crop up every year, and somehow I seem to change my opinion every year as well. Nonetheless, here's a few "neutral" comments and concerns regarding college fisticuffs: -- If fighting is allowed rather than penalized, college hockey will most definitely slip into a great dark age (see also: NHL, 1950's). Just imagine the fun to be had when smaller, quicker players such as Paul Kariya miss half the season with a broken jaw. Imagine a player winning the Hobey because of his plus-minus ratio, earned simply by mauling every player better than him, with or without the puck. -- Hockey players are one of two college sports (lacrosse being the other) where players are carrying (what can be used as) weapons at all times. Add to this that they are armored, often feeling indestructable. Reminds me of Braveheart. Of course, them highlanders were fighting for personal freedom from royal oppression. Imagine Mel Gibson rallying the troops because he was hooked on his last breakaway. -- Players in any sport, including hockey, do not need to learn how to "defend themselves." If a player gets tied up in the corner and another decides he wants to take him on, there are two options: Skate away from the neanderthal or drop to the ice. Fighting is NOT an option in ANY sport (except for boxing, natch). In the NHL and associated minor leagues where fighting is allowed, it is always stopped when the players drop to the ice. If a player can't skate away from a grappling opponent, then fall to the ice. Fighting will be stopped, the penalty will be issued to the jerk, and the "victim" rests on the bench or scores a goal on the ensuing power play. -- Why does fighting exist? The same reason schoolyard bullies and muggers do: because they can get away with it. Take that away and they're nothing. -- Hockey is the only professional sport where fighting is a regular occurrence. Take note that even in Football (including last night's Raiders-Broncos game), fighting is a VERY rare occurrence, and that the top pros are VERY, VERY RARELY involved. It naturally stands however, that if college hockey serves to further develop a player's skills, that they should allow fighting. -- College hockey (and its scholarships!) exists for ONE reason: to provide talented athletes with a chance at an EDUCATION. If players feel the need to do nothing else but play hockey, let 'em beat the snot out of each other in the juniors and farm leagues. No college sport should be seen as a farm league for the pros. Period. -- I can't count how many times I've seen college players fight and then get sent to the box for "roughing." -- If a player does decide to fight, I'm all for it. Like any rabid fan, I often enjoy a great hockey fight. However, the persons involved should be prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they are. And regarding the three-fight, season-suspension concept, just what kind of players get involved in three fights a season? -- During my first year watching college hockey (as a freshman at BU), I thought it was really interesting to see police officers (not security guards) standing right behind the BU bench. I thought it more interesting to see a few players get arrested on assault charges. While these were for particularly vicious attacks, these are brought on by the "acceptance" of fighting. If fighting were a "big deal," fewer players would fight. As such, attempting to remove a player's head with a hockey stick, keeping him from playing 5-10 (or more) games is a "big deal." -- One of the chief tenets of the NCAA is promoting "good sportsmanship." Last I checked, this didn't include sending someone to the locker room for stitches. -- Fighting is not limited in any level of hockey to only the "goons." Last season, I watched with disgust as Cam Neely tried to play dentist with Claude Lemiuex. I, like many of you Hockey-L'ers, enjoy watching hockey not just for the action around the puck, but to follow specific players and see how they move without the puck. Lemiuex was doing his job, and was well within the rules of conduct. Neely however (no flames about this incident please) attacked Lemieux out of pure frustration. There are players (albeit few) in other sports like the NBA who have the ability to shut down superstars like Michael Jordan. I don't recall seeing Jordan becoming violent just because Joe Dumars shut him down for a game. On the other hand, last week we witnessed Brett Hull get involved in a fracas. Unlike Neely, he was provoked all game long and was pulled into the fight. So, Hull fought (pretty darn well, IMHO). Did he complain about his 5-minute major? No. Did his coach? No. Did his team? No. HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.