QMJHL Officially Bans Fighting Beginning This Coming Season

[Pete]

11 hours ago, Keirik said:

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. 

Do you think fighting should be in the Q? Or in the NHL? 

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

 

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?

 

That's great but it doesn't change the fact that they do more research on the subject than you do. Where did I call them infallible? And they aren't the only org who follows some of the protocols they do.

 

Sounds like you have a personal beef, which is fine, but it doesn't make them wrong to do things you personally don't agree with, and it doesn't change my point.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's great but it doesn't change the fact that they do more research on the subject than you do. Where did I call them infallible? And they aren't the only org who follows some of the protocols they do.

 

Sounds like you have a personal beef, which is fine, but it doesn't make them wrong to do things you personally don't agree with, and it doesn't change my point.

 

You still haven't debunked the argument on the table regarding contact in youth hockey; you just keep regurgitating you assumption that "they do more research on the subject than you do" which is probably correct, but still unsubstantiated.

 

I really don't have a beef with USA Hockey; I was just articulating some examples of where they get it wrong to give my argument merit(kind of like you haven't done on this topic now twice in a row). FWIW, I believe that most of what USA Hockey does institute is spot on and good for the game; it's just not absolute. You would probably agree with if you ever attended a youth hockey section meeting or CEP in person course and witnessed some of the hubris that I have.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

 

You still haven't debunked the argument on the table regarding contact in youth hockey; you just keep regurgitating you assumption that "they do more research on the subject than you do" which is probably correct, but still unsubstantiated.

 

I really don't have a beef with USA Hockey; I was just articulating some examples of where they get it wrong to give my argument merit(kind of like you haven't done on this topic now twice in a row). FWIW, I believe that most of what USA Hockey does institute is spot on and good for the game; it's just not absolute. You would probably agree with if you ever attended a youth hockey section meeting or CEP in person course and witnessed some of the hubris that I have.

I actually just finished taking all my certifications and am coaching U8 this season. Pretty big assumption you're making. Also feels like you're more interested in having an argument than a discussion, and I don't have any interest in that.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I actually just finished taking all my certifications and am coaching U8 this season. Pretty big assumption you're making. Also feels like you're more interested in having an argument than a discussion, and I don't have any interest in that.

 

It sounds like you have not attended a section meeting or in person CEP meeting(since most of these have thankfully gone to virtual since Covid); but whatever, I don't need to be right on this.

 

You always seem to retreat to that "you're more interested in having an argument than a discussion" rebuttal when you can't make the better point. So have at it.

[Pete]

41 minutes ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

 

It sounds like you have not attended a section meeting or in person CEP meeting(since most of these have thankfully gone to virtual since Covid); but whatever, I don't need to be right on this.

 

 

Cool, has nothing to do with the point that USA Hockey does more research on age appropriate training than you do. Again, are they always right, maybe not. But they know the science better than most folks posting on internet forums.

 

Quote

You always seem to retreat to that "you're more interested in having an argument than a discussion" rebuttal when you can't make the better point. So have at it.

You seem to just make personal jabs, so I don't really give a fuck if you think my point isn't good enough. Have a great weekend!

Edited August 12, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

15 hours ago, Pete said:

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

If it was antiquated, there wouldn’t have to be a ban on it.

 

Again, fighting is small potatoes compared to the checking and contact in the game itself. They can conjure up any anti-fighting stance they want. I don’t think Crosby or Zibanejad suffered numerous concussions from fighting.

[Sod16]

There seem to be photos of every eventual NHL great playing U8, typically with a jersey that goes down to his ankles.

[Pete]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

If it was antiquated, there wouldn’t have to be a ban on it.

 

Please connect those dots. 

 

Quote

Again, fighting is small potatoes compared to the checking and contact in the game itself. They can conjure up any anti-fighting stance they want. I don’t think Crosby or Zibanejad suffered numerous concussions from fighting.

Checking and contact are within the rules of the game. Fighting is not. That's why it's penalized. What makes saying that fighting should be allowed any different than saying hitting from behind should be allowed? 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Please connect those dots. 

 

Checking and contact are within the rules of the game. Fighting is not. That's why it's penalized. What makes saying that fighting should be allowed any different than saying hitting from behind should be allowed? 

Nobody would do it and there would be no push to explicitly ban it.

That matters when you can prove that concussions start to care if the contact was within whatever the current rules of the game are.

 

There’s a difference between not allowed and being penalized for it within the confines of the game, and banning.

Edited August 12, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Nobody would do it and there would be no push to explicitly ban it.

That matters when you can prove that concussions start to care if the contact was within whatever the current rules of the game are.

 

There’s a difference between not allowed and being penalized for it within the confines of the game, and banning.

You're not connecting the dots for me and I have no idea what you're talking about, let's just agree to disagree. 

[BrooksBurner]

26 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're not connecting the dots for me and I have no idea what you're talking about, let's just agree to disagree. 

Concussions don’t care if the contact was “legal” or not. Banning fighting is just a facade to pretend to care about CTE while continuing to bank money the sport generates. The continuous and repeated high speed body checking is the core issue.

 

I’ll take the common W for me.

[siddious]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Concussions don’t care if the contact was “legal” or not. Banning fighting is just a facade to pretend to care about CTE while continuing to bank money the sport generates. The continuous and repeated high speed body checking is the core issue.

 

I’ll take the common W for me.

So ban hockey? Ban hitting?

 

injuries gonna happen bro 

 

 

[Pete]

4 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Concussions don’t care if the contact was “legal” or not. Banning fighting is just a facade to pretend to care about CTE while continuing to bank money the sport generates. The continuous and repeated high speed body checking is the core issue.

 

I’ll take the common W for me.

Yea but in your case W is "way off".

[BrooksBurner]

11 hours ago, siddious said:

So ban hockey? Ban hitting?

 

injuries gonna happen bro 

 

 

Lol no. They accept the risk of the sport. I’m just not a fan of minimizing the game in the name of “care about CTE” when the core of the sport is the actual CTE risk. Either accept the risk or don’t.

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Lol no. They accept the risk of the sport. I’m just not a fan of minimizing the game in the name of “care about CTE” when the core of the sport is the actual CTE risk. Either accept the risk or don’t.

It's not that binary choice, accept the risk of what happens within the rules, not the risk of what happens outside the rules.

 

And this ban is in the Q. These are kids. Not adults. 

[BrooksBurner]

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

It's not that binary choice, accept the risk of what happens within the rules, not the risk of what happens outside the rules.

 

And this ban is in the Q. These are kids. Not adults. 

 

On 8/11/2023 at 12:32 PM, Pete said:

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

 

We all know where it’s headed.

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

It's not that binary choice, accept the risk of what happens within the rules, not the risk of what happens outside the rules.

 

And this ban is in the Q. These are kids. Not adults. 

Scott Stevens "clean hits" to Lindros back in the day are what started the end for what could have been one of the all time greats career.  Lindros definitely is still dealing with concussion symptoms. Many are.  Just because there was no lawsuit,  it doesn't negate that it's a daily factor in such former players lives. Just because they aren't suicidal,  doesn't mean they don't suffer from CTE. That's why they retired early.  The effects are too much to deal with.  

 

Even within the rules, it's a violent sport. That's PART of why people like it.  I think suggesting fighting as the lead problem for CTE in the NHL is a but much. Now or even 20 years ago. 

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Scott Stevens "clean hits" to Lindros back in the day are what started the end for what could have been one of the all time greats career.  Lindros definitely is still dealing with concussion symptoms. Many are.  Just because there was no lawsuit,  it doesn't negate that it's a daily factor in such former players lives. Just because they aren't suicidal,  doesn't mean they don't suffer from CTE. That's why they retired early.  The effects are too much to deal with.  

 

Even within the rules, it's a violent sport. That's PART of why people like it.  I think suggesting fighting as the lead problem for CTE in the NHL is a but much. Now or even 20 years ago. 

You're kind of all over the place, so let's start all over here.

 

This ban on fighting is in the Q. First and foremost it's to protect the kids. Please don't tell me that 16 year olds who are just begging for ice time are "Willing combatants".

 

The effect this has is that there will be less fighting coming up through the lower leagues, and guys where that's their only role or the only way the can make the show will get phased out. That means there will be less fighting in the NHL.

 

Hockey is a violent sport. Lots of players get concussions and have to retire. So why allow something that's outside the rules to continue when all it leads to is injury?

 

And if I made a list of enforcers with brain injuries vs common players, I feel pretty confident the percentage of enforcers with brain injuries is far higher. Not to mention all the other shit that goes into it psychologically and addiction wise.

 

And frankly, there is already less hitting, so this is all inevitable. I don't know why anyone is debating it. The sport is different in 2023 than it was in 1993.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

We all know where it’s headed.

The end of fighting doesn't mean a ban on it. It'll just end organically because less players grow up doing it.

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, Pete said:

You're kind of all over the place, so let's start all over here.

 

This ban on fighting is in the Q. First and foremost it's to protect the kids. Please don't tell me that 16 year olds who are just begging for ice time are "Willing combatants".

 

The effect this has is that there will be less fighting coming up through the lower leagues, and guys where that's their only role or the only way the can make the show will get phased out. That means there will be less fighting in the NHL.

 

Hockey is a violent sport. Lots of players get concussions and have to retire. So why allow something that's outside the rules to continue when all it leads to is injury?

 

And if I made a list of enforcers with brain injuries vs common players, I feel pretty confident the percentage of enforcers with brain injuries is far higher. Not to mention all the other shit that goes into it psychologically and addiction wise.

 

And frankly, there is already less hitting, so this is all inevitable. I don't know why anyone is debating it. The sport is different in 2023 than it was in 1993.

 

I'm neither for or against removing fighting at the youth levels.  I have no idea how prevalent it is at such levels. I'm assuming it really doesn't happen that much these days anyway. There hasn't been an actual goon climbing the ranks or being drafted as such, in I don't know how long. 

 

Am I missing something here? Are such "willing combatants " still a thing? Are they still developing goons, while sole purpose is to fight? I really don't think that's the case. I could mist definitely be wrong. Can you name any prospects that are in this realm of player type? 

 

The effect I see from eliminating fighting will and always has resulted in more stick fouls, more cheap hits and a more dirty game that gets out of hand,where more injuries happen.  Somet hings set a player off. Especially kids. They can't control their tempers and react inappropriately.  I'd rather see players fight than see a kid purposely hit a player from behind or lose his shit and charge/board someone. Nevermind swing their stick at an arm, leg or even worse a head. They will find a way to use violence no matter what. I'd think fighting is the safer release valve for the anger that can build up in the sport.

 

None of which is legal in the game. Yet there are rules/penalties written for such incidents. So, stop using the term outside of the rules as your backing point. Late hits, hits from behind, knee on knee hits, slashes,  are ALL outside of the rules, yet they happen and as of late, really dont result in long suspensions. The safety concerns seem backwards with the fighting.  Maybe they all should concentrate more on cheap shots and aggressive hitting by the boards than the self policing of fighting. 

 

Let's compile a list of NHL players that have had brain injuries since....... idk 1995.  (Im going to waste the rest of my day food shopping,  so maybe I'll get on this later). Or atleast names of players who had to retire from concussions. I'm pretty confident that there will be less enforcers, due to to the fact that there were so few of them.

 

Keirik already listed a handful of regulars. I mean, Mike Richter had to retire because of concussions.  Beukeboom had to for a cheap shot to the back of his head... How does that count? He fought a ton, but THAT ended his career. Rick Nash... Concussions..

 

You really want to die on this hill?  

 

The sport is indeed different. There's more hitting from behind and boarding as far as I can recall.  There's more of that than there ever was IMO.

 

That's not to say there weren't more blatant "within the rules" open ice, blind sided hits back when. Or tons of elbows flying.  That seems to have been resolved and I don't think it had anything to do with it not being in the rrules.

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by The Dude

[Pete]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

 

I'm neither for or against removing fighting at the youth levels.  I have no idea how prevalent it is at such levels. I'm assuming it really dies happen that much these days anyway. There hasn't been an actual goon climbing the ranks or being drafted as such, in I don't know how long. 

 

Am I missing something here? Are such "willing combatants " still a thing? Are they still developing goons, while sole purpose is to fight? I really don't think that's the case. I could mist definitely be wrong. Can you name any prospects that are in this realm of player type? 

 

The effect I see from eliminating fighting will and always has resulted in more stick fouls, more cheap hits and a more dirty game that gets out of hand,where more injuries happen.  Somet hings set a player off. Especially kids. They can't control their tempers and react inappropriately.  I'd rather see players fight than see a kid purposely hit a player from behind or lose his shit and charge/board someone. Nevermind swing their stick at an arm, leg or even worse a head. They will find a way to use violence no matter what. I'd think fighting is the safer release valve for the anger that can build up in the sport.

 

None of which is legal in the game. Yet there are rules/penalties written for such incidents. So, stop using the term outside of the rules as your backing point. Late hits, hits from behind, knee on knee hits, slashes,  are ALL outside of the rules, yet they happen and as of late, really dont result in long suspensions. The safety concerns seem backwards with the fighting.  Maybe they all should concentrate more on cheap shots and aggressive hitting by the boards than the self policing of fighting. 

 

Let's compile a list of NHL players that have had brain injuries since....... idk 1995.  (Im going to waste the rest of my day food shopping,  so maybe I'll get on this later). Or atleast names of players who had to retire from concussions. I'm pretty confident that there will be less enforcers, due to to the fact that there were so few of them.

 

Keirik already listed a handful of regulars. I mean, Mike Richter had to retire because of concussions.  Beukeboom had to for a cheap shot to the back of his head... How does that count? He fought a ton, but THAT ended his career. Rick Nash... Concussions..

 

You really want to die on this hill?  

 

The sport is indeed different. There's more hitting from behind and boarding as far as I can recall.  There's more of that than there ever was IMO.

 

That's not to say there weren't more blatant "within the rules" open ice, blind sided hits back when. Or tons of elbows flying.  That seems to have been resolved and I don't think it had anything to do with it not being in the rrules.

 

 

 

If you get rid of fighting at lower levels you get rid of things like everybody wanting to fight Trouba after a hit. 

 

I also said there would be a higher percentage of enforcers with brain damage than common players. Meaning I would probably think about 75% of enforcers who played since 1985 have issues but probably only 5-10% of common players. So why are we going to keep something that's almost guaranteed to injure you, and why are we comparing it to contact that's probably not going to injure you 80 to 90% of the time? Of course I'm making up those numbers, but you see the point I'm trying to make. 

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

If you get rid of fighting at lower levels you get rid of things like everybody wanting to fight Trouba after a hit. 

 

I also said there would be a higher percentage of enforcers with brain damage than common players. Meaning I would probably think about 75% of enforcers who played since 1985 have issues but probably only 5-10% of common players. So why are we going to keep something that's almost guaranteed to injure you, and why are we comparing it to contact that's probably not going to injure you 80 to 90% of the time? Of course I'm making up those numbers, but you see the point I'm trying to make. 

You'll get rid of guys that want to fight Trouba,  but are adding players that will board/ hit from behind Lindgren as an emotional reaction, instead of a fight. Is that actually better?  

 

You can't use the argument of olden day goons to support your take. Not many teams carry a guy to throw out there just for the sole purpose of fighting. They carry more pests and line walkers that do the dirty stuff you seem to want to ignore.  

 

The higher percentage of enforcers thing is you back tracking. @Keiriknamed a bunch of players that had to retire and you blew it off and insinuated that their injuries aren't as bad. It's a weak argument and is baseless in this discussion, since those players (goons) don't exist anymore and we aren't talking about the past when the talk is about banning fighting (at any level) in the year 2023.  

 

You're acting like players like Boogard still exist in the game. That type of player is gone. That danger (fighting 20+ times a year) is gone. 

 

I feel strongly that banning fighting at any level will and has led to more reckless injuries due to players building up frustration with only one way to release that frustration.  Which is - to hurt a player to the point of borderline intent to injure and maybe end a career. No team is going to retaliate with the boy scout mentality of, "we'll beat em on the scoreboard,  that'll teach em".. It's either fight, match the intensity or go overboard.  

 

Fighting gives a target a chance, compared to a hit from behind or a swing of a stick, where a player doesn't anticipate such actions. 

 

Again.  I don't even know how big fighting even is in Jr leagues. It's probably pretty dead anyway,  so it's likely not going to make much difference. We'll probably see a lot more cheap shot artists and pests rising through the ranks . We've already seen that along with the extinction of the goon. So, it's pretty much a moot point to go back and forth on.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by The Dude

[Pete]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

You'll get rid of guys that want to fight Trouba,  but are adding players that will board/ hit from behind Lindgren as an emotional reaction, instead of a fight. Is that actually better?  

 

You can't use the argument of olden day goons to support your take. Not many teams carry a guy to throw out there just for the sole purpose of fighting. They carry more pests and line walkers that do the dirty stuff you seem to want to ignore.  

 

The higher percentage of enforcers thing is you back tracking. @Keiriknamed a bunch of players that had to retire and you blew it off and insinuated that their injuries aren't as bad. It's a weak argument and is baseless in this discussion, since those players (goons) don't exist anymore and we aren't talking about the past when the talk is about banning fighting (at any level) in the year 2023.  

 

You're acting like players like Boogard still exist in the game. That type of player is gone. That danger (fighting 20+ times a year) is gone. 

 

I feel strongly that banning fighting at any level will and has led to more reckless injuries due to players building up frustration with only one way to release that frustration.  Which is - to hurt a player to the point of borderline intent to injure and maybe end a career. No team is going to retaliate with the boy scout mentality of, "we'll beat em on the scoreboard,  that'll teach em".. It's either fight, match the intensity or go overboard.  

 

Fighting gives a target a chance, compared to a hit from behind or a swing of a stick, where a player doesn't anticipate such actions. 

 

Again.  I don't even know how big fighting even is in Jr leagues. It's probably pretty dead anyway,  so it's likely not going to make much difference. We'll probably see a lot more cheap shot artists and pests rising through the ranks . We've already seen that along with the extinction of the goon. So, it's pretty much a moot point to go back and forth on.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't agree with anything in this post. But we can agree to disagree. 

[Dunny]

How come nobody I know that I played with, or against have issues with "CTE"? 

 

Weird how it just jumps up and bites professionals. Really dodged a bullet, there.

 

Good thing the lead proponent of CTE isn't a crazy fraudster, or anything like that, I'm sure they have the science settled, and people definitely know what they're talking about.

 

Anyways, fighting is banned all over the place, now. It's not a big deal, you just have to pick your spots better and have a couple guys in that role on the roster you can rotate through. We did this in Minor Hockey and probably averaged 2 fights/game with it being "banned". Everyone went on to lead normal lives, too. Crazy. 

 

I see the same thing in the PJHL every weekend.

 

It can actually be a good thing as you lose the staged garbage (Though some of those were good, too, at all levels, and sold a lot of tickets around that) and now the only fights you'll see are when 2 guys really hate each other, or emotions spill over. That's good, entertaining hockey I don't really want to lose.