Bettman says solving hits to the head will take time

[Finnish Wing 110]

Get rid of the instigator.

Problem solved.

If the players have respect for each others so that removing the instigator wouldn't lead to more stupid things happening, then why are they hitting each other in the heads in the first place? If they're hitting themselves to the head right now, I could see them as well just starting to fight someone even if the other guy wouldn't want to do it.

Never said there wasn't cheapshots before the instigator.But it made guys think twice before throwing cheapshots such as Cooke on Savard and Richards on booth.Of course cheapshots are gonna always be a part of the game.Take the instigator out and it makes the pricks like Cooke more accountable for the cheap shots they dish out.

Umm... yeah, because players obviously rather miss three games than fight. NOT.

Why is it the same people wanting to remove the instigator that also strongly support fighting and enforcers. I support fighting as well. But I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Seems like most who want to remove the instigator just want more fighting for the sake of fighting, instead of trying to figure a way to prevent cheapshots.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Finnish Wing

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

If the players have respect for each others so that removing the instigator wouldn't lead to more stupid things happening, then why are they hitting each other in the heads in the first place? If they're hitting themselves to the head right now, I could see them as well just starting to fight someone even if the other guy wouldn't want to do it.

Umm... yeah, because players obviously rather miss three games than fight. NOT.

Why is it the same people wanting to remove the instigator that also strongly support fighting and enforcers. I support fighting as well. But I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Seems like most who want to remove the instigator just want more fighting for the sake of fighting, instead of trying to figure a way to prevent cheapshots.

I never said I want more fighting just to have more fighting.I think guys won't run around throwing cheap shots AS MUCH if the instigator rule was removed.Were there little agitators before the instigator rule?of course.Were there hits from behind and many other forms of cheap hits before the instigator rule?of course.Its a part of the game.Cheap shots will never be totally eliminated,obviously.I sure as hell don't think removing the instigator will COMPLETELY prevent cheapshots.No.Nothing will totally eliminate dirty hits.Removing the instigator seems best to me because if a new head shot rule is put in,the NHL is gonna come to the point to where a guys head is tapped on the glass after a hit,everyone will be calling for disciplinary action.The inconsistencies with disciplinary action in this league is frightening.

[CenterIce 83]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5303349

The new rule, which was first recommended at the general managers meetings in March, would see a five-minute penalty imposed on the ice for a blindside hit to the head and an automatic game misconduct. The league will also consider supplemental discipline.[/Quote]

The players on the committee Friday also signed off on the Heritage Classic outdoor game for next season, which will pit Montreal against Calgary. Although that, too, will require the union's executive board (30 players representatives) to vote on it.

The competition committee also agreed Friday that the new "form-fitting'' goalie equipment would be introduced next season.[/Quote]

[HankthaTank 1,100]

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5303349

on form-fitting. But we shall see what the definition of that means. More than likely not this though...

[jollymania 162]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5303349

/i think a blindside head hit should be 2min, if the player is injured 5min and game possible discipline

[Finnish Wing 110]

/i think a blindside head hit should be 2min, if the player is injured 5min and game possible discipline

No, no and once again no. The penalty should never be judged by the outcome. Although referees often make decisions based whether the player gets injured or not, is the wrong way to do it. Many times less severe contact can lead to an injury while more severe one doesn't. The high-stick penalty isn't about the outcome (=blood or no blood) either, it's about the severity - like it should be - although many referees make mistakes on that one as well.

[uk_redwing 495]

If the players have respect for each others so that removing the instigator wouldn't lead to more stupid things happening, then why are they hitting each other in the heads in the first place? If they're hitting themselves to the head right now, I could see them as well just starting to fight someone even if the other guy wouldn't want to do it.

What? Removing the instigator isn't about "respect" its about "touch one of our guys and your gonna have your head punched into the ice."

Also, the last part of that made zero sense.

[Buppy 1,720]

Get rid of the instigator.

Problem solved.

I agree with the cooke factor, guys like this would definitely fizzle out if there was an instigator, im for the instigator but it isn't a be all end all

... I think guys won't run around throwing cheap shots AS MUCH if the instigator rule was removed. ... Removing the instigator seems best to me because if a new head shot rule is put in,the NHL is gonna come to the point to where a guys head is tapped on the glass after a hit,everyone will be calling for disciplinary action.The inconsistencies with disciplinary action in this league is frightening.

I think you're all confusing a couple rules. Even without the instigator rule, it would still be 100% impossible to force another player into a fight. Players just wouldn't get a penalty for trying.

The rule you'd really need removed is the aggressor rule.

47.2 Aggressor – The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player (or goalkeeper) who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant.

A player (or goalkeeper) must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.

A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed a major penalty for fighting and a game misconduct.

A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation will have this recorded as an aggressor of an altercation for statistical and suspension purposes.

A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be both the instigator and aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct (instigator) and a game misconduct penalty (aggressor).

For obvious reasons, that rule could never be removed. Removing the instigator wouldn't do anything. As I've said before, if retalliation actually had a preventative effect, the downside of taking an instigator would be far outweighed by the benefits. But since you still can't just mercilessly pummel a guy, the risks of being hurt in a fight are too insignificant to be any deterrent.

No, no and once again no. The penalty should never be judged by the outcome. Although referees often make decisions based whether the player gets injured or not, is the wrong way to do it. Many times less severe contact can lead to an injury while more severe one doesn't. The high-stick penalty isn't about the outcome (=blood or no blood) either, it's about the severity - like it should be - although many referees make mistakes on that one as well.

But as a general rule, more aggressive/dangerous hits/cheap shots are more likely to cause injury. It might not be perfect, but neither is anything else. The result needs to be considered when determining punishment, not as the only factor, but just a factor. You do something illegal, it's bad. Do something illegal and hurt someone because of it, it's worse.

Not saying that they should start suspending players for hooking when someone falls awkwardly and sprains a knee, but aggressive penalties like head-hunting or knee-on-knee type stuff should draw extra discipline for more severe consequences. I would suggest compensatory payments to the injured player over longer suspensions though. Just a little something extra to make players more conscious of their actions.

[Konnan511 1,736]

/i think a blindside head hit should be 2min, if the player is injured 5min and game possible discipline

The only problem with that (although i do completely agree) is there will be even more diving. A player gets hit to the head, goes down, then goes Ribero on the ice to draw the extra minutes.

What? Removing the instigator isn't about "respect" its about "touch one of our guys and your gonna have your head punched into the ice."

Also, the last part of that made zero sense.

If I didn't know your normal comments you make, someone would read this comment and assume you enjoy when people go after Kronwall after a clean hit because he "touched on of their players" and now it's time to get his face mashed.

[uk_redwing 495]

The only problem with that (although i do completely agree) is there will be even more diving. A player gets hit to the head, goes down, then goes Ribero on the ice to draw the extra minutes.

If I didn't know your normal comments you make, someone would read this comment and assume you enjoy when people go after Kronwall after a clean hit because he "touched on of their players" and now it's time to get his face mashed.

f*** me. You know full well Im talking about cheapshots yet you go ahead and be a complete **** anyway like im going on about normal physical contact?

Not sure how much longer I can cope with this site.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I hope that they don't over-police this penalty. Dangerous hits to the head need to be prevented, but I think some of you overestimate the amount of control a player has on the exact position of his hit. The Booth hit was a good example of a hit to the head; however, if Richards' shoulder was a few inches lower he would have only gotten the shoulder. Often the player getting hit moves at the last second to expose his head- how will this be dealt with? IMO there were not a lot of head shots this year, so hopefully the refs can successfully implement this rule without taking away from the physicality of the game.

[Konnan511 1,736]

f*** me. You know full well Im talking about cheapshots yet you go ahead and be a complete **** anyway like im going on about normal physical contact?

Not sure how much longer I can cope with this site.

****? Really? lol

[uk_redwing 495]

****? Really? lol

Yes. Really. Now do one.

[Konnan511 1,736]

Yes. Really. Now do one.

Do a ****? Excuse my British ignorance, is a **** a ****** or just an idiotic person? I can do a ******, but I'm not a big find of doing an idiotic person unless she is really blonde and has a nice set of fun bags.

[uk_redwing 495]

Do a ****? Excuse my British ignorance, is a **** a ****** or just an idiotic person? I can do a ******, but I'm not a big find of doing an idiotic person unless she is really blonde and has a nice set of fun bags.

**** = You

Do one = f*** off

Sorted.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Somebody should clock Bettman to the head.

[edicius 3,269]

Somebody should clock Bettman to the head.

His parents probably did. Explains a few things.

[55fan 5,133]

Somebody should clock Bettman to the head.

Go for it. Solving it will take time.

[Jasper84 333]

How much time does it take to issue a memorandum saying hits to the head are banned, and anyone found in violation of that will be suspended without pay for however long the person they hit is out of commission? The person you hit is out for the year? So are you.

I like that.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I like that.

Please no. While to idea of suspending a player for the length of the injury sustained is a good one, it wouldn't work well in practice. There are too many other factors like did his head also hit the ice, is the injury only to the head area, did the player expose his head at the last moment, etc. Also, many injuries from hits are a result of the person getting hit not being in the correct position to be hit. Therefore, injuries are often a result of both parties, whether or not the hit was dirty.

[newfy 695]

Please no. While to idea of suspending a player for the length of the injury sustained is a good one, it wouldn't work well in practice. There are too many other factors like did his head also hit the ice, is the injury only to the head area, did the player expose his head at the last moment, etc. Also, many injuries from hits are a result of the person getting hit not being in the correct position to be hit. Therefore, injuries are often a result of both parties, whether or not the hit was dirty.

I'm with you on this one. An injury isn't just caused by the guy getting hit in the head Are you going to suspend the ice or the boards as well after a head shot if the guy hits his head off it and is injured for a year?

I think a combination of a new rule and removing the instigator would be the best way to prevent stuff like this. I can guarantee Matt Cooke would've thought twice about that hit if he knows at any time he could get his face punched in. The aggressor penalty never gets called, if it did Mac woulda got it against Turtle since he was kneeing him in the face after all. If you combined players knowing they wold get hte s*** kicked outta them with the fact that they would probably get suspended with no pay, I think they would slow down on the dirty hits.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I'm all for getting rid of the instigator, but I don't think it'll have a lot of impact on headshots.

It probably requires an immediate call on the ice, but more importantly a league review to try and determine if it was just a mis-timed hit, or headhunting. Then a suspension based on that determination.

The problem is that as long as Campbell is the one reviewing these hits, the suspensions will continue to be a total joke.

Any new rule without getting rid of Campbell won't be very effective.

Edited June 20, 2010 by haroldsnepsts

[Electrophile 3,554]

uk_redwing

It's okay......I feel your pain sometimes. Take a deep breath, though. You're amongst friends.

[Electrophile 3,554]

Please no. While to idea of suspending a player for the length of the injury sustained is a good one, it wouldn't work well in practice. There are too many other factors like did his head also hit the ice, is the injury only to the head area, did the player expose his head at the last moment, etc. Also, many injuries from hits are a result of the person getting hit not being in the correct position to be hit. Therefore, injuries are often a result of both parties, whether or not the hit was dirty.

Really? If the league says "hits to the head are outlawed" and you hit someone in the head and they as a result of that hit, are gone for the year......so are you. Sorry. This parsing and semantics about the angle of the head from the shoulder, the temperature of the ice upon impact, what degree give did the boards expand.....it's piddling.

If you know that hitting someone in the head, whether with your stick or your body is against the rules of the NHL and you do it anyway......you're done for however long the person you injured is out. If that's 2 games, it's 2 games. If it's a month, it's a month. Blatant disregard for the rules and by extension the safety of everyone playing the game should not be tolerated. Hockey is already a very physical, combative sport......making it worse by letting head shots go unpunished is ridiculous. I'm not talking about accidental contact where you get tripped or someone hits you and then you fall into someone else. I'm talking about direct contact to another player's head, in complete knowledge of where your body and/or stick is going. THAT s*** has got to stop. And if you don't think it does, let someone nearly break Pavs' neck.....and then we'll see where everyone stands.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Electrophile

[newfy 695]

Really? If the league says "hits to the head are outlawed" and you hit someone in the head and they as a result of that hit, are gone for the year......so are you. Sorry. This parsing and semantics about the angle of the head from the shoulder, the temperature of the ice upon impact, what degree give did the boards expand.....it's piddling.

If you know that hitting someone in the head, whether with your stick or your body is against the rules of the NHL and you do it anyway......you're done for however long the person you injured is out. If that's 2 games, it's 2 games. If it's a month, it's a month. Blatant disregard for the rules and by extension the safety of everyone playing the game should not be tolerated. Hockey is already a very physical, combative sport......making it worse by letting head shots go unpunished is ridiculous. I'm not talking about accidental contact where you get tripped or someone hits you and then you fall into someone else. I'm talking about direct contact to another player's head, in complete knowledge of where your body and/or stick is going. THAT s*** has got to stop. And if you don't think it does, let someone nearly break Pavs' neck.....and then we'll see where everyone stands.

Thats the thing though, hockey is a fast game and you might not know youre about to make a head hit but the guy lowers his head to make a move and puts it into your shoulder or something. A player doesn't deserve to miss possibly a whole season for something like that.