Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 12:03 PM
****-

#1955999 Drop Kick

Posted by Buppy on 24 April 2010 - 12:58 AM

Ridiculous! His foot was inside of Howard's leg pad. Thats a little much to me...Holmstrom would be thrown out of a game for that!


He jockeying for position, lifted his foot, lost his balance a little, then got caught up in Howie's ridiculously large pads. Nothing wrong with it. No more interference than Abby's stick in Bryz's face on Miller's goal. Though I do agree that Homer would've been called for it.


#1955987 Automatic Chara suspension recinded

Posted by Buppy on 24 April 2010 - 12:42 AM

Well they obviously can't classify "enforcer" in the rule book. But the criteria on past incidents etc. make it pretty easy to see the type of game someone plays.

For an example, if Datsyuk decides to stick up for himself at the end of the game would this forum still be asking the league to enforce this?

And if you don't like this rule would you like seeing Tootoo or Cooke out at the end of the game taking runs at Lidstrom etc.


I take that to mean that you DO want to see Crosby or Ovie out taking runs at people?

The point of the rule is to stop ANYONE from doing that crap. Shouldn't make any difference if it's Chara or Chuck Norris riding a Rhino.

It's a suspension for instigating, not for fighting. You don't typically see instigators handed out to people 'sticking up for themselves'. (From the league's explanation, it sounds like they're saying Chara shouldn't have gotten one, but I haven't seen the incident, so I can't say.) The refs are certainly capable of giving out instigators when they shouldn't, so i don't absolutely hate the clause, but you have to admit it is starting to look like a superstar get out of jail free card.


#1942946 Red Wings facts

Posted by Buppy on 14 April 2010 - 11:53 PM

The truth is that anything good we do this year is a bonus. One of the problems with consistent greatness is getting worn down by long seasons as well as long, draining playoff runs. Eventually this is bound to catch up with you. This is compounded by the fact that Babcock dosn't roll 4 lines, my only complaint about,in my opinion,the best coach in the game. Our best defensemen are old. After that the depth is lacking. We have a handfull of upper eschelon forwards, mixed with a bunch of patch-work fill ins. Add to this the fact that we have an unproven,untested,albeit talented rookie goalie. The deep seasons (and lack of using 4 lines)have worn down our few great players. Thats why overrated crosby, and a-hole malkin got the cup last year. I won't even get started on the shall we say less than realistic officiating over the years that is controlled by the league(overlord betteman). Since the 80's we have won 1 game that the guy that got shot(o'halleran?) has called. This goes beyond coincidence. By the way, anyone interested in a true history lesson on the NHL should watch the movie Net Worth. It's got Gordie,Ted,Adams,all the historical people the league celebrates. An eye opener to say the least. One last thing: Any team that counts on a guy like Blowtuzzi to be a key piece of the puzzle and not the checking line 4th line role-player that he has become is just fooling themselves or desperate.


What are you talking about? When we've been healthy, we've always gone with 4 lines.


#1939290 Snakes

Posted by Buppy on 12 April 2010 - 11:57 PM

Sometimes ideas or concepts, take something that somebody originally had, and put your own spin on it or try to make it work a bit differently. Happens in business and work all the time. It's better than them doing nothing and it's not worth getting feelings hurt that they might do this.


I might be more receptive if they were playing someone else and still planning something. But you know if they were playing the Kings or Preds, the idea never would have been born.

It's blatant immitation predicated entirely on the fact that we already do it. It borders on mockery.


#1939169 Snakes

Posted by Buppy on 12 April 2010 - 09:30 PM

Why? Just because Detroit is an Original Six franchise with "history" and "tradition" doesn't mean other teams, or new teams, can't have their own deals as well? We have to dump on them for trying to develop their own traditions or ideas? Let them have their fun. If it encourages fan participation and doesn't hurt anybody, let the idea go forward.


It's not 'thier own tradition' or 'thier idea'. It's ours, that they are trying to copy and modify. At least the rat-trick thing had some backing behind it. This is just lame mimicry.

How about they come up with something that doesn't involve throwing some kind of animal on the ice. How about they howl at the moon, or chase a roadrunner, or encroach on to suburban areas and kidnap small dogs from the backyards of elderly ladies. (Ok, that last one is a bad idea, but you get my point.)

(Side note, an elderly lady in my neghborhood did recently lose a small dog, and a coyote has been seen in the area several times. It is really getting out of hand.)


#1938999 Early Penalty Watch For Game 1

Posted by Buppy on 12 April 2010 - 07:32 PM

:looney:

What you're suggesting is racketeering. A federal crime. Punishable by lengthly prison sentences. Not the good jail, like on Cinemax. The man jail.

One corrupt ref, even two, might be believable. But the NHL will NOT, definitely NOT, no possible way, absolutely ZERO CHANCE, be involved in any way.

If you don't believe this, please, PLEASE, for the love of all that's Holy, do the human race a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool as soon as possible.


#1935545 its gotta suck...

Posted by Buppy on 09 April 2010 - 01:57 PM

Well, you can't really just look at points. All the teams don't share the same schedule, especially conference vs. conference. I think the general thought is that the West is better than the East, but I don't think it's as simple as most would try to make it seem.

The final teams getting a playoff spot in the East will have pretty low point totals this year, but part of that has to do with a team like Washington really cleaning up. There is only so many points to go around in a conference, so if a few teams at the top take a lot of points, there's less for the bottom end.


Washington only has 7 more points than San Jose currently. And the rest of the top seeds have fewer points. In fact, with the exception of the 1 and 15 spots, every Western team has more points than its Eastern counterpart. The West as a whole has 71 more points than the East. And that's even with 13 fewer OTLs. The West has dominated the East this year.


#1930877 Cleary Inquiry

Posted by Buppy on 03 April 2010 - 12:08 AM

I think this is one of Hollands dumbest deals. "On March 11, 2008, Cleary signed a 5 year contract extension with the Detroit Red Wings, worth $14 million.".

On the other hand there is this:

"In the 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs on May 14, 2009, Cleary scored the tie breaking, semi-final series winning goal for the Detroit Red Wings against the Anaheim Ducks with 3 minutes left in Game 7. With the win the Detroit Red Wings moved on to face the Chicago Blackhawks in the Western Conference Final. Cleary scored 5 goals against his former team in a 4-1 series win clinching the Western Conference title....."

Yet this year he has 13 goals and 16 assists all while being in the top 6 rotation for the whole year. Not enough Danny boy, not enough.


At the time he was in the midst of a second straight 20 goal season, and he's a very versatile player. I don't think it's really a bad deal. He's been fighting injuries all year, and certainly effected by all the other injuries, just like the rest of the team.

That said, I wouldn't hate it if we could move him to bring in a legit top 6 winger. I'd rather move him than Flip, but either way we don't need 2 (or 3 if Hudler comes back) tweeners making near $3 mil a year.


#1928328 Fallout:

Posted by Buppy on 30 March 2010 - 11:30 AM

This is a standard response that I've read in several place, but it's completely and utterly ridiculous. "If they had beaten Canada..." News Flash: They didn't, champ, they got their asses blown out and they looked terrible while doing it. Unlucky to play Canada so soon? If they're as good as you're implying, wouldn't Canada have been unlucky to play Russia so soon? Do you think Russia would have had a different result if they'd played the USA in the quarters? Because I sure don't. The Americans would have killed the Russians with the teams and coaching they brought to that tournament.

Russia easily brought the most talented and possibly the most favored team to the tourney and Bykov coached them into the ground. They didn't look like the elite team they were supposed to be and these inquiries and changes are definitely worth the time if Russia is going to be ready for Sochi.


How you got all that from the quoted post is beyond me. You need to relax.


#1915048 No suspension for Cooke

Posted by Buppy on 13 March 2010 - 01:27 PM

Hockey teams are supposed to win. Actions which draw penalties, especially from borderline players, are not generally smiled upon by coaches.

Me personally, I'd rather get a few days off work in punnishment for doing something dumb than have an angry Derek Boogard come after me. *and* get a few days off work. I doubt I'm the only one.

Elimination of the instigator rule is not the anwer to all of the league's problems, it's part of the answer.

Rules against crosschecks to the face, hits from behind into the boards and slew foots do not prevent these acts, they merely penalise them. Now think about it logically.

The instigator is not a 2 minute minor - it's 2, 5, 10 and sometimes fines (for coach and player) and suspensions. As the rule stands today, players must be very careful about instigating fights.


It's hard to ignore a man who's punching you in the head.


And I suggest that removing the instigator would create additional problems that would nullify any potential benefit. There's a reason civilized nations outlaw vigilante justice; It doesn't work.

Your point on the penalties illustrates to some degree my point. Though instead of dirty plays, think hooks, trips, and holds and such. A player gets beat, they will often hook or hold to prevent a scoring opportunity. The penalty is thought to be less severe than allowing the scoring chance. They may even not get called. The benefit outweighs the risk.

You're saying basically that the benefit of starting a fight after a dirty hit does not outweigh the risk of an instigator penalty. You're saying you would rather allow a potentially preventable injury to a teammate than spend 12 extra minutes in the penalty box.

Conclusion: The benefit of starting a fight can not be very high.

As for ignoring someone...it's not that hard. First, there's no guarantee any enforcer will be on the ice, nor in the immediate viscinity. Even if they do catch you, it's not that hard to turtle up and protect yourself from injury. In that case, it is the aggressor rule, not the instigator, that protects the one getting beat. And there is no chance in hell the aggressor rule will ever be removed. The league will never, ever allow unmitigated beatings of defenseless players, 'deserved' or not. The legal repercussions would be far too severe.

...
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.


You're making a lot of assumptions. Admittedly, I don't remember alot of specifics from the 80s, but there were certainly cheap shots back then. The game wasn't as fast, nor the players as big. I think that is more to o blame for the lack of respect. Players just aren't as aware as they should be of what kind of damage they can do. Even now, cheap shots like this Cooke hit aren't exactly common. Tough, consistent discipline from league authority would be enough to raise awareness, without any potential drawbacks.

As for future retaliation against Cooke, this is where I see these arguments lose all logic.

You're actually suggesting that the fairly minor punishment for instigating prevented the Bruins from responding, but you wouldn't be surprised to see them do so in the future, in a game likely under heavy scrutiny, after likely being warned, wherein the penalties will likely be far more severe.

....

I swear, it's like all you instigator opponents were raised by hippies. Like you have this idea that violence is wrong, so you need to justify your desire to see more of it by trying to argue that it's a necessary evil. As though players are in mortal peril every time they step on the ice, and they must be allowed to fight for their lives.

Football is every bit as physical and violent as hockey, with just as much opportunity for cheap shots and dirty play, yet it has thrived for more than 100 years without fighting. I would say, if anything, players in the NFL have a greater degree of respect for both the rules and their fellow players than players in the NHL display, despite the lesser ability to 'police' themselves. Fighting is obviously not necessary.

But it's OK to like it, and want to see more of it. It's not barbaric. Two willing participants competing. Nothing wrong with it. Stop acting like we need it and just embrace it as an entertaining aspect of the game.


#1914846 No suspension for Cooke

Posted by Buppy on 12 March 2010 - 08:23 PM

Serious question, how much NHL hockey did you watch before the rule? It really wasn't the way you might immagine it was.

And I do not think that removing the instigator rule is all that is needed to stop cheapshots - it is one step of many that should be taken.

Penalize blindside hits, remove the instigator, outlaw hard pads, get serious about suspending offenders. That would be a good start.

In the event that there would come a time that league thugs started forcing Dats and those like him into fights, I would want to see that addressed. I don't think it would become an issue, as it wasn't an issue before.


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.


#1913777 GM's recommendation on hitting

Posted by Buppy on 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?