n the 1970’s, enforcers were a large part of NHL teams’ success. Rules were not strictly followed so these designated ‘tough guys’ were signed on to teams to disincentivize dirty play from opposing players. The aggressive play of enforcers resulted in a slower paced game, but teams would draw less penalties after an intervention by one of these physical skaters.
In the league today, fighting is an outdated practice. The rules have changed and improved to make player safety a priority. With strict rules and officiating and the implementation of video replay teams no longer need a designated fighter to stop pests. With rule changes in the last ten to fifteen years there is simply no longer a need for players to risk head injury, their careers,
…show more content…
“There is the argument that removing fighting would make the NHL less safe, the notion that without the frozen frontier justice provided by enforcers, dirty players would take head shots and cheap shots with impunity (Boston Globe).” Referees also oversee fights supposedly regulating and making them safer for players involved.
Statistics from the NHL website have indicated that fights have been declining as teams have transitioned over to a more skilled game as opposed to a physical style of play. Fighting has also been shown as detrimental to players’ health, putting them at a higher risk for injuries, particularly to the head. Since 1980, teams in the top three for fighting have only finished at the top of the league ten times out of a possible 34.
The number of designated enforcers has declined as a result of a greater awareness of the risks of head trauma. The summer of 2011 hit the league hard with the news that three former enforcers had suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy and committed suicide, and another, Derek Boogaard, had been found to suffer from C.T.E. at age 28, in the prime of his career. Many people, former enforcers included, have sinced backed the elimination of fighting from