Re: "Violence in hockey":


There’s a simple reason why unwarranted violence is allowed in hockey games — strategic defence.


In the military, it’s intended to make the enemy incapable of making war.


When applied to hockey, if a not-so-good team seriously injuries one or more good players on the opposing team, whether accidental or intentional, it gives that team a strategic advantage.


That’s why some players are called enforcers. Hockey has simply made injury through violence an integral part of the game and if all teams do it, then it becomes acceptable.

Yes, it’s a sad, pathetic way to win a hockey game but, essentially, that’s what it’s become — win at all costs and image in the history books be damned.

Public apologies, fines, game suspensions and/or anger-management therapy comes after the fact. The damage is already done.

It really comes down to changing the attitudes of not just the players but the managers and owners.

So here’s my solution — have the winning team forfeit its win if it caused serious injury through unwarranted violence. If the team didn’t win, it would have to forfeit any subsequent win. This would force it to think twice before using that strategy.