THREE FIGHTS IN NINE SECONDS!

Most any hockey fan knows what the above is in reference to. But for those who may have forgotten, it’s how the first matchup between Team USA and Team Canada began at The Four Nations Tournament last February. Tensions were running high thanks to the geopolitical issues between the United States and Canada. Plus, these two teams have a rather long and storied rivalry when it comes to the game of ice hockey. So, while the spectacle was perhaps unexpected, it fit in the grand scheme of things. 

The rematch, several days later, in the tournament’s championship game, did not dissolve into the type of chaos that caused the rest of the sports world to stop what it was doing and take notice. But that wasn’t an issue as the title game thrilled audiences everywhere like very few hockey matches ever have. 

However, with Four Nations serving as a sort of prequel to the Olympics, it did get people talking. And one of those talking points was the question about whether or not fighting should be allowed at the Olympic Games. You see, the Olympics are played under IIHF rules, not NHL rules, and fighting is strictly prohibited during the international tournament. 

In fact, even though hockey is, at its very nature, a physical sport, the “extra physicality” that permeates through NHL games is also not permitted during the Olympics, as the “best-on-best” competition prefers to showcase the speed and skill of the game rather than its brutality. 

Now, the IIHF’s stance has both its merits and detractions. On the one hand, doing away with fighting is something that many hockey leagues have either attempted or done. Even The NHL is no longer the wild west it once was. Far from it, in fact. On the other hand, without fighting, players are left to address certain on-ice actions in other ways and those alternative methods of standing up for yourself or your team can and usually do lead to more problems. 

So, with the Olympics around the corner, Blittner’s Blue Line reached out to a number of past and present NHL players, executives, scouts, coaches, agents and on-ice officials to get their take on whether or not fighting and the physicality standards of The NHL should be allowed at the Olympics. 

In the interest of allowing everyone to speak freely, each person was allowed to either anonymously comment or put their name to their words. 

Blittner’s Blue Line received responses from roughly 20 of the people who were contacted. And while some declined to provide an answer (for various reasons), 14 went along to give their wide array of thoughts on the matter. 

Our experts on this matter are: Neil Smith, Mark Howe, Bernie Nicholls, Kevin Maxwell, Doug MacLean, Eddie Lack, Terry Yake, Paul Stewart, Paul Vincent, Drew Shore, Paul Woods, Scott McWilliam, one anonymous former NHL Head Coach and one anonymous current NHL Scout. 

To get things started, our two anonymous commentators both stated that fighting should be allowed at the Olympics and they were joined in that sentiment by three of our former players (Lack, Yake and Shore) and one of our former executives (MacLean). (We’ll get into their reasons momentarily).

On the other side of the argument are Smith (who currently co-hosts the NHL Wraparound Podcast with Vic Morren), Howe, Nicholls, Maxwell, Stewart and Vincent, who each feel (for reasons we’ll get into shortly) that The IIHF currently has it right by not allowing fighting. 

That leaves us with two experts who did not give a firm yes or no, but did at least lean one way or the other. 

McWilliam stated, “I’d love to see a more physical game in the Winter Olympics.” However, he also had a valid concern about the matter, saying via text message, “My number one fear is that the Olympic officiating would be unable to control the games…(It) would definitely help the Canadians, the Americans and the Finns (as well as the TV viewing audiences)…European officials are invariably weaker and often struggle to control games…The zero-tolerance rule for fighting causes far more illegal stick work and cheap shots behind the play, but that is the price with this rule…It’s a shame. But I can’t wait for this tournament in February!”

That just leaves Woods, who had the following to say, “As far as the Olympics, I think it will be a great tournament. When it gets down to a one-game knockout, anything can happen. No, it will not be like the Four Nations Tournament, but these players can adjust quickly. There will be North American officials involved and that will help Canada and the United States. The smaller (shorter) ice surface should also favor Canada and the United States. The wider surface should help the other teams as they are much more used to playing on it, but it goes back to that one-game knockout, which gives every team a chance to win, like 1980, (with the) American team against the Russians. (It’s) going to be a battle.”

As McWilliam said, the level of physicality displayed at Four Nations certainly helped the tournament’s television ratings and would surely do so for the Olympics too. But, as Woods points out, the Olympics are not Four Nations, so the players do need to adjust. Besides, Four Nations was a one-time thing; it’s most likely not something that will ever be replicated. 

However, as Eddie Lack said, “I think, after what we saw at Four Nations, it should be allowed. It just brings more to the game in terms of emotions and feeling for the game.”

It’s hard to argue with Lack’s point. There’s no denying that the fights brought more emotion out of the games. On the other hand, fighting can sometimes become a crutch for players and teams when they are unable to shift momentum in their favor by other means. 

“I was a physical player,” Maxwell said via phone call. “But I don’t think there should be fighting in the Olympics. The Olympics are for the most skilled athletes…It’s gonna be difficult this year because the ice is gonna be more NHL-sized, but when I played in the Olympics, it’s very hard to be physical when the ice is that big. You have to trap…You miss your hit and it’s five on four going the other way and you’re in trouble…If either North American team isn’t careful with their physicality, they’ll be chasing the game.”

An excellent point! This year, the ice was supposed to be exactly the same dimensions as it is in The NHL, but due to some “miscommunications,” it won’t be. The ice will be a little shorter and a drop wider. Therefore, it will be much more difficult for teams to focus on physicality, because, as Maxwell said, “you miss your hit and it’s five on four going the other way.”

To back up Maxwell’s assertion about play style, here’s what Paul Vincent, a decorated skills coach, had to say: “Our game of hockey is a complex game where we have to have the ability to skate on small, thin blades of steel with the ability to move a 3“x1“ disc around the ice. The ability to pass, skate and stick handle, if done right, is like watching an artist paint an incredible picture of a landscape of many beautiful things…By adapting the elements of fighting, it may take away from some of this. 

“The Swedish game is more finesse, passing, moving, creating triangles with great scoring opportunities. With the US and Canada, their skill level is or can be the same, with an added element of grinding and hard work…I feel like fighting for the Olympics should not be part of it. I want the artistry of great passing, great stickhandling, great skating and goaltending. I don’t think we should have fighting in the Olympics. That’s the bottom line for me.” 

It’s not easy to argue with a coach of Vincent’s status and yet, our anonymous former NHL Head Coach said via text, “I believe the physical play standards should be exactly the same as The NHL, because the majority of players presently play in the NHL. In the past, there were different officiating standards around the world; therefore, the IIHF had to implement common standards for the Olympic Games.” 

Now that we’ve heard from a couple of coaches, let’s kick this thing upstairs to a couple of former executives. 

“Although I enjoy NHL hockey and totally understand the dynamics, Olympic competition should be different than regular games played in the NHL,” explained Neil Smith of The NHL Wraparound Podcast. Fighting is strictly prohibited in the Olympics and I think this should remain the case. There are 12 nations competing in this year’s men’s Olympic hockey competition. Not all countries have a majority of NHL players; Canada, the United States, Sweden and Finland do. 

“There are eight other countries with fewer NHL players. If the Olympics adopt the same rules as The NHL, the tournament might as well be an NHL tournament, much like the Four Nations Faceoff. The Olympics should stand apart from The NHL and offer hockey fans a different view of how international hockey is played, thereby allowing more countries to compete.”

A very understandable point made by the former General Manager and current podcast co-host. But, as we’re about to see, not all former executives think that way. 

As Doug MacLean succinctly put it, “I would like it (the Olympics) played by the same rules as The Four Nations (Tournament).” 

Drew Shore certainly agrees with MacLean, stating, “I believe the standard of physicality should mirror that of an NHL game. Representing your country is the greatest honor in all of sports and therefore, I think the players should be able to play as hard as they can in order to win.”

Every player should play hard, whether fighting is allowed or not. But when fighting is allowed, at least you know there are repercussions when you get out of line. When there’s no fighting allowed, things can get quite nasty.

“My feelings are that there has always been physical play in the Olympics, just no fighting,” said Hall of Famer Mark Howe. “The games are also ‘chippier’ because of that fact. More ‘dirty plays’ like spearing and kicking, etc. More mental discipline is required, especially with officiating that often seems lopsided or shows favoritism. The Olympics have been around a long time and players who adapt the best have the most success. 

“One of the most vicious hockey games I ever saw played was in the ‘72 Olympics that Robbie Ftorek took me to. The Czechs versus The Soviets. Not long after the invasion of Prague by the Soviets. The stick work was fierce. Even the Czech goalie was doing his best Ron Hextall impression as he broke a few goalie sticks while chopping players who came near his crease. I don’t think there is the hatred amongst players/countries like there used to be with so many of the athletes playing on the same teams in the NHL nowadays. 

“I would let The NHL do it their way and the Olympics do it their way. I would be more concerned about the officiating consistency, more so than whether fighting should be allowed or not. Good referees can ‘control/take charge’ of how the game will be played. Set the parameters of how the game will be played and the players will adjust accordingly.”

It’s true that officiating can be a problem if the standards for calls aren’t consistent. However, fierce stick work can be just as dangerous, or even more problematic, than fighting if it gets out of hand. 

As our anonymous scout weighed in, “I think physicality is very important in the game and (it’s) important to not change the game for certain tournaments. Fighting is a critical part of our game as well. (I) think it is a good way to protect our players from dangerous hits and reckless plays. But I can understand why the Olympics may not want that.”

Fighting may be important, but if it isn’t genuinely needed in the moment, then there’s no reason for it to happen. 

“The only reason there was fighting at the Four Nations is because Canada didn’t have any fighters playing,” Bernie Nicholls explained. “For the Olympics, we will probably have Tom Wilson and if Tom Wilson played in the Four Nations, there wouldn’t have been any fights. The only reason there was fighting there is because it was staged by the Tkachuk brothers. They fought the two smallest guys Canada had on their team. Big joke. If Tom Wilson was there, neither one of them would’ve fought.”

“Basically, hockey at the Olympics should be no different than hockey in The NHL, other than you’re not allowed to fight,” Nicholls continued. “For the most part, there would not be fighting anyway because, normally, it’s the best, most skilled players for each Country who would be playing in the Olympics. You would still have the physicality as normal because, basically, most of the players playing in the Olympics would be coming from The NHL and that’s part of the game in the NHL; being physical.”

We’re starting to sense a theme among these answers. Essentially, it all boils down to whether or not The NHL and Olympic Games should have the same standards or if having different styles is the right way to go. So, let’s hear from a player who spent plenty of time experiencing both ways of playing the game.

“I’ve played the game under both NHL and European rules, including international competition,” said Terry Yake. “My opinion on fighting and physicality in hockey comes from firsthand experience, not theory. Whether someone believes fighting belongs in hockey or not, it doesn’t change an important reality: the game is safer for players when fighting is allowed. 

“I was never someone who looked to fight. For my own health and longevity, I avoided it whenever possible. But knowing that fighting existed as a consequence forced everyone – including me – to play the game honestly. When there are no immediate or pending consequences for malicious or predatory behavior, the game actually becomes more dangerous, especially for the players who handle the puck the most. 

“Hockey is played with a weapon in your hands. A stick can – and often does – cause far more damage than a non-staged, consequence-driven tussle between two willing combatants. When players know there is accountability for reckless or malicious actions, they think twice before taking liberties. When that accountability disappears, stick work increases, cheap shots rise and injuries follow. 

“Olympic and international hockey showcases incredible skill, speed and structure, but it also removes an important deterrent. The absence of fighting doesn’t eliminate violence; it shifts it into more dangerous forms. High sticks, slashes, and blind-side plays don’t carry the same immediate response and that puts skilled players at greater risk. 

“You can debate whether fans enjoy fighting or not. Crowd reaction suggests many still respect the bravery and willingness of two players standing up for themselves or their teammates. But fan preference isn’t the core issue. Player safety is. 

“What I don’t want to see – ever – is reckless stick swinging or intent to injure. That’s bad for everyone. Ironically, allowing fighting reduces that behavior. Accountability matters. Consequences matter. And from my experience, the presence of fighting doesn’t make the game more dangerous – it makes it more honest.”

Well said there by Yake. So many people get caught up in the “ugliness” of fighting that they fail to look at the bigger picture, the one where it actually helps prevent “dirty plays.” Of course, former players would know that much better than those who watch the game and aren’t playing it. 

While it is nearly impossible to argue Yake’s points, we do have one last expert to call on and he’s a former Referee who just so happens to be a member of the United States Hockey Hall of Fame, Paul Stewart. And by the way, since we talked so much about officiating the game to keep it safe, Stewart is also the perfect person to share his thoughts on this matter.

“The Olympics are a different set of rules and circumstances, and they have their own governing body,” Stewart explained. “So the fact is, they’re very much on the line of college hockey, which doesn’t allow fighting. And the fact of the matter is that we’re playing on a different type of rink. There are so many different aspects to the Olympic game that, to equate it to The NHL and paint it with a brush that says fighting is allowed when you can’t fight when you’re in Russia, and you can’t fight when you’re in Switzerland or Finland or Sweden (or any of the other countries who are sending teams). They don’t allow fighting. So what’s the purpose of having the Olympic venue under the Olympic flag if we make it stamped with the NHL?”

“The Olympics are supposed to be a different type of hockey,” Stewart continued. “The aspects of what The NHL game today has (become, has) been heavily favored and flavored by what the Olympics were. Everybody wanted a cleaner game. Go right down to New York and talk to Gary Bettman. That’s all it is. That’s why we have the instigator rule. Distance traveled, first punch, all of these different rules that are specific to The NHL. 

“But what was the purpose of doing all of that? It was to tone down the violence so that the average person in Tulsa, Oklahoma, or Fort Worth, Texas could understand that we don’t allow fighting, or The NHL is trying to make this a game more palatable for all those folks who abhor violence.

“Basically, what we’re talking about is the Olympic Games and that’s a purified style of hockey. I can go right down the list, but all it comes down to is that now you’re trying to change the can of paint. And the paint isn’t the Olympics, it’s The NHL. So, if The NHL wants to take over the Olympics, that’s fine, but in my estimation, play the game under the rules that it’s been deemed as, which is an Olympic venue.”

And there you have it. We heard 14 arguments regarding whether or not fighting should be allowed at the Olympics and guess what? We had six experts say that it should be allowed, six who said it shouldn’t be and two who were caught in the middle. Seems about right, after all, there’s nothing like a good hockey debate. Just remember, don’t drop your gloves unless you know you’re allowed to.