GM's recommendation on hitting

[SweWings 45]

I'd love to go to Boca Raton. That's as much as I want to contribute to the conversation.

[Guest micah]

Those guys were more of a rarity back then. Now they're everywhere.

Seems like every team has a Matt Cooke type turd.

Yup - Ken Linesman and Ulf Samuelsson were both dirty players before the instigator rule was created. Those two guys were willing to risk getting their asses beat routinely to play the game their way. Samuelsson fought Kocur to a draw, got his ass kicked by BradMay, Tie Domi (okay, Domi suckered him, but still..) and Tocchet. He also corked Shanahan in the face and shanny turtled, after starting the fight by crosschecking Ulf in the face. Ulf was a very dirty player and I hated that rat and I hated that the Red wings brought him on even after he had shown what a turd he was, but still, I gotta give him props for being a great player and being pretty brave. He took his medicine and always came back for more. I don't think Matt Cooke and Steve Downie have the sack to do that. The league would be better if they would, though.

[Finnish Wing 110]

Except Boogaard doesnt do that kind of stuff, and neither do most heavys. Its the Avery, Ott, Tucker, Cooke and Tootoo's of the league this is aimed at.

We're talking about rules here. I bet they don't make the rules thinking what Boogaard does or doesn't. It's just an example of how stupid it would be to remove the instigator - like it would change or help anything. That's just not justice. As said, you could still always use your 4th line s***ty player to take out the other team's star player.

[Guest micah]

Cheapshots/dirty play isn't exclusive to a team's 4th line...Guys like Mike Richards, Scott Hartnell, and Pronger are prime examples.

Yup. And while Colin Campbell might go easy on Chris Pronger, I guarantee you that Tony Twist or Stu Grimson would not.

[zettie85 106]

I don't. A guy like Boogaard for example can just cheap shot who ever he wants, because he usually don't have to be "afraid" figthing. And I don't think that's an excuse.

Cheap shots should always be punished with suspensions. This is ice-hockey, not last man standing wrestling or something like that. The refs and the league is there to take care of the punishments. No team should be having to do that themselves. No team should be having to whitstand cheap shots just because they don't have a guy who takes care that "justice" happens.

Boogard is not even a dirty player. He is big and I'm sure if he wanted to he could cheap shot anyone and get away with it. Mainly the tough guys aren't dirty. The dirty ones are gutless little f***s who could be beat up by Filpulla.

Edit: I missed uk's post at the top.

Edited March 11, 2010 by zettie85

[Finnish Wing 110]

It was an EXAMPLE. DON'T YOU GET IT?

Counter arguments like "Boogaard is not a dirty player" or "Richards can also cheap shot" don't mean s***.

The point was that you can still do it like that without the instigator. It doesn't remove anything. There are still plenty of players who can take your star player out who aren't afraid to get beaten after it. Don't you get it?

The referees and the league are there to hand the justice. Just if you don't have players who can fight, doesn't mean that you have to stand s*** like that. You don't have to "defend" yourself against acts like that.

Getting a beating is nothing compared to missing playing entire games. The players wanna play. Suspension is the only real punishment.

I know you tough guys like watching hockey fights, but they solve nothing. It's like in some Asian countries were crimes have actually increased after death penalty. Removing the instigator penalty may decrease the amount of dirty hits, but you still shouldn't be alone defending your team from s*** like that. Like I said, the referees are there to make justice happen.

[zettie85 106]

It was an EXAMPLE. DON'T YOU GET IT?

Counter arguments like "Boogaard is not a dirty player" or "Richards can also cheap shot" don't mean s***.

The point was that you can still do it like that without the instigator. It doesn't remove anything. There are still plenty of players who can take your star player out who aren't afraid to get beaten after it. Don't you get it?

The referees and the league are there to hand the justice. Just if you don't have players who can fight, doesn't mean that you have to stand s*** like that. You don't have to "defend" yourself against acts like that.

Getting a beating is nothing compared to missing playing entire games. The players wanna play. Suspension is the only real punishment.

I know you tough guys like watching hockey fights, but they solve nothing. It's like in some Asian countries were crimes have actually increased after death penalty. Removing the instigator penalty may decrease the amount of dirty hits, but you still shouldn't be alone defending your team from s*** like that. Like I said, the referees are there to make justice happen.

Why are you bitching! They put the ******* rule in! Arguing to remove the instigator is also valid because it would allow players to get personal justice as well. As much as you think it's useless it probably would have a positive effect on the game rather then a negative one.

[Guest micah]

It was an EXAMPLE. DON'T YOU GET IT?

Counter arguments like "Boogaard is not a dirty player" or "Richards can also cheap shot" don't mean s***.

The point was that you can still do it like that without the instigator. It doesn't remove anything. There are still plenty of players who can take your star player out who aren't afraid to get beaten after it. Don't you get it?

The referees and the league are there to hand the justice. Just if you don't have players who can fight, doesn't mean that you have to stand s*** like that. You don't have to "defend" yourself against acts like that.

Getting a beating is nothing compared to missing playing entire games. The players wanna play. Suspension is the only real punishment.

I know you tough guys like watching hockey fights, but they solve nothing. It's like in some Asian countries were crimes have actually increased after death penalty. Removing the instigator penalty may decrease the amount of dirty hits, but you still shouldn't be alone defending your team from s*** like that. Like I said, the referees are there to make justice happen.

Why can't we have both? We can remove the instigator penalty AND penalize hits to the head, right? You admit that removing the instigator may decrease the amount of dirty hits - so why not DO it?

Me personally, I'd rather miss 15 games due to a suspension because of a stupid hit I made than due to a broken orbital bone that Boogard gave me for laying a stupid hit.

[Buppy 1,720]

Cheapshots/dirty play isn't exclusive to a team's 4th line...Guys like Mike Richards, Scott Hartnell, and Pronger are prime examples.

I honestly don't see any benefit by having the instigator penalty in place; what exactly has it done other than giving certain players more leeway by not being held accountable for their on-ice actions?...One could conclude that a proponent of the instigator penalty must also enjoy watching an inept league stand by as it's players continue to get injured via reckless play.

So what you're suggesting is that there is reckless play that represents a threat to the safety of the players, and that this reckless play could be prevented by the 'enforcers' of the league, but they choose not to prevent it because they do not want to take a 2 minute penalty. That about it?

No one is or ever will be afraid of enforcers, instigator rule or not, because there are too many players now who just aren't worried about their reputations. It is impossible to force someone to fight. All a dirty player has to do is turtle up. Refs break it up, dirty player laughs, goes about his business. Players and fans of other teams hate him, fans of his team love him.

Being right, being the 'good guy', does not make you tough, nor does being tough make you right. Players policing themselves just means that the toughest guy makes the rules. What if he's an *******? Getting rid of the instigator doesn't just mean that your enforcer can go after some cheap shot artist. It also means that the other teams enforcer can go after your star players. Do you really want some goon running up throwing haymakers at Nick or Pav or Hank in the hopes of injuring them, or at the very least getting them off the ice for 5 minutes?

[egroen 384]

I flip-flop on the instigator penalty -- personally hate it, but can empathize with the other viewpoint as well.

Looking at it:

47.11 Instigator - 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.

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

I'd like to see them try it without the extra 2 minutes....

If the same player or goalkeeper is deemed to be the instigator of a second altercation in the same game, he shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting and a game misconduct.

When a player or goalkeeper receives his third instigator penalty in one Regular season, he is automatically given a game misconduct following that third violation.

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).

I think escalating penalties for more altercations in the same game is fine.

47.12 Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at any time in overtime shall be assessed an instigator minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, and a game misconduct penalty (see 47.22).

Utterly hate this rule, especially since 47.22 essentially gives an out-clause for star players:

47.22 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more instigator penalties.

When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.

No team appeals will be permitted either verbally or in writing regarding the assessment of this automatic suspension.

Edited March 11, 2010 by egroen

[zettie85 106]

So what you're suggesting is that there is reckless play that represents a threat to the safety of the players, and that this reckless play could be prevented by the 'enforcers' of the league, but they choose not to prevent it because they do not want to take a 2 minute penalty. That about it?

No one is or ever will be afraid of enforcers, instigator rule or not, because there are too many players now who just aren't worried about their reputations. It is impossible to force someone to fight. All a dirty player has to do is turtle up. Refs break it up, dirty player laughs, goes about his business. Players and fans of other teams hate him, fans of his team love him.

Being right, being the 'good guy', does not make you tough, nor does being tough make you right. Players policing themselves just means that the toughest guy makes the rules. What if he's an *******? Getting rid of the instigator doesn't just mean that your enforcer can go after some cheap shot artist. It also means that the other teams enforcer can go after your star players. Do you really want some goon running up throwing haymakers at Nick or Pav or Hank in the hopes of injuring them, or at the very least getting them off the ice for 5 minutes?

Why would anybody do that?? That is just ridiculous to assume that removing the instigator will automatically have other teams tough guys chasing down Pavel. I see Ott and Ruutu doing that but I don't see guys like May and Boogard and Parros doing that. Just because they can do it if the instigator rule is gone doesn't mean they will.

[Guest micah]

Do you really want some goon running up throwing haymakers at Nick or Pav or Hank in the hopes of injuring them, or at the very least getting them off the ice for 5 minutes?

LOL. Did you watch any hockey before the instigator penalty existed?

[Guest micah]

I'd like to see them try it without the extra 2 minutes....

Me too. As it is, the only time someone can respond to a cheapshot is in an unimportant game -for the Wings, that's been what, zero games this year?

I think escalating penalties for more altercations in the same game is fine.

I am fine with the "altercations per game" rule, but I'd like to see the "per season" penalties eliminated.

Utterly hate this rule, especially since 47.22 essentially gives an out-clause for star players:

Agreed. Playing well ought not excuse one for breaking the rules.

[Finnish Wing 110]

So you mean that it's OK you can just start hitting someone even if they don't wanna fight or what is it? Removing the instigator penalty still means that both men have to drop the gloves. I don't think the 2min penalty there is a big deal. You can still do cheap shotting, even if afraid of fighting. Because there will never be a rule that says it's OK to start punching someone who doesn't wanna fight you.

[Guest micah]

So you mean that it's OK you can just start hitting someone even if they don't wanna fight or what is it?

If they just did something boneheaded and dangerous to your teammate, absolutely.

Removing the instigator penalty still means that both men have to drop the gloves. I don't think the 2min penalty there is a big deal. You can still do cheap shotting, even if afraid of fighting. Because there will never be a rule that says it's OK to start punching someone who doesn't wanna fight you.

If you don't think it's a big deal, look at fighting majors per year in the years just before and just after the instigator rule came to be. Before the rule, you could skate up to someone who didn't want to fight, throw off your gloves and start swinging. Most often, even league cowards like Claude Lemieux would fight back would fight back, and both players took matching 5s. Rarely would one man get five and the other not. Now that the instigator rule is in place, the guy who picks the fight is penalized more harshly than the guy who layed the Ruutu-esque hit that earned him the ass-kicking. It does prevent team's tough guys from doing their jobs, especially when the team needs every win they can get.

Without the instigator rule, guys who do stupid s*** to their opponents either have to answer to some thug with cement hands or face the ridicule of even their own fans for being a turtling coward who is afraid to finish what he started. I like that.

[Finnish Wing 110]

Personally I think it would be just outrageous that you could just start beating the s*** out of other player without them agreeing to a fight.

This would basically mean that without the instigator penalty you could send your "Boogaard" to just beat the hell out of the other team's "Datsyuk" for example.

If you wanna see fighting just for the sake of fighting go watch boxing or wrestling. This is hockey and IMO the fights are part of this game when two men agree to fight each other.

[Guest micah]

Personally I think it would be just outrageous that you could just start beating the s*** out of other player without them agreeing to a fight.

This would basically mean that without the instigator penalty you could send your "Boogaard" to just beat the hell out of the other team's "Datsyuk" for example.

That has never been a huge problem in the past, why would it be today?

If you wanna see fighting just for the sake of fighting go watch boxing or wrestling. This is hockey and IMO the fights are part of this game when two men agree to fight each other.

I'm not advocating fighting for the sake of fighting, I'm advocating fighting for the greater good. As far as I'm concerned, if you're blindsiding people in the head, you already have consented to the fight. Lots of players had long careers in the old NHL without a single fight - because they didn't take liberties with their opponents. You don't have to worry about Peters breaking Filpula's face if the instigator rule goes away, just Rutuu's.

[Finnish Wing 110]

So basically it's worked like I said. You can use your "Boogaard" to beat the s*** out of "Datsyuk" without any penalty? I think that when you start hitting someone when the other guy isn't doing anything to you it's just as bad as cheapshotting. Both should be rewarded with suspensions.

[Guest micah]

So basically it's worked like I said. You can use your "Boogaard" to beat the s*** out of "Datsyuk" without any penalty? I think that when you start hitting someone when the other guy isn't doing anything to you it's just as bad as cheapshotting. Both should be rewarded with suspensions.

The only time a Boogard type might fight a Datsyuk type is if Dats spears, buttends, charges, boards, or otherwise does something he shouldsn't. Guys like Dats don't do those things, so, guys like Boogy won't jump them, even if they could.

The pre-instigator NHL was not the wild wild west, and it was not a free-for-all with 230lb thugs who couldn't skate randomly jumping ballerinas because they could.

[Finnish Wing 110]

If guys do cheapshotting now, I have no trouble imaging guys beating innocent players if the instigator is removed. If you wanna hurt someone you could just start beating him, because it would be allowed. That's just an another opportunity to be dirty.

I do think the pre-instigator NHL was more violent and less about actually playing hockey than it's today.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From Toronto Star :

NHL players are looking at making some changes to the proposed rule on blindsided hits to the head.

The NHL Players' Association received a DVD detailing the new rule on Friday night and held a conference call that evening with the five members who sit on the competition committee -- Jason Spezza, Ryan Miller, Mathieu Schneider, Jeff Halpern and Brian Campbell.

The group appears to have come up with some sort of counter-proposal for the league, although a union spokesperson said Monday that one hasn't officially been made.

...

[akustyk 84]

my proposition:

1. fixed and clear criteria to make dangerous attacks to the head/from the blind corner an automatic major penalty

2. fixed and clear criteria to make it a suspension (effectively 1 + something)

3. introduce "no less than twice previous" rule. meaning: if you have once been suspended 3 games for certain infraction, the next one will cost you minimum 6 games. automatically without revocation

I don't care for the "it's a fast game, things happen" crap and am glad the league's finally trying to do something with this crap.

and for those crying about element of the toughness in the game... I don't care. I want guys like Savard playing not goons like Cooke.

it's that simple.

and for the record:

he didn't have to come from the blind side to make it hurt. period

Edited March 22, 2010 by akustyk

[Bannedforlife 403]

Professional athletes care about one thing and one thing only. Money. Punishing a player for hitting another player in the head by suspending him without pay is the single most effective way to stop that kind of behavior. Matt Cooke will make 1.2 million dollars this year. If he was suspended 25 games for that hit and lost out on 300,000 dollars in salary, do you think he would ever do it again? I know I'd take a beating every day of the week over losing 300 grand.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Bannedforlife

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

If they just did something boneheaded and dangerous to your teammate, absolutely.

If you don't think it's a big deal, look at fighting majors per year in the years just before and just after the instigator rule came to be. Before the rule, you could skate up to someone who didn't want to fight, throw off your gloves and start swinging. Most often, even league cowards like Claude Lemieux would fight back would fight back, and both players took matching 5s. Rarely would one man get five and the other not. Now that the instigator rule is in place, the guy who picks the fight is penalized more harshly than the guy who layed the Ruutu-esque hit that earned him the ass-kicking. It does prevent team's tough guys from doing their jobs, especially when the team needs every win they can get.

Without the instigator rule, guys who do stupid s*** to their opponents either have to answer to some thug with cement hands or face the ridicule of even their own fans for being a turtling coward who is afraid to finish what he started. I like that.

this.

The only time a Boogard type might fight a Datsyuk type is if Dats spears, buttends, charges, boards, or otherwise does something he shouldsn't. Guys like Dats don't do those things, so, guys like Boogy won't jump them, even if they could.

The pre-instigator NHL was not the wild wild west, and it was not a free-for-all with 230lb thugs who couldn't skate randomly jumping ballerinas because they could.

and all of this.

[Finnish Wing 110]

It's quite obvious you didn't watch much NHL hockey pre-instigator rule.

Once again it wasn't like that back then; most tuff guys followed a code, and they sure as hell didn't beat on smaller/skill guys.

I have alot more faith in the idea of the players policing themselves instead of letting the league continue to do so.

So like in real life, people would just "follow a code"? Like when someone would do something bad to you, you could just get your tough guy friend to go beat the s*** out of him. Cooke does cheapshotting. I see no reason why Cooke wouldn't use his fists to cheapshot some star player, when the instigator rule wouldn't be there.

The instigator rule isn't the problem here. You can still challenge the cheapshotter. If he doesn't fight, everyone knows he's a *****. That's a code which doesn't cause any more violence. If he fights he fights. This way you can't just go after some star player.

There are authorities in real world, who handle the justice. There are referees and league in hockey. "Once again", if that "Cooke" cheapshots "Savard", I don't understand why he wouldn't use his fists to do it.

I support hockey fights in general. They are best way for two men to let out some steam, rather than hitting someone to the head with the stick or something. But they don't solve this case. If you wanna see fighting just for the sake of fighting go watch boxing or something.