Talk:Fighting in ice hockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fighting in ice hockey article.
Article policies
Featured article star Fighting in ice hockey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge?

Two articles about the same thing. Merge --Kerowyn 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Two articles about different things. One concerns a condoned, if penalized, aspect of the sport, the other about an illegal and uncondoned aspect. RGTraynor 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur with RGTraynor. Violence is one thing: see, for example, strikes to the head with a hockey stick, or slashes to the face, or boarding with intent to injure, and so forth. Fighting is another: it is rare that a player gets more than a bloody nose or some minor facial cuts from a fight. Minor injuries compared to the outcomes of some of the "violence" aspects above. Battlemonk 16:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
But "fighting" and "violence" are synonyms. Just because one results in less injuries doesn't make it a different animal altogether. I think the average user looking for information on fighting in the sport is going to be interested in both violence, as in serious deliberate attacks, and fighting, as in a couple of players throw down gloves and toss a few punches, so why not put them in the same article? Kerowyn 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Because they are two separate things, as the average hockey fan knows; you could just as readily decide that "offense" and "violation" are the same thing in hockey because they are likewise synonyms. I appreciate that you're trying to clean up tags Wikiwide, but in the ten months since the tags were posted, out of the several dozen participants in the Ice Hockey Wikiproject, not one has spoken in favor of any such merge, let alone seek any manner of consensus for it. The tags are best cleaned by removing them. RGTraynor 06:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that these pages are better left separate. It makes no sense to merge them because violence in hockey is different than fighting in hockey. While they are somewhat related, there are enough differences to warrant separate articles. Masterhatch 09:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what difference there is. We're quibbling with semantics here. I'm not trying to be simplistic, I'm trying to be sensible. I merged the article initially because no one cared enough to object. I think violence on the ice is the same whether it's condoned or not and it makes sense to address it all in one place. Kerowyn 22:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted, and I think we can all agree that if you bring a consensus around to said opinion, a merger is appropriate. RGTraynor 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the consensus seems to be to leave the articles unmerged. I don't agree, but that's how it goes. Kerowyn 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thus is democracy. Battlemonk 21:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ain't it grand. I voted for Kerry, too. =) --Kerowyn 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I would have, but wasn't old enough to. By a month and a week. Battlemonk 02:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a reasonable person would realize that rough play in a sport (such as ice hockey) could lead to "fighting" typically subject to penalties within the game, and such fighting in rare situations leads to "violence", which could be considered criminal subject to courts and police, etc. Whether that means there should be 1 article or 3, I don't know. The analogy might be seperate articles for 'Exciting Hockey Games' and 'Really Exciting Hockey Games'. Perhaps the Violence page should just be 'Notable Violent Incidents in Ice Hockey', while leaving the discussion of culture, reasons, etc. to 'Fighting...' page.
  • Violence and fighting are not synonyms. Fighting is a type of violence. Sources confirm that significant number of enthusiasts regard fisticuffs as distinctly different from other types of violence such as kicking or hits from behind (and the league treats it differently). Consequences of injury also vary. Simply put, you would see a big difference between being hit on the jaw by my fist during a bout compared to being hit over the head from behind by my two-handed swing of my stick. Canuckle 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradictions

This article seems contradictory, e.g.: "Although fighting is tolerated in men's hockey, the combatants involved are always issued penalties, and may be ejected."

Either fighting is allowed, or it is not. In the NHL and all other leagues of hockey, teams and players are penalized for fighting, therefore, it is not allowed. If the author feels the penalties are not sufficient deterrents, then the author should indicate so; however, that would be editorializing than reporting factual information.


Here's another one:

"fighting exists in organized ice hockey as a deterrent to overly rough play"

Isn't fighting "rough" in itself? And doesn't the fighting deter from the actual playing of ice hockey? Ridiculous. And coming from a "Featured article" too.

I would point out that the article says fighting is a deterrent to overly rough play, but later in the article it acknowledges that in Europe, where fighting is banned and harshly punished, the game is far less violent. So how can fighting deter overly rough play if banning it makes the game less violent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.21.42 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hockey is less "violent" in Europe because of the larger ice surface - not because fighting is banned. More room to skate and stickhandle means less intances of holding and stickwork like slashing etc. In the smaller North American rinks fighting is used, in part, to deter the dirty play that stems from having less room to work. --Quartet 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


By being tolerated, it means that the penalty is mild enough that the penalty doesn't really discourage players from fighting, only from fighting too much. And as for "fighting exists in organized ice hockey as a deterrent to overly rough play", while fighting is rough, it isn't "play". The outcome of the fight awards neither team a point. 24.158.117.96 03:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs are really what stops this article from being taken seriously. Many points appears to be begging the question. "debate over allowing fighting" - the rest of the article works to establish that the "debate" has been well-decided: fighting is grounds for negative consequences in the form of penalties, suspensions, and the like. Perhaps there is debate over the level of tolerance, or what other steps could be taken to reduce fighting (or for that matter, increase it if one seeked to accomplish such) The article should really just address the culture of violence and/or fighting in ice hockey. Instead of declaring it "allowed" or "tolerated", a rules section might summarize state how various leagues or venues have approached regulating it.Cander0000 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He probably could have gone into more detail, but it's difficult to explain the special status fighting has in hockey. Fighting can't be said (by the dictionary definition) to be allowed in the NHL, but it is most definitely not prohibited. If the NHL Commissioner wanted all hockey fighting to stop, he'd simply announce that fighting was banned and the next guys who did it would be treated the same way as players in any other sport who started throwing blows mid-game (i.e- immediate explusion, huge fines, lengthy suspensions and probably criminal charges). There are several European hockey leagues in which fighting is banned, and they implement this type of system. But instead, in most leagues, the fighters get a brief stay off-ice, neither's team is disadvantaged in manpower, and the whole thing is usually forgotten before the game's even over. Regardless of how many fights there are in a season, the penalties are never modified or increased for fair fights that don't result in injury. The attitude is more like "Well, sure there's rules against it, but the fans love it, it's been around for a long time, and it's not a big deal. What's the harm?"--Bullzeye 7 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Pretty much, and it's specious to argue otherwise. North American professional ice hockey is the only major professional sport not to penalize in-game fights with lengthy suspensions and hefty fines. It is no more "outlawed" in the NHL, the minor and junior leagues than offsides or icing is. RGTraynor 12:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, to add to the "tolerated but not allowed" status (or what have you), there is the fact that there exists the entirety of Rule 56: Fisticuffs of the NHL rules. There's not just the first paragraph, which says: if you fight, these are the penalties. There are penalties for not having the sweater tied down properly. If you take off your sweater before fighting, you get a penalty. The fact that there are rules governing incidental parts of fighting signals that it is allowed. Battlemonk 07:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to stand as the lone dissenting voice four days before this article hits the main page, but that opinion refutes itself. It isn't allowed, it is allowed, which way is it? The bottom line is that if the rulebook says that a play is a penalty, especially a 5-minute major, it's not a legal play. If and only if someone can cite the rule in the official rulebook that says fighting is permissible, then feel free to revert the edit that I have made.
"Tolerated but not allowed" sounds like a fair compromise that has as little POV as is reasonably possible, so I went with that clause. toll_booth 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an easy thing to clear up. My suggestions is "fighting is accepted as part of the game, but penalized to try to keep it to a minimum.", if not that then I supposed "tolerated but not allowed" is ok. BsroiaadnTalk 20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Tolerated but not allowed" is not good writing. It sounds like we are dancing around the point because we don't know how to say it (which is true). It would be more accurate to say "tolerated but penalized" for the NHL, and not tolerated at all outside the NHL. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious information

What's with the "fighting techniques" section? The information that it contains does not seem worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I've been playing hockey for the better part of 16 years now, and "jerseying" was never a common practice, nor were fights "over" when one player went down. In general, gloves are sometimes dropped, but it is much less common for helmets to come off.Isopropyl

Also, have there been any examples of arranged fights before games? I would like to recommend that a source be found to back this up, or else the comment will be removed.Isopropyl

[edit] Needs section on History

History of fighting in hockey and in the NHL.

[edit] Ever wonder why there's a "Fighting in ice hockey article" AND a Violence in ice hockey aricle?

If so, please comment here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm going to guess that the merge discussion at the top of this talk page deals with the difference between 'fighting' and 'violence' in hockey. ColtsScore 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article really needs sources - the entire thing might as well be what some guy wrote off the top of his head. If no one objects, I'm going to start looking for sources and removing bits that can't be supported. Mus Musculus 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got the book The Code: The Unwritten Rules Of Fighting And Retaliation In The NHL and it has a lot of great information that can be used in this article. I will start adding stuff soon. --Mus Musculus 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Piestany 1987 World Junior bench brawl

I'd add it in myself, but no time right now ... Maybe I'll get to it later : ) ColtsScore 03:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the basic details to the Notable fights section - thanks for the great info! --Mus Musculus (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Very late into this one, but for clarification, the brawl did not cost the Soviets a medal. They were already eliminated from medal contention when that game occurred. Canada was the only team playing for something, and there have long been rumours (though never substantiated) that the Soviets deliberately caused that brawl to disqualify Canada. Resolute 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another source to quote, if someone wants to

Rolling with the punches; North Bay's McLaren reflects on career as hockey enforcer - Lengthy article with player who spent 11 years in the IHL & AHL, and played 8 games in the NHL. He speaks about the role of 'enforcer', how a fight can swing the momentum of a game, and more. ColtsScore 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Good job to everyone who worked on this article, especially Mus Musculus. I'm glad it is finally recognized as top Wiki content. Sportskido8 07:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And a second congrats on being scheduled to appear on the main page! Just what the NHL wanted - fighting, front and centre, on Wikipedia.  ;o) Resolute 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers to all editors! A hockey article on the front page!!! sseagle 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What a great article! Never, ever knew a thing about fighting in ice hockey. This kind of article is what makes wikipedia so great.--Mrtombullen 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Americans players in international play

Is fighting by North American players much of a problem in international play or are they generally able to stick with the different rules/requirements in international play? Nil Einne 12:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to fighting, not really. International tournaments typically feature the most skilled players, who typically are the least likely to fight (with some notable exceptions), so fighting isn't a problem. When it comes to international play, the biggest challenge for the Canadian and American teams is the overall physicality of their play, which can be considerably more intense than their European counterparts. For European officials not used to it, it can lead to a fair bit of frustration with the officiating decisions. Partly as a result of this, there can also be a perceived bias against North American teams, Canada especially, originating from when Bunny Ahearne led the IIHF, and rarely disguised how little he cared for Canada. Resolute 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Lance Ward broke the PIM record in the SEL this season. 273 PIM in 50 games, and added another 47 PIM in 14 playoffs games. --Krm500 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lance Ward didn´t fight that much in Sweden last season. You get a five minute major and a twenty minute game misconduct if you drop the gloves in a swedish league. Also swedish referees are not as tolerant as north american referees which usually gives the north american player a whole heap of minor penalties, sometimes followed by a ten minute misconduct for protesting a penalty they are not used to.

[edit] Illogical sentence?

"...fighting exists in organized ice hockey to protect star players..." in the intro. How does that work? Zojj 06:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Players who take liberties with star players on the opposing team get roughed up by the opposing enforcers. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In other words, suppose I have Star Player on my team. Your team has nobody as good as Star Player, so my team has a big advantage. What you might do is send out your team's enforcer, Goon One, to knock Star Player around and either intimidate him or get into a fight with him. If Goon One's rough play can intimidate Star Player, he's effectively neutralized and my team's advantage is gone. If Goon One and Star Player get in a fight, they both get removed from the ice; and since Star Player is a much better hockey player than Goon One, the loss is much bigger to my team than yours. I know all this, of course, so in order to keep Star Player on the ice and free to play, I send out my team's enforcer, Goon Two. The presence of Goon Two is a message to your team that anybody who messes with Star Player is immediately going to get pummeled badly by Goon Two. Fumblebruschi 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media and criticism

I added the {{fact}} tag to the sentence "Criticism of fighting in ice hockey typically arises after acts of violence committed during fights are singled out in the media." This was removed by Spike Wilbury (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "actually, the cited examples after the lead statement support the lead statement". I disagree with that. The sentence is followed by only one example (Orr v Fedoruk), which is not cited or referenced. This example illustrates the assertion that the attitude of the media is a general pattern that has a certain effect on the public opinion, but it does not build the case for the assertion. A few sentences later, the opinions of several journalists on fighting in general are given, but again no indication that their opinions are representative of a media attitude, that they are singling out fights and that they have a certain effect on public opinion. I feel that there is not enough ground at present for a blanket statement about media singling out fights and about the effect of media on public opinion. AecisBrievenbus 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On giving this more thought, I agree that the quote is weak and not backed up by enough examples. Maybe we can reword to, "Criticism of fighting in ice hockey sometimes arises..."? The point of the paragraph is to illustrate that after the significant media coverage of the Orr/Fedoruk incident, a bunch of people started discussing eliminating fighting. It does happen all the time, but I acknowledge that there are not enough examples to make a blanket statement about it at this time. Incidentally, the Orr/Fedoruk example is referenced later in the article; I copied the citations to this section as well. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor intro

The first sentence just doesn't broach the subject properly. Vranak

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 17Drew 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care enough about the article to change it. Vranak
Then shut your mouth and move on. We don't care about your opinion.Zion007 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That response is uncivil and inappropriate.Canuckle 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but it's frustrating to receive vague complaints from people who aren't willing to change things. (Sadly, that seems to describe the majority of Wikipedia's detractors...) Brutannica 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
yes very frustrating but expressing that frustration without being civil just discourages people from contributing. And when you're an FA, you're going to get a lot of new readers unfamiliar with the topic. Canuckle 20:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic joke

"I went to a fight, and a hockey game broke out"... AnonMoos 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! -- GoDawgs 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainpage exposure to this disgraceful subject

Contemptible. Children and schools use this resource. Where'd the editor who allowed that leave their sense of decency? In the bathtub?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultrabias (talk • contribs).

Wanna fight over it?  ;o) Resolute 03:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no dignity. I recommend Britannica or some other encyclopedia if that's what you're looking for. Because everyone here at Wikipedia hates schoolchildren. 17Drew 05:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Featured articles are chosen based on the quality of the article, not on its subject. When we have the 1939 invasion of Poland as a featured article, it is not because we think that Poland being invaded in 1939 is a good thing. You should also be aware that Wikipedia is not censored, for any reason whatsoever. Not for children, not for religions, not for governments. --Dreaded Walrus t c 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Just you wait until I get Subduing Children and Attacking Schoolchildren up to featured article status.--Paraphelion 08:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll help. LOL! GoDawgs(T) 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who wish a censored, "decent" online encyclopedia, you should be at http://www.conservapedia.com, not here. The rest of us adults will stay here, thanks.  RGTraynor  13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I was a bit surprised when I saw that "Fighting in Ice Hockey" could be deemed as a main-page worthy article - firstly, it is a bit of an obscure article and secondly, it is a little indecent. I was mostly surprised by the obsurity of the article: who cares about fighting in ice-hockey? Is anyone going to create an article about carpark and pub brawls? I doubt it. Richard n 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, Violence in bars and pubs has an article. Also, any hockey fan cares about this subject, and if Bulbasaur can get on the main page, then this is surely worthy. Cheers, The Hybrid 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Within the hockey world, fighting is a huge issue and is constantly brought up. The violence is often the reason that hockey makes the six o'clock news, and there have been movies parodying the violence and fighting (Slap Shot (film)).-Wafulz 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that there are better articles covering better issues than this one. Gloryfying violence in sport is not the best way to advertise Wikipedia nor should be on the frontpage. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}contributions 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether you choose to accept it or not, fighting is a major aspect of the game. It has a history, it has an impact, and it is very well documented here, including its opposition and controversy. It isn't being glorified in any way- remember that Wikipedia is not censored.-Wafulz 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Undoubtably there are articles that people will feel are better, or better topics to cover. Given that there are 365 days in the year, there will be 365 different main page articles every year. It is only natural that there will be topics that will not appeal to all users. Resolute 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Surprised to see hockey on the front page. Sure, it is about fighting, but a fairly informative article, that will hopefully open up a few minds to better understanding this timeless art. Zion007 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a good choice on the front page and shows Wikipedia progression. Christopher Connor 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

  • Just wanted to add my congratulations on working up to feature article status. My initial reaction was "oh no" and I was on the hunt for one-sided or unsourced material. But contributors have done a great job on the whole. Some small refinements still possible, but isn't there always? Canuckle 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hehe, I didnt even know this article existed! Its rather interesting too!64.229.193.210 05:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And also good show on being open to additions and changes. I've seen some other FA be quite protective when their child hits the front page. You've been quite accomodating. Canuckle 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links in first sentence

Interesting stuff... I don't follow ice hockey, but I had a computer version once and I thought the fighting aspect was just a quirk of the software (I also had a motor racing game with fighting).

One question - should the opening title be linked as Fighting in ice hockey or maybe Fighting in ice hockey? Linking ice hockey through the word sport seems slightly odd to me. Cheers — SteveRwanda 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fisticuffs

I love the fact that "fisticuffs", which to my British ears is an amusingly childish slang word, reminiscent of Eton in the 1920s, actually appears in the official rules. (This comment has no purpose, and isn't intended to improve the article, I just wanted to say it). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

TURN MY HEADPHONES UP! I CAN'T HEAR YOU... Raul654 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Physical play" redundancy in intro

Second paragraph. First two sentences, each starting with the words "physical play", seem strikingly similar to me in their basic meaning. I'm frankly a little surprised that the article went up on the main page with something like this in the intro. Jlaramee 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Turtle"

In the notable fights section, one of the entries claims "Darren McCarty caused Claude Lemieux to "turtle" to protect himself", without any explanation of what turtling is; what does it mean, and could this be added the article? Laïka 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I have no prior knowledge of Ice Hockey but from the context of the sentance it seems obvious, that turtling is a way of protection, by making your body into a shell to protect yor main features (e.g. stomach and face), and although I don't know for certain. Rambo's Revenge 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what it means. If I have a chance, I'll look for a way to make that a little more clear, assuming someone else doesn't beat me to the punch. Resolute 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Turtling is when you curl up in the fetal position on the ice, usually while you are on your knees and you tuck your head down and cover it with your hands. A great example would be the 'fight', if you can call it that, between Roy and the other goalie that caused him, and his father Patrick, to get suspended. When Roy takes a run at the other goalie notice he doesn't fight, he just goes to the ground and protects himself. Sure Roy punched him, but he didn't land any serious blows because the goalie turtled. 99.242.129.186 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saw this article because it was FA'd.

While officials tolerate fighting during hockey games, they impose a variety of penalties on players who engage in fights. eh? so they tolerate it and they show this by imposing penalties? eh?

Broadly speaking, fighting exists in organized ice hockey to protect star players, who are generally discouraged by their coaches from fighting because of fear of injury, to deter opposing players from overly rough play, and to create a sense of solidarity among teammates. fighting exists to discourage certain players not to fight? eh? what?

Now I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to followers of the game but those descriptions are as clear as mud to this brit. --Fredrick day 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm right with you there, the article is confusing for the non-follower of the sport, and I really don'tunderstand how this became a featured article... ridiculous! Toon 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The penalties in ice hockey for fighting are far less severe than any other major professional sport (except for boxing/wrestling etc.) - spending 5 minutes in a sin bin would be a typical punishment is IH, while fighting in football (soccer) is always punished by an immediate red card and a suspension (and often criminal charges. The second point means that the enforcers fight in order to discourage other teams from attacking star players, for whom an injury would be disastrous. It's all explained in detail in Fighting in ice hockey#Rules and penalties and Fighting in ice hockey#Game-related reasons. Laïka 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you have to be followers of the game to understand what's being said, at least the parts you mention, just followers of sports in general. The penalities for the sort of fighting referring to here are extremely minor compared to all other sports (obviously not counting sports that literally involve fighting). In many sports, even simple pushing and shoving outside of the that involved in the game is likely to be enough for a player to be red carded or otherwise sent off for the whole match. Even in sports where this is not the case like rugby, fighting to the level of punching is a very serious offence. Also as stated, in other sports the refrees/officials will always try to stop the fighting in some way or other. As for the second sentence, basically what it's saying is that players will start a fight in retaliation for rough play (not necessarily fighting but in game) by other players so as to discourage such rough play. Ice hockey is a bizzarre sport from all that I've read and this article shows it but for followers of sport at least, IMHO this help is perfectly understandable even if it just makes ice hockey seem even more bizzare Nil Einne 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, in the NHL official do not try to stop the fight, they stop the play and let the players fight until one goes down, then they interfere if necessary. In other major professional leagues (SEL, RSL) and on international level the officials always try to stop the fight. --Krm500 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And quite aside from anything else (while I disagree as to the applicability in ice hockey) the concept that violence is used by one party to deter violence by another is not remotely foreign to any culture in the world and shouldn't provoke bewilderment as to what it's all about. As to the general criticism, there are dozens of FAs discussing concepts that the average layman wouldn't readily understand.  RGTraynor  18:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting in the EA hockey game on Sega Genesis

Congrats on the FA. Nice article.

The first Sega Genesis hockey video game produced by Electronic Arts had fighting in the game. Two players would drop their gloves and a minigame ensued until one player was knocked down. Many players considered this a highlight (or the highlight) of the game, but the next year's edition of the game had removed the fighting. This fact was recorded for posterity in the movie Swingers (see [1] for the script and search on the page for "fights").

TRENT: I wish the game still had fights so I could bitch-slap Wayne.
MIKE: This version doesn't have fighting?
TRENT: No. Doesn't that suck?
MIKE: What? That was the best part of the old game.
SUE: I don't know. I guess kids were hitting each other or something.

This is merely a footnote to the subject of fighting in hockey but I think it bears mention if it's true that the NHL requested that fighting be removed. Possibly in the 'criticism' section or wherever there's material on efforts to reduce negative publicity over fighting. Tempshill 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The issue of inclusion affects more than one game. (I recall there being talk about how EA wasn't living up to its "If it's in the game, it's in the game" slogan) If you can find a source that says NHL or NHLPA had it pulled from game(s) that would be valuable. It could fit in under Criticisms - children. But I wouldn't bother quoting individual movie scripts Canuckle 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To bold or not to bold?

Should the title words be bolded in the main section? According to WP:MS:

"If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware or Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface."

So it hinges on whether the page title is descriptive. As the title is "Fighting in ice hockey" not "Fighting (ice hockey)" it would seem to be a description of a phenomenon. Hence, unbold in my oppinion. (chgallen 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Whoops! I didn't see this earlier when I changed it. My apologies :) *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry bout it - it's just pedantry. chgallen 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological study on "aggressive" behaviour in hockey players

Bushman, B.J. & Wells, G.L. (1998) Trait aggressiveness and hockey penalties: predicting hot tempers on ice. Journal of Applied Psychology 83:969--974.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rules before Causes and Criticism

  • I moved the Rules section up above Causes and Criticisms because it is a better flow (History--Official rules--Unofficial rules--the Great Debate) especially with the development of the rules discussed in the History section now directly above it. Also rules are official facts whereas causes and criticisms are more speculative (although sourced and legitimate). Canuckle 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well Known FIghts

One of the famous fights in the last section of the article mentions that a player was forced to "turtle." I can't find this term anywhere lse in the article--what exactly does it mean? Reyemile 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It means basically balling yourself up on the ice so only your back is exposed. As an enforcer, it's probably one of the most cowardly things you can do during a fight and hence Lemieux was roundly mocked for it. But I don't have a source for that :) --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Added from his bio: "Lemieux, once ranked by ESPN as the NHL's most hated player, did not drop the gloves and "turtled" (bent down to his knees and covered his head with his gloves) to protect himself."Canuckle 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, as the article indicates, nobody should have been taking on Lemeiux anyway. Picking a fight with a star player (even a dirty one) is usually grounds for a line fight and bad-blood for the rest of the season. Personal opinions aside, it's not highly thought of, to say the least. The proper response would have been to let the enforcers channel everyone's anger and beat each other up. That's their purpose. 69.84.115.58 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Calling Lemieux a star is a bit of a stretch. Especially on the Avalanche team. Lemieux was a pest, and while they're not called upon to fight as often as an enforcer, pests do have to "answer the bell" on occasion. Turtling was a classless move by a classless player.

[edit] Photos

  • More photos of one-on-one fights would be valuable. The top photo is appropriate and is European so helps balance NHL-centric content. The second is a brawl and the third (which I confess to adding) is an attempted fight that caused a melee. If the article topic is condoned fighting (some official rules but recognized aspect of sport) more than brawling and melees, then it should be illustrated by more one-on-one photos - if you have them. A photo of a tie-down would be good too.Canuckle 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It was extremely difficult to find free photos for this article. Most photos of fights are taken from the stands and are of horrible quality. The good ones are almost all copyrighted or using incompatible licenses. Fortunately User:Krm500 was kind enough to license one of his professional quality photos under a compatible Creative Commons license so we could use it for the lead image. Most professional photographers refuse to release their images under a license compatible with Wikipedia. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks User:Krm500 for such a great photo that relates to this subject very well. Are video screenshots another option? Here's a fighting example (unrelated to hockey!) that claims brief use of video is fair use.
Image:Blowup2.gif
Piper blowing up a demon using molecular combustion

I haven't figured out the official policies (not to mention the technology yet). Canuckle 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can be fair use as long as there is significant commentary about the contents of the video. If it's just there for decoration, no. The reason we didn't put any fair use images in the article is that many FA reviewers will oppose the article just based on containing fair use images. But - this article could use them to illustrate the topic for people who have no context or have never seen a hockey game. For example, an image of "turtling" would have headed off the need to explain it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A telling article...

I wonder what it says about a sport when an article about the winked at violence in the game rates featured status and an article on the slapshot rates a stub. As a former hockey fan it seems like just another nail in the coffin of a once glorious sport. Buster 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it says anything. It just says there is a lot more material out there for use on this page. -- Scorpion0422 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You are aware that fighting was far more prevalent when this sport was at it's "once glorious" peak, right? Resolute 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bertuzzi vs. Moore

This wasn't a fight. There was no exchange of blows or confrontation. Most importantly, it was also was penalized as a match attempt to injure, not 5 for fighting with a GM tacked on.

Thus, in keeping with WP:BOLD, I'm merging the reference into Violence in ice hockey. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Please don't. I added it today because it was an attempted fight, the media hype about the potential fight as payback, the fact that Moore fought once already, and the legal accusations that team management encouraged payback are all relevant to an article about condoning illegal but tolerated fisticuffs. Canuckle 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It was not an attempted fight, and it certainly was not a real fight. There is absolutely nothing condoned about a sucker punch from behind. It belongs in Violence in ice hockey, not this article. Resolute 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You make a good point Canuckle. Bertuzzi's attack certainly belongs on the violence page as well, but the current school of thought seems to hold that it was Bertuzzi's rage at being refused a fight that led to the attack. He was either a meathead with poor anger control or he really hated Moore enough to try and injure him. He broke protocol anyway...Moore was a pest, not an enforcer. Anyway, I've retooled the section a bit to better reflect this. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 23:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And I have removed that section altogether per my comments above. That said, if you really wish to include it, add citations. This is a featured article, and an unsourced section that is highly contentious simply does not belong. If there are citable links that can point to Bertuzzi claiming that he suckerpunched Moore for refusing to fight, as an example, then it could probably be reinserted somewhere. Resolute 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good points Resolute. I just copied text from other existing articles and took the 'attempted fight' at face value. (They didn't source it either). I never meant to say that Bertuzzi's actions were condoned. I think it an example of what is not condoned. The media coverage prior and the legal allegations after can certainly be cited. It would probably fit in better in the text of the article where it speaks about fights resulting from repeated meetings of rivals. Canuckle 00:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have citations for both the details of the attack and numerous citations attesting to both Moore's status as a "marked man" and Bertuzzi's motivations for attacking him.

However, now that I think about it, inclusion of this incident (however relevent) would also force us to include most extra-legal attacks in recent memory. Generally, these sort of things happen when the offender has poor judgement and the offendee won't fight him. Fighting may be a simple method of redressing percieved wrongs, but too many enforcers get very pissy when someone won't fight them. McSorely's stick to the face was a similar situation. I've rarely seen one just "forget about it". BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • We don't have to rush into it. But I think it's relevant not for the Bertuzzi attack but for sourcing that teams would face official sanction for directing players to fight but that in at least one notable case, accusations were made and denied that it does occur. Canuckle 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Date

Stopping by to ackknowledge that whoever put the wrong date in for the bloody Wednesday game between the red wings and avalanche in 1997 really needs to be smacked, that mistake was pure lazy! Dont delete this. I dont see how you can get that wrong. Its called bloody Wednesday for a reason, there should be no reason why you can get this date wrong and its sad becuase the date that was in the article was actually a Sunday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyWednesdayError (talk • contribs) 20 July 2007 (UTC)¿

Must be nice to be so perfect that you've never made a mistake, eh? It's called a typo, which you experienced repeatedly in the message that you left. Speaking of this message, I would suggest reading WP:NPA. Resolute 04:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a troll account, obviously. A lot of work to go through to attempt to incite an argument. BsroiaadnTalk 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I gathered based on the name, which blatantly states this is likely to be a single purpose account. Still, it seemed easier to respond, rather than to delete the message as trolling, only to have him come back and add it for a third time. Resolute 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Can someone more familiar with the Harvard referencing system fix footnotes 42 and 43? They're inconsistent with the article's style.-Wafulz 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed 42. I removed the Middlesex-London passage altogether because the reference is a primary source, making the passage original research. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Efforts to ban?

At the top the article says there is no effort to ban, but then later on it says there is. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.72 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 'brawl'

I've removed the inclusion of Wings-Blues 1993 brawl in the Notable fights and brawls sections as it's not the subject of numerous verifiable sources, and I fail to see how it's any more notable than say (off the top of my head) the 1992 brawl between the New York Rangers and Detroit Red Wings[2] (a game that resulted in Yves Racine being fined and suspended 5 games for leaving the bench during a brawl and also featured a Domi vs. Probert fight); or any of a number of brawls that have occurred before or since (Nov 10, 1996 - Leafs vs. Flyers - Hextall vs. Potvin anyone?). The inclusion of this reeks of fancruft as it was added by an obvious Blues fan (HuStL MO)[3], who is also coincidentally, a blocked user. --Quartet 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'The code' is also a movie

"Redirected from The code", The code is also a movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315417/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.201.177 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since when was Gordie Howe considered an enforcer?

I know I wasn't alive in the Howe era, but this is the first place i've ever seen Gordie Howe referred to as an enforcer. Just because he could stand up for himself makes him an enforcer? Was Richard an enforcer? Iginla? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JChing (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of enforcer probably meant something a bit different in Howe's day. In 1964 Mark Kram wrote in Sports Illustrated: "Despite an even temperament and a real distaste for combat, there is a part of Howe that is calculatingly and primitively savage. He is a punishing artist with a hockey stick, slashing, spearing, tripping and high-sticking his way to a comparative degree of solitude on the ice." Sounds a bit like what we'd label an enforcer today. Of course, Howe could also score and make plays. There's a reason why the Gordie Howe hat trick is named after him, even though he only had one during his career, and why his nickname (aside from Mr. Hockey) was "Mr. Elbows". Obviously we'll need reliable sources for Howe's inclusion (and for anyone else, per Wikipedia guidelines), but the above explains why he might have been added. --Quartet 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The title "enforcer" wasn't used in Howe's day; it's a contemporary term. It's also inaccurate. No one today applies "enforcer" to anyone who can actually play hockey -- the likes of Keith Tkaczuk or Bill Guerin, stars who can fight -- it's exclusively used for goons.  RGTraynor  16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
True, before the Flyers of the 70's players mostly looked after themselves. However, this reliable source [4] gives Gordie Howe an honorable mention on it's list of all-time top enforcers. So I don't think I'm too far off. I personally don't think the "goon" tag should be applied to Howe though. My post above was just an attempt to explain why he might have been added by another editor, and I think the text in the article "As well, some skilled players, such as legends Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard and current NHL all-star Jarome Iginla, occasionally fight and can function effectively as their own enforcer. is fairly accurate. --Quartet 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ESPN may be reliable, but i wouldn't count them as authoritative on the topic, since they're based in a country where hockey ranks lower than high school football (maybe not literally, but you get the idea...) i REALLY think this line should be removed or amended "For example, in the late 1950s, Gordie Howe helped establish himself as an enforcer by defeating Lou Fontinato, a notable enforcer who tallied over 1,200 penalty minutes in his career." he's definitely NOT an enforcer. if skilled players who fight are suddenly enforcers, you're going to have to add many more players to the list of enforcers. heck... even mario lemieux has fought before.--JChing 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ESPN is not authoritative? Sorry, I can't agree with you there. While their hockey coverage is not as in-depth as say TSN's is in Canada, it's still fairly accurate and up-to-date. Guys like E.J. Hradek, John Buccigross and Scott Burnside are not slouches when it comes to covering hockey and knowing it's history, and I'd pay more attention to their work more than guys like Nick Kypreos, Ian Mendes and some of the other writers on the Canadian station Sportsnet. Also, I don't think Quartet is labeling Howe as an enforcer the same way you'd call Andrew Peters one. I've heard many times that along with Terrible Ted Lindsay, Howe was considered one of the dirtiest and most physical players of his era. In my mind the true enforcer is more a deterrent than a fighter and I think the tag "Goon" is too liberally exchanged with that of an "Enforcer". They're not the same thing.
I think the line you're quoting JChing, could be more accurate for Howe if we change it to "Gordie Howe helped establish himself as an intimidating physical presence" or something along those lines, rather than actually using the overused "enforcer" label. However because it is verifiable (a source has listed Howe as an enforcer), all sides of the story here are valid. Lastly, keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Agree with what they say or not, ESPN is a reliable source.
By the way Quartet, the text you quote is not in this article, it's in the Enforcer (hockey) article.--Yankees76 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The flip side to that, however, is that we are not required to include every piece of material just because someone, somewhere, says so in an op-ed blog on an ostensibly reliable source.  RGTraynor  04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I must have been reading the wrong article while editing here. I like the proposed change above. --Quartet 06:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree with RGTraynor. just because a reliable source prints something, doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion. especially since the article cited was an opinon piece. wikipedia's verifiability policy is NOT a replacement for good judgement, is it? if every opinion from an established publication were to be put on wikipedia, just about every player in the NHL would hold the title of best playmaker, best scorer, best goaltender, etc... --JChing (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not an individual editors "good judgement" (or POV) on the validity of an already well-established reliable source, it's verifiability - please review WP:V. Additionally, all articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. We're not talking about "best" anything here. We're looking to support two sentences that discuss Howe using fighting to establish himself as an enforcer to give himself more room on the ice. Please re-read the sentences in question. Howe was his own enforcer during his career. Lesser skilled "tough guy" players did not take liberties with Howe because they knew he would pay them back and drop the gloves with them if needed. One could even say that early in his career Howe was 5'11, 170 pound center Sid Abel's enforcer.
As a side note, here's another source that talks about Howe being his "own enforcer"[5], and another that ranks Howe as the best fighter in the history of the game - the list includes numerous enforcers listed in the ESPN article.[6]. Then there's Stan Fischler's book Ultimate Bad Boys, which features Howe along with Tiger Williams, Marty McSorley, John Ferguson and numerous other "enforcers" from the ESPN list. As you can see, this not a novel concept brought about by one "opinion piece" on ESPN. In the context of the material presented, there are more than enough sources to verify it. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)