Brian Burke "In Support of Fighting" Column in USA Today

[IPv6Freely 2092]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2013/10/30/pro-fighting-column/3320245/

[chippa13 1844]

Dear Brian Burke: If fighting held players so accountable then why are we on pace for a record number of suspensions this season?

[troy 12]

I guess he could say that the NHL wants to kill fighting, so they're suspending players before they can be rightfully beat up.

[chippa13 1844]

That statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Dear Brian Burke: If fighting held players so accountable then why are we on pace for a record number of suspensions this season?

I wonder if there's a correlation with fighting being down 20.5%

[chippa13 1844]

Doubtful, the argument is that because the possibility for a fight exists that players will not engage in dangerous behavior.

[iceman8310 105]

get rid of the instigator rule.

Are there more illegal hits or is the league focusing more on the issue? More suspensions doesn't always mean there's more illegal play. It's just being policed now.

[Chadd 916]

get rid of the instigator rule.

Are there more illegal hits or is the league focusing more on the issue? More suspensions doesn't always mean there's more illegal play. It's just being policed now.

Yeah, that would have stopped John Scot.

I wonder if there's a correlation with fighting being down 20.5%

That is because teams realize that fighting doesn't have anything to do with winning. The reigning Cup champ doesn't dress a legitimate fighter most nights. The closest guys on the roster are Bollig and Brookbank. they each have one fighting major this season.

[gxc999 7]

100% with Burke on that. Fighting can lead to serious injuries, over an extended period of time, whereas a single dirty hit can potentially end a career and cause permanent damage immediately. I'd go the other way and remove the instigator rule, or at least limit its application, to make fighting a more effective deterrent.

[chippa13 1844]

Yeah, who cares about a barely functioning brain once the guy retires. Moron.

[gxc999 7]

I'm not saying that at all, and neither is Burke. It's obviously an area of concern but headshots certainly cause brain damage too. It's unclear how much damage is caused by checking/hitting versus fighting. Well, just be stricter on headshots, you say?

We know now that hits to the chest/shoulder area that jar the neck can cause brain damage/concussions etc too. How far are we going to go with this? These are big, strong, amped up professionals. Institute reasonable rules, and better helmets. By the way, how about the takedown during a fight coming under scrutiny? That may cause a more substantial injury than does the exchange of fists.

[psh 25]

I have a fair bit of respect for Burke, but Ken Dryden pretty easily carries the day and scores a logical knockout in this one:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/dryden-case-for-fighting-in-hockey-continues-to-get-weaker-and-weaker/article15232138/

[CommodoreColt 19]

The fundamental fallacy behind Burke's point of view is the idea that being invited to fight is a deterrent for bad behavior in today's NHL. As Dryden (in psh's post) says, the argument gets weaker and weaker as more light is shone upon it.

There's a lot of romance and lore thrown around about that unwritten code of atonement that I doubt many students of the game, even inside the NHL, will really acknowledge as a coherent justice mechanism. The deterrence point is moot when the kinds of bad behavior that trigger fights are so inconsistent. You see perfectly clean body checks being answered with gloves on the ice on regular occasion. In the modern game you see fights triggered for no other reason than a team being low on morale and needing an emotional boost. Where do these situations fit into this code? Frankly, every time "the code" is invoked a little more light shines on that argument's holes.

There isn't a problem with anyone arguing for fighting in the pro game because whether it's kept around or banned will work itself out in time. But the discussion would be a lot more productive if proponents of fighting in the pro game would be honest with themselves and acknowledge that they're arguing for entertainment value and resistance to change, not a justice mechanism.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

The fundamental fallacy behind Burke's point of view is the idea that being invited to fight is a deterrent for bad behavior in today's NHL. As Dryden (in psh's post) says, the argument gets weaker and weaker as more light is shone upon it.

There's a lot of romance and lore thrown around about that unwritten code of atonement that I doubt many students of the game, even inside the NHL, will really acknowledge as a coherent justice mechanism. The deterrence point is moot when the kinds of bad behavior that trigger fights are so inconsistent. You see perfectly clean body checks being answered with gloves on the ice on regular occasion. In the modern game you see fights triggered for no other reason than a team being low on morale and needing an emotional boost. Where do these situations fit into this code? Frankly, every time "the code" is invoked a little more light shines on that argument's holes.

There isn't a problem with anyone arguing for fighting in the pro game because whether it's kept around or banned will work itself out in time. But the discussion would be a lot more productive if proponents of fighting in the pro game would be honest with themselves and acknowledge that they're arguing for entertainment value and resistance to change, not a justice mechanism.

Hear Hear

[IPv6Freely 2092]

I think it still applies, as I don't think his comments were directed at staged fighting and nonsense like in van/cgy. I /generally/ agree with him on the topic, and I'd be perfectly happy to see staged fights gone.

If he's pro-staged-fights, then I guess that's one of the items on the topic that I don't share his viewpoint on.