Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 Instigator penalty a hot NHLPA topic NHL Players Association Executive Director Paul Kelly and his entourage have visited with seven of the league's 30 teams on their fall tour... ... Kelly is asking players the question, "Do you want it removed?," and sources say the vast majority are saying yes. ...As one player put it, "guys have to be more accountable," citing hits to the head and hits from behind this season as the motivator for urgency... ...According to the players, the instigator penalty corrodes the code. This info is only based on 7 of the 30 teams, but I like where this is headed. Hopefully this isn't beating a dead horse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redwingfan19 293 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 That is awesome news I really hope that rule is changed immediately after this year. Players must be held accountable, it's only a matter of time before someone will end someones career...again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flip-check 6 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 This is great! It truly is a good sign, I have no idea what they were thinking with the instigator rule... it's like Prohibition, make fighting illegal, bottle it up and tie guys' hands and bad crap might happen. Anyone can imagine outcomes from that scenario. Now we just need more people who can benefit from the instigator being dissolved! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grittzkey 1 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 We'll See. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grimson32 0 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 This is very good news... we shall wait and see Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
irishtemper14+25 11 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 good news Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N4C3R 0 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 good news This is very good news indeed! I'm guessing Brian Burke is happy while Ken Holland and Gary Butman are wetting their panties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lou_Siffer 1 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 NHL will never let this happen. Ive always thought there was a better chance that fighting would be removed, (or at least carry an automatic game misconduct + suspension based on how many gamers you accumulate), than the instigator rule ever going away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 I'm all for eliminating the instigator rule like everyone else it seems, but help me out here and tell me if my train of thought here is out of whack or if I'm about to put my foot in my mouth like an idiot (again). Will eliminating the instigator rule yield to less brutal instances of injuries/suspensions, but increase the basic run-of-the-mill 1-on-1 fights due to players being more accountable and not "running" at other players? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,789 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 I'm all for eliminating the instigator rule like everyone else it seems, but help me out here and tell me if my train of thought here is out of whack or if I'm about to put my foot in my mouth like an idiot (again). Will eliminating the instigator rule yield to less brutal instances of injuries/suspensions, but increase the basic run-of-the-mill 1-on-1 fights due to players being more accountable and not "running" at other players? I think so. And hopefully it will increase the amount of brutal injuries that occur in one-on-one fights to the players that have been hiding behind the instigator rule, of which there are too many to name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
puckloo39 5,686 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 stupid question: is it true that the coach gets an automatic $10,000 fine if one of his players gets an instigator penalty? My friend in Dallas said that, and I am never sure if I should believe him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lou_Siffer 1 Report post Posted November 27, 2007 stupid question: is it true that the coach gets an automatic $10,000 fine if one of his players gets an instigator penalty? My friend in Dallas said that, and I am never sure if I should believe him. The fine has to do with a player getting an instigator penalty only in the last 5 minutes of a game. The player is suspended for a game and the coach is fined. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
puckloo39 5,686 Report post Posted November 28, 2007 The fine has to do with a player getting an instigator penalty only in the last 5 minutes of a game. The player is suspended for a game and the coach is fined. oh, OK, thanks Lou! That makes sense, in context. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flip-check 6 Report post Posted November 28, 2007 I'm all for eliminating the instigator rule like everyone else it seems, but help me out here and tell me if my train of thought here is out of whack or if I'm about to put my foot in my mouth like an idiot (again). Will eliminating the instigator rule yield to less brutal instances of injuries/suspensions, but increase the basic run-of-the-mill 1-on-1 fights due to players being more accountable and not "running" at other players? You're such a moron SWF. I can't believe you're posting that idiotic nonsense here, it's time to ship all these lazy ass posters who suck off to the LetsgoGriffs boards! You're just a washed up homer. You'll never amount to a real fan who makes it to playoff games! /Agalloch mode off Just kidding... I'd say so though. It just follows that if guys can get things out in a fight then you won't see it translate in dangerous ways to the game. Unless your city is Philadelphia. Then you'll be encouraged to do both. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) Just kidding... I'd say so though. It just follows that if guys can get things out in a fight then you won't see it translate in dangerous ways to the game. Unless your city is Philadelphia. Then you'll be encouraged to do both. But in Philadelphia the safety nets aren't there to protect the fans from flying pucks. They're to protect the players from the fans. Edited November 28, 2007 by vangvace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 28, 2007 I'm all for eliminating the instigator rule like everyone else it seems, but help me out here and tell me if my train of thought here is out of whack or if I'm about to put my foot in my mouth like an idiot (again). Will eliminating the instigator rule yield to less brutal instances of injuries/suspensions, but increase the basic run-of-the-mill 1-on-1 fights due to players being more accountable and not "running" at other players? Here's where the argument comes into contact irreconcilably with the 'expansion watered-down talent' argument. Cheap shots were more common and less penalized pre-instigator than they are now. This is also the time period when people say hockey players were higher skill levels. Generally, it is accepted that players who tend to throw cheap shots are often on the bottom end of the scale in terms of skill, and have to play a chippy, cheap style to hold on to a roster spot. So the argument that the bottom tier players were better then, yet that worse players are more likely to 'goon it up' is a paradox when you consider the history. Of course, it is possible the players were better, and the instigator penalty has been the difference. But ultimately this would suggest that the instigator REDUCES cheap shots by "preventing enforcers from doing their jobs", which we all "know" to be false. I don't honestly see much difference being caused in the number of cheap shots whether or not we have the instigator. Most guys who are out there cheap-shotting players al lover the place ARE NOT deterred by a fight. Pronger? Tootoo? Hartnell? Those guys get challenged and roughed up regularly. Do they stop? No. Fischer completely destroyed Hartnell, did that stop Hartnell from throwing more cheap hits? Nope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted November 28, 2007 Isn't it the NHL that is the group that needs to be convinced about removing the instigator penalty? News that the NHLPA would like it removed is not surprising as I always assumed they didn't like the rule. In order for the rule to be changed, both sides would need to agree. Rule changes normally start with discussions amongst the GMs and eventually get recommended to the NHL, which I believe they would either agree to the rule change or not and if they agree, they would need NHLPA approval (I'm not 100% sure on that). So, until someone at the NHL (Bettman, Campbell, etc.) say they want the rule gone, I won't get my hopes up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3 Report post Posted November 28, 2007 That sucker punch by Domi seemed to take a little bit of the "pi$$ & vinegar" outta Ulf Sammuelsson (then again maybe old-age was catching up to Ulfie)...Either way it's always fun watching a punk/cheapshot artist getting the snot beaten outta him. I think that's my biggest argument for removing the instigator penalty. Even if the cheapshots aren't proven to be reduced, we would at least see more of that "street justice" going on where players get what's coming to them in a "clean" drop the gloves way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest paveldatsukthenextsavard Report post Posted November 29, 2007 Here's where the argument comes into contact irreconcilably with the 'expansion watered-down talent' argument. Cheap shots were more common and less penalized pre-instigator than they are now. This is also the time period when people say hockey players were higher skill levels. Generally, it is accepted that players who tend to throw cheap shots are often on the bottom end of the scale in terms of skill, and have to play a chippy, cheap style to hold on to a roster spot. So the argument that the bottom tier players were better then, yet that worse players are more likely to 'goon it up' is a paradox when you consider the history. Of course, it is possible the players were better, and the instigator penalty has been the difference. But ultimately this would suggest that the instigator REDUCES cheap shots by "preventing enforcers from doing their jobs", which we all "know" to be false. I don't honestly see much difference being caused in the number of cheap shots whether or not we have the instigator. Most guys who are out there cheap-shotting players al lover the place ARE NOT deterred by a fight. Pronger? Tootoo? Hartnell? Those guys get challenged and roughed up regularly. Do they stop? No. Fischer completely destroyed Hartnell, did that stop Hartnell from throwing more cheap hits? Nope. I've never thought of hartnell as a cheapshot artist, i always thought of him as a hockey player. The rule is completely retarded and makes the game less enjoyable to watch, and isn't that what being a hockey fan is about? I wish chelios would fight somebody like some rookie that thinks he's tough s***, and then the cagey veteran chelios gives him whats coming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T.Low 1,011 Report post Posted November 29, 2007 At the risk of divulging my own ignorance, and perhaps even a lifetime ban from LGW for asking, what exactly is the general definition of the instigator penalty? In all the years that everyones been bitchin' and complainin' about it, not once have I ever heard any one actually define it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest paveldatsukthenextsavard Report post Posted November 29, 2007 At the risk of divulging my own ignorance, and perhaps even a lifetime ban from LGW for asking, what exactly is the general definition of the instigator penalty? In all the years that everyones been bitchin' and complainin' about it, not once have I ever heard any one actually define it. if you start a fight you can get an extra 2 minute penalty for instigating it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted November 29, 2007 At the risk of divulging my own ignorance, and perhaps even a lifetime ban from LGW for asking, what exactly is the general definition of the instigator penalty? In all the years that everyones been bitchin' and complainin' about it, not once have I ever heard any one actually define it. 47.11Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player or goalkeeper who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 29, 2007 I've never thought of hartnell as a cheapshot artist, i always thought of him as a hockey player. The rule is completely retarded and makes the game less enjoyable to watch, and isn't that what being a hockey fan is about? We all 'know' that. But let's be honest here for a second. Cheap shots are DOWN. Yes, the instigator penalty reduces fighting. But the general argument against it is that it causes an increase in cheap shots...which is false; major cheap shots have been less frequent during the period with the instigator than they were immediately preceding it. It is impossible to say whether the instigator, the increased talent base, coaching styles, or a combination of those three caused the decline in cheap shots and fighting. I am personally in favor of a modification to the instigator; the current 'last 5 minutes' rule regarding the instigator should be the ONLY instance the penalties are awarded; the language should be modified to reflect this. This prevents last minute goonage in a game that is already decided, but allows for the players to police the game when it actually counts. I wish chelios would fight somebody like some rookie that thinks he's tough s***, and then the cagey veteran chelios gives him whats coming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 29, 2007 Not being a smart-a$$ here, but may I ask where you're getting your info/facts on the #'s pertaining to cheap shots prior to the instigator rule? Curious because it appears to me that many of the major cheapshots (Draper/Lemieux, Bertuzzi/Moore, Domi/Sammuelsson, Domi/Neidermayer, McSorley/Brashear, Granato/Wilkinson etc, etc, etc) coincide with the instigator rule being in place since the 1992/1993 season...Or maybe it's because the NHL was expanding, & was in the media limelight on a regular basis (that we see the replays on ESPN/FSN) - when prior to the 1992/1993 season many games were televised by smaller local networks scattered throughout the Midwest/Northeast/Canada, & were more or less "unknown enteties" How about Samuelsson/Neely, Graves/Lemieux, Plett/Stefan, and Hextall/Anderson? If you think it has happened more in the past few years than it did before, you weren't watching. Those are all cheapies that happened in the 80s or early 90s...you could even add Hunter/Turgeon to the list as it was during the first season of the instigator. Cheap shots have always happened, and the major ones happen less often nowadays. Especially when you consider that Bertuzzi is the only guy you mentioned who didn't develop a rep BEFORE the instigator as a chippy player who could hold his own in a fight. Why would a guy like McSorley or Domi be deterred by an enforcer...those guys went toe to toe with guys like Semenko and Probert on a nightly basis...they wouldn't have been less likely to pull s*** when in their physical prime than they were after it. The fat is, cheap shots were simple more tolerated by the fans and NHL brass in the 80s and before; combine that with less publicity and you have what would appear to be a non-issue to someone who didn't actually WATCH hockey in those days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NC WINGS FAN 5 Report post Posted November 29, 2007 It sure would be nice if this materializes. This rule does nothing but water down the game for the rich business suits and soccer mommies who know and care nothing about hockey. When was this rule implemented? I want to say it's a year or two before Buttman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites