Skip to content

Video: PHT Extra – Fighting under fire

Mar 7, 2013, 9:55 PM EDT

Earlier tonight, we shared how “The Crossover” views the debates surrounding fighting. Going further, PHT’s own Jason Brough and Mike Halford discussed the relevance of fisticuffs, what could or should be done about staged fights and much more:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
  1. yowillie12 - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:07 PM

    Love Detroit coming to the East, but shouldn’t the expansion be completed first? 2nd Toronto team and Quebec City will be in the East, then the fun begins…..

  2. csilojohnson - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM

    Stop, please just stop. Leave fighting alone. It belongs in hockey. Why are we as a country getting so damn soft? These guys get paid a LOT of money to entertain US. If you don’t think fighting is entertaining go watch NCAA Womens hockey. Otherwise butt out of our game.
    Really though PHT. Please don’t fan this imaginary fire. Pleeeeassseee!

  3. r8rbhawk - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM

    Leave fighting in the game and leave visors a choice for the players. I think I’ve said enough on these two topics this week.

  4. csilojohnson - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM

    The show is garbage btw NBC. Do yourselves a favor and get that embarassment of the air.

  5. stakex - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

    Fighting is not under fire. There are some scattered comments from the peanut gallery parts of the media no one cares about that are anti-fighting. The players like it, the NHL likes it, and most importantly the fans love it… so its not under fire by any of the groups that actually matter.

    • manchestermiracle - Mar 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      I think it’s stupid, counterproductive, and destroys the flow of the game. So I guess I’m not a fan. I’ll leave now.

      • tatdue - Mar 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!!!……Bowling needs fans…. :)

      • sunderlanding - Mar 8, 2013 at 2:07 PM

        That’s right. You aren’t a true NHL fan. Maybe international hockey is more for you.

  6. thehighcountrybear - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

    Fighting will be legislated out of hockey, book it! The science is conclusive: recent documented history of serious long term behavioural and health problems up to and including premature death experienced by fighters and non fighters in hockey can no longer be ignored. The definitive solution will be determined in the Courts as massive class action lawsuits against professional sports leagues proliferate generally! We are reminded the tobacco lobby held sway with policy makers until Courts started finding for victims of the lobby’s historical lying in the face of hard science proving direct links between smoking and cancer. To preempt potential settlements reaching into billions of dollars as occurred with the tobacco industry, insurance underwriters will be quietly lobbying professional sports to remove grounds for clearly defined liability [ what could be clearer liability than allowing athletes to beat each other about the head and face, events often followed by punishing contact with the ice while already injured ]. Me, I get a charge out of a good square match, but always feel a sense of shame afterwards; deepened when I see a healthy young man devastated by injury and loss of face as was Dziurzynski. It’s time to move on, and remove fighting from the game…

    • manchestermiracle - Mar 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

      Agreed. Why fans of a fast, exciting, highly-skilled sport would want to see the action interrupted by two goons trying to pound each other through layers of gear while on skates never ceases to amaze me. If I wanted to see morons stick their faces in front of flying fists I’d watch one of those stupid fight leagues or just hang out in a big city alley.

      It does absolutely nothing for the game (sorry, you don’t get a goal for landing the most punches on some hapless dude’s face while holding his jersey) by stopping the real action and if fighting were banned teams could put more talent on the ice by not having to carry a designated skating ape.

      • sunderlanding - Mar 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        If you can’t understand what it does for the game you clearly don’t know anything about hockey history. Fighting is a part of the game, and a part of the culture. What makes hockey unique is that you can watch a fast highly skilled game, and then a fight, and then back to the game. Maybe that’s too much information for you, but real hockey fans understand that this is part of what makes the game so awesome. I don’t have to waste my time watching UFC or boxing, and a fast skill game. I get both of them in one game. If you don’t like it watch one of the internation leagues.

    • stakex - Mar 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM

      If you were correct about any of this, you’re not by the way (I’ll get to that), but if you were…. it wouldn’t stop at fighting. Boxers, MMA fighters, football players, and even non-fighters in hockey are all more likely to have health issues due to the contact nature of their sports. If they were allowed to turn around and sue their respective sports…. the world of contact sports would collapse. Thankfully, that won’t happen because you are simply wrong.

      You’re comparison the the tabacco lobby is laughable on its face. The reason big tabacco lost in court is that it was marketing its product as perfectly safe. No one is saying getting into a fight in hockey, or getting hit too many times in football, or being a boxer/MMA fighter is perfectly safe. Once the tabacco companies stopped marketing their product as safe, stopped marketing them to kids, and started including Surgeon General warnings (as well as paying for anti-smoking adds) the lawsuits stopped. In case you haven’t noticed, they are still selling cigarettes… and they are still killing people in droves. Yet, no more law suits since now the tabacco industry makes it clear how dangerous they are and people are allowed to make that choice.

      So since professional sports leagues aren’t telling their players that the sport is perfectly safe and will have no long term impact on them, there is no comparison here, and no lawsuits are possible.

    • sunderlanding - Mar 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

      So I guess boxing and UFC will be banned as well? They are even more at risk for the long term health risks of fighting. As long as they are legal I say leave fighting in hockey.

  7. operwapitsai - Mar 8, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    more people come to the game for the fighting than stay away because of it

    • manchestermiracle - Mar 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM

      What a lousy excuse to sell a ticket.

      • tatdue - Mar 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        Thought you were leaving….

  8. thehighcountrybear - Mar 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM

    Missing in your argument is notion of what is determined to be acceptable risk.

    Acceptable risk can only be measured against understanding of what constitutes hazard in any given field. Without empirical data supporting hazard versus non hazard in a given endeavour, would-be participants in that endeavour cannot be properly educated as to either risk at play in the present or risk as it plays out through latent effect of injury in the long term.

    The Courts would expect league and team owners to be able to prove employees were properly informed as to hazard and risk; to do so, the obligation is placed upon league and team owners to be themselves, educated and fully informed as to hazard and risk. Hiding their heads in the sand will buy league and team owners no relief, not in the twenty first century!

    Courts have sustained argument employees have a right to know and employees must be provided with a means to protect themselves from hazard and undue risk. How can that be achieved if leagues or owners tacitly approve of fighting or killer hits that are for the most part, subject to random and spontaneous events involving mismatched participants, either through size, opportunity or simple timing?

    Not only do leagues and owners have an obligation to educate themselves and employees as to hazard and risk, they would have to prove to the Courts an effective disciplinary and penalty framework was in place in order to control and effectively eliminate violations of policy in place expected to reduce hazard and risk; without evidence of effective discipline and penalty, leagues and owners will be found wanting by the Courts.

    I would not want to be sitting in a courtroom arguing participants in a fight were duly informed of hazard and risk given current science on the matter, this while the extent of control of that hazard and risk involved a five minute penalty?

    And, argument comparing ultimate fighting and boxing to hockey fights is without merit. Ultimate fighting and boxing are extensively controlled by weight class, ability, and personal protective equipment suited to the game. As indicated, hockey fights are for the most part random, spontaneous events where the first thing participants do is shed protective equipment, then attempt to control and wrestle each other wildly. Serious injury and death have been product of that activity, this so has-beens and never-weres can get their jollies or get their rocks off, all while running to the bank with proceeds from the shameless display!

    Time to tear the old boy network apart, and bring these neanderthals to accountability…

  9. LampyB - Mar 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM

    Anyone who supports removing fighting from the NHL isn’t actually a fan of professional hockey. You just don’t get it. End of story.

    • manchestermiracle - Mar 8, 2013 at 10:00 AM

      I think the problem here is that you’ve mistaken hockey for a fight league. I’m betting you’re bored right up until a couple guys drop the gloves.

      • tatdue - Mar 8, 2013 at 12:13 PM

        Like LampyB said “You just don’t get it. End of story”….

  10. johnstone17 - Mar 8, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    I love the game, the speed, the athetisism, the flow. What I don’t like is the garbage performed by marginal players at best. Blatant stick work, WWF moves of leaving your feet to inflict maximum impact on a hit & just stupid hits where a defenseless player gets injured. I’ve been a fan of the game for 40 years & before the league started with instigator rules involving fighting, players knew that if they pulled that garbage, they answered to the opponents enforcer. If you want to reduce fighting, then you must suspend the hacks that only stay in the league because of their ability to piss the opposition off indefinitely when they create the atmosphere that encourages fighting. There was a time when fighting was pure in hockey, unfortunately that time has passed. Get rid of the idiots & you will see fighting drop off dramatically.

  11. smyl11 - Mar 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    A suprising lack of kitty videos here….

  12. mp1131211 - Mar 8, 2013 at 6:08 PM

    I like the array of thoughtful comments here. It’s actually an interesting discussion here so long as you ignore the personal attacks.

    My 2 cents are that 1) I enjoy fights when they don’t end in serious injuries. In this sense I am a fan of them. I don’t like things like Asham’s classless after fight taunt last year and what not. But I do enjoy seeing a good tilt. 2) for those of you insisting that fighting is an inherent element of hockey, you are ignoring the fact that the introduction of the instigator rule fundamentally changed not only the role of fights in hockey, but also the entire game itself. A player and entire team is now punished for using fighting as a tool to protect skill. So, the next logical question is if the NHL took the steps to nullify a goon’s role, why is fighting still allowed? I think the answer is simple: because it always has been and there hasn’t been an incident yet that has prompted it a major change.

Featured video

Are Penguins vulnerable vs. Columbus?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. E. Malkin (4549)
  2. T. Oshie (3491)
  3. M. Duchene (3341)
  4. B. Bishop (2887)
  5. M. Brodeur (2878)