you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 9 months ago (8 children)

I'm pretty sure that the basic answer is that the audience likes to see fights.

That's why the punishment for fighting is relatively small. If the league gave severe punishments for fighting, players would be forced to stop fighting.

Because the punishment is relatively small, players are more likely to start a fight. When players are in the middle of fighting, it is more dangerous for a referee to interfere, so they let them fight until they find a less dangerous moment to break it up.

That is why referees let the players fight.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    IIHF and European leagues banned fighting a long time ago because there's no audience for it outside north America.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    You’ve missed out on “great” stuff like the time every semi-pro player on the ice threw gloves down and started brawling before the first puck drop of the game, due to an old rivalry that likely had nothing to do with any of the players on the teams.

    The penalty boxes didn’t even have standing room. Glorious because of how silly it was.

    I’d be fine with fighting dying off, as I’m sure it makes some kids not want to play who otherwise would, but at least a lot of the pro stuff does stop the fights these days, so we are getting there..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    counterpoint: I think we ought to introduce fights into baseball.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I think we can go farther... fights in tennis? Cricket? Cutting? Golf?

    Actually that last one would be pretty good if we kept the same whispering announcers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments