The fact that the league is apparently incapable of properly managing itself warrants this type of action from major sponsors. If Bettman and Campbell and the rest of the clowns were on top of things, corporations wouldn't need to do this.
Pacioretty had a big hit on a Boston player earlier in the game, dove to draw a penalty and f***ed with Chara last game after scoring in OT. But I'm sure the Bruins, the stand-up guys they are, put all of that aside when they are on the ice each shift.
If repeat offender even plays into it at all, Matt Cooke's minimum suspension should've started at 20 games years ago. He is the definition of a repeat offender with way more infractions (called or not) than Gillies yet he gets puny suspensions. But hey, he chips in pucks every now and then so he's all good. Das Boooools***.
"Since the lockout, however, the league is trying to tame the frontier justice. The problem is that their solution - the ill-named "instigator" penalty - actually punishes the enforcer and NOT the instigator, the guy running around and stirring the pot. Not surprisingly, those guys are stirring harder and faster than ever, with no end in sight."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh wait! Great column by the way.
More good stuff..."The current "fighting has no place in our game" moralizing from the league is complete hogwash, frankly. It's self-serving, and allows Bettman and Campbell to sound correct while actually doing things that are the exact oposite of helpful. The goon who does nothing but fight is bad for the game, they say; well, what about the goon who does nothing but endanger other guys' health and careers? The enforcer would be far less necessary if you cracked down on the behavior he's there to punish! Heck - enforcers might even need to be able to carry their weight for 8-10 minutes a night. Wonder of wonders, if you curtail dirty play, you might just improve the quality of the hockey being played. Once you get past the tribal instinct of "my team good, all others suq lulz !!!one!!1!" the fans get that; they know punishing the enforcer more than the troublemaker serves, in practice, to protect the troublemaker. That's the real reason why dirty play is on the rise."
Gillies is an old-school enforcer that gives retribution to the offending player. I think he went about it in the wrong way (again) but I can see his intention.
My thoughts exactly. If there was no instigator rule, Gillies would've likely grabbed Clutterbuck and whooped his ass, instead he delivers a quick (and cheap) hit and hopes to get away with it. Oh well...