Guest column: In support of fighting

Brian Burke | special for USA TODAY Sports

There are certain topics that polarize people. And certain arguments that are virtually impossible to win when made against people who simply cannot or will not understand your viewpoint. I am always in a parallel universe when I try to defend hunting to an environmentalist. I start with no chance of converting this guy — he is convinced he's right on this issue. I find similar attitudes regarding fighting in hockey.

But I love this game, and I played this game professionally. I respect its fabric, its history and its unique stance on fighting. Some people just will never get any one of those three.

So let's begin with a few premises. First, the role and amount of fighting in hockey has been systematically reduced over the last 20 years. That's a good thing. Plus, there is no chance that the role or amount of fighting will increase (other than a spike here and there). That's also a good thing. The people in hockey who think fighting is an integral part of the game also are convinced that we don't need more fighting.

Second, a guy like me who supports fighting is not saying to ignore the medical consequences. I care deeply about my players. They deserve state-of-the-art diagnostics, treatment and full disclosure of medical risks. The NHL has been a leader in this area in pro sports and should be applauded for it. But a player informed of risks should be permitted to assume them. When I played, I never feared getting killed or seriously injured in a fight. I feared getting run headfirst into the boards and breaking my neck. We send these young men out to play a full-contact sport with no out of bounds. It's a violent, dangerous game full of risks. And that full contact is what lured many of us to the sport.

Reduced to its simplest truth, fighting is one of the mechanisms that regulates the level of violence in our game. Players who break the rules are held accountable by other players. The instigator rule has reduced accountability. Eliminating fighting would render it extinct.

Hockey is a game played on the edge. Large men with tempers explode around an enclosed surface carrying carbon-fiber instruments. They are legally permitted — in fact, encouraged — to collide with each other at high speeds. We all want this physicality, adrenaline and contact. We all treasure it.

It's hard to quantify where our game would be without fighting. It's easy to be repelled by a scary injury such as George Parros'. But I thought the hits on Danny Boyle and Niklas Kronwall were much more dangerous, as was the hit on Max Talbot (which I believe was legal). These are examples of times when fighting did not act as a deterrent. In fact, we can all recite a list of players who clearly operate outside of a system of honor. But today, these are the exceptions. Horrific injuries, stars being mugged, rats who run around hitting people from behind — these stand out to us because they don't happen with regularity. It's fighting that keeps these incidents to a minimum.

Ninety-eight percent of NHL players voted to keep fighting in the game, yet somehow members of the news media take it upon themselves to try to convince the players that the scribes know what is best for them. They don't write about the times a heavyweight skates by his opponent's bench to say, "Settle down, or I'll settle you down," and it works. They don't notice a tough guy warning an opponent at a faceoff. They've never heard a star player march into their office, slam the door and demand the team get tougher because he's getting killed out there by opponents playing without fear. They've never seen a chippy game on the edge settle down after a good fight.

It's not a perfect system. Not every fight is a good fight. Not every fighter is a perfect policeman. There are a small number of rats in the game who live outside the code. But our game is improved tremendously by players' ability to police the game. It makes it more exciting and honorable. It allows skill players to focus on the skilled aspects of the game because someone else can watch their back. And it fundamentally makes our game safer.

These are all volunteers, folks. Highly compensated volunteers who accepted full contact and fighting as part of the job description, long before they got big dough to do so. And it's not like they aren't aware of the risks before they lace 'em up. To suggest otherwise would be silly. Like a matador saying, "Say, who let that big, angry bull in here?"

The NHL has three levels to protect its players. The third level is the Player Safety Department that punishes players who cross the line. They are essential; the last line of player protection. The second is the Officiating Department, the absolute best in the world.

But the first level, on every pond and outdoor rink in North America, is peer accountability. This was the first level of protection when we opened our doors more than 100 years ago. It still is. And that is as it should be. The first line of defense against players crossing the line is players.

Burke is president of hockey operations for the Calgary Flames.