|
|
Violence In Hockey With the increase in society taking a stance against violence, the sport of hockey has become an area where some feel that violent acts such as checking, fighting, and overall body contact occur too frequently and should be eliminated. Lately, NHL officials have lowered toleration to these acts, by issuing heftier fines and suspensions, but not enough to make a huge difference. Many fear that this violence is negatively affecting the youth of America and is contradicting the teachings of good sportsmanship that is encouraged by today’s amateur coaches. However, players, and most people close to the game, are in opposition of these feelings and believe that violence is a vital part of the sport and its history. So I pose the question: Should violence in Hockey be banished? My feeling is NO. Before thinking about the obvious pros and cons of violence in hockey, think about what it would be like to be in the skates of a fighter in hockey. The six-theory method designed by John Schneider, is designed help explain how a fighter might feel and what choices he has to make. According to Mr. Schneider, the reasons that so much violence is occurring in sports is due to these six theories: "The violence in sport mirrors violence found in society, violence occurring as the result of economic incentives, the influence of crowd behavior on player violence, genetic causation for player aggression, and psychological stress and player violence" (Lapchick 230). Of Schneider’s six theories, I feel that three are important in explaining my research. They are: the theories of sport mirroring society, violence as a result of economic incentive, and the influence of the crowd behavior. The first theory, the theory of sport mirroring society, explains that the same reactions of everyday humans to certain situations is very similar to how a hockey player would react to a similar situation in a game. Most people when involved in a highly stressful situation where violence is around would probably resort to a fight to resolve their differences. In sport, why should we expect any different. In events such as hockey games, where people are expected to hit and make body contact all game long, sooner or later some type of altercation or disagreement is bound to take place. Like anything, if people are being pushed around and called names etc. it is only a matter of time before the opposition gets into their heads and retaliation is expected. In hockey especially, economic incentive plays a big role in the violence level. There are some players whose only role on a team is to protect and enforce the unwritten rules of the game: such as taking a cheap shot at a teams best player, or running into another teams goalie etc. When dirty acts by the other team take place, a “fighter” is immediately summoned by the coach to go out onto the ice and take care of business. If a fighter chooses not to fight, he will be unemployed. A fighter can also receive a bonus in pay if his teams star player stays injury free (Staudohar 116). In most cases though, fighters are often being bounced around the league, but if you are a known tough guy, you will always have a job in hockey. The third theory, the influence of crowd behavior, plays a smaller role than the proceeding two theories, but nonetheless, is often a factor in violence promotion. Like most people, when being applauding for a certain act, we will try to repeat it. In hockey the concept is no different. When the home team is taking a beating from the other team, the fans know what’s coming. They cheer and chant for the fighter to be put into the game, and when he gets his job done, he is rewarded by the fans.
|
