WiscDC

This is the clip, for those who haven't seen it.

It's the successor to "shots fired." What you said about "rekt" applies to that.

On a serious note - if your vision ever does go away, the women's WCHA may be the league for you. I've seen some absolutely textbook penalties not get called by referees standing 15 feet away from the foul with no obstructions. Sometimes it's a big hold in open ice, but sometimes it's a player smashing another player's head into the boards from behind. It gets dangerous.

As someone in the US who is very passionate about hockey, I'd like to suggest that you try watching more hockey. Even in the NHL, nobody "watches for the fights," despite popular belief. Anyone either a) gets bored because they're actually playing hockey, or b) gets hooked on hockey because it's a wonderful game.

I'll preface this by saying that /r/Rhyinn essentially gave the definitive, correct answer, and this answer in no way is meant to go against it. I just feel that there is more to say for an audience who is unfamiliar with hockey outside of stereotypes. I also want to bring up the reasons for this being a very contentious topic in North American hockey, rather than just being some totally accepted thing. At the very least, if there's one thing to get from my comment (or wall of text), it's that you should not equate hockey and fighting.

"Five for fighting" is on its way out, but very slowly. ("Five for fighting," besides being Vladimir John Ondrasik III's stage name, refers to fighting earinng a player a 5-minute penalty - which is relatively small compared to an ejection. I specify this, because fights will happen to some degree regardless of the penalty.) The NHL will be very slow to move in that direction, but it won't be sudden or drastic. Even some hockey writers who are very much pro-fighting, such as Greg Wyshynski and Jeff Marek (he's said it multiple times on the podcast), recognize that it will be phased out. This, of course, does not mean that players won't get physical and stand up for one another - fights are going to happen.

(Before you dedicated hockey fans start chiming in about how wrong I am, remember that getting rid of "five for fighting" doesn't make players magically stop standing up for one another, and it doesn't magically turn things into a ton of cheap shots. I have season tickets to proof that it works.)

The NHL recently banned players from intentionally taking off their helmets for the purpose of fighting. They also mandated that all new players entering the league wear a visor. (This essentially makes visors on helmets mandatory, but allows guys who were already in the league to continue to choose whether or not to go bare-faced.) Mandatory visors is more about safety from pucks and high sticks, but it does have an effect on "staged fights," as players don't want to punch high-impact resistant polycarbonate shields with their bare hands.

Staged fights. That's a biggie. In a fast-paced, physical sport like hockey, there will naturally be some heat and altercations. There will be fights here and there, but those are entirely different from when two guys line up next to each other at the faceoff circle, and as soon as the puck is dropped, get rid of their sticks and helmets and start circling each other like they're about to go 12 rounds in the boxing ring. Even in the regular season, referees have been quicker to get between players who appear to be acting like boxers rather than hockey players. (These kinds of fights are far less common in the playoffs...don't be surprised if you see players mixing it up a bit but never actually dropping the gloves and getting a "fighting" penalty during this entire Stanley Cup Final.) If you really want to learn more about that kind of thing, google "Derek Boogaard New York Times" without quotes, and watch the video or read the article.

Edit: Here's the article, and here's the video. There are three parts to both of them (see the tabs at the top).

Boogaard was a classic "enforcer" who was basically in the NHL to fight, and died from an overdose when taking painkillers. Doctors looked at his brain, and the damage was frightening. It's fascinating and sad, and it includes both quotes from other enforcers he played against and his own writings that pretty much explained that most of their fights weren't actually related to the game situation - they just had to fight, and knew they were going to before the game even started.

Understandably, "five for fighting" won't be nearly as slow to leave junior hockey, which is 16-20 year olds. Here's some information on the matter. This doesn't appear to include the Candian Hockey League, which is the top level of junior hockey in Canada (and actually three leagues). Here's another article on the issue.

Lastly, because this is a controversial topic among hockey fans, I'm going to re-emphasize that "banning fighting" doesn't mean players won't fight. They'll continue to be physical, competitive, and they'll mix it up every now and then. They'll still stand up for one another. The fights will just always be the kind of fight that makes some sense in the context of the game, in the heat of the moment (the kind of thing where it'll still happen despite the threat of an ejection rather than a five minute break). These fights tend to be the more entertaining ones, anyway (in my opinion). (Yes, I said "entertaining." I despise the times when it makes a mokery of this game that I love, but that doesn't mean I never think they're justified.)

Edit 2: I apologize for the wall of text. I just really like talking about hockey, and this is a part of it that requires great care in describing.

Seeing helmets that a player can easily remove without undoing the strap bugs me.