The Impact of the Instigator Rule on Fighting in the National Hockey League.


Journal

Translational sports medicine
ISSN: 2573-8488
Titre abrégé: Transl Sports Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101734315

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 15 12 2021
revised: 02 02 2022
accepted: 07 02 2022
medline: 27 2 2022
pubmed: 27 2 2022
entrez: 24 4 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Fighting is often considered an essential part of professional hockey. Increased ticket sales, a means to self-regulate other dangerous gameplay, and helping teams win are a few of the reasons that fighting advocates provide for retaining fighting in the NHL. However, fighting trends have changed over the past 50 years. Given the recent data on concussions and player safety, an in-depth analysis of fighting is required to understand if fighting has a place in the future of the NHL. Seasonal statistical team data on NHL teams from the 1967 to 2019 seasons were collected and analyzed using publicly available databases. Specific outcome variables of interest related to fighting, penalties, the final team record for a given season, and final standing were recorded. The data were divided into subgroups according to "era of play" and before/after the implementation of the instigator rule. The trends in fighting, seasonal outcomes, and other minor penalties were assessed to determine the trends in fighting over the past 50 years, the relationship between fighting and winning, and the impact of the instigator rule. Fights per game decreased significantly after the implementation of the instigator rule (0.71 to 0.51 fights per game, Our analysis demonstrates that the Instigator rule achieved its intended effect to decrease the number of fights per game. In the current era of professional hockey, there is no compelling evidence that a team with more fights per game will achieve greater seasonal success. These results continue to cast doubt on the belief that fighting is a necessary strategy for winning games at the NHL level.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Fighting is often considered an essential part of professional hockey. Increased ticket sales, a means to self-regulate other dangerous gameplay, and helping teams win are a few of the reasons that fighting advocates provide for retaining fighting in the NHL. However, fighting trends have changed over the past 50 years. Given the recent data on concussions and player safety, an in-depth analysis of fighting is required to understand if fighting has a place in the future of the NHL.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Seasonal statistical team data on NHL teams from the 1967 to 2019 seasons were collected and analyzed using publicly available databases. Specific outcome variables of interest related to fighting, penalties, the final team record for a given season, and final standing were recorded. The data were divided into subgroups according to "era of play" and before/after the implementation of the instigator rule. The trends in fighting, seasonal outcomes, and other minor penalties were assessed to determine the trends in fighting over the past 50 years, the relationship between fighting and winning, and the impact of the instigator rule.
Results UNASSIGNED
Fights per game decreased significantly after the implementation of the instigator rule (0.71 to 0.51 fights per game,
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Our analysis demonstrates that the Instigator rule achieved its intended effect to decrease the number of fights per game. In the current era of professional hockey, there is no compelling evidence that a team with more fights per game will achieve greater seasonal success. These results continue to cast doubt on the belief that fighting is a necessary strategy for winning games at the NHL level.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38655169
doi: 10.1155/2022/7024766
pmc: PMC11022766
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

7024766

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Cole Morrissette et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Références

Curr Sports Med Rep. 2019 Jan;18(1):23-34
pubmed: 30624332
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015 Mar-Apr;14(2):135-44
pubmed: 25757010
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2019 Jan;18(1):35-40
pubmed: 30624333
Inj Prev. 2014 Oct;20(5):347-9
pubmed: 24446078
Percept Mot Skills. 1995 Apr;80(2):416-8
pubmed: 7675572
Sports Health. 2013 Sep;5(5):458-62
pubmed: 24427418
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2011 Jul;10(4):241-7
pubmed: 23531900
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 17;8(7):e69122
pubmed: 23874888
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Apr;49(8):547-51
pubmed: 23766438

Auteurs

Cole Morrissette (C)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Forrest L Anderson (FL)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Thomas A Fortney (TA)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Liana Tedesco (L)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Venkat Boddapati (V)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Hasani Swindell (H)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

David Trofa (D)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Charles A Popkin (CA)

Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.

Classifications MeSH