There isn’t really competing theories. The reason why its done is very well known, and others have stated it: fighting provides immediate consequences to players that break the moral code of the game.
Whether its a good thing or not is debatable, for sure though. I’d personally argue that if there was a better policy to achieve the same results, we would use it, and fighting actually has gone down as a result of high definition cameras recording more of the games. Players get away with less bad actions and there are less fights.
Well two mutually incompatible claims, then. And I just don’t really believe in either one. Most hockey leagues don’t have fighting and there’s no more bad behaviour. It seems to be mainly a North American thing
I’m supposed to just assume you are right about the “no more bad behavior” part?
Perhaps american sports incentivize immoral play and cheating simply by paying athletes more, and so fighting has emerged to counter this. Hard to say, we aren’t able to measure fightings impact on the game in a useful way.
1 it isn’t completely harmless, but the chances of getting a lasting injury are vanishingly small
2 just because the chances of being injured are low, doesn’t mean getting punched in the face doesn’t hurt
3 in a (mostly) consequence free environment, getting punched in the face can be considered a reasonable punishment.
You said they did way more violent stuff during the game and all the fighting does is tire them out.
I feel like the reasoning of both “it’s harmless” and “it keeps people in line” don’t both work at the same time…
No I didn’t?
Sorry, mistook you for the person above. Anyway, seems like there’s two competing theories, in addition to it being just popular with the audience.
There isn’t really competing theories. The reason why its done is very well known, and others have stated it: fighting provides immediate consequences to players that break the moral code of the game.
Whether its a good thing or not is debatable, for sure though. I’d personally argue that if there was a better policy to achieve the same results, we would use it, and fighting actually has gone down as a result of high definition cameras recording more of the games. Players get away with less bad actions and there are less fights.
Well two mutually incompatible claims, then. And I just don’t really believe in either one. Most hockey leagues don’t have fighting and there’s no more bad behaviour. It seems to be mainly a North American thing
I’m supposed to just assume you are right about the “no more bad behavior” part?
Perhaps american sports incentivize immoral play and cheating simply by paying athletes more, and so fighting has emerged to counter this. Hard to say, we aren’t able to measure fightings impact on the game in a useful way.
I mean it is statistically that way. You can search it or wait for me to get home and give you the link. Either works for me.