Jump to content


F.Michael's Photo

F.Michael

Member Since 30 May 2007
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:39 PM
***--

#1924471 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by F.Michael on 25 March 2010 - 08:37 AM

Whatevs, dawg. I live in the real world. I've seen the NHL without the instigator rule, and I know that it can exist and work reasonably well. "The NHL getting their s*** in order" with regards to preventing cheapshots through dicipline is something that I have never seen and am not sure I believe to be possible. I mean, that would be nice, much as sexy space aliems giving me money and handjobs would be nice, but I don't clamour for things that I'm not certain are even possible in this mortal coil.

Maybe my memory is a tad foggy (or there were too many fermented malt beverages consumed over the years), but I seem to recall how the league ran somewhat smoothly without the issues we see today.


I'm sorry, I forgot that I live in fairy tale land.

I'll just leave and go ride my unicorn off into the sunset. Later, homeskillet.

Hey - if you're in the greater Milwaukee area could you pick me, and my Leprechaun buddy up?...He needs to get back to Ireland post-haste!

I heard that the players would like to expand it beyond just lateral or coming from behind type plays, they want to avoid even the head shots that come head on (no pun intended). I may have heard wrong as I just got the end of a radio discussion yesterday.

I hope you're wrong...If that's the case - why not eliminate checking from the game altogether?


#1921908 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by F.Michael on 22 March 2010 - 06:52 PM

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.


#1921412 White vs Red?

Posted by F.Michael on 22 March 2010 - 01:45 AM

Detroit RED wings look better in RED...duh! ;)

Welcome Puffy!

So you've decided to venture into the dark side huh?

:cool:


#1918635 McCarty & Claude Lemieux on TSN's OTR

Posted by F.Michael on 19 March 2010 - 09:28 AM

It feels good to be vindicated - I said all along that 1) Mac suckered Claude, and 2) that Claude didn't turtle, his bell was rung and he went down from the suckerpunch. Both of those things were talked about tonight, Mac had no problem with it - he even said that the suckerpunch he landed to the side of Claude's head was among the hardest punches he ever threw.

It was a great interview, I really enjoyed the insight that both guys offered. They seemed to agree, that men who land that kind of shot should expect to have to answer to the other team's toughguy. Both guys were known as being pricks on the ice but they seem like class acts here.

Agreed.

I actually gained some respect for Lemieux for his brutal honesty.


#1918160 Teams that Should Have Never Changed their Jerseys

Posted by F.Michael on 18 March 2010 - 01:57 PM

Yeah, I saw highlights of the game.

The jerseys looked awesome. I was waiting for Troy Crowder to come off the bench there.


The jersey devil is probably green anyway, so why not wear the color?

Bill Guerin was probably having some flashbacks as well.


#1917159 No rhyme or reason to NHL's 'discipline'

Posted by F.Michael on 16 March 2010 - 11:10 AM

Nothing new here; it's been this way for a long time...It's the reason why knuckledraggers such as myself would like players to police themselves.


#1917087 Holmstrom has had a great season

Posted by F.Michael on 16 March 2010 - 07:59 AM

It's like he playing for a new contract.


#1914933 No suspension for Cooke

Posted by F.Michael on 13 March 2010 - 12:58 AM

I would say that the other changes you suggest, beyond the insitgator, would be enough. (Well, I'd also mandate proper chin straps on helmets, and probably look for improvements to visors. Hard pads need some analysis. The pads themselves aren't a problem, but they probably contribute indirectly to more reckless play.)

Now on to the instigator rule. Serious question for you. Do you really believe that the chance (not even a guarantee) of getting a minor penalty is keeping enforcers from preventing cheap shots?

First of all, the instigator rule does not prevent violent retaliation; it only assesses a penalty for it. Now think about it logically.

You have a 'cheap-shotter', under current rules, if he delivers a cheap shot (like the Cooke hit), he faces the possible consequences of: Penalty in game (minor, major, misconduct, ejection...up to the discretion of the refs), League Discipline (suspension, fines), Retaliation from the opposing team. So cheap-shotter must either ignore or at least not be thinking about any of those consequences before taking a cheap shot.

You have an enforcer, under current rules, he may (probably even) get a minor penalty for retaliating and a misconduct. Frequent offenders (or in certain circumstances) may face more serious discipline. To NOT retaliate, he must consider the value of his 'enforcement' to be less than what would be lost by taking the penalty. This alone suggests that the 'deterrence factor' of enforcers can not be very high (at least in the minds of the enforcers themselves).

Furthermore, removing the instigator rule would NOT allow an enforcer to force someone into a fight. All Cheap-shotter has to do is ignore the enforcer. How many enforcers are going to chase someone down from behind and risk a Bertuzzi-Moore incident. (Oddly enough, people often cite that case when arguing against the instigator rule. As if removing the instigator would make it impossible to turn your back and skate away from someone.) The league would never allow someone to just pummel another player who wasn't defending themselves. There would be legal ramifications. So at best it allows maybe one or two shots that maybe (not even guarantee) doesn't result in a penalty on the 'instigator'. Consequently, it would also allow the same for bullies to do the same to star players / non-fighters (even if such a thing would be rare [as an aside, I'd suggest you look into the old Flyers borad street bullies]) Also note that the NHL has had at least some version of the instigator rule since the Original 6 days. And really, most of the criticism of the instigator rule would more properly be directed at the Agressor rule, which is the one that penalizes players for fighting unwilling or defenseless opponents.

So you trade increased risk (even if only slightly) to star players for an increase in the likelihood of one potential consequence (the value of which has already been determined to be less than a minor penalty) for the cheap-shotter.

You seem to have this romanticized, WWE-esque notion of enforcers as some kind of super hero, before whom the forces of evil cower in fear. Or rather, they would be, if not hamstrung by the instigator rule. As though they have the ability to protect others from harm, but are too honorable to break the rules in order to do so. As if having a just cause would instill them with some righteous power to conquer their enemies. Like said enemies would, if the instigator were removed, be unbreakably bound by some code to accept their due punishment.

The truth is, players can't police themselves. Like I said before, all that does is allow the toughest guy around to make the rules, even if that guy happens to be one of the 'bad-guys'. Discipline has to come from authority. Authority can not come from violence. It's too inconsistent.

1st off - no one here is claiming that enforcers will prevent each, and every attempt of a cheap shot from occurring; all they'll do is to seek "payback" in the form of fisticuffs upon the guilty party which may make them think twice about future attepmts to run an opponent.

2nd - most tuff guys follow a "code" in which they'll leave a smaller/skilled opponent alone - unles provoked.

3rd - for those of us here that were watching hockey back in the 1980's we didn't see as many head shots/cheap shots, and overall blatant disrespect that we see in todays game...Much of that is due to the fact that players aren't being held accountable by other players...It's not as though fighting was the only form of punishment - suspensions were handed out by the league as well...Unfortunately the league doesn't make the right decisions as we have seen with Cooke; now there's a chance the Bruins will seek their own justice which could get ugly...20 years ago we would've seen someone go after Cooke, and it would've been taken care of (although there's always potential for follow-up beatdowns in every game thereafter), but now with the league NOT SUSPENDING Cooke - I wouldn't be too surprised if things got ugly the next time the Pens/Bruins meet.


#1913852 Retired Jerseys?

Posted by F.Michael on 11 March 2010 - 01:46 PM

To be honest - after Lidstrom there isn't anyone in a Red Wings sweater that I'd consider worthy of hanging it into the rafters.


#1913807 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by F.Michael on 11 March 2010 - 01:03 PM

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.


#1913794 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by F.Michael on 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.


#1913718 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by F.Michael on 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.


#1913712 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by F.Michael on 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.


#1913577 No suspension for Cooke

Posted by F.Michael on 11 March 2010 - 12:58 AM

Glad you can manage to read minds of people.

What do I want for lunch while you are at it?


That said, I just miss the days where both players in this situation had accountability.

Cooke has the accountability that if he hits a star player, he will have to answer the bell.
And if the star player leaves himself vulnerable with a player like Cooke on the ice, that's his issue...

I miss the days when there wasn't an instigator penalty, and a clown like Cooke would've gotten pummeled.

Take away the instigator rule. Make players accountable, Cooke does this in the 70's to a talented player and he doesnt play again. Players have no respect for one another anymore, and it isnt just the instigator rule, but that's a part. Oh and the NHL is crap, Boogaard and Lapierre do similar things and face suspension but f***face Matt Cooke takes Savard out for the season and it's all fine and good?

Agreed.

Players used to police themselves to a certain extent, and issues were taken care of on the ice...Now everyone looks to the league to hand out punishment, and in a case like this where the league fails to do the right thing - I wouldn't be too surprised if there's some nastiness (read potential ugliness) when these 2 teams meet again.


#1913032 Questioning the Wings Leadership

Posted by F.Michael on 10 March 2010 - 09:45 AM

How the hell does Babcock hold a lead from the bench? In the end the players are on the ice and have to do the work. Babcock got raving reviews from the Canadian players from the Olympics and the coaching staff and everyone else... there is only so much he can do. One thing he can't is play for the players... they have to want to do what he says. Also, how is he mishandling the goalies? We are starved for points and he is playing the goalie that is playing the best... The End! He doesn't have the wiggle room to throw Osgood in to lose games until he can find his way out of his slump and play better. Howard is playing better then Osgood (which isn't saying much) and so he gets the starts... neither goalie is playing great but Howard is playing better then Osgood.

Agree with the bolded sentence 100%.

If Bowman were coaching this team - half the players would be sitiing due to their bone-headed plays.