Accomodating Fighting On The Playing Field

Hockey or Ice Hockey( as it is known in the wider world)has a huge following in US. Despite the recent problems it has experienced in falling television ratings because of a labor dispute a couple of years back, stadium attendances are as strong as they have ever been. From my personal experience, I can tell you that getting a ticket for a Ducks game is as( or probably more) difficult as one for the Lakers game.

There is one unique aspect of this sport which I find fascinating. Fighting between players, to some extent, is legal in hockey. What you need to do if some player from the opposing team pissed you off is throw away your stick and start punching him in the face. This would incur a five minute penalty in which you have to sit out...seems like a pretty mild punishment for rowdy behavior? Well, a lot of people don't think so. One of my colleague is the head referee for Ohio State and according to him, such fights minimize the damage!! Think what would happen if you really want to take out your anger and start beating up someone with your hockey stick. That would be sure shot disaster with permanent injuries. Instead of that, the rules accommodate human behavior( which is you get angry on the field) by providing you a way to vent your anger without causing massive damage. Frankly, I never understood why these fights are allowed but I somehow tend to agree with the philosophy that went into this rule. And really, it works and that is all that should matter.

When I think about field hockey in India, I also remember fights that would break out between teams when the hockey stick would be used conveniently as the weapon of choice. That doesn't happen in hockey in America and that should be some empirical evidence in support of this rule.

Please don't tell me that you are thinking that this guy who made the rules to begin with was some conservative who was seeking to be grounded in reality....or probably HE WAS.