With ratings at all-time lows, four separate violent incidents that would have triggered jail sentences had they been done outside the rink, and labour armageddon at hand, does anyone have any thoughts about what needs to change about the game of hockey?

I have a few ideas, but I'll open this one up to the floor before I open my big mouth...

Well, first of all, scoring needs to go up. Maybe taking out the centre red line might work, I dunno. (as a ref in Saskatchewan, it has made a slight difference, but not much i would argue.). Maybe there should be four on four hockey. Personally, my suggestion in terms of scoring is to go to international ice surfaces instead of what the NHL has right now. I think by creating more room, the trap will snap and crackle, or it might not.

As for the labour armageddon, there is no way in hell, that a lockout can be avoided, I just cannot see it. The NHL says it's in financial trouble, but the players say that it's incorrect. Quite frankly, there must be a salary cap in place otherwise, teams will continue to spend to get the best talent possible while bankrupting the league.

Now, for the violence, I wonder, can anything be done? One has to wonder if the players are just not getting the messge or what? I wonder if maybe it has to do w/ the rise of effies and suddies being used more and more in the game to get players pumped up for a game. I can say as a football player I have taken suddies before a game, and while it did give me tons of energy, I at times could not control my emotions, and consequently, took two unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, when I normally would not recieve them. So, I wonder, if perhaps some of this violence is being cause by a rise in popularity of these drugs? (although, in the case of Messier, he's always been like that, as any fan of the Oilers will know.)

I just thought I add this as a thought, and I actually know what the response will be. It maybe be impossible to think, I personally don't think it will happen, but, what if checking in hockey was completly banned? would that solve some of these problems? maybe, I think for sure it would increase the level of scoring in the game as there would be a greater emphasis on skill of the game clearly. (just look @ the all-star games to see how the skill would shine.) but, I know, that it's not going to happen anytime soon so, i shouldn't get too excited about the idea, it's just a thougt, and it won't happen.

Well, that's my thoughts, anyone else?

My thoughts are simple. Just adopt the IIHF rule book.

YOu fight - your tossed.
Get rid of the two line off-side
Get rid of touch up icing
Give teams the option of moving to the bigger ice surface.

This ought to solve a lot of the game's problems. The whole idea that "fighting" stops violence is crap. the best hockey I saw was always played under international rules.

Time to admit the Europeans were right, and adopt their game lock, stock and barrel.

the only thing there bweezy that I do not agree with is the fighting means getting booted. I really haven't seen a whole lot of fights lately, so I do not see how that rule would be necessary. A good clean fight is something to be proud of. no one gets hurt, and you can vent some frustration, as well as swing the momentum your way if you win.


Whether people like it or not, fighting HAS become an element of north american (mostly Canadian) hockey, and it is REALLY hard to stamp out.


if I wanted to see a no fighting, no rough stuff hockey, I'd watch those sleeperfests they call AllStar games :P

Canadian Commie.....ditto

Steve Smith badly broke his leg in a fight. Nick Kypreos' career ended because of one. The idea that no one gets hurt in fights is just plain wrong.

And, if fighting is what people want to watch, I'd suggest they go watch boxing, wrestling, UFC, judo, tae kwon doe, roller derby, or any other "sports" where fighting is the main part of the game. Fighting has nothing to do with scoring goals. It is complete peripheral and unnecessary to the game of hockey.

I like good fight in Hockey just like the next guy but fighting really is un necessary.

Fighting - Fighting always has and always will be part of hockey. Fights in hockey are not always driven by hatred towards another player, it can also make you respect your opponent. I remember this one fight, it was Rob Ray and Tie Domi, two tough guys going at it. The play stopped they dropped their gloves, took off their helmets and went at it for a solid minute, then the refs came in to break it up, the two fighters looked at each other, smiled, gave each other a pat on the shoulder and said "good scrap buddy"

No-Touch Icing - I agree with bweezy, this we should adopt from international rulebook. Touch icing has caused more serious injuries than any fight I've seen. We all remember what happened to Mr. Kariya a while back dont we.

I just rolled my eyes when I heard about how they are thinking about not letting the goalie play the puck? What is the point of this? I really dont understand how this will make the game better in any way possible.

well, what they are talking about, is not allowing the goalie to play the puck behind the goal line. However, goalies can play the puck ahead of it. The thinking goes, that by preventing the goalie from playing the puck behind the goal line, teams will forecheck more to take advantage of the defenceman turning to get the puck. Whether it works or not, I dunno, we'll just have to wait and see if it gets approved or not. Personally, i think it could work, but I personally was in favour of the idea of three points for a win instead of two, thus forcing teams to be more agressive. In the EPL they did it, and scoring has increased. Also, in the regular season, I'd like to see the shootout, I don't see why not, then we wouldn't have to worry about OT wins or losses. But that's just me.

I'd like to see a larger ice surface, because the players are larger/stronger/bigger than they used to be in the past.

Oh.. and please. No SHootouts in the regular season. Please. If you're not going to do it in the playoffs, why implement them in the regualr season?

Then, why don't we have shootouts in the playoffs?

For those of you in the GTA, you may have heard Greg Millen on the Fan this morning. He had some great ideas (even though a goaltender shouldn't have an opinion on fighting). His idea was to limit teams to three lines. You eliminate those guys that only know how to fight, and can't even skate (i.e. Oliwa, Shelly, Worrell, etc.)

Intimidation has always been a big part of the game. Fighting has it's place.

That's precisely the problem with hockey. If you want exciting, end-to-end action? Get rid of the intimidators and legally sanctioned fighting and let the boys actually *play hockey*.

You want violence, gore, chippy hockey and boring snoozefests played entirely in the clogged neutral zone, keep the game the way it is.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who is really a *hockey* fan. I like hockey. I like goals, saves and the occasional clean check. How fighting has been allowed to mar such a beautiful game for so long is beyond me.

Team canada and the 1998 winter olympics (the one in japan, if the year is wrong)?

I'm a hockey player myself, so my opinions are a bit muddled. Fighting has its place, but it does happen too often. A good clean fight (no suckerpunches or kicking) is a exicting part of the game, and it allows people to vent anger that would otherwise be used in a dirty hit or cheap shot.

As for the scoring problem, I've got a simple solution. Cut down the size of the league. If you cut some of the teams south of the Sunbelt, the ones with a fanbase of about 4, the game will get better. With so many teams in the league, they are forced to call up weaker players from the minors. Those players and the lack of depth they create is what brought the netrual zone trap to hockey. If you cut out some of the teams, the remaining teams will have more skilled players, and then scoring and fun goes up.

bweezy- I think most of the people here agree that a clean 1 on 1 mutual fight isa good thing for hockey, and regardless of what those puritan uptights down south think it is not really THAT bad. it gets bad when you have end of game brawls, or a lot of chippy injury inducing contact (anyone see that oilers game? horrible stick work from teh Dallas defence. that is unacceptable)

the reason I endorse fighting is because of what hockey is. hockey is, in essence, the embodiement of true passion and competition. For 60 regulation minutes, the guy across from you is your hated enemy, and must be stopped at all costs within the rules of your reality.

that is what seperates hockey from other sports, which is why fighting has become an integral part of the game.

I say, crack down on stick work, and get rid of the instigator rule. Let people duke it out like it was back in the 80s where you'd have the Great One and Samenko.

the idea of Mutual Destruction will keep fighting clean.

Mutual destruction? Sorta like the cold war if you think about it. There is no way to win, so there is no sense in starting anything.

The reason hockey ratings are dropping is because of the lack of exposure here in the states. I love watching hockey but except for the rare occasion of a game on a local station I would have to order about 20 different cable channels to be able to regularly watch games. It also drives me and many others nuts that we have to turn to the last page of the local sports section to find out any scores and the print is so small it is almost impossible to read. The area im from is a huge hockey area too, especially high school games. If the NHL would offer more exposure and local stations would just show more games i know a lot more people around here would watch and become very big fans.

I wouldn't eliminiate teams but instead shorten the benches. How many teams will keep a Tie Domi if they're only allowed to dress 9 forwards? I still believe fighting has it's place but I'd much rather see a Darcy Tuker or Owen Nolan drop the gloves vs. a goon.

A lot less games, target the game at markets that actually care about the game. After all, most Americans hate the game because it's Canadian.

Playoffs must end at the beginning of may or end of April. There should be no hockey in June.

Less games = less money for players, but the players get more breaks and more time to recover.

Frankly, I believe we need a work stoppage so everyone can get some sort of wake up call.

Its nice to talk about taking out fighting or tossing players but in the real world of the nhl that would be a sure way to kill the game.It might not be right that fighting is a big part of the game but lets face it, it is a big part.I have season tickets for the senators and also go to many games in montreal and as much as a breakaway or end to end rush gets the crowd active there is nothing that gets the crowd lively like a fight.After a good fight the crowd is buzzing for a long time.If the game needs changing it would be better to change some other things but taking fighting out of a game that has had it for so long would not be a good move.

Hello. THe game is already dead. the product the NHL gives us is total crap. It can't possibly get any worse.

If you want to see fighting, then go and watch the WWE. Leave it out of hockey.

Well all i can say if you think the nhl is such crap then the best thing to do is not watch it.Fighting was in the game 30 ,40 and 50 years ago and the game was fine so anyone that doesnt like fighting then they should watch figure skating .lots of skilled skaters there and no fighting.

Fighting is prohibited by the rules. That is why it is a penalty. It adds nothing to the game, except allowing thugs to inimidate the truly talented. For that reason alone it should be scrapped entirely from the game.

the IIHF has banned fighting from hockey (automatic game misconduct) for the past 99 years (the entire history of the game at the International level).

Fighting only became legal in the Pros in 1917. so the game has a longer history without fighting than with it.

Therefore, by your very own logic of longevity, fighting should be outlawed.

I think there is a big difference between fighting between two goons and a goon attacking a skilled player.Your right there is no place for goons attacking non fighters and they should kick them out.But when two guys that fight and are willing to fight thats a different story.Like with the bertuzzi episode, that was just a big gutless coward attacking someone from behind and he should never play in any hockey league again.But that wasnt fighting thats was just a cowardly attack. I have played hockey at different times for 35 years and played with fighting and played without it and i enjoyed both the same and not having fighting it is still a great game.What i mean is that it would be hard now to say no more fighting in the NhL after it being a part of the game for so long.I dont think it would be good with a league that already has a problem filling the seats in some rinks.

I have news for you. Playing without a helmet went on for years - people changed.

Goalies without masks went on for years - people changed.

Curved sticks weren't used for years - people changed.

The forward pass wasn't allowed for years - people changed.

Europeans have lived without fighting forever. North Americans will adjust too.

Yes in time people would adjust ,but do people really want a game thats has no fighting but chippy stick work and kicking etc that the Europeans brought in the game.

Let me clue you in - stickwork and kicking existed long before Europeans came to the NHL. Ever heard of the Richard Riots? Caused by a suspension of Maurice Richard for punching a ref and breaking his stick over the head of an opponent? Or the stick swinging incident in the late 1960's between Ted Green and Wayne Maki that resulted in Green nearly dying on the ice?

How about Eddie Shore in 1933 - FOURTY YEARS BEFORE A EUROPEAN SET FOOT ON NORTH AMERICAN ICE, suspended 16 games for slashing someone in the face.

What about Wilf Paiement, in 1978 - 15 games for slashing Dennis Polonich over the head.

Remember Dave Brown Cross-Checking Tomas Sandstrom in the face in 1987, breaking his jaw in two places?

Dino Ciccarelli hiiting Luke Richardson in the head with his stick TWELVE(!!!) Times after a stoppage in play in the 80's?

And during the 1972 Summit Series, do you not recall Bobby Clarke's intentional and vicious slash on Soviet Star Valeri Kharmalov that broke Kharlamov's ankle?

And I suppose Marty McSorely who slashed Donald Brashear to the head giving him a concussion, and Todd Bertuzzi, who attacked Steve Moore from behind, likely ending his career, are Europeans, and not Canadians as their passports suggest?

And Dale Hunter, who hit Pierre Turgeon after he scored a goal and separated his shoulder - that was just good clean acceptable hockey by a good old Canadian boy?

If I were you, I'd keep your prejudiced statements to yourself. The evidence shows that the dangerous incidents are perpetrated by North Americans. Hmm. You think that this trend could have something to do with the fact that fighting is encouraged over here, whereas Europeans shy away from it, because they are taught that fighting and violence is wrong and has no part in the game of hockey?

Secondly, who said anything about tolerating stickwork and kicking? People want good clean hockey. Clean open ice checks, fast skating, great saves and great goals.

Zero tolerance on fighting, stickwork, obstruction and the like will let the truly skilled shine. Just like in the Winter Olympics in 2002. Remember that tournament? By your own logic, that must have been the worst hockey ever played...

Here's how you make the game better......

First, lower the ticket prices so that more then just the boring upper crust of society can go to the game.

Second, we have a rule book, use the fucking thing. Eliminate obstructions, and I mean now. Get rid of it. Every other sport does everythin gin its power to eliminate obstruction. What does hockey do, we only call it when we feel like it in the first period.

Third, keep the red line and the center ice offside, eliminate touch icing and bring back delayed offsides.

Fourth, decrease the size of goalie equipment.

Fifth, ban those weak ass sticks that shatter ever third shot. Scoring was down again, they don't help.

Sixth, call high sticks. Missed high sticks result in suspensions and officials being fined.

Seventh, eliminate all scantly clad seventeen year olds going onto the ice to clean up snow.

as much you might think your an expert, maybe you should go to a game before you make comments.i am talking about the things that go on that you dont see, sure players from all over the world do things ,but the sneakiest stuff is from those players. but i wont bother writing anymore, you are just such a damn expert and i dont have a clue.i bet you never even played hockey yourself.

Yes, I am a hockey expert. Attendant of several hundred NHL games, dozens of AHL, IHL (r.i.p.) and WHL games, as well as avid television watcher of the game at the professional, amateur and international levels. I'm also a student of the game, knowing the game's history both domestically and internationally. I also played the game and officiated the game. In short, I *AM* an expert, as can be demonstrated by the knowledge and arguments that I've put forth in this thread, and which you have basically ignored, in favour of simply calling Europeans "sneaky" and "dirty" and suggesting that fighting and a crude form of ethnic cleansing is the solution to hockey's ills.

While that kind ethnic conspiracy theory would have gone over well in Germany in the 1930's, it doesn't play well here in the real world.

The fact of the matter sir, is that in the past two days, I demolished every argument that you made - you couldn't even bother addressing *any* of my points - and now you're going away with your tail between your legs.

Your final argument though, was the pinnacle: "I am talking about the things you don't see". The reason why no one sees those things is because they are all in your head. You'd love to believe that a group of foreigners are inherently evil and sneaky, covertly doing damage to good old Canadian boys who's only sin is they'd rather drop the gloves than score goals.

And obviously, your illogical yet persistant defence of fighting's place in the game stems from a desire to pummel those sneaky foreigners who do tons of bad things that no one ever sees. Heck, the Europeans seem like they're evil magic faeries who cast pixie dust in the air, temporarily blinding four officials, 20,000 fans, and millions watching on tv so that they can do their sneaky, covert damage without getting suspensions, penalties or even injuring anyone!

I guess your smarter than the rest of us - you're the only one who sees this mystical European conspiracy, one that can only be remedied by allowing the likes of Tie Domi and Donald Brashear to pummel each other in the third period of meaningless hockey games. Somebody make leafssuck NHL President. Clearly, he's the game's saviour!

You said, with sarcasm, that you don't have a clue. I agree with that statement, minus the sarcasm.

You took a shot at me suggesting that I play the game before I speak about it? How about this then: perhaps you should take a course in logic and then think a little bit before coming up with fanciful, illogical and positively assenine arguments that could only be believed by the residents of the local insane asylum or European Conspiracy League. And when attempting to "debate" against someone, here's an idea - actually address their points. You'll look less foolish that way.

Talk about taking shots, you are good.cant you make a point without resorting to little childish comments.last time i looked i thought this was a forum,i guess i was wrong,its bweezy's forum and damn anyone that doesnt agree with him.you can have your opinion all you want and so can i,but thats what they are opinons.what gives you the right to force yours on someone else. i just give my opinion i dont expect anyone to like it or not thats their decision. i have a question for you,if you have been to so many hockey games how could you stand the fighting?surely it didnt take over 200 games to find out there was fighting in the game.there is a simple solution for you ,if the NHL is so crap as you stated and the fighting is so terrible just dont watch it or talk about it.wouldnt that be the best thing? i think you should also face the fact that fighting isnt going anywhere,its in the game now and will be for a long time.maybe some day in the future it will be gone ,but for now it is in the game and anyone watching a game will have to put up with it ot just shut it off.

Hell of a theory you got there. Instead of trying to make something better, your solution is to just disband it and forget about it. Remind me not to involve you in the development stage.

It isn't that he is right or wrong it is that his opinion is based on fact. You try and say he is wrong and you have nothing. You are right, you both have an opinion, but without more then your word, your argument doesn't have much weight behind it.

People take issue with my opinions all the time - if they are reasoned, I don't have a problem with it. Take a look at the vegetarianism thread - I don't agree with Checkers, but I don't take issue with her position either. Why? She backs up what she says with fact, logic and reason.

When, however, someone bases an argument on pure ignorance, then i treat such people with the contempt to which they deserve.

Did I force my opinion on you? No. Your problem is you can't stand opposition. Your truth has to be everyone's truth, and when someone disagrees with you, instead of reasoning with them, you sulk, accuse someone of knowing nothing about the topic at hand (in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) and try to reinforce your point without backing it up with any fact or logic, or for that matter, without addressing your opponents points to begin with.

The fact of the matter is, I didn't and don't pay much attention to the fights. Fighting to me consists of two losers going toe to toe, breaking the rules and diminishing the game. Do I put up with fighting? Of course I do. Is it wrong for me to want to get rid of it? Of course not. That's because it is not part of the game. It's against the rules.

Laslty, the game of hockey is in trouble. It is an inferior product. As I've said all along (several posts ago), one way to improve the game is to get rid of the goons, get rid of the tolerance of fighting, enforce the rule book, and let the skilled players do their thing. The game is called hockey, not fighting. As I've said all along, for those who like fighting ,there is boxing, UFC, WWE and a host of other options. It is not part of the game. You don't win or lose by fighting. You don't score goals by fighting.

Plain and simple, it is peripheral, and, in my view, the game would be better without it.

And I love your like it or leave it attitude. If you ever have children, and if you ever decide you hate an aspect of your child, what are you going to do, drop him or her off at the dump? Abandon it? Those are some great arguments and values you have there.

Want to know why perfessional sports leagues are seemingly (I say seemingly as in "media hyped") going the way of the dinosaur?

Watch the movie BASEKETBALL, with the guys from Southpark.

Lets face it, corporatism is ruining professional sports. The market stopped expanding a long time ago. And inflation is what makes the profit these days, not innovation. Recession time. Hell, I hope the damn markets crash. then we can start all over, and let the rich corporate assholes who are too afraid to reinvest in their investments wallow and die.

The decline in hockey has nothing to do with the decline in ticket sales. That's all I have to say.

Hey, even though I'm a Yank (and root for the BlackHawks) I'm glad that a Canadian team is leading in the Stanley Cup finals

Another Hawks fan great. It is cool that a Canadian Team is up 3-2 at this point if it can't be the hawks I guess the flames will do.

Also a Yank here and an avowed Red Wings fan, but I too was rooting for the Flames...not because they were Canadian, but because the Lightning were just too new of a team to be the defending champs for the last time before economic apocalypse. It was nice to see Dave Andreychuk win it all, though; that's the biggest redeeming quality about a team called the Tampa Bay Lightning winning the Stanley Cup. Because frankly, Stanley looks fine the way he is. He doesn't need a tan; he might get sunburned, being from Canada and all.

In any case, hockey does need to have some changes made to it. Some of my suggestions:

Eliminate the two-line pass already - like the designated hitter, it served its purpose. Now get the hell rid of it already and open up scoring at least a bit. I watch college hockey as well and there's a lot more scoring, partially due to more breakaways (and partially because my college's team is just so damn good.)

Let the goalies fight for themselves a bit more - that means that refs shouldn't call goalie interference unless it's blatant. And this whole foot-in-the-crease stuff should only count if it actually interferes with the goalie's movement. Also, goalies who go behind the net to play pucks should be subject to checks just the same as other players (but if they clear the puck and a couple of seconds later get drilled, that should be a penalty.)

Cut the bench to 16 skaters - three forward lines, three defensive lines, and one utility player. Less overpriced goons, more scoring. They could still allow 23 players on the team at once, but instead of three scratches, allow five. It should also have the benefit of more rest for players, since it means more nights off.

Compromise on the whole money thing - players say no salary cap, owners want a hard cap. Do what baseball did and put in a luxury tax. A semi-restrictive luxury tax on payrolls over, say, $50 million ought to cut down on free spending. Say, owing $.50 on every dollar from the first dollar spent above $50 million up to about $60-something million, and then a $1 tax on every dollar spent above that. Also, a soft superstar cap would be in order, forcing teams to pay a luxury tax on individual salaries above $8 million or so. Making them defer some of that payment until later may also help things.

If at all possible, don't contract - but by all means, get teams out of markets that don't support them. Nothing is more sickening than these cities that can't bother to sell out one home game during the regular season or at least have a decent showing, but come the playoffs when the team's winning, the whole city is so happy to be along for the ride. Well, OK, some things are more sickening than that, but nothing in the sports world is, besides a work stoppage. The New Jersey Devils run a fantastic club, but the fact that they can't sell out home games until the conference finals, for the love of Pete, is an outrage. If I were the team's owner I would move to Winnipeg or something. It sucks for the loyal Devils fans, in that case, but you have to go where the support is. Plenty of untapped markets exist. Moderate-sized cities that don't have other sports franchises are a good place to start; after all, look at my hometown of Columbus, OH. The Blue Jackets have a hell of a following. Columbus pales in size to the NY/NJ area, but because the Blue Jackets are the only show in town (besides Ohio State, but that's another story) then they get excellent support. I picture places like Portland, OR in the U.S. and Windsor or Halifax in Canada.

Share the wealth - the National Football League has the right idea in this regard. From the sale of tickets, concessions, etc. at games, the home team should receive 60% of the cut, the road team 20%, and a common money pool the other 20%. That money pool should be split up among the teams equally. As for TV and radio contracts for individual teams, the team that has the contract should receive the same cut - 60%. Then 20% gets divided up to teams in proportion to how many games they play in a season against that opponent. The other 20% goes to the common money pool. Revenue from jerseys and other apparel bought outside the games should be put into the common money pool, with the team on the jersey of other piece of memorabilia receiving a cut no bigger than about 20%. Oh yeah, and all money paid to the league in luxury taxes, fines, lost pay from suspensions, etc. goes to the common money pool as well. That pool is divided up among teams equally at the end of the season, or multiple times a season, or however the league decided to distribute it so long as it's equal between all teams.

Balance taxes - Canadian teams pay higher taxes than American teams, so revenue sharing should also take that into account, and tax American teams at the same rate, pouring all money gathered into the common money pool.

82 games is fine - but make teams play each division opponet eight times and each other conference opponent four times. Then rotate interdivision play the way they do in the NFL and MLB so teams play two games against each non-conference opponent every three years.

No shootouts, but longer OTs - ten minutes instead of five. Still four-on-four. In order to increase scoring, make icing a penalty in overtime except when shorthanded (call it a delay of game penalty) and allow 4-on-2 power plays rather than 5-on-3. None of these rules would apply during the playoffs, where overtime should stay as it is.

Remove the instigator rule - let the players settle their own disputes. The five-minute fighting penalty should remain intact, and major penalties should still carry an automatic suspension. In addition, for attacks with intent to injure, such as the McSorley stick swing or the Bertuzzi punch, players should be out for a minimum of 41 games, and if the suspension carries into the playoffs, they should be required to sit out the Stanley Cup Finals and will not be allowed to have their names on the Stanley Cup. If the injured player is out for longer than 41 games, the offending player is out until the injured player returns, plus is out for an additional four games. The offending player is not paid for any of this time. The NHL can't afford to screw around with intent to injure, nor can any sport. The courts don't need to get involved in this matter if the NHL can crack down like this. Oh yeah, and since the offending player is still under contract, they won't be allowed to play hockey at any other level either. If they jump the contract and play in Europe, they must be banned from the NHL for life.

Ice hockey players makes a lot of good points. The only things I'd change are the rules for intent to injure penalties, if the other player is forced to miss any games due to injury I'd suggest 3 games missed by the attacker per game missed by the injured player to a minimum of ten games and a maximum of a season (if you hurt some one that bad on the ice then welcome to your retirement I hope you've built a good nest egg).

I also feel that a ban on performance enhancing drugs, especially ones that cause aggression, is necesary. Have teams finalize their line-ups 24 hours in advance, then all the players on the line up are eligible for random drug tests by the league if a player comes up positive they get a five game suspension and their spot on the line-up for the next game is left vacant as a punishment to the team.