Gretzky Speaks on Player Respect

[WorkingOvertime 536]

"In 1980, when I was in Edmonton, we used to practice with no helmets on," said Gretzky. "(Head coach) Glen Sather's philosophy was that the players would learn to keep their sticks down in practice; defencemen would learn to keep their shots from the point down in practice. So if everyone learned the respect factor in practice, it would carry on into a game."

Gretzky also made sure to point out that there was only so much that the NHL itself and individual teams could do.

"It falls back on the players themselves to have respect for each other as regular people."

The NHL's all-time leading scorer feels that the recent rash of head injuries has less to do with a lack of respect for an opponent and more about the evolution of the sport as a whole over the past decade.

"The game is so much better today because the players are so much better, bigger and stronger," said Gretzky.

"When we saw a guy that was 6'6" in 1982, we wanted to face that guy because we knew he wasn't going to be tremendously skilled and he was going to be uncoordinated. You see a guy like (Boston Bruins' captain Zdeno) Chara now. He's 6'9", he's physical, he's strong, he's tough. I've played against him and he's hard to play against.

While he did not directly address the Chara/Max Pacioretty incident, he said that he did not want to see the physical nature of the game go by the wayside due to some unfortunate accidents.

"The physical part of the game should always stay in the game. That's what makes our game special," said Gretzky. "It's hard to get your name on the Stanley Cup. It's hard to win four seven-game series. Guys like Darryl Sittler, guys like Rocket Richard, guys like Mark Messier. The physical and the talent that they had is what makes our game unique and special. We've got to find a way to keep the physical side in there and clean this up the best that we can."

While he understands that coaches tell their players to finish their checks, he realizes that there are limits.

"I don't think that there is any coach in the game that says to his players 'I want you to physically hurt that guy.' But I will tell you this, I would be one of the coaches that says: 'if Stamkos touches the puck and you have a chance to hit him, you hit him hard.'

Still, he realizes that the fans come to see the stars play, and if they are unable to because of head injuries than something must be done to rectify that.

"We understand and recognize that when the best player in the game is not playing, we're losing something," Gretzky admitted.

"People want to see him play. The people in Pittsburgh suffer because they don't get to see him every night and the fans on the road are disappointed because they paid top dollar to see Sidney Crosby and the Penguins play. So it is an issue"

Gretzky came up with a novel solution on how to protect the star players as he suggested the NHL consider eliminating the instigator rule on a trial basis.

"Let's try it back in the game for one year just to satisfy everybody's curiosity," said Gretzky.

"I was lucky enough to have a guy like Marty McSorley. That was part of the game and part of what went on in our sport. Now if we all think and everyone feels that the instigator issue will change things, then let's try it for awhile."

Full article are link.

Source- TSN http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=359481

Edited March 26, 2011 by WorkingOvertime

[kook_10 1,705]

"Novel" solution?

[Guest Shoreline]

He's right. It's worth a try.

I think "novel" was tongue-in-cheek, kook.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Shoreline

[kook_10 1,705]

He's right. It's worth a try.

I think "novel" was tongue-in-cheek, kook.

I don't. The writers at TSN are hacks. Remember Captain Hank?

As much as I'd like to see it happen, it would be to the detriment of our dear and precious Wings. I think the league is too far away from the old-time standard of self reliance and preservation that they just couldn't get rid of the instigator outright. There would have to be some sort of middle ground.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I don't. The writers at TSN are hacks. Remember Captain Hank?

As much as I'd like to see it happen, it would be to the detriment of our dear and precious Wings. I think the league is too far away from the old-time standard of self reliance and preservation that they just couldn't get rid of the instigator outright. There would have to be some sort of middle ground.

The Wings would likely pick up an enforcer if this were to happen (as would the other 'enforcerless' teams). Some have suggested to remove the instigator if a penalty occurs- I haven't thought enough about this for an opinion, but it is an interesting suggestion.

[kook_10 1,705]

The Wings would likely pick up an enforcer if this were to happen (as would the other 'enforcerless' teams). Some have suggested to remove the instigator if a penalty occurs- I haven't thought enough about this for an opinion, but it is an interesting suggestion.

Wings Chime In On Instigator Rule

I would have to think the visor portion of the rule would have to remain. It's difficult to envision how they could write the rule in a way to allow instigation in only certain circumstances. In any case it would have to be even more subjective than it is now. Maybe they should just change the language of the rule as it stands now to allow it in the context of "obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season."

[Guest Shoreline]

Not to spoil an enforcer slappy's wet dream, but I'm in doubt the Wings still need an enforcer in the case of the instigator rule being removed. The reason being that instigators are supposed to keep people from making dirty plays. The Wings don't make dirty plays. There are still penalties called, as well. Losing the instigator rule doesn't mean anything goes.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Wings Chime In On Instigator Rule

I would have to think the visor portion of the rule would have to remain. It's difficult to envision how they could write the rule in a way to allow instigation in only certain circumstances. In any case it would have to be even more subjective than it is now. Maybe they should just change the language of the rule as it stands now to allow it in the context of "obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season."

I largely agree with E.

Jonathan Ericsson said. “He should be getting some games for that, but for the instigator, I don’t know, it’s different from time-to-time. It can be called a bit too often, but if it’s called after a good, hard hit then it probably should be called; Just hard to judge.”

Sometime I think it shouldn't be called, and other times it should. The problem, like you stated, is that the rule can't accurately be enforced if it isn't black and white.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

The Wings would likely pick up an enforcer if this were to happen (as would the other 'enforcerless' teams). Some have suggested to remove the instigator if a penalty occurs- I haven't thought enough about this for an opinion, but it is an interesting suggestion.

I can't think of any other teams besides us that is "enforcerless". Every other team in the league has guy(s) that drop the gloves.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I can't think of any other teams besides us that is "enforcerless". Every other team in the league has guy(s) that drop the gloves.

So Does Detroit.

It all depends on your definition of "enforcerless".

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

So Does Detroit.

It all depends on your definition of "enforcerless".

I don't consider Ericsson or Abdelkader anything close to enforcers.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I actually agree with Shoreline.

This rule exists only to protect players who make dirty plays and don't have to back it up. Guys like Cooke or Ruutu, who should just be grabbed and pummeled on the ice each time they do something cheap.

I doubt some tough guy would grab Zetterberg and start pounding him for no reason if the rule was lifted.

[Nev 1,085]

No, but the problem comes when an oppenent decides to start pummeling one of our players, knowing that there is no-one on our team who will pummel him back.

Anyway, Zetterberg has said in the past that he is in favour of rescinding the instigator rule.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I can't think of any other teams besides us that is "enforcerless". Every other team in the league has guy(s) that drop the gloves.

Off the top of my head, Vancouver and Tampa Bay don't have heavyweights. Glass is game, but I don't think he should be stepping up to Boogard, Carkner, Orr, etc.

No, but the problem comes when an oppenent decides to start pummeling one of our players, knowing that there is no-one on our team who will pummel him back.

Anyway, Zetterberg has said in the past that he is in favour of rescinding the instigator rule.

This change would be made over the summer, so the Wings could pick someone up to enforce. The argument for removing the instigator is that if your team picks on my star player, my team will pick on your star player while you're in the box. Also, dirty players like Cooke would also have to answer to the other players and the league.

[mjlegend 155]

Cooke just got 14-17 games. Don't think the NHL has to worry about him for awhile.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

The Globe and Mail .

[uk_redwing 495]

Won't happen. Should, but it won't.

[newfy 695]

So Does Detroit.

It all depends on your definition of "enforcerless".

Detroit has no guys who consistently drop the gloves to be considered a tough guy. Vancouver has Glass, Torres will go, Bolduc plays some games, Bieksa etc. Montreal has Moen and Wiz.

Detroits problem would be solved if E would show up for his teammates more consistently but he wont unfortuantely.

If the instigator were removed I wouldn't expect the wings to grab a Boogaard but they would definitely get someone like a Tanner Glass, Laperriere in his day etc at the very least

I think on plays where a penalty is called for a hit then the instigator being removed could possibly work, the people who say goons would just start grabbing stars and pummeling them are wrong, didnt happen back in the day, why would it now?

Edited March 26, 2011 by newfy