Monday Morning Halfback: Fighting is here to stay in hockey; sports betting’s grip is tighter than you think

Jamie Ross is the Sports editor at The Globe; Cathal Kelly is the national sports columnist.

Jamie Ross: Cathal, fighting is back in the NHL. Numbers are up, and even the superstars are chucking knuckles. Nathan MacKinnon already fought twice. Why? His reason was pretty simple. “The way we all grow up in the Maritimes is pretty gritty. Most guys from that area are feisty,” he said. Something to consider the next time you try to slip prime rib and Rémy Martin into your expense report. What’s your theory as to why fighting is making a comeback?

Cathal Kelly: I keep telling you that was dinner with a source. Did I have to rent the helicopter? I’d say it was crucial. Did I need new luggage? The old stuff wasn’t good enough for the helicopter.

I do have a theory about fighting. It remains the singular thing that sets hockey apart from other sports.

Think of it from a player’s perspective, especially one who is U.S.-based. They don’t see themselves featured on the ESPN highlight packages, but for one reason – when they’re fighting.

Cathal Kelly: Mike Babcock has a winner in front of him, wiping the slate clean for once-ostracized coach

They don’t make as much money as their football/basketball/baseball-playing peers. They aren’t household names in the same way. Between the Olympics and Heated Rivalry, hockey had a moment this year, but that seems to be ebbing. They are multimillion-dollar, second-class sports citizens.

But in this one thing, they are special. Everyone – even the NFLers – acknowledge that hockey players are the toughest, most dentally challenged athletes out there.

A section of fandom (though I think it’s smaller than popularly believed) want them to leave fighting behind altogether. The league moved to make it less central. But I don’t believe the players will ever let it go.

The key is in MacKinnon’s comment. There’s a clear subtext – we are built different from the rest of you. You wouldn’t understand. You’re not in our tribe.

As long as fighting has that imaginative hold over professional hockey players, it’s not going anywhere. I wouldn’t want it to, either. It’s intrinsic to the game’s identity.

You know more about this than most. Where do you see fighting in 10, 20 years?

J.R.: Twenty years ago, in second-tier junior hockey, I took some punches to the face, so if that qualifies as knowing, then okay. I did play alongside a few legitimate tough guys who without question or hesitation would fight anyone in any game situation, no matter the context or size or strength mismatch.

There is truth to the idea that enforcers police the game. They are a deterrent in the event the other side wants to try any funny business. Some people hate that argument, but it’s real.

The other reason is something you’ve said before: Fighting is gladiatorial, entertaining and satisfies the hockey-watching fan’s bloodlust.

If the NHL wants to get rid of it, it needs to institute a game misconduct for fighting. Not a suspension, you’re just done for the night, like how some junior hockey leagues manage it. That would de-emphasize it in a big way.

But I’d be willing to bet you’d see a lot more stick work – or worse – in its absence.

C.K.: And if you brought in the game misconduct, you’d be encouraging the return of the out-and-out enforcer, with all the human wreckage that entailed. Because why waste a skater when you can throw a designated hitter on the ice? No one wants that.

I suspect we have reached a state of fighting equilibrium that everyone’s happy with. The current upward trend hasn’t evoked anything beyond a mild, “Hmm, that’s interesting,” from across the spectrum.

Another trend I’m thinking about involves our old bugbear, gambling.

A recent article in The Atlantic referenced a study in the U.S. that claims more than half of men aged 18-49 have an active account at an online sportsbook.

Half! I knew this was an issue, but I had no idea it was this widespread. That number blew me away.

The same piece – on chronic unemployment among American men in their working prime – suggests that one way to fix the problem is to make gambling illegal again.

Do you think that’s possible?

J.R.: It’s possible, but is it likely? Lots of people who already had lots of money are making more of it in this darkest of social experiments. And it’s not the bettors.

Our colleague Simon Houpt wrote recently about a movement to amend some current proposed federal legislation that would police the industry’s advertising and marketing, but that falls well short of repealing legalization.

C.K.: I’m one of those people who just doesn’t get gambling. If it worked for anyone, they wouldn’t call it gambling. They’d call it investing. Never understood the appeal.

My dark take on this is that we are Aldous Huxley’ing our world. For all the shrieking about fascism, there’s no need to control people through punitive measures. A critical mass have already been yoked with entertainment. That number suggests that, in the U.S. at least, the plan is working.

I wonder how many twentysomething guys who can just barely afford rent went bust on Saturday night when the Leafs hammered the Oilers? That game had easy money written all over it.

J.R.: I suppose the Oilers were due for their second loss of the season. It must sting for you that it was at the hands of the Leafs. That didn’t stop Connor McDavid from notching a few more points. His pace right now is insane. He’s at 33 in 11 games. If he’s playing hockey, what do we call whatever it is everyone else in the NHL is doing?

C.K.: McDavid has always seemed to be moving in a gear that other players – even the best of them – don’t have. His skating should be studied by zoologists. With apologies to cheetahs, McDavid may now be the fastest animal in the world.

Were I the Oilers, the thing I’d be worried about is burnout. McDavid isn’t just scoring at a post-Gretzky record pace, he’s putting up a career high in ice time. You don’t need this guy to be Mario Lemieux in November. You need him to do it in June.

But I gather that McDavid is not the sort of player you can have that discussion with.

It’s been a great start all over for the NHL. The biggest stars (e.g. McDavid, MacKinnon, Auston Matthews) are starring. Storylines abound (e.g. Connor Hellebuyck, Dylan Larkin, the Tkachuks). There are a few early surprises (e.g. Boston, Utah).

This league too often has too little to talk about. This year, you could jabber all night about them. On radio, they often do.

Simon Houpt: Leafs Nation in uproar over Sportsnet surcharges for Monday night games

So, obviously, the big story is digital accessibility. People can’t find their beloved Leafs on Monday nights, or Wednesdays, or whenever Mars is in transit with Venus. Not unless they want to fork over an extra mortgage payment to Rogers. The people are suffering.

Obvious question – should Canada nationalize hockey?

J.R.: Didn’t we just do that for 95 years with Hockey Night in Canada? There is a movement to make the game a so-called ‘Crown Jewel’ that would give regulators power to assert hockey is in the national interest, and force broadcasters to make it available free or at lower prices. It’s a scheme employed in Great Britain and Australia for sports they hold sacred. What with the rise of other sports in Canada, soccer being the obvious one, it’s not clear we still feel the same way about hockey.