Fighting In Hockey Debate – NHLPA Has The Last Word

Last Tuesday George Parros was taken from the game on a stretcher after hitting the ice face first while engaged in a fight with Colton Orr.  The last 4 days has been full of media coverage and blog posts calling for the end of fighting in hockey.  In response we also heard from current players on a wide range of teams providing vocal support for the role of the enforcer.  The latter group has the final say on any change in penalties or efforts to reduce fighting.

Based on past surveys of NHLPA members, they overwhelmingly support fighting in the game and unless their collective opinion changes the NHL would find it difficult to ban or significantly reduce the fisticuffs.  Despite hard facts that prove otherwise; NHL players continue to believe that fighting creates respect, protects players, reduces cheap shots and changes momentum.  No amount of statistics or hard evidence will alter that view.   More than half of them have played with an enforcer as a teammate since they were 16 years old.  College and European players are quickly indoctrinated into the culture and I doubt if you could find a current NHLPA member who would speak out against fighting.

That’s not to say that hockey journalists and bloggers are wasting words and internet bandwidth with their opinions and facts.   Alternate views on any issue should be encouraged in order to fully understand all positions.  It is doubtful that anything they write or present will do much to alter the conviction of NHL players about how important fights are in “keeping players honest” or “policing the game”.  However their most important contribution will be in educating younger players, parents, minor-league coaches and officials and hockey governing bodies.  Reducing the level of fighting requires a change in culture from junior hockey to the professional ranks.  Facts, statistical studies and common sense commentary will dispel the myths and perceptions that exist today.

If journalists and bloggers want to make a difference they should target their messages towards those stakeholders who will inherit key roles in managing and determining hockey’s future.  Parents and young players can be convinced that players should not take on the role of exacting revenge on opponents and facts can demonstrate how futile that strategy is.  Violence will only result in more violence.  Minor league coaches can be instructed on how to play tough yet having respect for your opponents – a check that separates puck from player versus head from player.  Minor hockey should not mirror the current style of play in the NHL or parents will find another sport.

Hockey Canada and USA Hockey have the power to remove fighting from all leagues and significantly alter the current culture.  Hockey Canada’s mandate is, "Lead, Develop, and Promote Positive Hockey Experiences.".  Their website talks about the organization’s beliefs which include; a positive hockey experience for all participants, in a safe, sportsmanlike environment.  USA Hockey’s site talks about the 3 promises; the promise of fun, the promise of guidance and the promise of achievement.  My message to both of these governing bodies would be; deliver on these objectives for the majority of your participants and don’t compromise on your principles for the tiny percentage that go on to a professional career.

Although the OHL and USHL are being progressive in their efforts to reduce fighting and make the game safer, there is more to be done.  There are still league executives at the junior hockey level (WHL) that state fighting is important because they are developing players for the NHL.  However 95% of junior hockey players will never skate in an NHL area so why are we allowing teenagers to pound each other in the head in the faint hopes that a tiny fraction will have a professional career.  While I understand that junior hockey is a business, the governing bodies for the sport can insist that all players, no matter what their future NHL potential is, should be prepared for a life after hockey and safety is paramount.

Both Hockey Canada and USA Hockey have extensive programs for training coaches.   Fact based studies of the impact of fighting on hockey should be added to these educational programs.  Deliver the statistics that demonstrate dropping the gloves is a dubious strategy, one that likely has a negative result for your team.  They should emphasize that fighting is a symptom, the result of cheap shots or dangerous infractions like boarding, elbowing or slashing.  Teach coaches to eliminate these negative aspects from their teams and discipline their own players for engaging in any of these activities.  Provide them with the latest in medical studies on the impact of concussions and instill in them a responsibility to keep their players safe, and how to do the same for their opponents.

If Hockey Canada and USA Hockey begin to drive these changes throughout the leagues that stream players to the NHL then we are only 5 years away from progressive opinions entering the NHLPA.  16 year old players who complete their junior hockey careers with strict penalties for dangerous play and fighting will be the leading edge of change.   

Therefore we need to keep delivering the messages necessary to impact opinion on the future stakeholders in hockey.  Keep driving home the facts that dispel the myths of “policing” and “changing momentum”.   Reinforce the safety issues surrounding concussions and the potential impact on a players quality of post-career life.  And most importantly praise the image of hockey as a fast paced, hard hitting and exciting sport as demonstrated by the artistry of its players – and slowly erase fighting as “part of the game”.