94 replies to this topic

[zettie85]

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.

[F.Michael]

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.

Exactly...As I stated earlier most tuff guys/enforcers tend to follow a code where the stars are more or less untouched...It's the turds of the league that'll go after anyone, and it's those guys IMHO whom hide behind the instigator penalty.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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, 22 March 2010 - 04:51 PM.

[Bannedforlife]

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, 22 March 2010 - 10:40 PM.

[F.Michael]

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.

[HOCKEY MATTERS]

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]

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.

[micah]

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 nof****** 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.

[HOCKEY MATTERS]

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

[micah]

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

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