The first organized indoor hockey game was played at McGill University in 1875. They used a flat block of wood as a puck and goals were fashioned from two poles with flags on the end. People crowded around the ice surface to watch as there was no official seating. According to the Montreal Gazette, the final score was "two games to the single" and spectators were "well satisfied with the evening's entertainment".
At the end of the game, a brawl broke out between the hockey players and a local skating club upset about damage to the ice. According to the Kingston Daily British Whig "shins and heads were battered, benches smashed and the lady spectators fled in confusion."
And so hockey was born.
Fortunately, Tonya Harding was not around in the early days of hockey and brawls with ice skaters were not common. However, fighting within the game did become a common occurrence. The lack of rules in early hockey promoted the use of intimidation and violence as a successful strategy for winning games. In order for a team to compete in this environment, it became necessary to employ enforcers - players whose main job was to fight and protect the skilled players.
Flash forward to the present. 135 years later. The game has evolved considerably. The wood block has been replaced with a vulcanized rubber puck and sticks with flags have been replaced with proper hockey nets. Recently, we've even been smart enough to sit the spectators behind safety netting
But as far as fighting and violence go, we're still playing in the 19th century. Despite the fact that we have plenty of rules (the NHL rulebook boasts 87 multi-part entries) and the ability to enforce them (every NHL game is staffed by 4 on-ice officials backed up by a team of video replay judges), we have been unable to eliminate fighting from the game of hockey.
Why?
Because we continue to cling to this old school belief that fighting and the role of the enforcer is essential to keep cheap shots to a minimum and protect the skilled players. Unfortunately, this belief could not be further from the truth. The concept that violence leads to more violence is well studied and widely accepted. The notion that it somehow does not apply in hockey is absurd.
So while Don Cherry and other old timers spout anecdotal evidence that is entertaining to listen to, the reality is that allowing fighting in hockey does nothing to deter the headshots, the cheap shots or the stick work. In fact, allowing fighting in hockey only serves to create an atmosphere that promotes violence and disrespect for a fellow player's physical well being.
In the March 2007 article entitled "Taking fighting out of hockey would be wrong" Scott Morrison, Managing Editor for Hockey with Rogers Sportsnet summarized the old school mentality perfectly when he wrote the following:
"How do you legislate hits to the head out of the game, but still allow punches to the head in fights? Simple. Re-declare fighting part of the game".
Essentially what Mr. Morrison is saying is that if every time a hockey player threw an illegal elbow to the head, someone would just punch him the head, he'd eventually stop throwing elbows.
This is similar to saying that if I smack my son for biting my daughter, he will eventually stop biting her. Now I personally know that this does not work. In fact, what happened is that my daughter has started smacking and biting my son, my son now considers it okay to smack me back and my wife has suggested I try alternate means of discipline. Take from that what you will.
A more hockey-relevant example of enforcement gone awry is the all too familiar Steve Moore/Todd Bertuzzi incident. In a game in March of 2004, the Vancouver Canucks were seeking payback against Colorado Avalanche player Steve Moore for a previous cheap hit against Canucks captain, Marcus Naslund. Early in the game Steve Moore answered a challenge by Vancouver's Matt Cooke and was punched in the head a few times. Now if Mr. Morrison's logic is correct, Steve Moore now knows not to throw cheap hits, the case is closed and we can all go back to playing hockey. Unfortunately, that's not exactly what happened. What happened was more violence. Brad May attacked Peter Worrell, Rob Blake punched Jarko Ruutu, my son bit Wade Brookbank and mayhem ensued. In the end, Steve Moore's career was over, Todd Bertuzzi was facing criminal charges and my wife has suggested the league try alternate means of discipline.
Fortunately, I think eventually they will.
After bench clearing brawls (remember them?) became the rage in the 70's, it took until 1987 to institute Rule 72 - an automatic 10 game suspension to any player leaving the bench during an altercation. In the 22 years since the inception of Rule 72 there has only been a single bench clearing brawl. It took another 5 years for the league to equate sudden attacks on other players with serious injury and instate the instigator penalty. It took the Broad Street Bullies what seemed like a decade (but in fact was only a season) to ban Cooperalls for looking bad and being dangerously slippery.
So despite what pro-fighting advocates will tell you, rules can be used to deter, rules can be used to enforce, and one day rules will be used to remove fighting from our game of hockey.
Lets just hope we don't have to wait another 135 years.
Wally Braverman is an avid hockey fan and a co-founder of Armchair Hockey Pools. He has written numerous articles on a variety of subjects that may one day be published somewhere.
Wally played 7 season of hockey in an organized league and is one of few players alive today who thought that Cooperalls were cool.
When Wally is not writing or watching hockey, he is lamenting his poor hockey pool picks at Armchair Hockey Pools.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Wally_Braverman
