Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

GM's recommendation on hitting


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#21 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,961 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 10 March 2010 - 06:39 PM

A better move would be to get rid of the instigator rule, to weed out ******* like Matt Cooke from the NHL.
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#22 uk_redwing

uk_redwing

    #25 Jamie Tardif

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,852 posts
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:18 PM

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.


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.

Posted Image
Turtling is for the weak
Grand Rapids Griffins Fights


#23 mjlegend

mjlegend

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,903 posts
  • Location:Moose Jaw, SK

Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:06 PM

A better move would be to get rid of the instigator rule, to weed out ******* like Matt Cooke from the NHL.


I give you Ulf Samuelsson and Ken Linseman. Neither of those guy were afraid to viciously hurt players pre-instigator rule. Some of these guys went after knees to end careers, which was the style back in the day. You'd say "Give me two knees for a quarter."
Anyway, all of those players wore out their welcomes from several teams because they wouldn't finish what they started in the pre-instigator era.

#24 jollymania

jollymania

    Heavy Hitter

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:13 PM

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.

boogaard hits guys in the head by default he is fricken 6'7, yes pronger physics inevitably have to be applied to large players
"I assure you the hits along the boards he(Aaron Downey) constantly threw SEVERAL TIMES EVERY SHIFT were far more damaging hits that what Kronwall throws."
- uk_redwing
HockeyArchive Twitter

#25 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,961 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:36 PM

I give you Ulf Samuelsson and Ken Linseman. Neither of those guy were afraid to viciously hurt players pre-instigator rule. Some of these guys went after knees to end careers, which was the style back in the day. You'd say "Give me two knees for a quarter."
Anyway, all of those players wore out their welcomes from several teams because they wouldn't finish what they started in the pre-instigator era.


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

Seems like every team has a Matt Cooke type turd.
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#26 SweWings

SweWings

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:53 PM

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

#27 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:37 AM

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.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#28 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:58 AM

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.
Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#29 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,752 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:28 AM

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



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.

I too don't like the idea of relying upon the on ice officials, or the league for that matter when it comes time for enforcing certain rules...Both have failed far too often.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#30 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,752 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:34 AM

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.

Agreed.

Some guys will continue to play their game regardless of what the punishment may be...At least guys like Ulfie, and Lemieux took a beating 'cause they accepted the repercussions for their on ice actions...Too bad Ulfie wasn't in his prime while a Red Wing; Wing fans may have had a different opinion.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#31 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,752 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:44 AM

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.

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.

Edited by F.Michael, 11 March 2010 - 10:54 AM.


'Evolution' created by Offsides

#32 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:51 AM

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.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#33 zettie85

zettie85

    Selke Candidate

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,777 posts
  • Location:Dryden, Ontario

Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:07 AM

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 by zettie85, 11 March 2010 - 11:08 AM.

Posted Image
Thanks TeeMan!

#34 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:42 AM

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.
Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#35 zettie85

zettie85

    Selke Candidate

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,777 posts
  • Location:Dryden, Ontario

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:03 PM

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 thef****** 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.
Posted Image
Thanks TeeMan!

#36 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:05 PM

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.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#37 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:24 PM

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?

#38 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,752 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:26 PM

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

Ask that same question to a player if he'd rather square off with someone like Boogard/Probert/Kocur where you have the potential to get some teeth knocked out, a broken nose, or a fractured cheek bone when instead you can just sit "pretty" in the press box unscathed while serving your suspension.

The vast majority of hockey fans (and players) feel the instigator penalty is part of this problem we see today concerning the lack of respect for one another.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#39 egroen

egroen

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,619 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:33 PM

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 by egroen, 11 March 2010 - 12:34 PM.

Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

#40 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,752 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:52 PM

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?

Most cases the enforcer on any given team follows a code, or at least they used to pre-instigator penalty...Rarely did you ever see guys like Yzerman, or Gretzky get roughed up, or cheap shotted due to the repercussions of facing Probert, or Semenko/McSorley...Tough guys back then rarely went after the other teams top players because of that very same code.

In the past 10 years we have seen a growing number of incidents take place due to some players indifference to their fellow competitor...We're also seeing more "repeat offenders"...After Claude Lemieux was jumped, and pummeled by McCarty (surprisingly there was no suspension) Lemieux didn't go around hitting people from behind, and going after players knees like he had before...Me thinks that beating McCarty gave him might've had an influence; who's to say if Cooke were to receive a beating in a similar fashion that his # of cheap shots would go down as well?

Like you said - some players today laugh it off 'cause they know more often than not they'll get away with their behavior, but years ago that wasn't the case when you were expected to answer for your actions...This is why there's quite a large # of fans, players, GMs, etc, that wouldn't mind seeing the instigator penalty done away with.

'Evolution' created by Offsides





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users