Reddit reviews The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL

I'm bummed I didn't see this topic earlier. I've given a couple of speeches in college about this subject. About the only thing I can add to the discussion is the Fighting in Ice Hockey Wiki page and the well put together book called The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL. There is a LOT more honor and respect in fighting than one would think.

Oh man, there are so many dimensions to fights I'm not sure where to start.

It's everything from intimidation, to players themselves policing the games. As funny as it sounds - fights actually ensure safer games and lesser injuries. How? If you know the 1.90m. 100kg. enforcer is on the ice, you will think twice about making a bad check or roughing up the star player that "goon" was put on the ice to protect.

Another important aspect is momentum and flow. If your team is down, if the fans are not really in the game and not giving that extra edge and push to their team, a fight actually riles up the whole building and sometimes even contributes to changing the pace up for your team and getting them all fired up and hungry.

There is actually a lot going on behind the scenes which casual observers of the game do not understand or notice about the fights. There is an unwritten "code" between all the enforcers and baring some very intense rivalries, most of them actually look out for one another and while the main purpose of a fight is to rough up the opposing fighter, it is never to injure them. There are tonnes of respect between enforcers and they know that for them, its just a job and its never personal, it's all about honor - your teams and your own.

In short - yes, the game (NHL Specifically) would change drastically if fights were outright banned as they are in, lets say, the Olympics.

This is a very interesting aspect of the sport and I could go on and on, but I would rather give you a straight up answer and highly recommend this book if you have further interest in researching the subject.

I guess the big two rules to know would be icing and offsides

Icing is when an offensive player sends the puck into the offensive zone from the far side of the center ice line. If the puck then crosses the red line in the offensive zone (the goal line, but not in the net) and a defensive player gets to one of the face off dots in that end, it is icing. Sort hard to explain so I hope that makes sense.

Offsides is when a member of the offensive team crosses the blue line into the offensive zone before the puck does. So basically the puck has to be in the offensive zone before any other offensive players can cross the blue line.

Now for fights... There pretty much an unwritten code about that. If you're really interested in the topic, I highly recommend the book The Code. Essentially fighting is a way for players to police the game themselves if necessary. Say if a player takes a cheap shot, you might have a fight to send a message to the other team. Also might be used to try to swing the momentum in a game if a team gets down a few early. Every now and then, theres a cheap shot one game, but it will be a few games later between the teams that everything boils over into a huge fight or sometimes even a line brawl.

Tonight was a great game. Hope you liked what you saw . NBCSN has games on pretty much every night if you want to watch more!

Further Reading: http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Unwritten-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561/

If you'd like to read some more, here's a great book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Unwritten-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561

For Orr: Establish physical dominance over the rink, gain momentum for your team, send a message to the other team, avenge his last defeat.

recommended reading

The Code

Sorry for the late reply. It is very hard to work, watch hockey and reddit.

Here is a great book if you can get your hands on it:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Code-Unwritten-Rules-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561

If you cannot be bothered reading, CBC did a documentary on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwe6LgsPn-A

Basically, fighting is an important part of hockey. There is an unwritten code that surrounds it. Although it is complex, it is a vital part of the sport.

Totally... what a little bitch. If you get called out.. you square off, drop the gloves and go for it.

This isn't 'Nam.. there are RULES:

http://www.amazon.com/Code-Unwritten-Rules-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561

>I'm bummed I didn't see this topic earlier. I've given a couple of speeches in college about this subject. About the only thing I can add to the discussion is the Fighting in Ice Hockey Wiki page and the well put together book called The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL. There is a LOT more honor and respect in fighting than one would think.



>The short answer: Hockey's approach to fighting is to let the combatants unload all of their aggression on each other at once - as opposed to having it draw out for entire game in potentially more dangerous forms such as: head shots, boarding, spearing, clipping, etc..

I won't provide the long answer but it has to do with the speed of the game, adrenaline, the presence of sticks, and the roles of enforcers and super stars.



>Everyone's hitting the right notes, but in order to really get a hold of why fighting is allowed in hockey, you have to consider that protecting star players is of utmost importance, as the opposing team can get away with a lot of cheap shots.

>Case in point: When Gretzky played for the Kings, the opposing teams players used to come after him all game long. So the Kings got Marty McSorley (Big Fighter) on board. Any time a player would go after Gretzky for a few shifts, or cheap shot him, McSorley would get on the ice and fight him. This was to send a message that there is a price to pay for picking on important players.

>Nowadays, fighting is still around, but much less than before because referees are a lot more strict in enforcing penalties. Nonetheless, it is still allowed. Nowadays, perhaps, also for entertainment purposes.

>EDIT: There is also another reaason, which is basically when you see a team start fights late in the game. Often times it is the captain who starts a brawl late in the game when his team is down. This is to get the team pumped up, and to have them realize it's time to step their game up!

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n29u5/eli5_why_are_hockey_fights_allowed_to_happen_but/

Hockey has just as many unwritten rules. It's called "The Code". http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Unwritten-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561

A book written about this in Hockey.

And one for Baseball.

The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL
Ross Bernstein

http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Unwritten-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561

The Code

It's there to keep both teams honest. A two minute penalty can be "well worth it" (Mighty Ducks, anyone?) for taking a cheap shot if you're completely protected from retaliation. I'd highly recommend The Code by Ross Bernstein for some interesting reading.

As far as getting out of hand, all-out brawling has been reined in a bit since the famous fights of the 1970s. You can't be a third man into a fight, and if two players are already fighting, anyone who gets into a subsequent fight is automatically ejected from the game.

You're right, using examples of when "The Code," is ridiculous isn't intelligent to do because it makes "The Code," look bad. We can go on with other examples? Ray Emery? Chris Simon? Trevor Gillies? Marty McSorley?

It's not "boiling down," "The Code," is the definition (ridiculous and murky as it may be,) of how fighting works in the NHL. Read Ross Bernstein's book about the many different ways fighting attempts to define itself within the realms of the game. "The Code," is exactly what this is about. And, "The Code," is garbage.

The funniest thing about all of this? Brooks Orpik has fought to "answer to his hits," before. Including "answering," to his arguably dirtiest hit when he injured Erik Cole. As Orpik has gotten older he has fought less because he doesn't and shouldn't have to. You know who else delivered huge body checks, fought a lot early in his career, but then did it less as he got older? Scott Stevens. This is all ridiculous though, as "getting punched in the face," hasn't been a deterrent to anything since the modern rules were put into place. But, hey, if you think the way fighting worked in the 70s with bench clearing brawls not having any extra consequence, go for it. Fighting is dying, just like stick fighting died before it. I just hope a player doesn't have to die fighting before it stops. Though, with the deaths of men like Wade Belak, Rick Rypien, and Derek Boogaard, perhaps people already have died because of fighting. Don Sanderson dying because his head smashed off the ice during a fight in the OHL is "just part of the game," too I guess.


The ridiculous logic of Sanderson's death is, instead of banning fighting, we'll just make sure players keep their helmets on when they bare knuckle box. It'd be hilarious if this rule didn't exist because someone DIED.

And, for the record, if you're going to give a snide, looking down your nose, remark about someone not understanding, at least use proper grammar while trying to act above someone.

Not true. If there truly was a "code" then you wouldn't have the McSorley incident or the Bertuzzi incident where players who declined to fight were still hunted down and assaulted. There is little to no fighting in other sports. There is little to no fighting in the playoffs because the consequences are so high. Since the NHL has tightened up the rules and made stiffer penalties, there are fewer fights. The only reason you had fighting was because the fans liked it. That is changing, thankfully. If you would like to learn more, this is a good book on fighting in hockey (https://www.amazon.com/Code-Unwritten-Rules-Fighting-Retaliation/dp/1572437561)