Taking out the most repulsive part simply creates a new most repulsive part, no?   What's your long range plan?

Anyway, what's repulsive about a shot [or 2] in the chops for: a) running off at the mouth, and b) show-boating [for the purpose of rubbing it in] once you get 4 or 5 goals up? 

If it's repulsive in those instances, then let's have more repulsive. 

Edit: Do you actually find fighting, in ^^ instances more repulsive than yappy as wholes .... which leads to fighting?    Better to deal with the cause, or the result?

A new repulsive part? I don’t versnap.
Long range,, no, just short range - eliminate fighting,, teach kids it's not cool
If your answer to running off at the mouth or showboating is violence, I'd say you've bought into the "hockey culture/code".
Yappy guys will figure out that they’re just giving the opposition more ammunition,, they’ll quit doing it. Besides, I’ve seen many times where guys are yapping after the whistle and the opposing players just laugh at them, in ridicule. Let the yapping energize you,, as I said before; the best payback for yapping is filling the net and skating off with a win. They’ll soon quit yapping or be sitting in the press box.

Here's a former player's views on fighting in hockey : https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/It-is-time-to-ban-fighting-in-the-NHL-16527610.php

List all the bad/unsavory/repulsive aspects in order .... knock one off the top and voila > there's new one at the top, no?

"Yappy guys will figure out" and or "soon be sitting in the press box,"  etc., etc.???   Well, they sure as hello haven't so far in the 100 or how ever many years they've been at it.  Do you have any credible evidence that there's something/anything that will make them act differently in the foreseeable future?

 IMNSHumbleO, a punch in the yapper is a preferable counter measure to stick work.  Fighting and stick work would [should] both get penalized so I don't see any advantage in banning one over the other.   Why not ban fighting and slashing, and spearing and but-ending, and elbows to the head, and etc.    Or do you have a non-violent style of stick work in mind?  

Btw, what does a hockey player getting punched in the face for being [playing like] an as whole have to do with my quality of life?  

It’s impossible to have evidence about the future, but I think yapping is the least thing to worry about, and I’d say most players dismiss any of that goofiness anyway. Dustin Brown, who spoke with a lisp, used to get yapped at in mocking ridicule ; he'd just say to them," haven't you got any new stuff by now?" It's the thin-skinned ones that might get mad if you denigrated their mother's arm boots, or whatever. 
Stick work is penalized, why try ban it when it’s a power play for the other team. Banning meaning what,, a guy gets a suspension for x no. of days, I suppose.  A lot of this would take years to solidify, as the youngsters grow up without fighting. 
I don’t think I commented on your quality of life,, just remarking that you buy into the hockey culture/code thing.

I guess I was baffled by "have a good life" ... I took "good" as an indication of quality.

Re. Evidence of the future: I've heard/read that the past is a pretty reliable indicator (?) of the future.  It's not an absolute guarantee, but I figure I have pretty good ___________* that the sun will rise tomorrow. [* = if evidence is the wrong word.... insert a better one** of your choosing.]

Yes, stick work is penalized .... as is fighting.   Why ban fighting when it provides a power play for the opposing team?   I don't get your pick-and-choose rationale.  I suppose "banning" means different things to different people ... I sure as hello wasn't the one to suggest it as a remedy for anything.  But [sometimes ] I favor consistent rationale.

Re. buying into the hockey code thing .... I notice that you don't mention that I'm generally pretty careful about placing limitations on what is/isn't acceptable.  A carte blanche "buy into" is mucho hyperbole .... dishonest hyperbole I submit ... but nonetheless a part of normal [cough, splutter, cough] conversation, no?  [<< had that as a statement, but figured only one question for you to not answer wouldn't qualify as bombard, so I proof read that last one in there more-or-less on principle.  ]

** = when I use "/" and/or/??  between words to indicate that I might not have chosen the absolute best word I'm criticized for providing bafflement. Can't win fer losing, I guess.

Owen, I edited out “have a good life”, it was bordering on “chirping”.
Fighting rarely leads to a power play,, both sides get 5 minutes. Why pick & choose? Because my view is that fighting doesn’t belong in the sport of hockey.
Dishonest hyperbole for remarking “buying into the hockey culture/code” ,,, it’s just my opinion, , nothing to do with dishonesty on my part.

well, I'm off to my bunker again,, this thread has devolved into an attack-dog mentality. ruff, ruff

Yes, both sides usually get 5 minutes.   That's the way it is .... is it the way it should be? [And we both know that we're NOT talking about the absolute b.s. where two guys do the circling dance, linesmen clear away gloves and sticks, the two guys grab sweaters and flail away... etc.]

Fighting doesn't belong in hockey.  But spearing, butt-ending, etc. do belong???  The logic (?) again escapes me, but ..... ???

The carte blanche part is the dishonest part .... it surely can't be attributed to ignorance, so I figure it's dishonesty  [omission more so than comission??] ... but "it's just my opinion"   .... even though plenty of evidence/rationale/?? has been presented.

Attack dog mentality???  Ya ... I suppose answering questions isn't high up on an attack dogs to-do list.  

"ruff, ruff" reminds me of a letter to the editor in our weekly paper 'way back.  Somebody had previously written in about irresponsible dog owners.  So the following week there's a letter outlining, with examples, just how responsible my owner is .... "Signed: Rover, Arf, Arf."

So a goal-scorer tries to toughen-up his team,, not a wise move
facebook.com/story.php?story_f...887788836

Yep ... I figure DeBrincat  shoulda just speared Cole instead.    

[... when the ref's not looking of course ... apparently Howe was able to elbow guys (and maybe a few other things) so that the ref didn't see it.]

= disrespect .

When I hover my cursor over  the , it  says "cheeky" which I take to mean tongue-in-cheek .... YMMV.... so be it.   Sometimes I put t-i-c at the front and "cheeky" at the back, but I gotta watch the bafflement factor.    And I like to give some credit to those who might read/hear my blather ... always aiming it at the guys on the bottom rung gets kinda "old"/uninteresting/??

[And when I hover over , it says "wink," so I use it pretty much like I might when having an in-person conversation .... kinda saying to the recipient to not fall into too big of a snooze.]

Just wondering: Do you find reading the continual explanations ^^ as boring/exciting/?? as I find posting them?

...

They are rather riveting, Owen,, but only on certain days.

re: spearing ,,, why not dish out a good clean body check (Boivin, Stevens) instead o’ bare-knucklin’?

^^ either/or sounds okay.   The time between stimulus and response [cause and effect??] should be a factor, IMNSHumbleO.    Justice delayed is justice denied, no?  A good clean body check should stand on it's own.... no need to sully it by associating it with yappy as wholes and/or guys showboating when they get 4 or 5 goals up.  [Btw, why not a good clean punch to the face instead of a body check?  ]

... and [just one example from many] a good clean body check on Bedard > bare-knucklin' [to which, I'm pretty sure some in this thread gave a  .]   I've also heard some on this thread condone charging/interference/boarding based on "keep yer head up kid."  

I expect Stevens' good clean checks have injured more players than have a shot to the kisser [remember, two ^^ specific scenarios].  Based on the frequency and severity of injuries, which form of violence should be the preferred one?

I never condoned Foligno’s fight after that clean hit. I might have said that’s just the way it is with the “code”. I also don’t condone charging, interference, boarding. Just because I’m not for banning something doesn’t mean I condone it - those things deserve penalties, some 5 minutes.
I don’t put body checks in the “violence” category. It’s still a game with body contact. I’m just for getting rid of fighting,, imho it cheapens the game. (although Bettman & many others say it profits the game $$$,, money tawks, bu*l*hit wawks)

.... and running off at the mouth [which precipitates the dreaded "violence"] and showboating enhance the game. 

... is there room in with the non-violent body checks for even a wee bit of non-violent fisticuffs [i.e. in the two scenarios I've mentioned]?

Again, the running off at the mouth will pretty much stop when opposing teams get energized by it. (don’t wake up the bear)
Showboating will result in showboaters being the victims of hard body checks.
“dreaded” is hyperbole ,, also falls into the ridicule/put-down category (however, if it’s “chirping/gamesmanship/trash-talk” then it’s fair game)
I keep re-explaining my position ,, yes, there’s a disconnect betwixt SW AB and SW/WC Man-ee-toe-bah

If re-explaining isn't working, you could give answering questions [in a straightforward, respectful manner] a try.  It's easy and you might even like what comes of it.   But, if you never give it a try ..... ???? 

C'est la vie?

Oh brother,, you’re a broken record,, I really don’t understand where you’re coming from, Owen. I’ve been answering questions straightforwardly.

Well, you've repeatedly said that you don't have the time or ??? to bother answering my questions, and "...if I answered half of 'em I'd need a knap," etc., etc., etc..  Now you say you have been answering them.  Seems to me that there must be more than a bit of "being damned careless with the truth" in one [or both??] of those scenarios. 

For you consideration: a) Exaggeration and hype are sometimes part of everyday conversation. b) [My] cutsie put-downs/mockery/ridicule falls under trash-talking/gamesmanship [i.e. "... of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport.]  c) Is gamesmanship/mockery/put-downs/ridicule also a part of normal conversation and/or a rational discussion?

When you say that a guy who dabbles in stick work [...] ends up at the end of the bench, I assume you have Bobby Clark, and other of his ilk (?),  in mind, though some might see dabble as an understatement.

And furthermore, I figure we've probably gotten Eric's kids into grad school by now.   

Methinks Bob Clarke wouldn’t be engaging in dirty stick work if fighting was a suspendable offense,, he wouldn’t have had his pugilistic henchmen around to protect him. His breaking Kharlamov’s ankle in 1972 should have had him sent home from the tournament., imho.
As for (c) , put-downs/ridicule etc,. sometimes does enter normal conversation, but one must show body language to alert the receiver that it is. On this august Internet forum we have no way to signal this. Other than the tongue-sticking-out emoji or a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge”.
(that last statement could fall under “wink, wink” )

Re. "...   we have no way to signal this."

On some other thread a couple of people, with absolutely no supporting rationale, put their eggs into the "general tone" basket.  

Not bragging*, but in spite of me not being the most astute/perceptive dude on the block, I think, all-in-all, I've done a pretty decent job at ascertaining posters' mindsets.

* = well, not mucho.  

Re. the broken ankle.... somewhere along the line* I read that penalties/suspensions/?? should not be based on injury or extent of the injury.  Would any/every slash warrant a suspension?

* = wink, wink

I think I may have dreamt up a compromise (?) solution to "fighting" [or any of the other "bad" stick work].  Previously Paul had mentioned about the analysts/experts/?? analyzing/grading/?? fights.   In the back of my mind, something or other about scoring in boxing came to mind .... maybe it was something called "the 15 point must system"???  

What if some form of the two was combined? ... the "9 minute must system"?  The two penalties would have to total 9 minutes ... with a 5-4 split v-e-r-y  s-t-r-o-n-g-l-y  discouraged.  9-0 / 8-1 / 7-2 / 6-3 depending on the experts (?) assessments.... the effective power play would vary from 3 to 9 minutes depending on the effort the fighter [or spear-er or butt-end-er or ??]  put into it. I.e. the better (?) the fighter fights, the longer his team will be penalized.... thus leading him to minimize his effort.

Dunno whether to use emojis or wink, wink, or just what.

Re,, every slash….no, not automatically a suspension,, but depending on severity,, like other hits. But I don’t like the “drawing blood” rule that’s still in effect these days.
Fighting points,, sheesh,, now you’re auditioning for a job in Bettman's office?  
(no wink, ridicule, chirping, nudge, nudge)

Re. the job: Nah... I can't be bothered with most analyses .... the play or the fights.  [Blame it on Paul.  ]

By severity do you mean severity of an injury?   ...or how severe it "looks"?   What factors would a referee consider in determining "severity"?   Does it apply to clean but hard [violent/severe/??] hits as well?   Isn't the drawing of blood a [feeble?] attempt to incorporate "severity"?   

Btw, if penalizing infractions leads to "the players would soon learn that their team is at a disadvantage... etc., etc.," how would things escalate to the point of getting pugilistic henchmen involved?  The logic I'm reading is: infraction > penalty > opponent's power play > increased likelihood of The Slasher's* team losing.   How does fighting even get into the picture?

To pick [for illustration only] on Clarke ... Clarke slashes somebody > Clarke gets major + game [based on severity] > other team scores > Flyers lose > Clarke soon learns NOT to slash. [All done with no fighting or no perceived need to fight.]  ... or am I missing something? 

* = not this one > https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503657/

P.S. Does the concept illustrated in: "I.e. the better (?) the fighter fights, the longer his team will be penalized.... thus leading him to minimize his effort." work?   If not, why not?

P.P.S. Any comment on: "Well, you've repeatedly said that you don't have the time or ??? to bother answering my questions, and "...if I answered half of 'em I'd need a knap," etc., etc., etc..  Now you say you have been answering them.  Seems to me that there must be more than a bit of "being damned careless with the truth" in one [or both??] of those scenarios." ?