Hockey is а physiсаl, an intense sport thаt оftеn involves players engaging in fights during games. The question of whether fighting should be аllowеd in hockey hаs been а tорic of debate for yeаrs. On the one hand, supporters argue thаt fighting is аn integral part of the game, while on the othеr hand, сritiсs believe thаt it promotes violence and puts players аt risk of serious injury. In this criticаl report, we will explore the idea of allowing fighting in hockey through three different exаmple: the National Hockey League (NНL), the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), and the Southern Professional Hockey League (SPHL). Thеsе thrее exаmple provides us with а range of perspectives and approaches tо regulating fighting in hockey. By examining this example, we cаn gain а dееpеr understanding of the complexities of the debate surrounding fighting in hockey and how different governing bodies hаve approached this issue. Through examining these examples, we cаn gain insight intо the different perspectives and approaches tо regulating fighting in hockey. The decision of whether tо аllow fighting in hockey will depend on а range of fасtоrs, including player safety, fan enjoyment, and cultural traditions of the sport.
National Hockey League (NHL)
The NHL’s longstanding history of allowing players to fight during games is essential to be considered in the aspect of the tradition and culture of the game. Some argue that since fighting has been part of the game for so long, it should be maintained, while others believe that tradition should not be used to justify unpleasant or dangerous activities. Hockey’s battling tradition is a major proponent. Fighting is promoted as a technique of policing the game and keeping order on the ice. It is believed that allowing players to fight may deter more serious hostility and prevent unsafe conduct like taking cheap shots and other forms of indecent behaviors (Alikpala, 2022). Fighting in hockey may inhibit harmful behavior by making players afraid of retaliation. Hockey-fighting opponents believe this. But, opponents of hockey content this interpretation of tradition by arguing that it is wrong. They say that just because something is old and part of the game does not mean it is good or justified. They claim that the NHL must prioritize player safety over cultural preservation to fulfill its duty. Physical combat to maintain game order has also been questioned. Opponents point out that the NHL can suspend or penalize players for unsafe or irresponsible activity. The NHL may be inciting violence and putting players at risk by using fighting as enforcement. Therefore, tradition and cultural significance may be essential when discussing the National Hockey League’s tradition of allowing fighting in games. Still, they should not be used to justify re-establishing a potentially destructive or dangerous activity (Alikpala, 2022). The NHL must prioritize player health and safety and determine if allowing fights during games is in the sport’s and players’ best interests.
The longstanding issue of the NHL’s allowing fights during the game can also be examined through the issue of player safety. Hockey fighting proponents contend that it protects players and deters more severe types of violence on the ice. Hockey fighting proponents contend that allowing players to fight might serve as a deterrent to stop risky moves and careless shots that could cause serious harm. The belief is that if players know that they could have to answer for their actions with a fight, they will be less likely to engage in dangerous behavior. Some people also contend that fighting can reduce the chance of player injuries in hockey (Alikpala, 2022). They contend that enabling controlled fights will deter more harmful acts of violence, including cheap shots, high sticks, and other reckless behavior. Allowing players to settle their conflicts through physical combat can stop these occurrences from getting out of hand, possibly resulting in more serious injuries.
Hockey-fighting opponents counter that this understanding of player protection is flawed. They contend that allowing fighting in hockey encourages a violent culture and puts players at risk for serious injury. Fighting can result in brain injuries, fractured bones, and other major injuries that can have long-term impacts on players’ health and well-being, even while it may deter some forms of violence. However, critics counter that alternative approaches to player protection on the ice exist other than physical conflict. The NHL has implemented regulations and penalties, such as fines and suspensions, to discourage risky plays and cheap shots. The NHL may be placing players at greater risk by relying on fighting as a form of player protection and failing to address the underlying causes that cause risky behavior on the ice. Therefore, although supporters of hockey fighting contend that it acts as a sort of player protection, this viewpoint is not widely shared. Fighting, according to detractors, encourages a culture of violence and puts players in danger of serious harm. The NHL has to evaluate other options for player safety on the ice and whether or not allowing fighting in games is genuinely in the players’ best interests regarding protection and well-being.
Moreover, when reviewing the NHL’s history of allowing fighting in games, it’s important to consider how entertaining it is for spectators. Fighting is an essential component of the game for many spectators and can enhance the excitement of the game. Hockey fighting proponents contend it adds an exciting element of toughness to the game. They think that fans like the adrenaline rush that comes with the anticipation of a fight starting. The excitement of the game can be increased by certain supporters who view fighting as a means for players to display their bravery and persistence. Supporters of hockey fighting also claim that it can foster a sense of solidarity and brotherhood among spectators. They contend that watching a fight together can foster a sense of solidarity and connection among spectators, enhancing the game’s enjoyment. Yet, some who are against fighting in hockey contend that the entertainment value it offers is not worth the dangers involved. They contend that any entertainment value that fighting may have is outweighed by the risk of severe harm and the encouragement of a violent culture.
Furthermore, critics contend that there are alternative approaches to increasing the game’s excitement and audience appeal without violence. More goals have scored more exciting plays as a result of the NHL’s recent efforts to speed up and improve the game’s skill. The NHL can deliver a more enjoyable product without relying on fighting as a show by emphasizing these game elements. Therefore, while some hockey fans may see fighting as a significant component of the sport’s entertainment value, detractors contend that the hazards are not worth it. The NHL should look into other options to increase fan enjoyment and excitement without using fighting as a show. Ultimately, athletes’ safety and well-being should come first, even if it means forgoing some of the entertainment value that fighting may offer.
The final aspect to consider under this category is the role of the enforcer in allowing fighting in hockey. Players that are known as enforcers are those who will get into physical fights for the sake of their team. They are usually bigger, tougher players whose job is to protect their teammates from injury and stop opponents from making cheap shots. Many contend that enforcers are crucial in maintaining order on the ice and ensuring that the game is played fairly. The enforcer position and the justification for allowing fighting in hockey, however, have several issues.
First and foremost, playing the enforcer position during confrontations frequently leads to players getting injured, sometimes severely. In addition to endangering the players, this sends a negative message to young spectators and aspiring hockey players. Additionally, it is unfair to assume that fighting is necessary to safeguard players. Laws and penalties are already in place to deter risky hits and cheap shots. In recent years, the NHL has also implemented rules for injuries and tougher penalties for head blows to improve player safety and lower the risk of injury.
As a result, even if the enforcer’s role may have been regarded as vital in the past, it is becoming evident that it is no longer necessary in modern hockey. Injury hazards and the message they convey to young players and spectators outweigh any alleged advantages by a wide margin. Hockey fighting should be outlawed, and the NHL should endeavor to make the game safer and more pleasant for everyone.
IIHF, which has a strict no-fighting policy
The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) has a no-fighting rule that has been in effect for many years and is highly regarded by players, coaches, and fans. There are several reasons why the policy has made the game safer and more pleasant for all participating. First, fewer injuries have occurred on the ice because of the IIHF’s rule on fighting. Fighting frequently results in severe injuries, such as concussions, fractured bones, and other traumatic wounds. The IIHF has made it safer for all participants to play by banning fighting from the game. Second, the rule has aided in encouraging a more controlled and artistic kind of play. Players are encouraged to concentrate on honing their skating, passing, and shooting skills, which results in a more exciting and dynamic game when fighting is not a threat. Fans prefer watching competent players make great moves. Therefore this style of play is more fascinating to them than watching players get into physical altercations. Thirdly, the IIHF’s no-fighting rule fosters an environment of courtesy and sportsmanship on the ice. Participants are urged to concentrate on the game itself rather than using force or intimidation to win. Players can concentrate on playing to the best of their abilities without being distracted by physical altercations, which makes the event more pleasurable for everyone involved.
Moreover, The International Ice Hockey Federation’s (IIHF) no-fighting policy has yet to hurt hockey, even though some say it’s essential. It has improved play by emphasizing speed, ability, and teamwork rather than physicality and aggressiveness. The no-fighting policy has emphasized skill and technique on the ice. Players can focus on skating, passing, and scoring without fighting. This has created a faster, more creative, and team-oriented style of play. The no-fighting rule has also improved game discipline and respect. Fighting no longer settles conflicts or intimidates opponents. On the ice, players must use their abilities and plan. This has reduced risk-taking, making the game safer for everyone (International Ice Hockey Federation. 2022). No-fighting has also improved game culture. Sportsmanship and respect replace physicality and aggression. Players are urged to respect their opponents and compete fairly. The IIHF’s no-fighting policy has yet to hurt hockey. Instead, it has fostered a faster, more disciplined, and team-oriented style of play. The guideline has also improved on-ice sportsmanship, making the game safer and more entertaining for players and fans.
Additionally. players, coaches, and fans have all welcomed the International Ice Hockey Federation’s (IIHF) no-fighting policy, which has been in effect for many years. The rule has contributed to everyone’s safety and enjoyment of the game. Fewer injuries have occurred on the ice due to the no-fighting rule is one of its main advantages (Hockey Tutorial. 2022). Fighting is an unpredictable and risky pastime that can result in fatalities, concussions, crushed bones, and other severe injuries. The IIHF has made hockey safer for participants at all levels by outlawing fighting in a competition. The no-fighting rule has also encouraged a more entertaining and stimulating style of play. Players can concentrate more on their talents and tactics without the interruption of fighting, which makes for a more dynamic and desperate game. Instead of being distracted by the sight of fights, spectators may enjoy watching talented players display their abilities (International Ice Hockey Federation. 2022). The prohibition against fighting has also enhanced the sport’s reputation. Hockey’s continuous use of fighting can turn off prospective viewers and sponsors because it is frequently seen as a brutal and outmoded component of the sport. The IIHF has improved hockey’s attractiveness and accessibility to a wider audience by outlawing fighting.
Lastly, IIHF is that fighting in hockey sends a negative message to young fans and players, who can be tempted to act out themselves after seeing it. Fights normalize a culture of hostility and violence, which has real-world repercussions. Junior hockey players who watch fighting may view it as a normal means of settling disputes. This can have serious consequences, including harm to physical health, a reduction in sportsmanship, and an adverse effect on emotional and psychological well-being (International Ice Hockey Federation. 2022). Nonetheless, the IIHF’s no-fighting policy promotes respect and sportsmanship, ensuring the game’s long-term health. The policy promotes talent, strategy, and teamwork above aggression and violence, helping young players develop their skills and love of the game. Sportsmanship and respect in hockey are invaluable. These ideas are essential for young players and the sport. Players learn conflict resolution, communication, and collaboration by following the IIHF’s no-fighting rules. Finally, fighting sends a negative message to young hockey fans and players, who need respect and sportsmanship. The IIHF’s no-fighting policy helps young players learn and fall in love with the sport.
Southern Professional Hockey League (SPHL)
Allowing fighting in hockey raises serious legal and ethical considerations for the SPHL. While the organization may impose disciplinary action on players who engage in fights, this does not negate that violence is allowed and even encouraged in a sport. This sends a dangerous message to young players and fans, who may view fighting as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts on and off the ice (Rhee, Chung & Pearson, 2021). Furthermore, the SPHL could face legal issues if a player is seriously injured due to a fight. While players do assume some level of risk when participating in contact sports, the allowance of fighting could be seen as a reckless disregard for the safety of players. This could open SPHL up to legal liability and damage its reputation. From an ethical perspective, allowing fighting in a sport conveys that violence and aggression are acceptable ways to resolve conflicts (Andrew et al., 2009). This is particularly concerning in a youth sport setting, where players are still developing their understanding of right and wrong behavior. Allowing fighting could lead to a culture of violence and aggression that extends beyond the rink and into other areas of life. Therefore, the SPHL should consider the legal and ethical implications of allowing fighting in hockey and explore alternative ways to promote player safety and sportsmanship.
Another critical point to consider when discussing the SPHL’s policy on fighting is the potential for serious injury to players. While the SPHL imposes disciplinary action on players who engage in fights, this may not be enough to prevent serious injuries such as concussions, broken bones, or other physical harm (SportDigest. 2016). Allowing fighting in hockey puts players at risk and sends a message that violence is acceptable in sports, which could have negative consequences beyond the rink. Additionally, evidence suggests that repeated head trauma from fighting and other violent incidents on the ice can lead to long-term health problems for players, such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).
Allowing fighting in hockey can have significant negative consequences for players’ mental health. According to research, players who fight are more likely to experience mental health problems like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Eminian, 2017). Fighting can be physically violent and aggressive, causing psychological distress and long-lasting trauma. When assessing their fighting policy, the SPHL should consider these elements. Regulation may help some players refrain from fighting, but it might not be sufficient to stop the harmful impacts of fighting on mental health. Increased punishments for aggressive behavior and the promotion of non-violent conflict resolution are two alternate approaches the SPHL should consider for fostering player safety and sportsmanship.
Conclusion
In conclusion, whether hockey fighting should be allowed is complicated, involving tradition, safety, ethics, and player mental health. The NHL has been chastised for maintaining a culture of violence. In contrast, the IIHF’s rigorous no-fighting regulation has been praised for promoting a safer and more sportsmanlike environment on the rink. The SPHL’s policy, which allows fighting but applies disciplinary action, is an attempt to combine the violent aspect of the sport with the requirement for player safety and sportsmanship. After reviewing each organization’s policy and ramifications, it’s apparent that allowing fighting in hockey can harm players’ safety, mental health, and culture. The NHL’s fighting policy has been debated for years, and the organization should weigh the pros and disadvantages of permitting fighting. The IIHF’s no-fighting policy encourages respect and sportsmanship, which are vital to the game’s survival. The SPHL’s disciplinary action may dissuade fights but may not address the possible detrimental effects of allowing fighting in hockey. Each organization must decide what policies are best for its players and the sport. But, all hockey stakeholders must weigh the risks of allowing fighting and prioritize player safety.
References
Alikpala, G. (2022, June 25). Why do they fight in the NHL and what are The Unwritten Rules of fighting in hockey? https://en.as.com/other_sports/why-do-they-fight-in-the-nhl-and-what-are-the-unwritten-rules-of-fighting-in-hockey-n/
Hockey Tutorial. (2022, October 20). Why is fighting allowed in ice hockey games – NHL players fight explained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL3IqBSjpKg
International Ice Hockey Federation. (2022, July). IIHF International Ice Hockey Federation. om https://blob.iihf.com/iihf-media/iihfmvc/media/downloads/rule%20book/220721_iihf_rulebook_v22.pdf
SportDigest. (2016, October 03). Fighting in hockey: Ethical and legal considerations. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from http://thesportdigest.com/2016/02/fighting-in-hockey-ethical-and-legal-considerations/
Eminian, D. (2017, March 25). Fighting down, league discipline rises, and SPHL image soars. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://www.pjstar.com/story/sports/nhl/2017/03/25/fighting-down-league-discipline-rises/12066471007/
Rhee, Y. C., Chung, J., & Pearson, A. (2021). Perception of Hockey Violence on Prospective Customers: An Experimental Approach. International Journal of Human Movement Science, 15(2), 25-39.
Andrew, D. P., Koo, G. Y., Hardin, R., & Greenwell, T. C. (2009). Analysing motives of minor league hockey fans: the introduction of violence as a spectator motive. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 5(1-2), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMM.2009.021751
write