It's Time to Blow the Whistle on Fighting in Hockey

Shortly after the dawn of the New Year, tragedy struck in Ontario that shook the foundation of the hockey world. Don Sanderson, a 21-year old player with the Whitby Dunlops of an Ontario senior hockey league, ended up losing the fight for his life after spending three weeks in a coma as a result of a routine hockey fight. It was a hockey fight that started like any other, yet finished with unprecedented consequences. Hockey's worst fear was realized.

Was there any doubt that this day would eventually come? For years analysts and hockey pundits have been warning the sport that someone would tragically lose their life as a result of the NHL’s ignorance. Now, the echoes of such pundits have resonated in the ears of every hockey fan, player, and executive alike from top to bottom in the National Hockey League. After years of debating the act of fighting in hockey, the discussion has once again come to the forefront following the death of a young man who was simply playing by the rules. And if the NHL doesn’t do anything about it, no one will.

Is fighting really worth it? After all, isn’t hockey just a game? Is such a small facet of a sport worth the life of a young man who lost his life playing a game that would have normally praised his efforts? Doesn’t the National Hockey League bear some sort of responsibility for this tragedy by promoting a good hockey fight as much as the league promotes a fast, high-scoring game? These are all questions that need to be answered before it is too late- but unfortunately that no longer applies to the situation.

While it is hard to believe that fighting will ever be banned in the NHL, some light must be shed on signifying that fighting is not necessary for the growth and success of the National Hockey League as some suggest.

Instead of disputing whether fighting in hockey should or should not be prohibited, the question we must ask ourselves is if it’s really all worth it. Fans, players, and executives need to dig deep and ask themselves if they are willing to accept another potential fatality as a consequence of fighting. Where must we draw the line between the violence on the ice that too many fans crave for their entertainment, and death? One fight is too many...because one death is too many. Fighting has always been apart of hockey. Perhaps it is time that changes.

Why is the NHL so reluctant to outlaw fighting? Of the four most successful sporting leagues in the western world, (NBA, NFL, MLB, and the NHL), the National Hockey League dons the notorious label of being the only league that essentially promotes fighting- even to the point of emphasizing that fighting is essential to the game. Many advocates of fighting state that fighting is part of the game and that it puts people in the stands. Some even go further suggesting that if it were to be banned, the NHL would lose its appeal. However, the NHL ratings in the United States have been slumping for years, while fighting has been increasing (up 22% this season) so clearly fighting is not holding America’s attention. In Florida and Phoenix, fans still turn their backs on free tickets and are struggling to make ends meet. The NHL is naïve to cling to the belief that a fan watches hockey for the mere chance to see a 30-second hockey tilt between two goons. And in Canada, where hockey is the predominant sport in the country, would Canadians actually turn off their TV sets if the NHL were to forbid two players from dropping their gloves? Sure, a hockey fight is exciting and often lifts people from their seats, but would hockey fans discontinue watching the sport if that rare, quick fight were removed from the game? The question now becomes, how many fans would not watch or attend a game if the possibility of a fight was dramatically reduced? I dare say, not even one.

Even if such a ban were to be implemented, it is inevitable that fans would still witness a fight from time to time when tempers flared and emotions were running high. Even baseball has bench clearing brawls during the course of the season, but you don’t see baseball parading around and declaring that it is simply the ‘culture’ of the game.

The 2007 Stanley Cup Finals, featuring the Anaheim Ducks and Ottawa Senators drew the lowest Stanley Cup Finals ratings in US history. Both Anaheim and Ottawa ranked 2nd and 3rd in game misconducts respectively, with Anaheim leading the league in fighting majors with 71. The following year, the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals featured the Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins, who combined for 72 fighting majors during the course of the 2007-08 season (one more than the Anaheim Ducks of 2007). Yet the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals (with two of the highest scoring and least penalized teams) drew one of the highest Stanley Cup ratings ever.

It goes without saying that fights can add entertainment value, change the course of a game and have fans talking for days. But the clichéd notion that fighting is essential and that players can police themselves is empty. There are rules in other sports, and players in other leagues play by the rules. If the NHL wanted to eliminate fighting, the league could do it in a second. But they don’t, because they believe it would put less money in their pockets and no longer appeal to the ‘casual’ fan.

All fans of the game know that a hockey game in the playoffs (where fights are dramatically down) is more exciting than the rest of the regular season where fights per game are roughly 6 times higher. Take for example the recent World Juniors tournament- not a single fight in any of the games, yet some of the most memorable games some of us will ever see (look no further than the Russia-Canada semifinal). Given how much emotion and passion is exhibited in playoff hockey and international competitions, the argument that fighting is essential in venting emotions can easily be pushed aside. If the NHL is serious about growing the league in the United States, it needs to realize that it doesn’t need fighting to sell itself.

Others believe that fighting in hockey is a tradition and that rules change of such magnitude would be altering the face of the game. Conversely, the National Football League has embraced change for the betterment of the game and safety of its players. The NFL has made 14 rule changes in the past decade which include an increased emphasis on protecting the passer. In the 1950s, when grabbing an opponent’s facemask, hits to the back of the head were legal, and quarterbacks often had no rules that would protect them from dangerous hits, the NFL instituted rule changes that would protect quarterbacks after many suffered injuries. Despite these rule changes, the NFL still flourished and is now North America’s most successful professional sporting league.

For years, NHL executives have been trying to think of new ways to improve the game- bigger nets, smaller goalie equipment, etc… But when it comes to changing the game for the safety of its players (such as visor issues, softer shoulder and elbow pads, no-touch icing, and decreasing hits to the head), the NHL has sat back and turned a blind eye. This is a league that tells the public and its fans that it wants to take head shots out of the league, while on the ice it allows two heavyweights to exchange blows at will. The NHL now has the media spotlight on them after a horrific tragedy. They should take this opportunity to at least show the world that they are a responsible league who takes safety seriously. If they don't do anything about it now, then when will they? Judging by their track record with regards to player safety, it looks like they will let this discussion quietly pass them by… until the next GM meeting when they will once again place more emphasis on increasing scoring rather than looking out for the safety of their players.

Sanderson's death was accidental, but easily avoidable. Maybe someday the NHL will realize that the safety of its players is the only fight worth fighting for.