Get rid of the instigator.
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.