By Ben Goodman ’16, Sports Editor

Picture this: a National Hockey League game is about to begin at the renowned Madison Square Garden in New York City, between the hosting Rangers and the New Jersey Devils, but right before the puck drop initiates the start of the contest, chaos ensues. As if choreographed and pre-planned, six of the ten players on the ice swerve and meet their counterparts of the opposing team, and just like that, three simultaneous fights begin. Punches are thrown rapid-fire as the burly men grapple in close combat, while the bench players bang their hockey sticks in support and the crowd roars its approval. Welcome to another wild night in the NHL.

On March 19, 2012, this really happened. It ended with a handful of the standard “five-minute major” penalties for the offenders, but after that, the game went along like nothing had happened, which might be surprising to fans of almost any other major sport. For example, the infamous 2004 “Malice at the Palace” NBA brawl caused several multi-game, and even a yearlong, suspensions, but in the NHL, fighting is simply commonplace; in fact, 31% of games this season have included a fight, and the league is on pace to have 446 fights by the end of the season (http://www.hockeyfights.com/stats/.) This aspect of hockey has actually existed since the sport’s fledgling 19^th century days and has evolved to the point of the NHL’s acknowledging and legitimizing it through rules of engagement and guidelines for referees to mediate the fights (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26336.)

Predictably, there exists plenty of detractors of fighting, as well as others who passionately maintain that it is here to stay in hockey. Much of the argument revolves around the potential, or lack thereof, of injuries in these fights. A rallying point for anti-fighting came when blossoming college player Connor McDavid broke his hand in an on-ice fight, a setback which was good for none, but hockey fan Alec Rubman ’16 reasons that eliminating fighting would not halt these injuries. “That same broken hand could come from blocking a shot (i.e. during actual gameplay,) and besides, without fighting, players’ natural aggression could bleed further into the real game, which is far more dangerous,” he stated, while also commenting that banning fighting would alienate legions of loyal fans. “If the NHL ‘sells out,’” he warned, “the backlash would be immense and the league would lose TV, merchandise, and attendance revenue. We must remind ourselves, however, that not all fans can be spoken for for supporting fighting. Malika Reddy ’16 enjoys hockey but finds hypocrisy in those condoning the brawls. “How can we at Newark Academy, who are taught to pinpoint and address physical violence as toxic and wrong, turn around and condone it when it happens on a hockey rink?” she asked.

So far, there have been few indications that the NHL will dramatically change its policy toward fighting anytime soon, which might leave critics vexed, but the league has implemented some small alterations to which Anthony Giachin ’17 alluded, “I like that there is an ‘instigating’ penalty (charged to the player who starts the fight only) so no players are forced to fight if they do not want to,” he said, adding, “With those provisions in mind, I see no reason why the popular tradition of fighting should not be still part of the game.” This debate can seem perpetual, since the physical rawness of fighting will always entertain some and repulse others. Yet, we must wonder if, as the only remaining sport that has not settled this dilemma by coming down hard on intentional violence, hockey’s love affair with fighting is doomed to end sooner or later.