It's very easy to point out when, and where players were injured, and yet the enforcer didn't prevent it from happening thus giving ammo to the anti-enforcer crowd...It's hockey afterall, and yes nobody here including myself has ever claimed that enforcers will deter cheapshots by 100%...A more interesting question would be exactly how many attempts, or thoughts of going after guys like Yzerman, or Fedorov were deterred/thwarted because guys like Probert, Kocur, McCarty, Shanahan, etc, etc were out there?
Ok, explain this one to me. I understand the idea of "immediate payback" by having an enforcer. I've been a hockey fan for a long time, I grew up watching Probert and Kocur. But explain to me how eliminating the instigator rule gets rid of injuries.
Better yet, explain it to Cam Neely. Explain it to Pat LaFontaine. Explain to them about how enforcers protect star players from cheap shots. I bet they'd like to hear it as much as I would.
As for the instigator rule - the vast majority who have to fear it's removal are those who have a penchant for taking liberties on their unsuspecting opponents...I watched an interesting interview of Shanahan talking about the instigator rule; he didn't have a problem with it...In fact he said that if he wanted to go after someone - he'd risk the extra 2 min pen, and rely on the teams strong pk to take care of business.
If anything - the teams tuff guy will make the opposition think twice about going after anyone - unless of course they don't mind having to answer for their actions...Not to sound redundant, but if tuff guys weren't needed - why do they exist on many teams rosters?