"I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.¨ When many hear this they imagine the gruel, unforgiving, fights you find on the internet. But that's not the case, fighting in Pro hockey is Ethical and should stay in the game. This is because it cannot be removed for safety reasons, the players don't want it banned, and all players do take into consideration circumstances and make a calculated decision.
First, fighting has had a long history in the game and if it were to be removed, havoc would break out. It's a simple fact when you leave a bunch of players moving up and down the ice with high circumstances, heat is going to rise. And players need to stand up for their team. Chicago Tribune Article ¨Why is fighting vanishing
…show more content…
Why stop something that isn't your problem? If 98 percent of players want to fight and find it essential to the game, why would you take it away? If the players want it in the game it should stay. This is supported by Gregg Wyshynski who interviewed numerous NHL players and put together that Due to his recordings, ¨98% of NHL players surveyed in 2012 said they do not want to ban fighting in hockey. Fighting is an essential part of the professional game, and it is governed by the NHL rulebook.¨ (Greg Wyshynski, 2012). Continued with, ¨NHL enforcers get tired both during the game and as the season progresses, given the extreme physical toll that fighting bouts assert on the participants (the players need to maintain balance on ice while pummeling their rival for a duration of approximately half a minute), they become physically exhausted and thus less motivated to engage. As a case in point, it is considered unfair according to “the code” to initiate a fight with a rival who is at the end of his on-ice shift, as if acknowledging that the player is tremendously tired and not in prime shape to scuffle.¨ (Greg Wyshynski, 2012). 98% is not a small number and shows that players rely on fighting to keep a team going. Even concerning my first point, if they use words like Sacrifice and, are still ok with it just shows the importance it has to the game counter-argument meant some may have is that of course the players want to fight, it's their game …show more content…
Players take into consideration many different factors when considering fighting. Per the National Library of Science, ¨Before engaging in fighting behavior, players assess the utility of their actions and thus will fight less when the game is on the line (third period) and when champions are crowned (postseason). The converging evidence suggests that players take into account the penalties associated with fighting and are less likely to engage in violence when the stakes are high, such as at the end of a game or a season. This implies, in turn, that major acts of aggression in the league are more likely to be calculated rather than impulsive.¨ (National Library of Science, 2013). This evidence shows players think before they fight. To add on, during the postseason fights go down significantly, ¨The findings provide strong convergent evidence that NHL players certainly consider the time when deciding to engage in fighting. They are significantly more likely to fight early in the game and in the preseason rather than at times when the score is most meaningful, namely, when the game is close to the end of regulation or during the postseason. In fact, NHL players are least likely to fight during the eventual Stanley Cup Finals championship series. In the 10 years covered, a fight erupted on average only in 1 of every 8 games (percentage of fights occurring over the number of games played).¨ (National Library of Science, 2013). This evidence shows