|
David Lebrun-AN ALTERNATIVE TO BANNING FIGHTING IN THE NHL |
|
|
|
|
|
The recent injuries and general consensus that we will someday watch a player die on the ice as a result of a fight are not to be taken lightly.
But I believe it is the recent influx of super-heavyweights and their willingness and desire to compete for an imaginary NHL heavyweight title that is causing the problems. These players have taken the role of fighting in hockey right out of the game.
My suggestion for the NHL is to impose a new rule that would limit a player's fight total throughout the course of a single season. If coupled with a serious suspension for exceeding the fight limit AND the abolition of the instigator rule, this new rule would pressure the enforcers to fight only when it is necessary�" To protect star players and punish players who have crossed the line by attempting to injure or taking cheap shots etc... Under the new rule, the instigator rule would be rendered useless (as if it already isn't), and players would not be punished for policing the game (and essentially cleaning up the game). And players would not be fighting incessantly either.
I believe this new rule would have several impacts on the NHL. It would decrease the amount of fighting and injuries caused by fighting. And it would ELEVATE the excitement of fighting, since most fights would be spirited, justified and fans would see scores settled within games--players being held accountable for their hits. I also believe the new rule would eventually curve the number of super-goons, since teams would opt to be policed by players who can contribute to the score with their ice-time, since fighting would not be as prevalent.
The alarmist opinion that we should abolish fighting is frightening. The NHL needs to recognize both the value of fighting, and the reason why so many super-fighters have infiltrated and tarnished the hockey-fight's reputation.
Join the Discussion:
»