Couldn't resist on this one. Automatic game misconduct for fighting will not work, since it is not fair. Todd Bertuzzi is a bad example in this case, so I will use someone else. Suppose, in a crucial playoff game between Colorado and Phillidelphia, Matthew Barnaby picked a fight with Jeremy Roenick in the first period, and they both received a game misconduct, which team would suffer more from this? Matthew Barnaby is a goon, in all sense of the word; Jeremy Roenick is an all star player, can put the puck in the net, and is willing to pay the price by getting in your face. So a team can easily afford to lose the services of Barnaby, but a team will definately prefer not to lose Roenick. If fighting leads to an automatic game misconduct, then it will lead to abuse of this rule. The coach for the Av's can match lines to have Barnaby play opposite Roenick, in an attempt to get them both ejected. Knowing the temper of Roenick, this is not an impossible task. So I have to disagree. I feel that game misconducts should remain at the referee's discretion, and that a good honest fight with just cause should be allowed. It's the premeditated attacks, and all the other stupid acts that leads to fights and brawls that needs to be severely punished. But that's just me ... edly