I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out

An article by Kevin Weisel    2 Comments

Matt Cooke receiving a warm welcome

Missing teeth. Mullets. Bad English. And, yes, fighting.

Ice hockey has a lot of stereotypes. The vast majority of players in the NHL do not have any missing teeth. Mullets started dying off earlier this decade, but you can probably find a player here or there sporting the infamous do (albeit surely in homage to hockey’s long locks past). As for language, there are a lot of Europeans in the league that speak English poorly, if they speak it at all, but North Americans make up almost 75% of the league. The vast majority of players in the NHL speak English as their first language, or shortly learn it as a capable second language.

As for fighting, well, that stereotype is downright true. Sort of.

No other major sport accepts fighting like the NHL does. Baseball has a fair amount of bench clearing brawls. And every now and then you see a skirmish in the NFL and the NBA. But why is it in the NHL you will have two combatants square off, and the referees are standing by giving them space to have a go at it? This would never happen in the NFL, NBA, or MLB.

For a lot of people, this can delegitimize the sport. It seems silly, unsportsmanlike, and boarish. And often times it is. Many NHL clubs have certain players on their roster that can certainly skate, pass, and shoot (and would most likely dominate any local beer league with their skill), but for all intents and purposes, they are solely on the roster for their brawn. Why?

Zdeno Chara is 6'9''

Hockey differs from these other major sports in one big way: You’re holding a 5 foot stick in your hand, enabling the ability to reach 10-15 feet from oneself (per NHL league rules, stick length cannot exceed 63 inches; unless you’re 6’6” or taller, you can be considered for a stick of 65 inches). You get mad at someone, they can’t just run away with ease. For example, a player in the NBA gets elbowed, but no foul is called, and it’s a flagrant, intentional elbow. This player is fuming. The deliverer of said elbow is maybe running down the court the other way as you plead with the referee. So what can you do? Chase after him, throw yourself out of position, and foul the guy–maybe even earn a technical foul? In hockey, you have the ability to give them a quick whack on the calf, arm, etc., all the while not skating yourself out of the play and sacrificing positioning, which in other sports would put you in the coach’s doghouse for sure. Simply put, retaliation in hockey is just far too tempting, because you can get away with it unlike other sports. No one ought to be so naive to believe that athletes in other sports wouldn’t like a little retribution once and awhile. They just aren’t holding a stick that makes it so quick and easy.

There are other factors at play as well. Hockey is a constantly flowing sport with few stoppages in play. Anger festers in hockey because of this. There aren’t breaks between plays where you can refocus on the next play, calm down about the previous play, etc. Some guy sneaks in a little slash to your wrist, you’re bound to be face him head-to-head in the corner, for example, moments later on the same shift. Opportunities to release frustration directly on your opponent happen all the time in the NHL.

So look at the NFL. Typical play lasts 5-10 seconds long. Between plays there is a running play clock. NFL players don’t have time for shenanigans. You have to get back to the huddle. It is just too risky. You get involved physically with another player, flags will fly everywhere. There are officials all over the field. Someone is going to see it. Hell, maybe more importantly, your coach is going to be angry with you. Also, the NFL is well known to look at replay after a game and delve out fines and suspensions.

With hockey, it is the fastest of all major sports. The officiating in any sport cannot see every infraction, let alone make the call correctly, and hockey being as fast as it is increases the likelihood of something being missed. There is also a lot of legal stick play in hockey, so it is difficult to decipher between what’s legal and what’s illegal. A lot of times in hockey, it seems if a player does not get hurt, there is no penalty. You cannot really fault the officials. Just sometimes they don’t see the penalty, but they see the reaction to it. That’s why, like all sports, you have “divers” (but that’s a topic for another time). The bottom line is, players get really frustrated in hockey because they take a lot of punishment that ought to be called a penalty by the official, but sometimes they miss these calls. So, sometimes you have to take things into your own hands.

So why is fighting allowed in hockey?

Derek Engelland vs Colton Orr

One could argue that the fans love it. It puts bodies in the seats, dollars in the owners’ pockets. It is a staple of the game. But there is a more purposeful reason for it: protecting the talent.

An inherent problem with hockey is that it is impossible for the officials to call a perfect game. Of course this statement can be said about all sports, but I think it applies to hockey a greater degree than any other sport. This is due primarily to the speed of the sport. Teams will do just about anything to win, and if that means roughing up the star players, then so be it. But there’s a big difference though between playing strong defense on a star player and crossing the line with cheap shots during play and extracurricular liberties between whistles. The officials cannot spot all of these penalties, and players that make a living agitating their opponent’s star players are quite devious about it. And it is not just slashes, hooks, elbows, etc. A little scrum after a whistle, bodies are crowded, and the officials cannot see everything. For example, a player can sneak into the pile and face-wash the star player on the opposition (a face-wash is when you take the open palm of your glove and smear it in a person’s face. Aside from being degrading, hockey gloves stink!) Agitators will try to goad, incite the star players into taking a retaliatory penalty. Hockey is about winning and losing. So how smart is that, to get the star player to retaliate, the official sees the retaliation, not the initial penalty, and the star player has to sit in the penalty box for two minutes. It’s dirty, but it’s more or less genius. It’s a game within the game. Get in your opponent’s head. Intimidate him. Annoy him. And do all of these while walking on a thin line.

To counteract the officials fallibility, it is wise for teams to deploy certain players (i.e. “heavyweights”, “fighters”, “goons”, etc.) that might strike fear and trepidation in their opponent. Players will think twice about laying down the cheap shots if they know they will have to answer to it. This is why fighting exists.

I know some of you might not feel satisfied by this reasoning. But it is what it is. The officials cannot see everything, so sometimes you have to “police” things yourself. The average shift in ice hockey is about 40-60 seconds. Players go out there and skate 100% for almost a minute and they are dog tired after doing that. When players fight, they are often already exhausted. They have protective equipment on head to toe. And have you ever tried to fight in ice skates? Every now and then a player will land a solid punch, but most punches miss, hit the helmet, or are just downright weak. The officials will let players “punch it out” because it’s an understood aspect of hockey and it’s not really that dangerous.

Owners spend a lot of money on talented players, so they are willing to spend money on players that are there solely to protect those stars. You have to protect your investments.

So, this is why fighting exists. But why do teams have to carry these “goons” on the roster, who often times only play a few minutes a game? It’s essentially a waste of a roster spot, because their speed and/or skill does not match other players that are on the roster, who could contribute more effectively, perhaps by maybe, ya know, scoring goals and helping win the game. Is it necessary to dress these fighters for games? Almost every player on an NHL roster is capable and willing to fight, and probably has done so at least once or twice in their career. But obviously owners do not want their star players risking injury by fighting. But that doesn’t mean you have to have a “heavyweight” on the roster to do the defending. So maybe it’s just a mental thing where if the opposing team knows you have a guy dressed who can break your skull in, so to speak, then that’s dissuasion enough.

I guess that’s a whole other topic of discussion.