NHL could learn something from this game. You can have great hockey without the stupid fightsWell, that drew a response from a guy who insisted that I know nothing about hockey and fights are part of the game. Not the Olympic game, I pointed out. Didn't help.
I didn't have time to fuss with it yesterday, but thought I'd flesh out my remarks today. Fighting is not a requirement of a hockey game, it's an option that has been rejected by the Olympics and wholeheartedly accepted by the NHL, not because it's "part of the game" but because it's part of their marketing plan. The NHL knows that a whole bunch of their games are dull as dishwater and the only way they can get people to buy tickets to see mediocre teams is to ensure there are a couple of goons on each team guaranteed to start fights.
The NHL clearly encourages this activity given the very light penalties they hand out for fighting. In most sports fighting will get you kicked out of the game and could results in fines and/or suspensions. Even NASCAR has clamped down on post-race fighting which used to be as much a part of the sport as "Gentlemen, start your engines!" Start a fight in NASCAR and you may get to watch the next race from the comfort of home.
In hockey, if you start a fight you get to sit down and rest for five minutes.
Your team might have to skate shorthanded for a bit, but that's about it. Game misconduct penalties are very rare.
The hockey we saw in the Olympics was fast-paced and very exciting...and fighting free. Sure, they still hit hard and occasionally there was some minor pushing and shoving after the whistle, but nobody started anything because in the Olympics you're tossed out of the game (and possibly the next game too). Did it hurt the game that there were no interruptions for fighting, and no bench-clearing brawls? Not a bit.
The hockey we saw in the Olympics was fast-paced and very exciting...and fighting free. Sure, they still hit hard and occasionally there was some minor pushing and shoving after the whistle, but nobody started anything because in the Olympics you're tossed out of the game (and possibly the next game too). Did it hurt the game that there were no interruptions for fighting, and no bench-clearing brawls? Not a bit.
If the NHL wants to get people back to the arenas to see their sport, dump the fighting (and the goons who punch better than they can skate), and encourage the kind of fast-paced action we saw in Vancouver. They'll also be better role models and examples for the kids who watch.
Posts
2 comments:
I am a huge hockey fan and somewhat agree. There are a couple of other factors into why it was so much better in the Olympics.
First, there were no TV timeouts in the periods. This allowed the momentum to build. Even if there was a whistle there was no more than 30 seconds before the puck dropped again. Enough to take a deep breath, switch lines and go. This meant that you didn't move much and just watched.
Another reason, is that by the time it got to the final games the players were the best in the world. As you said, there were no goons. Also, it meant that there were no "4th line" forwards or "3rd pairing" defense men. Every guy on the ice was great and could be a factor. Made for edge of your seat watching. As much as we are afraid to admit it there are guys on every team that once they are on the ice you would be surprised if they score or make huge plays. If there were less teams in the NHL it might be closer.
Sorry to be long winded but those were my thoughts. I agree that the NHL could learn a thing or two but there will never be the same excitement between a regular season game in the NHL and most games during the Olympics. Stanley Cup playoffs are the closest - and there is almost no fighting in those as well. Coincidence?
Matt - that's a good point about the TV timeouts. I didn't think of that. The game was much quicker and the action was almost nonstop without those long breaks. Bad for the networks, but good for hockey.
Thanks for contributing.
Post a Comment