I'm not offended by hyperbole in the least... just pointing out that when it's so over-the-top, as in "attempted decapitation," it greatly weakens subsequent rationale/argument.

IMNSHumbleO, the friggin' culture you should be railing against is that unfettered running off at the mouth is acceptable.  To my mind it makes no diff .... on the rink, or away from the rink.   I don't think bearing down and running off at the mouth are mutually exclusive. 

From the broken record dept: "Some endorse running off at the mouth. I don't. YMMV."  .

Thanks for alerting/reminding me that cross checks, butt ends and spearing are penalties ... dunno where I've been this past 60+ years.  From some previously presented logic (?) so long as both teams are consenting adults, [and have equal opportunity ??] there should be no problem with either gaining any real advantage ... it all evens out, so what a coach "wants" is irrelevant.

You acknowledge that, "... taunting/trash talk makes for more pugilistic shenanigans... " and then promote/justify/accept running off at the mouth by both teams.  [i.e. It's not good, so let's have both teams do it.]   Should that start at pee-wee level too?

I understand that other sports have come up with other ways to deal with yappy as wholes ... I just happen to like a system where the yappy dude occasionally has to stand up for himself.

both teams, yeah, it’s gonna happen,, like I said if it’s between consenting adults,, do I like it ? (which isn’t quite what I meant by endorse),, No, but since it’s prevalent so be it. Look, it’s still a physical game - if a guy/rat runs off at the mouth constantly you can line him up for Leo Boivin hip-check,, or a bone-crushing Scott Stevens- type open ice shoulder check. Again, use the rat’s mouthing to energize your play - the best payback is skating off the ice after 60 minutes with a win. When the mouthing-off quits working , or works to a disadvantage, it’ll stop. But the culture right now is mired in violence as a payback.

On one hand you accept something [running off at the mouth] on the basis of it being prevalent ... how come that same logic doesn't apply to the prevalent "mired in violence"?  I don't find "being prevalent" particularly convincing.

If both teams are energized by running off at the mouth, why not just restrict the running off at the mouth to each team "energizing" itself in its own dressing room?  The coach can energize 'em with his schpiel, then the team leaders can further energize them, and then the rat (?) can top it off with even more energy.

When you say "violence as payback," I ask, payback for what?   

I’ll accept that mouthing-off is going to happen , whether I like it or not,, I but won’t accept the prevalent violence in hockey as being desirable, and I’d rather see that more egregious element in the game outlawed.
The running off at the mouth is more effective at energizing/motivating opponents when handed out by the other team,, less so in the dressing room with teammates. When kids grow up knowing fighting is unacceptable and not cool, it’ll end as they ascend the ladder into the pros. And if the rats keep mouthing off nobody’s gonna listen, or it’ll backfire with hefty body checks or filling the net.
As far as payback by skating off the ice with a win,, it’s payback for the mouthing off from the other team.

You said "... violence as payback."  Where is the violence in "skating off with a win"?   

So from the broken record department: "... violence as payback for what?"

Some have said in this forum that the NHL determines the style of play in minor hockey... so will fighting end as players move up the ranks?  Will minor hockey determine the style of play in the NHL?

If running off at the mouth was frowned upon on the ice, why couldn't specialists be developed/trained that would be more effective than the opposing team's specialist?   [My goalie's better'n your goalie!  So what??... my running-off-at the mouth guy can out-energize yours without even working up a sweat!   ]

I meant violence now is a payback for running of at the mouth.
I think kids can be taught as peewees and up that fighting is not part of the ganme,, a coach can inform them of why it takes place in the NHL and that it’s not the best way to play a sport, etc.
your last question will have to remain unanswered….. ever notice that I rarely ask questions but you seem to bombard me with them? (don’t answer that,, it’s optional)

Yes, I've noticed that. I just chalk it up to one person trying to clarify things and t'other figuring he already has all the info [and answers] he wants.  [Hint from the unsolicited advice dept.: Answering my questions in a direct and forthright manner would take 'w-a-y less time/effort  than whatever your non-answers are intended to accomplish .... don't you think?  ... Just proof-read that last question in for "effect."  ]

Why separate fighting out from any of ther other infractions you alerted me to a couple of posts ^^ ?  Simply have them learn that none of it is part of the game.  And 'w-a-y better yet, teach them that running off at the mouth  shouldn't be part of the game. Since roatm is at best an unsavory part of the game and it undoubtedly leads to pugilistic shenanigans, why not reduce the result by reducing the cause?  What is your suggestion for curbing roatm? [And, fwiw, "prevalence" is a load of crap.]  

Violence is payback for roatm??  If only!!!   I assume you mean payback with stickwork, elbows, slew-foots/feet/?? ... all that stuff that's kept in check by being subject to penalties, and will get grandfathered in by being prevalent??   .... BUT NO FIGHTING!!!.   

Bombard??  More over the top hyperbole??  << that's a legitimate part of "everyday conversation," but asking questions isn't??  Oh-k-a-y.

Edit: Some stats on "mired in violence" here: https://thehockeynews.com/news/when-tempers-flare-nhl-fighting-rate-increased-through-the-first-quarter-of-2023-24

…crickets…

Crickets?? You mean these crickets??   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JadsEEXNnmE   

Crickets….
youtu.be/iL5oeiLv4aY?si=if4-hQcLhzhDH7fp

Well, since we owe DC/MD some ink, here’s his “long-awaited” reaction/response to the flagrant defiance of “the code”.
facebook.com/story.php?story_f...887788836

oh, and btw ...

sportskeeda.com/us/nhl/news-gl...dly-greig

and a predictable response from a guy who wouldn't be in the league except for violence...

Defiance of the code???  What I saw was the code being upheld ..... Greig violates the code and takes one in the side of the head for his efforts.  Only thing to see here* is that Reilly used a "technique" worthy of a two game suspension, rather than giving R.G. a glove-on punch in the face.

* = not quite "nothing to see here folks," but 98% molehill > mountain.

P.S. Sorry about those three ??? ^^.

P.P.S    Re. "... ever notice that I rarely ask questions but you seem to bombard me with them?"   ... ever notice that I usually answer questions but you rarely** do?  [Ooops, sorry 'bout < "?"]  

** = I think that on 2 or maybe 3 occasions you've answered questions I've asked about banjo technique. Mare-see-bow-koo [again].

I was saying Greig was in defiance of “the code” , not Rielly.
btw, I don’t recall ever avoiding questions about banjo technique, either in personal emails with you or online here on BHO. If I’ve overlooked some please point them out,, I’m pretty diligent about those. Others on the DC/MD forum are too numerous and get too tiresome to answer,, I think I’ll retreat to my bunker now….

One of the main ways I have to sort things out so I can internalize them is by asking questions [and hopefully  getting relevant, succinct answers].   

I dunno which is more noteworthy ... that you don't pooh-pooh them away re. banjo technique*, or that you do for a lot of other "stuff," or that mocking/ridicule is your go-to technique for my position on several social "issues." 

* = which I acknowledged in the previous post.

P.S. How do you know they're tiresome to answer?.... you've never even made an attempt.  

Oh c’mon now, if I answered half of’em I’d need a knap. I get it’s probably a residual from your teaching days,, but even Mrs.Lindsay, my long-suffering high school English teacher, refrained from “bombarding” us with too many questions.
btw, my cutsie put-downs/mockery/ridicule falls under the trash-talking/gamesmanship category,,, it also keeps the thread alive (invites retaliation) and attracts other BHO lurkers,, all good to keep the numbers up so Eric can send his kids to college.

Attracts lurkers??? [<< sorry, once again.]  For some time I've been thinking my participation probably detracts from the thread and maybe even drives people away, and have considered reigning it in .... or even going so far as, "Ah, **** it." ... [i.e. it = the whole thread ... find a different time-waster].

And fwiw, I see continuous* cutsie put-downs/mockery/ridicule more as running off at the mouth than gamesmanship ... but to each his own.

* = Would Mrs. Lindsay label them as continuous or continual?  

Edit: Skip, I dunno whether the "age" designation would stand up to scrutiny.   Fwiw, I haven't heard of any older players giving a  to gang rape .... but that doesn't mean it ain't so.

Seems to me that Rielly got lucky, under the current "mores" of the game. He got five games.

See: https://www.nhl.com/video/topic/player-safety/rielly-suspended-games-6346828310112

I get that older players think it was fine. Then again, apparently, some of those older players grew up in a time where gang rape was hunky-dory.

I love that hockey gets contentious, even violent. But keep that stuff within reason, boys!

IMHO 5 games is about right,, only he knows, though, if he was aiming for the shoulder or head. I can’t remember anybody mentioning it to be against the code, or that it’s showing up the other team, by slapping the puck on an MT netter. And it was in his own home arena, so what’s the big deal. Again, some of this “code” thing is beyond my understanding. Howe never liked being embarrassed by an opposing player so he’d crack the guy in the head with a vicious elbow when te ref wasn’t looking - and yet he was idolized. Gimme another proverbial break!! What a load of hooey!

Ooops, I'm too quick on the draw, Skip. I see it's "... grew up in a time ...  "  NOT a  .  I offer up a real "Sorry"  .... not to be confused with a Canadian Sorry.  

But I'd be interested in seeing the results of a survey (?) w.r.t the age of players that approve/disapprove.  [The apparent bias of Maple Laff players being accounted for, of course.]

Edit:  Howe's elbowing .... one of my unanswered questions was how some infractions would simply be grounds for penalties, but others [read: fighting] should be banned.   Indeedy ... Gimme a break!

Oh yeah ,,, continual

A penalty hurts the team’s chances of winning.
Banning fighting doesn’t. imho

Would banning elbowing, cross-checking, slashing, etc., etc. hurt a team's chances of winning?  Wouldn't a penalty for fighting hurt their chances?   Why preferential/different treatment?

Sorry, aside from asking*,I dunno how I'm to get your perspective/rationale.  

Edit: * = and getting a relevant answer.

I was just talking to a guy who player junior and university level 20ish years ago. Fwiw, he mentioned that the year they moved from 5 min. for fighting [and then return to play] to 5 + a game there was noticeable increase in "stickwork"   .... players toot-de-sweet realized that immediate "accountability" was no longer much of a factor.

I’m just taking the most repulsive part of “the game” to be banned, the others can be dealt with by penaltizing the player.
But it’ll never happen,, Bettman once said that only 2 things get people out of their seats - a breakaway and a fight.

“stickwork” ,, sounds like the old argument DC and his ilk used to trot out,,, a guy who dabbles in stickwork ends up in the sin bin,, then ends up at the end of the bench.