Since the terrible death of Don Sanderson of the Whitby Dunlops after a fight in an Ontario Sr. League game last month, the debate has raged. Should fighting be banned from the National Hockey League.
Almost everyone who has never played a game of hockey at an elite level said yes to a newspaper poll to ban fighting last week. Most of those who have played the game at a high level either shrugged or said, “No chance.”
The reason why there is no chance? Because there is no one anywhere who can officiate any game of any kind properly at any time. And as long as that remains the case — and it will forever — in a high-speed collision sport with hard plastic protective gear and sticks that can be used as weapons, fighting will be a necessary evil.
After the lockout of 2004-05, the NHL handed down a series of rule adjustments that were designed to usher in “the new NHL.” For about a year, the officials did their utmost to maintain the integrity of those rule adjustments (they weren’t really rule changes because the rules were already spelled out clearly in the NHL rule book), but by the 2006-07 season, fighting had become widespread once again — and fighters had become important members of every contending team. In fact, in 2007, the Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks led the NHL in fighting majors. If you fight, you protect your skilled players and you win.
Fact is, fighting had become necessary again because the officials had stopped calling most of the penalties they were told to call after the lockout. Sadly, the incredible whining from NHL beat writers and TV commentators about the number of power plays and the length of the games, convinced the league and the officials that “managing” not “officiating” hockey games was a better way to go.
So after a year of cracking down on hooking, holding and interference, the league virtually stopped altogether. Hooking, holding, slashing, high-sticking and hitting-from-behind became common-place once again and with officials only calling penalties on occasion, it was up to the likes of Colton Orr, Donald Brashear, Georges Laracque and big Derek Boogaard to take the law into their own hands — hockey vigilantes, for lack of a better term.
During Sunday’s Pittsburgh-Rangers game on NBC, the officiating could not have been more arbitrary. Chris Drury gets cross-checked in the back in front of the net, no penalty. Chris Drury gets cross-checked in the back in front of the net — again — no penalty. Sidney Crosby gets hooked less than a stride past Scott Gomez, Crosby gets a penalty shot (which was comical since Crosby wasn’t as far into the open as Montreal’s Guillaume Latendresse was in a 4-4 tie against Ottawa on Saturday night and yet Latendresse didn’t get a penalty shot). What is a penalty and what isn’t?
Let’s not be patronizing. There are no rules in the NHL. I mean there is a rule book, but the rule book is all but ignored. So without rules there has to be fighting. If the officials can’t call the game, somebody has to stand up for the smaller, skilled players. If it isn’t the league, it has to be the enforcers-in-uniform. Until the game is officiated properly — which will NEVER happen — there has to be fighting.
* * *
By the way, it was great to have the mute button on the remote control between periods on Sunday.
Pierre McGuire asked Mike Milbury, “What’s wrong with the Pittsburgh Penguins?” MUTE!!!! If Milbury had any idea what was wrong with a hockey team, he would not have single-handedly destroyed the New York Islanders’ franchise.
If that team moves to Kansas City as some predict, it will be Milbury’s fault. He has no right telling hockey fans what’s good or bad about any team. He is the Matt Millen of the NHL.