Running head: FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY

Fight-free Hockey Stephanie Vail Southern New Hampshire University

Running head: FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Fight-free Hockey Hockey is a tough and physical sport that not only allows violence during games, but

often encourages it. Many of those who are involved in or follow the sport consider violence, in the form of fist fights between two players on the ice, to be an historic, natural, necessary, and worthwhile part of the game. National Hockey League officials, team management, game referees, coaches, players and fans are all responsible for allowing this fighting to continue. Despite the arguments given in support of fighting, it is simply too dangerous for the players and too distasteful for many of the fans, and so should be eliminated for the betterment of the game. Proponents of fighting in the NHL argue that it is deeply embedded into the history of the sport, and therefore embedded into the sport itself. Fighting in hockey has existed since before the NHL was formed in 1917 and escalated as the NHL grew. In specific instances when things got out of hand, the NHL made provisions to prevent such things to happen again, such as eliminating bench-clearing brawls or continuing to fight a player after he goes down. The NHL has spent much of its 95 year history civilizing fighting without actually taking any steps to remove it completely. With each passing year that the NHL refused to take measures to eliminate fighting from the game, the idea that fighting as a strong, essential hockey tradition became stronger. Still considering fighting in hockey as essential to the success of the game based on its history ignores two important facts: sports evolve over the years and hockey outside of North America does not include fighting. In the NHL, numerous hockey traditions have been eliminated or changed throughout history despite fan protest and disapproval. Basic rules that were once also part of the essence of the game have long since been abandoned, such as the number of players on the ice per team, the number of players dressed to play in a game, the

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY addition of lines dividing the ice into zones and the subsequent elimination of the two-line pass,

the role of officiating on ice in a game, and even something as simple as adding glass panes over the boards of the rink to protect fans. Most of the rules have been to improve the flow of the game and safety of the players the betterment of the game. Hockey must evolve with the world around it, and keeping fighting in the game is an example of hockey refusing to adapt to a world where such violence simply can no longer be tolerated. When faced with the choice to take a controlling stance or taking fighting out of hockey to protect players, every former President of the NHL, and now current Commissioner, along with the team owners, have responded with the same refusal to consider it. Outlawing benchclearing brawls, unfair instigating, third-man in, and other amendments to Rule 46 in the NHL official rulebook have done all but actually eliminate fighting. The NHL has continued to do this because of the marketing asset fighting provides. Highlight reels of fights are released through the league or shown on television as often as highlight reels of great goals. As video games have become more popular, the NHL has embraced the insertion of fighting as a major part of the video games. The most recent version of the most popular NHL video games, NHL 12, had an exciting new feature goalie fights. The NHL believes this strategy has been effective and therefore kept fighting in the game to make a profit. The NHL has refused to experiment with the effects of eliminating fighting because they assume that it would undoubtedly decrease profits. The owners have had little faith or motivation to appeal to fans by marketing the actual essence of the game that makes it so special: skilled players exhibiting speed on skates, toughness of puck battles and positioning, laser-speed shots, dazzling passes, and cat-like reflexes of goaltenders making remarkable saves. A winning team is the result of good team chemistry, and good team coaching strategy and

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY

execution, with strong player work ethic. Violence does not make a team good, nor does it win a hockey game. New fans could be drawn to a league that showcases best goal reels rather than best fights, but the NHL cannot know what effects it will have on ticket sales and profits until they try it. Aside from tradition, proponents of fighting argue that it is a natural part of the game. Hockey is a unique combination of skating at high speeds while confined to a relatively small surface of enclosed space. With physical contact in the form of legal body checks, emotional reactions often take over and can trigger fighting. The fighting is seen as a natural release of high emotion. Fighting is considered an acceptable way for players to release built up aggression or let off steam, rather than possibly retaliating with dangerous hits and stick work. There is no denying that hockey is a tough sport that involves high intensity and continued physical contact, but there is a difference between physicality and violence. Body checking is an important strategy of the sport, just as tackling is an important strategy of football. Yet football players do not break out in fist fights during their games. If football players can learn to be disciplined enough to avoid fighting in a physical game, hockey players should be capable of doing the same. Fighting as a natural release of aggression asserts that fights break out as a result of spontaneous emotional reactions. However, the majority of fights that take place on the ice are premeditated, staged events. Former NHL coach and current analyst Harry Neale points out in Bernsteins book that spontaneous fights are understandable but when a guy has 30 or 40 fighting majors in a season, that is over the line (2006). The role of the enforcer is often a disguise for the role of the goon, who has no role except to be an agitator.

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Staged fights also lack authenticity and do not serve as an emotional release at all. For instance, players have been known to contact one another before a game to arrange a fight. Just being on the ice at the same time as an opponent known as a fighter triggers an unnatural response in dropping the gloves. As a result of the atmosphere and expectations of fighters in

hockey, they do not react naturally based on human emotion; rather, they react based on what the crowd and team expect them to do in their role as a fighter, which makes the act of fighting unnatural. If the player had no expectations to fight at all, he would not reach the point where he needs to release pent up aggression. Staged fights are a tactic some coaches use because fighting is believed to set the tone of a game, swing momentum in the teams favor, or given the upper hand to the team. Fighters take the ice with instructions from the coach to start a fight. Inevitably, the presence of a fighter in the lineup takes away a roster spot from a potentially skilled player, whereas fighters are characterized by having little actual talent or skill playing hockey aside from the skill of throwing or absorbing a punch. Additionally, some research has shown that fighting does not have an impact on a teams chance of winning or increase scoring (Allen 2012). Although fighting did serve the purpose of momentum swing about 75% of the time, it did not last long enough to have a meaningful impact. The NHL Official Rulebook outlaws fighting, but the wording of the actual rule is vague and gives the referee complete discretion in administering penalties. Essentially, the referees allow the fights to continue, and then assess the standard 5 minute major penalty that is merely a slap on the wrist. The rulebook also places emphasis on prohibiting impediment of the flow of the game. Yet, without taking a preemptive act in deterring fighting, the NHL endorses the lengthy stoppages of play that result from fighting.

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Proponents of fighting claim that fighting is also necessary to the game. This argument holds the most weight in the NHL community because of the development of the role of enforcers. Enforcers are considered honorable in abiding by an unspoken code between all enforcers, and therefore are considered very different from a goon. Enforcers do an important

job when they fight because it is a means of protecting the star players. Enforcers are responsible to engage in fisticuffs with any opponent who tries to, or happens to harm any of the teams stars the stars, of course, being the most valuable asset to the game and the true draw of fans to the game. The enforcers job is thus to send a message to the opponent that so much as touching another player will be swiftly met with physical retribution. Many proponents of enforcers and enforcers themselves go as far as to guarantee that without that presence on the bench to deter dangerous plays, the game would see an increase in such dangerous actions. What keeps players from imposing such violence unjustly onto another player is said to be the fear that he will be immediately pummeled by the teams enforcers. Player safety, policy, and rule enforcement is the job of the on-ice officials and other league officials who administer supplemental discipline with fines and suspensions. The referees and league officials perform their jobs ineffectively enough that it has convinced the players that they are must police the game. This mentality of frontier justice is inherently violent. Rather than deter illegal hits, the threat and action of violence simply promotes more acts of violence. Additionally, even former NHL player and fighting proponent Mike Milbury has joined many other members of the hockey community in recent years to come out with a new stance on fighting. In Milburys case, he flat out said we have fighting in hockey because we like it, not because the game needs it for policing (Proteau 2011).

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Another claim of those who support fighting in hockey is that it is a worthwhile part of the game, because fighting serves to excite the crowd and rally the home team into playing with more heart. It is true that a sport must be entertaining to survive, and fighting is considered a form of entertainment to some people. Hockey is not the place to satisfy the people who want to be entertained solely by fighting. Instead, they should look to prize fighting, boxing, Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). Not ironically, the NHL advertisements target demographics such as UFC and MMA fans. The NHL should concentrate instead on targeting demographics such as families, but cannot do so effectively with fighting

still in the game. The violence is not family-friendly, and the approval of fighting from the crowd sends a very dangerous message to children that fighting is acceptable and enjoyable as entertainment. Rather than explain to a child why it is okay to fight in a hockey game, parents understandably would rather not bring a child to a hockey game at all. Even fans who do implicitly enjoy fighting as part of the game, some admit to feeling guilty about it is wrong, such as famous journalist Frank Deford, who admitted that I know I shouldnt [enjoy fighting], but I do. It brings out the worst in me (Bernstein 2006). Author Adam Proteau adds that fighting does excite crowds, but then again, so do scantily clad ice girls or girls dancing on the jumbotron; the crowd is cheering and enjoying what they are watching, but that does not mean it serves a purpose relevant to the game of hockey (2011). Some members of the crowd are merely reacting to the excitement of the people around them. The crowd excitement over fighting is often just a ripple effect of fans reacting to a handful of fanatics among them a sort of mob mentality. Crowds have also been known to cheer with approval when an opponent gets injured during play which further proves that parts of the game that

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY people respond positively to with excitement does not mean it is justified. The most exciting parts of hockey that cause genuine enthusiasm from the crowd are goals. While the crowds at hockey games certainly experience excitement from a fight, the overall stance of the league on fighting encourages elevated violence. Such accepted violence

inevitably escalates and has severely crossed the line from fighting to criminally assaulting. After cheering on the provocation of a fight, fans in the crowd that witness events such as with Marty McSorley and Todd Bertuzi, quickly go from cheering to dead silence. The fans are horrified when they witness the inevitable result of the violence they had strongly encouraged (Bernstein 2006). Despite all the arguments for allowing fighting to continue in hockey, it has been proven to be very dangerous for all those involved. The idea of an NHL player dying as a result of a fight is not unrealistic. In 2009, a 21-year-old defenseman playing in for the Whitby Dunlops of the Senior AAA league in Canada Canadas highest level of senior amateur hockey died as a direct result of a fight (CBC Sports). The victim, Don Sanderson, had been engaged in a fight with an opponent during a game and during the fight, Sandersons helmet had come off; when fell down at the end of the fight, he hit the back of his head on the ice. He died a few days later while in a coma. The undeniable role that fighting in hockey in the NHL and amateur levels in Canada that strongly endorses fighting played in the young mans death was not enough to make any staggering changes. Instead, the league president acknowledged the tragedy while implying that the helmet manufacturers may have been at fault because the helmet never should have come off. In the NHL, no player has died as a direct result of a fight yet. However, many outrageous situations have nearly killed players, and were still not enough to change policy. The

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY

two most recent and shocking incidents of fightings effect on hockey occurred in 2000 between Marty McSorley of the Boston Bruins and Donald Brashear of the Vancouver Canucks, and in 2004 between Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks and Steve Moore of the Colorado Avalanche. Both resulted in both strict suspensions from the league as well as criminal court cases while also ending another players career. McSorley is a former enforcer who had a long career of dropping the gloves. As a member of the Bruins in a game against the Canucks on February 21, 2000, McSorley attempted to goad Brashear into a fight in the waning seconds of the game by swinging his stick and striking Brasher in the head, causing him to fall to the ice, hit his head, fall to the ice violently, and had a grand mal seizure (Bernstein 2006). Brashear fortunately recovered over time, but McSorley never played in the NHL again, and faced legal punishment in British Columbia, where the assault had happened. The tragedy would not have happened with a fight-free league because both players were enforcers, had fought earlier in the game, and therefore it was not uncommon to try to draw an opponent into another fight. Another incident that sadly displays the violence that results from fighting in hockey took place between February 16, 2004 and March 8, 2004. In a game between the Avalanche and the Canucks on February 16, Moore administered a legal body check on Canucks captain Marcus Naslund. The hit resulted in a severe concussion that sidelined Naslund. Moore answered to Bertuzzi later in the game by agreeing to fight with him because Moore understood the practice of hockey justice. Bertuzzi and the Canucks were not done with Moore yet. For weeks leading up to the rematch between the two teams on March 8, Bertuzzi and members of the Canucks team and organization publicly threatened Moore repeatedly. During the March 8 game, Bertuzzi angrily attacked Moore from behind, grabbing the back of his jersey

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY

10

and throwing him to the ice. Bertuzzi then jumped on top of Moore and began punching him, and soon after members of both teams piled on top of him in the brawl. The instant Moore hit the ice, he lost consciousness, had three fractured bones in his neck, a broken jaw, lacerations on his face, permanent nerve damage, and a serious concussion that resurfaced with post concussion syndrome symptoms such as amnesia (Bernstein 2006). Bertuzzi was suspended for the remainder of the season and would have been suspended into the next season, but it was the season of the lockout in which nobody played. The next year when the NHL resumed play, Bertuzzi was permitted to return to play. He was charged in criminal and civil courts, as were the Vancouver coach, general manager, and owners. All parties involved had supported the idea of violent retribution and allowed the brutal situation to happen. Bertuzzi currently enjoys great success with the Detroit Red Wings. Moore never played hockey again, but counts himself lucky to be alive. In regards to future action by the NHL, Moore stated (as cited in Bernstein 2006): My biggest hope is that theres a serious evaluation of preventing this from happening again. Theres been so much damage to the game. When you talk to people who dont know the game, the only thing you hear about hockey is that its so violent. (p. 21) No serious changes were made. It remains permissible in the NHL for teams to threaten one another in the media, such as coach of the Vancouver Canucks, Alain Vigneault, who warned the Bruins Brad Marchand that he someday he was going to get seriously injured as a target of retribution. Brendan Shanahan suspended Marchand for five games for the incident that sparked the comments, but the Canucks received no discipline for the words in the media.

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Clearly, risk of life-threatening injury as a result of fights or toleration of fights in the NHL endangers many players. The dangers involved in an actual fist fight are underestimated and not always immediately apparent. Many proponents of fighting in the NHL argue that nobody really gets injured a fight, but nothing could be further from the truth. New scientific data in the medical community is developing every day that shows growing evidence of how

11

destructive contact sports can be, especially for fighters in the NHL. A relatively new diagnosis in the medical community called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has been diagnosed to former NHL fighters posthumously, including in the brain of Derek Boogaard. The NHL experienced a wake-up call over the summer when a trio of tragedies struck the community. Boogaard, Rick Rypien, and Wade Belak, all long-time NHL enforcers and relatively young men, died within three months between May 2011 and August 2011. Only Boogaards brain was examined, but it was found to have an advanced case of CTE (Klein 2011). The brain damage as a result from repeated blows to the head is part of what characterizes CTE. It is an Alzheimers-like degenerative brain disease that progresses quickly after it appears, but can only be diagnosed posthumously. CTE causes personality changes such as depression, addiction, impulsive behavior, and other serious evidence of brain damage. All three players exhibited some personality changes, although the presence of depression or addiction prior to becoming a hockey enforcer may explain that. Since science cannot yet irrefutably link fighting to CTE, the NHL Comissioner Gary Bettman responded to the findings of CTE in Boogaard with a shrug because the information that ties brain damage to a specific cause such as fighting was merely speculation rather than fact and therefore unworthy to warrant stiffer penalties for fighting (Klein 2011).

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Enforcers are often suffering from injury, but do not report it. Repeated hits to the head over several years can result in immediate and long-term brain damage, as well as the broken facial bones and other dangers that result from a fight. Many enforcers do not want to appear weak to others or risk hurting their reputation as tough. Enforcers also fear losing their spot on

12

the team if they are out with injury. Due to reputation maintenance the stigma of mental illness, the players rarely admit if they a suffering from repercussions such as depression or addiction. As a result, a majority of serious injuries may never be reported, and become worse over time. For example, former NHL tough guy Jim Thomsom admitted in Gregorys article that he was officially diagnosed with six concussions over his career, but deliberately did not report on dozens of others (2011). He developed a steady routine of alcohol and prescription pain killers to cope with the psychological and physical toll of being an enforcer much like Boogaard had. Boogaard died from a mixture of alcohol and prescription painkillers in May 2011 at the age of 28 (Branch 2011). He had just returned from a stint in rehab for his addiction and had also recently sustained a concussion that sidelined him but indulged his addiction once he returned home. Boogaard was one of the most popular fighters in the NHL as well as one of the most successful in terms of fights won, pain imposed on his opponent, and money paid for his role. Enforcers Rick Rypien, 27, and Wade Belak, 35, died within 16 days of each other in August 2011, each from apparent suicides after long battles with depression (Farber 2011). As Bettman stated, the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclusively say that being enforcers resulted in the deaths of these players, but it is the common link they shared and connecting the dots provides at least warranted suspicion. New findings in the medical community about brain damage from concussions and the impacts over time is described by Proteau as just scratching the surface and the tip of the iceberg (2011).

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY Not only is fighting dangerous, it has been proven that hockey can succeed without it.

13

Two prime examples are the success of hockey during the Stanley Cup playoffs and the Winter Olympics, where fighting is completely absent. During these heavily viewed tournaments, spots on the roster are saved for the most talented players available and cannot be wasted on enforcers. The 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver featured a gold-medal mens ice hockey game between the US and Canadian teams. The game drew in record numbers for Canada as well as the United States, with more viewers than big time events such as Daytona 500, the World Series, and the Rose Bowl. The Stanley Cup Finals of last season between the Bruins and Canucks also brought in record ratings for the NHL. Hockey can succeed by playing with a fight-free yet physical style that we do not see in North America. The number of NHL players drafted from Europe has steadily increased over the decades, which shows that teams are increasingly looking for finesse and talent rather than grit and physicality. NHL teams with a high percentage of European players such as the Detroit Red Wings can succeed as well. The Red Wings have prolonged success and are arguably the most successful team of the past twenty years, the Red Wings are arguably the most successful team in the NHL; they have made the playoffs for over twenty years in a row, won three Stanley Cups, and are the last team to have won back-to-back Stanley Cups championships. The team has long been focused around European talent such as retired NHL superstar Sergei Fedorov of Russia. He helped the Wings win three Cups while also becoming the only player in the history of the NHL to win the scoring title for most points in a season and the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy for the most gentlemanly player on the ice in the same year. Additionally, data from the first half of the current season shows the dominant Red Wings are

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY

14

succeeding while taking part in only six fights through 41 games, the lowest of any other team by a long-shot (Allen 2012). In the 20 years that Gary Bettman has served as NHL Commisioner, he has never once accepted the proposal to consider reevaluating fighting in hockey. Over the summer, however, the league did take one step in the right direction by establishing a Department of Player Safety to enforce rules against targeting the head and other dangerous plays that plague the league, headed by former player Brendan Shanahan. Even with a new policy to curb head shots, proponents of fighting argue that fighting only results in about 8% of concussions in hockey. If the NHL is truly serious about ending all dangerous head injuries, 8% should be taken just as seriously as any other percentage. No matter how big or small the number, if the NHL can protect at least one player from a damaged life, it should be pursued. The next step in the evolution of hockey should be to completely ban fighting from the game. This would have many positive effects. It would result in fans who appreciate the sport for its speed and finesse, players who get ice team for their talent, coaches whose strategy is based on talent and team work, referees who are good at enforcing rules and held accountable when they do not, general managers who fill their teams roster with talent, and a league that looks out for the safety of its player above all else including revenues. The sport has evolved to a level where violence should not be viewed as a natural, necessary or worthwhile part of the game. It has evolved to a point where it would be much better without fighting. Instead of wasting game time and impeding the flow of the game with players barbarically attacking each other with punches, the game should spend more game time watching the perfect shot, perfect save, and perfect team effort. Instead of risking the loves of the players, lets make the game as safe as possible, which necessities eliminating fighting.

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY

15

FIGHT-FREE HOCKEY References

16

Allen, K. (2012, January 11). NHL players are dropping the gloves less often. USA Today, p. 34. Bernstein, R. (2006). The code: The unwritten rules of fighting and retaliation in the NHL. Chicago, IL: Triumph Books. Branch, J. (2011, December 6). Derek Boogaard: a brain going bad. The New York Times, B13. CBC Sports. (2009, January 2). Senior ice hockey player dies from fight-related injury. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009/01/02/hockey-sanderson.html. Farber, M. (2011). Its a whole new game. Sports Illustrated, 115(14), 60. Klein, J. (2011, December 13) Lingering effects: NHLs experts want more research. The New York Times, p. B11. Gee, C. J. & Leith, L. M. (2007). Aggressive behavior in professional ice hockey: A crosscultural comparison of North American and European born NHL players. Psychology of Sports and Exercise, 8, 567-583. Gregory, S. (2011). Blood on the ice. Time, 178(23), 56-58. Maich, S. (2007). The concussion time bomb. Macleans, 120(41), 46. NHL. (2011). National Hockey league official rule book 2011-2012. Canada, National Hockey League. Retrieved from http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/pdfs/2011-12_RULE_BOOK.pdf Proteau, A. (2011). Fighting the good fight: why on-ice violence is killing hockey. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Wayne, K. (2004). What is hockey selling? Marketing, 109(17), 9.