Sometimes I can't articulate the argument well enough. I was reading some comments on Damien Cox's blog, "The Spin," and stumbled upon a fantastic posting. Here it is:
"I never had a problem with fighting in hockey and used to cheer a good donnybrook as much as the next guy. Then, I became a dad and took my 3 year old son to a Jr. B game. When a fight broke out, he became very quiet and concerned and asked me why they were hitting each other. I didn't have a good answer.
"Try justifying violence against another individual to a child - you simply can't. I know that there are nuances to the game in its current incarnation that support compelling arguments for why it's necessary to protect one's teammates by dropping the gloves, but surely the rules can be enforced in a manner that make fighting unnecessary. Certainly, seeing a hockey fight occur through the eyes of a small child changed my perspective.
Hockey is an absolutely great game, and would still be so if fighting was banned outright."
The author's name is James and that's just about all the credit I can give. Can you disagree with him? I would be interested to see someone even try. His story is clear example of why fighting is stupid. Inappropriate behaviour doesn't have a place in a sport that children typically play and watch. The NHL has to choose whether it's a top-4 professional sports league, or a pay-per-view fighting league like MMA. The half time fighting show needs to end now.