A) It is total BS and the people who run the sport know it. Team owners in the U.S. realize attendance would crater without it. B) I have sipped the Kool Aid and buy the argument that it is a necessary safety valve that reduces nasty and dangerous stick infractions. Yes, I realize this means I believe that the referees are incapable of controlling games. C) Why doesn't anyone ever note that there isn't fighting in Olympic hockey and college hockey? D) I don't mind the rare spontaneous bout. But these enforcer vs. enforcer charades are ludicrous. E) It's why I am not tempted to take the sport seriously. F) So players in other contact sports are able to control their emotions and hockey players aren't? G) I can live with it on the NHL level, where it is declining. But the spectacle of children striking each other in the face is why I don't go to Spokane Chiefs games. H) I'm sorry that it often defines the sport in the minds of non-fans and detracts from appreciation of what gifted athletes these players are. I) If you have ever been to a game in person and noticed how excited the crowd got during a fight, you probably have an idea why the people who run the sport are inclined to keep coming up with rationalizations for keeping it in the game. J) If it's not a farcical sideshow, how come it virtually disappears during the Stanley Cup playoffs? K) What's hockey? L) Other.
The online home for Paul Turner's musings and interactions with disciples of The Slice.