Enforcers fighting losing battle
David Branch has been commissioner of the Ontario Hockey League for more than 30 years and president of the entire Canadian Hockey League for a decade-and-a-half. Known as a disciplinarian, he’s levelled stiff sentences over that time for highsticking, sucker punches and hits to the head. Now, the OHL is among those looking at curbing fighting. Branch sat down with the Star during the recent OHL Cup Showcase Tournament at Mississauga’s Hershey Centre to discuss the topic. While he said no final decisions have been made, there’s been plenty of discussions among league officials and the hope is changes will be in place next season.
Q: Do you believe that fighting is a necessary part of junior hockey?
A: “First of all, it’s a very interesting question. I do not believe we need fighting as a mechanism to sell our game. I believe that we’ve evolved away from that as being one of the entertainment factors of our game. I believe with the evolution of our league, better coaching, better training, better athletes, the pure skill and competitive nature of our game and the excitement our players bring, stands alone as an ability to sell our game. There always has been and always will be an element that likes fighting but it’s not what we feel is a necessary force to keep fighting in our game.”
Q: Is your goal more to get rid of fighters rather than fights?
A: “One of the focus areas is how do we remove the one-dimensional player, the player who just obviously doesn’t have the necessary skill to play the game. His only real attribute is to fight.”
Q: Does that mean limiting the number of fights a guy can have in a season before facing a suspension?
A: “That is on the table as a concept because the one thing that we have seen — not on a regular basis but from time to time — is a player will come into our league, largely onedimensional but will leave it as someone who has developed or evolved as a player. So, we know it happens and there’s a lot of things to take into consideration but that is one of the target areas.”
Q: Do you look at the experience in other leagues — the NCAA, for example, where fighting earns you a game misconduct plus a one-game ban on first offence — and try to bring it to yours, or are you going it alone?
A: “No matter what industry you’re in, no matter what you do in life, you can’t operate in a vacuum. We draw upon the adage R&D— research and duplicate. You learn from others. There are other leagues, other experiences. You learn from the players, you learn from the coaches, you learn from the scouts. There are so many resources to draw upon. And then, you just put them all through the filter and see what best serves your needs.”
Q: How concerned are you that by doing away with fighting you would do away with a policing element to the game, that the “rats” would take over?
A: “I do believe that to a certain extent there is the law of the jungle. And, I think you want to make sure that that is never lost. But you can also suggest that the laws of the jungle can be administered within the rules. You can argue today that a ‘rat’ hides behind the enforcer on his team. So, I don’t subscribe to the notion that all of sudden you’re going to have all these brave souls, ‘rats,’ emerging. But I do believe players have to understand that there has to be accountability, not just from league-administered steps but from within the culture themselves.”
Q: Are you targeting a situation where a guy throws a good, clean bodycheck but has to drop the gloves because someone comes after him?
A: “It’s an area that certainly has been brought up. It’s an area that’s probably not far behind the overall issue of how we find solutions to the issue of fighting. It’s also very challenging and problematic. There’s got to be a different way to respond to a clean bodycheck than just dropping your gloves. We recognize that and it’s something on the agenda.”
Q: Has the NHL ever asked you to slow down on this initiative of curbing fighting because they feel they’ll be put on the spot, forced to do the same?
A: “No. I feel uncomfortable sometimes because the NHL gets positioned in what they do in relation to what we’re doing. And, I really honestly believe the NHL plays the game like no other league in the world. It’s the best hockey players in the world. They’re paid professionals. That our game should mirror their game entirely, I think, is not appropriate. It’s no different than thinking somehow that novice hockey should mirror the NHL.” But I can tell you that anytime we talk
“I do not believe we need fighting as a mechanism to sell our game.” DAVID BRANCH OHL COMMISSIONER
to the NHL about player development it’s always about skill — Steven Stamkos and John Tavares and Patrick Kane and Jeff Skinner. Never once in my time have they said: ‘Gee, you’re not producing enough tough guys.’ Never. I’m not involved in NHL affairs but I think at the end of the day what sells their game is no different than us — the speed and the skill.”
Q: What’s motivating this discussion on banning fighting?
A: “Clearly it’s around safety, concern for head injuries. I qualify that by saying fighting is not on the leading edge of the concerns over concussions but it is a factor. And it’s for that reason we’re challenging in other areas on how we can best move forward for the benefit of our athletes. We’ve created a video for our players on what a concussion is, what the symptoms are, the importance of reporting them, because we really believe it’s important we look at educating our players. What I sense from the players is that there’s concern among them too about head injuries, from the standpoint of being able to pursue and follow their dream and being able to live a normal life. I believe that at all levels of the game there is a genuine understanding, feel, desire to find some answers. It’s for that reason, I’m really optimistic that in the near future we’re going to take further steps, collectively, to address the issue of head injuries. We’re evolving.”