• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

egroen

GM's recommendation on hitting

Rate this topic

95 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

...

3d10bd084dbabcd84fcaa74e4166.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by akustyk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Bannedforlife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the instigator would have also worked, without having to rely on our brilliant officials.

Yup.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

That said, I don't mind how that rule is written. I'm worried on how it's going to be enforced, I don't have a whole lot of faith on the officials.

Yup.

Please list some of the players who were brain damaged as a result of blindside head-hits durring the era before the instigator rule was thought up.

It isn't about relatiation, it's about respecta and prevention, and for the most part it worked.

That's change I can believe in!

Yup. Yup.

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.

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.

ManLuv4Clears likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fin, you've been asked several times how much pre-instiogator rule NHL hockey you watched, and I'm not sure you answered. I suspect you're basing your oppinion on the rule of what you fear would happen rather than what you observed before it was in place.

Allowing players to pick fights without taking an additional penalty did not result in goons picking on star players before and I don't see why it would now. Enforcers might not be gifted scorers, but they are not always idiots either. They know that the Datsyuks of the league bring in the money, and they know that there is no way that the league is going to tollerate a $500k/yr hack pummeling a superstar for no reason. IF that ever became a problem, I would support efforts to stop it post haste - that is not hockey, that's a sideshow.

If you wanna see fighting just for the sake of fighting go watch boxing or something.

Come on, man. Nobody here is talking about "fighting just for the sake of fighting", the topic is fighting as a part of a package that will discourage headshots. I don't think that fighting is magic and I don't think that it will prevent every instance of thuggery - just like rules and penalties and suspensions and fines wouldn't - but there is room for all of them, and all of them together could form a nice package that's safer for the players and better for the fans.

If player A just took an elbow to the head, there is no ******* reason I can immagine for his teammate to recive an extra penalty for going after the bad guy. That's what good teammates are supposed to do, why discourage it with penalties, fines and suspensions? That is what the instigator rule does.

ManLuv4Clears likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

micah. dammit. i'm agreeing with you lately. wtf. :)

Don't worry, I'll say something ridiculous soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they way it's stated is open to way too much interpretation. You can go head hunting and get a two minute minor? Big deal that won't stop s***. We will see no consistency with this at all. That's not to mention what a circus act it will be when Collin "incompetent" Campbell decides to get involved after the incidents.

I'm all for a rules to be in place, but this seems way to broad. I guess we shall see.

Edited by Pucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fin, you've been asked several times how much pre-instiogator rule NHL hockey you watched, and I'm not sure you answered. I suspect you're basing your oppinion on the rule of what you fear would happen rather than what you observed before it was in place.

Allowing players to pick fights without taking an additional penalty did not result in goons picking on star players before and I don't see why it would now. Enforcers might not be gifted scorers, but they are not always idiots either. They know that the Datsyuks of the league bring in the money, and they know that there is no way that the league is going to tollerate a $500k/yr hack pummeling a superstar for no reason. IF that ever became a problem, I would support efforts to stop it post haste - that is not hockey, that's a sideshow.

Of course I'm basing my opinion of what the rule would cause to happen. I think you can relate it to real life. Let people police themselves and see what will happen. There's obviously a reason why there are referees in this game.

Yes, they do know it. Players obviously respect the league as you said. League makes the rules and hands the punishments. No need to remove the instigator.

Edited by Finnish Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm basing my opinion of what the rule would cause to happen. I think you can relate it to real life. Let people police themselves and see what will happen. There's obviously a reason why there are referees in this game.

You're basing your oppinion on fear instead of history and direct observation. I don't think that's sound practice.

People are responsible for policing themselves to an extent. One may use force to defend themselves or another person from likely bodily injury. Police cannot be expected to stop all crime, and you and I have a responsibility to deter and or actively fight back against illegal attacks to the extent possible.

Yes, they do know it. Players obviously respect the league as you said. League makes the rules and hands the punishments. No need to remove the instigator.

If the league would give the boot to the Cookes of the league with the quickness they would give it to Donnald Brashear if he took to randomly jumping and kicking the s*** out of superstars, there would be no problem, that's true. Until that day comes, I'd like to see players able to defend themselves and their teammates without the threat of 17 minutes of penalty along with possible fines and suspensions.

ManLuv4Clears likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're basing your oppinion on fear instead of history and direct observation. I don't think that's sound practice.

People are responsible for policing themselves to an extent. One may use force to defend themselves or another person from likely bodily injury. Police cannot be expected to stop all crime, and you and I have a responsibility to deter and or actively fight back against illegal attacks to the extent possible.

If the league would give the boot to the Cookes of the league with the quickness they would give it to Donnald Brashear if he took to randomly jumping and kicking the s*** out of superstars, there would be no problem, that's true. Until that day comes, I'd like to see players able to defend themselves and their teammates without the threat of 17 minutes of penalty along with possible fines and suspensions.

How do we as a people deter illegal attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of blindside headshots and that's it, in the mean time remove the instigator, although it isn't the perfect fix, it would help a little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we as a people deter illegal attacks?

With the threat of fines, jail, and legal counterattack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the threat of fines, jail, and legal counterattack.

I'm talking about we as people. Not we as a legal entity.

Those threats are the same as those provided by the NHL rulebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about we as people. Not we as a legal entity.

Those threats are the same as those provided by the NHL rulebook.

It is not legal per the NHL rulebook to fight back and defend yourself or another person.

As far as how normal folk defend themselves, it varies. Some learn to fight, some hire bodyguards, some carry guns, some exersize caution in where thy go and when, some lock their doors at night, etc. Most of us don't think about it very often, I don't. Some people live in places where they must worry every day about stopping some thug that wants to do them harm. Where are you going with this, and why are you asking questions that you know the answers to?

If Crosby were hitting my sister in the back with a stick and I feared that she was at risk of bodily harm, I could proceed to feed him punches until the threat was removed, and the only legal punnishment would be against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not legal per the NHL rulebook to fight back and defend yourself or another person.

As far as how normal folk defend themselves, it varies. Some learn to fight, some hire bodyguards, some carry guns, some exersize caution in where thy go and when, some lock their doors at night, etc. Most of us don't think about it very often, I don't. Some people live in places where they must worry every day about stopping some thug that wants to do them harm. Where are you going with this, and why are you asking questions that you know the answers to?

If Crosby were hitting my sister in the back with a stick and I feared that she was at risk of bodily harm, I could proceed to feed him punches until the threat was removed, and the only legal punnishment would be against him.

Because your discussion of self defense in society does not relate to self defense in the sport. Attacking someone for putting someone else out of a game from a cheap-shot is not part of "self defense" when the system knows it happened and can punish it accordingly (and when that player already received the entire brunt of the "crime" itself). That is vigilante justice.

They are not the same.

If we have a situation where Cooke repeatedly punches players in the back of the head without a single player attempting to stop him because it leads to a suspension or severe penalty, then there may be a parallel. That isn't the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking someone for putting someone else out of a game from a cheap-shot is not part of "self defense" when the system knows it happened and can punish it accordingly

Can punish it accordingly? I don't think it has anything to do with what the league can do, but what the league does. If the league ever gets so serious in their punnishments against cheap-shotters that they cease to exist, then players will not need to fight. Until the day that the league cleans up the game, the players should be able to police themselves as they have for the majority of the league's history.

That is vigilante justice.

..and I'm okay with that, at least in hockey. It isn't just about punishing bad guys, it is also about sending a message to others - "If you mess with this team you will be punished, even if the league won't get you, we will. Don't do anything stupid."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can punish it accordingly? I don't think it has anything to do with what the league can do, but what the league does. If the league ever gets so serious in their punnishments against cheap-shotters that they cease to exist, then players will not need to fight. Until the day that the league cleans up the game, the players should be able to police themselves as they have for the majority of the league's history.

And that is my point. If hockey requires players to perform vigilante justice on others for cheapshots, then the league is not doing their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is my point. If hockey requires players to perform vigilante justice on others for cheapshots, then the league is not doing their job.

The league isn't doing their job, I think that's obvious. There is no consistency on who get punished and how, and there never has been since the instigator rule was put in place. I don't know if removing the rule will fix the problem at hand, but I don't think it would hurt. I wouldn't hold my breath on the NHL in changing their practices anytime in the near future, so something has to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now