QMJHL Officially Bans Fighting Beginning This Coming Season

[Phil]

 

[Pete]

No surprise there. This begins the end of fighting in the NHL.

[Ozzy]

Yup...

 

it's almost over, Johnny!

[Cash or Czech]

"The game's gone" -you know who

[jsm7302]

Will be a sad day.....hockey fights are such a passionate part of the game. What's the point of banning them other than the health related issues?

 

Obviously if it were unprovoked victims, the lasting health effects should be accounted for however you have two willing participants who know the possible outcomes.

 

I'm not for banning them; if you want a larger deterrent, make them a 10 min instead of 5.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

other than the health related issues?

Isn't that enough?

 

[jsm7302]

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

Isn't that enough?

 

I think an individual should be able to decide if they want to take that risk but generally for me....yea, I wouldn't fight. I'm all for letting those that want to though.

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I think an individual should be able to decide if they want to take that risk but generally for me....yea, I wouldn't fight. I'm all for letting those that want to though.

I don't think you'll ever see an NHL rule change than bans fighting. In this case, the individual is 15-16-17 in the Q. They want to make the show and they will fight if they need to. If you remove fighting in the Q, you also remove those borderline players who's only role is to fight. But the time this percolates up the AHL, NHL, there will be no goon-like objects, so less fights overall.

 

Frankly, I don't need to see Reaves fight. The team gets a bigger jolt out of Lacavalier/Iginla, or even Zherdev Stamkos, IMO.

[BrooksBurner]

Fighting to fight = dumb.

 

Fighting to help police an opposition who is taking physical liberties against your team != dumb.

 

“For health” is a poor argument. High speed body checking and cheap shots with sticks are significantly worse than two willful players throwing hands. So is blocking a hard rubber puck traveling 90-100 mph. “For health” couldn’t be a worse argument.

[Valriera]

This will probably make health issues worse, because players will get hurt from more questionable physical contact than what is a mostly harmless act of theater. Want to stop players from getting hurt for no reason? Fix the department of player safety, that has been a joke for ten years now. Then come talk to me about fighting. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Fighting to fight = dumb.

 

Fighting to help police an opposition who is taking physical liberties against your team != dumb.

 

“For health” is a poor argument. High speed body checking and cheap shots with sticks are significantly worse than two willful players throwing hands. So is blocking a hard rubber puck traveling 90-100 mph. “For health” couldn’t be a worse argument.

And yet it's only the enforcers who you hear years later have developed CTE... 

[Pete]

36 minutes ago, Valriera said:

This will probably make health issues worse, because players will get hurt from more questionable physical contact than what is a mostly harmless act of theater. Want to stop players from getting hurt for no reason? Fix the department of player safety, that has been a joke for ten years now. Then come talk to me about fighting. 

If you think it's a harmless active theater then you're starting from a false premise. 

[Valriera]

The premise I'm starting with is they'll never completely remove physicality from the game and that players rarely get hurt fighting in the game today. That is not a false premise. 

Given that, the context is my dad has been a referee for 25 years and have watched them systematically remove it from junior levels. He is 80 today and has been playing his whole life (still does). The problem with these moves, given the above premise, is that kids are learning later and later about physicality in contact sports, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. The worst time to start teaching a young man how to hit, protect oneself, and similar, is 13, when he's old enough to actually hurt someone. There are emotions that go into it, there is passion, that is what we all love about the game, but you need to learn from an age where you can experiment how to control this and do it in a way where you're not trying to end someone's career, but you're playing the game of hockey. Anecdotally, he says he observes more of these types of injuries now than ever before, but I take that with a grain of salt. Still, the observation has weight. 

 

When you delay the instruction of this, you are waiting until people are big enough and heavy enough to actually injure someone before they know how to properly control themselves. So they won't be able to fight, what will they do? They know they have to self-police, that is part of hockey and always has been, so what will they wind up doing to achieve this goal? They'll overextend trying to hit a guy, this is how knee on knee types of stuff happen, dirty slashing plays, etc. 

 

 

 

[Long live the King]

Fighting doesn't deter anything.  Dirty players will always be dirty.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Valriera said:

The premise I'm starting with is they'll never completely remove physicality from the game and that players rarely get hurt fighting in the game today. That is not a false premise. 

Given that, the context is my dad has been a referee for 25 years and have watched them systematically remove it from junior levels. He is 80 today and has been playing his whole life (still does). The problem with these moves, given the above premise, is that kids are learning later and later about physicality in contact sports, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. The worst time to start teaching a young man how to hit, protect oneself, and similar, is 13, when he's old enough to actually hurt someone. There are emotions that go into it, there is passion, that is what we all love about the game, but you need to learn from an age where you can experiment how to control this and do it in a way where you're not trying to end someone's career, but you're playing the game of hockey. Anecdotally, he says he observes more of these types of injuries now than ever before, but I take that with a grain of salt. Still, the observation has weight. 

 

When you delay the instruction of this, you are waiting until people are big enough and heavy enough to actually injure someone before they know how to properly control themselves. So they won't be able to fight, what will they do? They know they have to self-police, that is part of hockey and always has been, so what will they wind up doing to achieve this goal? They'll overextend trying to hit a guy, this is how knee on knee types of stuff happen, dirty slashing plays, etc. 

 

 

 

With all due respect, organizations like USA hockey do way more research on this than you do, so when they say kids shouldn't be hitting until X age, I take their word for it over yours. 

 

And we know fighting isn't a deterrent. Yeah, the players all say that they feel better having a guy like Reeves in the lineup, but what are they supposed to say when they're asked directly? That the guy is a waste of space? Nobody's going to do that.

[BrooksBurner]

Deterrent isn’t the right word. It might or might not. When you can engage the aggressor though, it takes him off the ice. That is a form of prevention and puts a stop to it. The aggressor lashes out in the form of borderline to dirty body checks that might go unpunished in game. That’s where the injuries happen.

Edited August 11, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Keirik]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

And yet it's only the enforcers who you hear years later have developed CTE... 

Marc Savard, Joe Murphy, Eric Lindros,  Mike Sauer, Pat Lafontaine, etc. hell, Savard announced he’s donating his brain when he dies for CTE study.  It’s not just fighters at all. You can make a case that it’s more frequently for sure, but not solely. 

[Pete]

57 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Marc Savard, Joe Murphy, Eric Lindros,  Mike Sauer, Pat Lafontaine, etc. hell, Savard announced he’s donating his brain when he dies for CTE study.  It’s not just fighters at all. You can make a case that it’s more frequently for sure, but not solely. 

None of those players are showing symptoms of CTE. Savard donating his brain is great, but he's not showing the same symptoms as a guy like Bob Probert was. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Deterrent isn’t the right word. It might or might not. When you can engage the aggressor though, it takes him off the ice. That is a form of prevention and puts a stop to it. The aggressor lashes out in the form of borderline to dirty body checks that might go unpunished in game. That’s where the injuries happen.

That's not hockey in 2023. This is an antiquated mindset. 

[Keirik]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

None of those players are showing symptoms of CTE. Savard donating his brain is great, but he's not showing the same symptoms as a guy like Bob Probert was. 

Im not sure that is accurate. Joe Murphy himself is homeless and out of his mind mentally, largely due to previous concussions. There  are plenty of articles and programs documenting it. Savard I believe is donating his brain because, to this day, he still is in a ton of pain and suffering from cte. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

Im not sure that is accurate. Joe Murphy himself is homeless and out of his mind mentally, largely due to previous concussions. There  are plenty of articles and programs documenting it. Savard I believe is donating his brain because, to this day, he still is in a ton of pain and suffering from cte. 

Cool, I don't think you can compare the lists of fighters versus non-fighters. You're just kind of reinforcing the point that gameplay contact is bad enough, we don't need staged fighting to add to the issue.  

 

But, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Is fighting necessary in the NHL or not? That's the point of the thread, not just to disagree with me. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

39 minutes ago, Pete said:

Cool, I don't think you can compare the lists of fighters versus non-fighters. You're just kind of reinforcing the point that gameplay contact is bad enough, we don't need staged fighting to add to the issue.  

 

But, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Is fighting necessary in the NHL or not? That's the point of the thread, not just to disagree with me. 

I thought the point I was trying to make was pretty clear. You said ONLY enforcers you hear years later have developed CTE. That’s not accurate.  I even followed it up to say that you can probably make the point of it being more likely but enforcers are not the only ones in the game suffering CTE post players career. 
 

to be honest, you don’t get to decide what,who,where I respond. I didn’t think what I said was a huge deal. I was just trying to correct a small point concerning a serious issue of CTE. I’m not sure why you are getting bent out of shape over my point towards your small mistake in wording. 

[Sod16]

Bare knuckle fighting in a league with 16 year olds = preposterous.

 

I can't stand the state of fighting in the NHL today, with ridiculous auto fights everytime there is a clean legal body check.  It's predictable and dumb.

 

I've seen the stats, and do you realize that in the pre expansion days of "old time hockey" there were a small percentage of the fights per game that came thereafter?  Fighting may be down from the 70s and 80s, but it's still up from the 50s and 60s.

 

Yes, all sorts of players have gotten CTE, but the incidence among enforcers is the highest.  I don't think anyone could read the NYT extended piece on the life and death of Derek Boogard and still think it should be part of the game.  I was involved in the legal representation of the Boogard family at one point, and I can't tell you how heartbreaking dealing with his father was.

[Albatrosss]

European hockey doesnt have fighting or overphysical contact, and hockey in Europe is doing fine.  Hockey in USA is considered a barberic sport unless you’re a fan or grew up playing. 

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

15 hours ago, Pete said:

With all due respect, organizations like USA hockey do way more research on this than you do, so when they say kids shouldn't be hitting until X age, I take their word for it over yours. 

 

And we know fighting isn't a deterrent. Yeah, the players all say that they feel better having a guy like Reeves in the lineup, but what are they supposed to say when they're asked directly? That the guy is a waste of space? Nobody's going to do that.

 

Having 6 years experience as a coach and board member of my son's youth hockey organization, when you start your point off by portraying USA Hockey as some kind of unquestionable institution, you kind of lose me on your argument(not that you care).

 

There are several things that USA Hockey gets wrong in my opinion. Like not instituting touch-up off-sides through 18U, their dogmatism about not letting 8U play full ice hockey(which only drives kids/parents to play in AAU sanctioned tournaments/leagues), and the very logical and pragmatic points that Valriera made in his post above regarding hitting/contact. Like most nonprofit organizations of that size and revenue, it's a huge bureaucracy, and certainly has the shortcomings of typical bureaucracies.  

 

Instead of hiding your (lack of a) rebuttal behind the USA Hockey logo, why don't you pick out the points of Valriera argument that you disagree with and use that to shoot down his counter points?