In rebuttal to the argument that fighting is unsafe, this category of people argues that fighting actually prevents dangerous plays like spearing, charging, high-sticking, and slashing to name a few. Through fighting, enforcers protect star players from being injured or from taking cheap shots from the opposition. For example, knowing that a player like Dave Semenko would be ready to fight kept opposing players from taking liberties against the Edmonton Oilers’ superstar Wayne Gretzky, one of the best players in NHL history. Not having to worry about being targeted, Gretzky was able to effectively play his game, and, in turn, help the Oilers win games and Stanley Cups (Nardi, 2011). This side of that argument would say that fighting is not brutal, unjustified, or impulsive, but rather unites teammates, responds to and prevents violence, and is for protection. In addition, they would mention that not only are fights not impulsive, but that they are actually calculated, and, according to Goldschmied and Espindola in their 2013 article “’I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out’: is professional hockey fighting calculated or impulsive?” players keep records of previous altercations and do not look specifically at individual games. People who take a pro-fighting stance may also raise two questions. The first question, …show more content…
An individual’s opinion on whether hockey fights should be banned or not essentially depends on which perspective he or she looks at the issue from. Looking at it from an anti-fighting standpoint, a pro-fighting standpoint, an executive standpoint, a player standpoint, or a statistical standpoint, will provide many unique situations and understandings. To The one thing that is known, however, is that fighting is a part of the game, and, right or wrong, it may not be easy to