Personal email addresses are not to be posted on the forums. If you want other members to be able to contact you via email change the appropriate settings in User CP ---> Edit Options ---> Messaging & Notification : Receive Email (check Receive Email from Other Members). When enabled an email link will appear in your profile under Contact Info and in the drop down menu invoked by clicking on your user name in any post. If you wish to post a link use http://hfboards com/sendmessage php?do=mailmember&u=xxxxWhere xxxx is your userid number.
They are discussing the instigator rule after the break on TSN if anyones interested. Since its always a hot topic on these boards. They are talking to players about it. May be interesting... Edit: Meh small segment. Players dont want it fans dont want it. Maybe the PA should spearhead the removal of this rule. Edit2: Thats was a nice "Is this the year" NHL comercial on TSN. Finally a decent NHL commercial.
The media is going to do nothing but express the anti-instigator opinion. Lets check into reality. Why shouldn't a player get an extra penalty for deliberately starting a fight? There is no dream world where a goon hops on the ice beats the crap out of a guy half his size and they both get the same penalties. Even without the instigator rule that player targeted by the goon is just going to turtle and get his team a 5-minute powerplay anyway (assuming there are no other penalties being called). You can't get a Fighting penalty if you don't fight.
The PA is actually going after the rule and trying to make it an issue at the Board of Governors meetings. They've been trying to bring it up a number of times but the PA was always misrepresented during their upheaval after the lockout. Apparently the guy that's spearheading the sort of "bill" if you will to the BOG about the instigator rule and his first move as ombudsman of the NHLPA:Eric Lindros. Another reason to love the guy. But seriously it is an issue that needs to be addressed. I grew up watching hockey my childhood memories are of watching hockey. I don't remember a league as messed up on the ice as it is now. When Bryan Berard caught a freak stick to the eye - I was like "Holy ****. I hope he's ok" It was shocking. Now it's a miracle if the NHL goes through a game without a stick nailing someone in the face. The game is chippy. It's low respect. All the hitting from behind is a huge fear to me too someone will be paralyzed. It's a matter of time. What Steve Downie did is so low on the radar I don't even buy it. If Downie gets 25 games what does Stevens get for the hit on Lindros back in 1999? Just an example of how the game changed. And for the record the only thing I wanted for Lindros retribution was for someone to chase down and beat on Stevens. Suspensions do nothing. Torres being fined 10,000 is like one of us being fined 5 dollars with a day off work. It's not a detterent at all. Ranting again. I'll stop.
The media is going to do nothing but express the anti-instigator opinion. Lets check into reality. Why shouldn't a player get an extra penalty for deliberately starting a fight? There is no dream world where a goon hops on the ice beats the crap out of a guy half his size and they both get the same penalties. Even without the instigator rule that player targeted by the goon is just going to turtle and get his team a 5-minute powerplay anyway (assuming there are no other penalties being called). You can't get a Fighting penalty if you don't fight.
Honestly when do you remember an enforcer dropping players that couldn't fight?In all my years of watching hockey. I remember Tie Domi picking a fight with Jiri Slegr. And surprisingly. Slegr held his own. But he deserved it. Slegr had just swung his stick at the arm of Mats Sundin with intent to take him down. Someone like Boogaard isn't about to just drop the gloves and punch Hemsky's face in because there's no 2 minute penalty to boot.
The PA is actually going after the rule and trying to make it an issue at the Board of Governors meetings. They've been trying to bring it up a number of times but the PA was always misrepresented during their upheaval after the lockout. Apparently the guy that's spearheading the sort of "bill" if you will to the BOG about the instigator rule and his first move as ombudsman of the NHLPA:Eric Lindros.
Honestly when do you remember an enforcer dropping players that couldn't fight?In all my years of watching hockey. I remember Tie Domi picking a fight with Jiri Slegr. And surprisingly. Slegr held his own. But he deserved it. Slegr had just swung his stick at the arm of Mats Sundin with intent to take him down. Someone like Boogaard isn't about to just drop the gloves and punch Hemsky's face in because there's no 2 minute penalty to boot.
I beg to differ. Anybody I talk to about the issue says the exact opposite. IE: If Alex Burrows sticks Marian Gaborik they want to see Derek Boogaard get onto the ice and beat the piss out of Alex Burrows. And why do suspensions mean nothing? Beating up Scott Stevens wouldn't have taken away Lindros' concussion. Being suspended and losing salary is the ultimate punishment. The alternative is nothing but a caveman mentality. Where the NHL has issues is how they hand out supplementary discipline and if any rulebook changes need to be made it's to add a Checking To The Head rule. The whole problem with that issue (using your Stevens-Lindros reference) is that the NHL sees shoulder-to-head hits as legal.
I beg to differ. Anybody I talk to about the issue says the exact opposite. IE: If Alex Burrows sticks Marian Gaborik they want to see Derek Boogaard get onto the ice and beat the piss out of Alex Burrows. And why do suspensions mean nothing? Beating up Scott Stevens wouldn't have taken away Lindros' concussion. Being suspended and losing salary is the ultimate punishment. The alternative is nothing but a caveman mentality. Where the NHL has issues is how they hand out supplementary discipline and if any rulebook changes need to be made it's to add a Checking To The Head rule. The whole problem with that issue (using your Stevens-Lindros reference) is that the NHL sees shoulder-to-head hits as legal.
It's not the fact of beating him up after the fact of that one hit. But it wasn't the first second third or even 15th run in Lindros had with Scott Stevens. The fact of the matter was Lindros fought his own battles and any youtube of "Lindros fight Stevens" will show you the aftermath. But had someone like Dave Brown been a Flyer 10 years later - do you really think Stevens would have tried it twice?Think about it for a second. No instigator rule does Stevens run Lindros a first time? Probably but taking a wild beating from Dave Brown for it will make him think twice about trying it again. 2nd time he takes another beating...... While Stevens would take a beating from Lindros with the gloves off he did the job of getting him off the ice for 5 minutes.. Would he do that if his fight was against Dave Brown each time?It's like the Oilers now. Regher can nail Hemsky from behind but a fighter-less team does nothing. Will he do it again? Of course there's no repercussions to taking out the best player.
The thing with fighting in hockey you once had a hero/villian dynamic that you no longer have. Every great story has a hero and a villian. Sure you have Neil. Tucker and Avery as villians but there's no hero's out there to challange them. Ray vs Domi was just as imortant as the game. When you're a little kid it's easy to identify with your team having someone willing to fight to protect the rest of the team from the other teams jerk.
I beg to differ. Anybody I talk to about the issue says the exact opposite. IE: If Alex Burrows sticks Marian Gaborik they want to see Derek Boogaard get onto the ice and beat the piss out of Alex Burrows. And why do suspensions mean nothing? Beating up Scott Stevens wouldn't have taken away Lindros' concussion. Being suspended and losing salary is the ultimate punishment. The alternative is nothing but a caveman mentality. Where the NHL has issues is how they hand out supplementary discipline and if any rulebook changes need to be made it's to add a Checking To The Head rule. The whole problem with that issue (using your Stevens-Lindros reference) is that the NHL sees shoulder-to-head hits as legal.
Well thats the thing. Burrows knows now that he can do it because he's not gonna get touched but hopefully if Burrows does stick Gaborik in the future Boogaard will go out and beat the hell out of him. I honestly think players like Burrows are just marginal players and can be replaced quite easily guys like Gaborik can't. If Burrows isn't ready for a harsh beating then he shouldn't play a style that could earn one. Pretty simple in my mind hope the instigator is dumped ASAP. Next year hopefully.
It's not the fact of beating him up after the fact of that one hit. But it wasn't the first second third or even 15th run in Lindros had with Scott Stevens. The fact of the matter was Lindros fought his own battles and any youtube of "Lindros fight Stevens" will show you the aftermath. But had someone like Dave Brown been a Flyer 10 years later - do you really think Stevens would have tried it twice?Think about it for a second. No instigator rule does Stevens run Lindros a first time? Probably but taking a wild beating from Dave Brown for it will make him think twice about trying it again. 2nd time he takes another beating...... While Stevens would take a beating from Lindros with the gloves off he did the job of getting him off the ice for 5 minutes.. Would he do that if his fight was against Dave Brown each time?It's like the Oilers now. Regher can nail Hemsky from behind but a fighter-less team does nothing. Will he do it again? Of course there's no repercussions to taking out the best player.
There is a repercussion.. suspension and lost salary. The NHL just needs to do a better job of it. You make it sound like Scott Stevens was a player who couldn't back himself up. Scott Stevens was the kind of player who would gladly take an instigator penalty to go beat the crap out of a cheapshot who went after Elias. You're proving my point here. Removing the instigator is all about how most fans think that Regehr is going to have to fight a goon if he hits Hemsky from behind. That's just not how it works. If Edmonton had a goon to go after Regehr all he has to do without an instigator rule in place is turtle and not fight to get the Flames a 5-minute powerplay (of course if Regehr wasn't called for the check from behind). Whether we think it's a chicken **** move or not it's what a lot of coaches will have their non-fighters do if a goon goes after them. Another thing that bothers me is how some fans think players need to "pay" for clean hits on star players. That's another argument some fans have against the instigator rule and it's nothing but a load of garbage.
Well thats the thing. Burrows knows now that he can do it because he's not gonna get touched but hopefully if Burrows does stick Gaborik in the future Boogaard will go out and beat the hell out of him. I honestly think players like Burrows are just marginal players and can be replaced quite easily guys like Gaborik can't. If Burrows isn't ready for a harsh beating then he shouldn't play a style that could earn one. Pretty simple in my mind hope the instigator is dumped ASAP. Next year hopefully.
Lets go through this again.. with no instigator rule... Burrows slashes Gaborik (no injury) and gets a penalty for it. Boogaard chases Burrows and beats the piss out of him without Burrows fighting back. Burrows gets 2 for Slashing. Boogaard gets 5 for Fighting. Vancouver powerplay. Worst case scenario. Gaborik is hurt and Burrows gets 5 minutes for the slash keeping the manpower even. Don't give me that "he knows he won't get touched" crap. If a player does something bad enough guys like Boogaard gladly take the instigator penalty to exact the revenge they want to. It's not like spending 17 minutes in the penalty box is going to take much away from the ice time they would have had anyway.
There is a repercussion.. suspension and lost salary. The NHL just needs to do a better job of it. You make it sound like Scott Stevens was a player who couldn't back himself up. Scott Stevens was the kind of player who would gladly take an instigator penalty to go beat the crap out of a cheapshot who went after Elias. You're proving my point here. Removing the instigator is all about how most fans think that Regehr is going to have to fight a goon if he hits Hemsky from behind. That's just not how it works. If Edmonton had a goon to go after Regehr all he has to do without an instigator rule in place is turtle and not fight to get the Flames a 5-minute powerplay (of course if Regehr wasn't called for the check from behind). Whether we think it's a chicken **** move or not it's what a lot of coaches will have their non-fighters do if a goon goes after them. Another thing that bothers me is how some fans think players need to "pay" for clean hits on star players. That's another argument some fans have against the instigator rule and it's nothing but a load of garbage.
No the thing was that Stevens wasn't a fighter and routinely lost when he had to drop the gloves. Let's lose that scenario. But Regher nails Hemsky from behind - and Torres flies in gloves off to take him down. Thing is if he turtles he's labelled around the league as a cheap shot artist and other players run him. If he fights back he's in for 2. Torres for 5 and Regher for 5. Still Oilers PP. And he's not on the ice to tie the game late in the 3rd as he did. You don't think the entire Oilers team didn't want to make him pay for that one?They can't that late. And he stays on the ice. And you're telling me this is a clean hit? And that Torres wouldn't have dropped the mitts and made him pay for it no instigator?
One scenario vs another. Personally. I think a non-fighter will do his best to not fight. So what if he gets labeled? Other players running him can only get his team powerplays. I never said the hit in the video was clean. How could I considering you posted the video after I mentioned the particular mentality that I don't like?What I was talking about was the mentality around the league that if you even touch guys like Naslund. Crosby. St. Louis etc you deserve to have the tar beaten out of you. Guess what? They're players too. If they are in position to be hit they should be able to take the hit. As far as I see it if you go after a player for a clean hit on Crosby you're the dirty player. Nobody has answered the original question: Why should there not be a penalty for deliberately starting a fight? What other than caveman logic can answer this question?
Why SHOULD there be a penalty for deliberately starting a fight? The NHL was a better place to play when there was no instigator penalty. For the record its an incredibly stupid rule no matter how you look at it. How many fights in the NHL are not deliberately started? Look at your logic. I mean. I don't even understand where you are coming from at all. The instigator does ONE thing and ONE thing only that is protect cheap shot artists and ensure that players do not have to worry about being held responsible for their play. In the past respect for your fellow player wasn't an optional consideration. The instigator is a dirty dirty rule. The day it is revoked I will breathe a deep sigh of relief. By the way kudos on attempting to use a demeaning label to emphasize your point. You should see if you can get on with the Republicans as a spinster. 'Caveman logic'. Nice. This is how the world works. You make it pretty obvious that you have never been to war. (I mean that in a metaphorical sense see.)This is a poor rule that decreases the quality of the on-ice product creates an environment that is more dangerous for the players and just plain sucks. PS: Your argument that enforcers/teams are willing to incur the extra instigator penalty is completely false. Coaches will not allow this to happen in a tight/important game. Cheapshot artists and dirty players who wind up getting dealt with by an enforcer are FURTHER rewarded for their dirty play. It allows their team an additional powerplay and frequently allows them the win. It is not acceptable. Additionally your suggestion that these things are better taken care of by more suspensions and penalties is preposterous. I really don't even want to get into how wrong that presumption is.
Why doesn't the league listen to the players?Eric Lindros on CBC said that the players of the 4 teams he has recently visited as a NHLPA representative were all saying the same thing players want the instigator removed to make players more accountable for their actions. The clips is on -> videos -> HNIC -> Interviews
Why SHOULD there be a penalty for deliberately starting a fight? The NHL was a better place to play when there was no instigator penalty. For the record its an incredibly stupid rule no matter how you look at it. How many fights in the NHL are not deliberately started? Look at your logic. I mean. I don't even understand where you are coming from at all. The instigator does ONE thing and ONE thing only that is protect cheap shot artists and ensure that players do not have to worry about being held responsible for their play. In the past respect for your fellow player wasn't an optional consideration. The instigator is a dirty dirty rule. The day it is revoked I will breathe a deep sigh of relief. By the way kudos on attempting to use a demeaning label to emphasize your point. You should see if you can get on with the Republicans as a spinster. 'Caveman logic'. Nice. This is how the world works. You make it pretty obvious that you have never been to war. (I mean that in a metaphorical sense see.)This is a poor rule that decreases the quality of the on-ice product creates an environment that is more dangerous for the players and just plain sucks. PS: Your argument that enforcers/teams are willing to incur the extra instigator penalty is completely false. Coaches will not allow this to happen in a tight/important game. Cheapshot artists and dirty players who wind up getting dealt with by an enforcer are FURTHER rewarded for their dirty play. It allows their team an additional powerplay and frequently allows them the win. It is not acceptable. Additionally your suggestion that these things are better taken care of by more suspensions and penalties is preposterous. I really don't even want to get into how wrong that presumption is.
Of course you don't understand you haven't even given consideration to why it was put in place to begin with. Why should a player be penalized for 5 minutes just for sticking up for himself? I really have to laugh at the idea that people think 3rd/4th line agitators are being protected because you'll see a lot more fights started by them to get much better players off the ice for 5 minutes. Do you people honestly think giving Donald Brashear the green light to run around and attack anyone he wants is a good idea?
The media is going to do nothing but express the anti-instigator opinion. Lets check into reality. Why shouldn't a player get an extra penalty for deliberately starting a fight? There is no dream world where a goon hops on the ice beats the crap out of a guy half his size and they both get the same penalties. Even without the instigator rule that player targeted by the goon is just going to turtle and get his team a 5-minute powerplay anyway (assuming there are no other penalties being called). You can't get a Fighting penalty if you don't fight.
Of course you don't understand you haven't even given consideration to why it was put in place to begin with. Why should a player be penalized for 5 minutes just for sticking up for himself? I really have to laugh at the idea that people think 3rd/4th line agitators are being protected because you'll see a lot more fights started by them to get much better players off the ice for 5 minutes. Do you people honestly think giving Donald Brashear the green light to run around and attack anyone he wants is a good idea?
Opinions from guys who only know the game since the rule was instituted? I'm not trying to make fun but your sense of the rule is as twisted as the people who thought it was a good idea to institute it. "Twisted" doesn't do it justice.... it's "shallow". Read what Alphahelix said again and sleep on it. He's 100% right. I'll add a bit more to it: it doesn't put the onus on the enforcer it makes other players on the ice more responsible for policing the game too.
Opinions from guys who only know the game since the rule was instituted? I'm not trying to make fun but your sense of the rule is as twisted as the people who thought it was a good idea to institute it. "Twisted" doesn't do it justice.... it's "shallow". Read what Alphahelix said again and sleep on it. He's 100% right. I'll add a bit more to it: it doesn't put the onus on the enforcer it makes other players on the ice more responsible for policing the game too.
Clearly you didn't even read our posts so why am I dignifying you with a response? Yes. I did watch the game before the rule was implemented and I recall goons like Shane Churla picking fights with Cam Neely to get him off the ice for 5 minutes. If you want to see an NHL where a 240 lb monster can drop his gloves and start wailing away at someone because he didn't like how he was hit be my guest. The rule came into effect back before players like Boogaard and Brashear were the norm so trying to find relevance with 80's hockey is absurd.
This rule is completely retarded as it stands now a player is better off taking a two handed swing at another players head (5 minutes) than taking an instigator (5+2) if the other player turtles. Ironically Id have no problem with it if it was applied properly ie not applied at all if the other player had just done or attempted to have done a cheap shot or other penalty. It should only be applied when a player jumps another player for no reason.
Impossible. The example being used now is Boogaard and Burrows. If they're not on the ice together for another 5 minutes and Boogaard jumps him the refs are supposed to realize that it's just retribution? How about the next game they play? The refs are prepped before the game to forego a 2 minute instigator?Either you have the rule or you don't. People just aren't aware that it can cause a slew of problems so either way people will b****. Edit: what the hell does 1997 have to do with the instigator rule which was implemented in 92?
I say '97 because that's when hockey started to suck in general. Part of the issues have been remedied (the offensive stifling) but the pests like Avery/Tucker and the respect factor needs to be resolved. Drop the instigator and players will have to respect the game. The rule was insitituted in '92 but the players were still able to do their work for years afterwards. I blame '97. The Burrows/Boogard incident you speak of is a hypothetical incident.. how can you make an argument from something that hasn't happened? True HF non-sense. Ok. I'll bite: with the instigator. Burrows wouldn't even think of slashing Gaborik
Basically what I'm saying is: should intimidation be part of the game? The old school in me says "yes". Am I wrong for thinking this way? Maybe. With that said. I don't believe dropping the instigator rule will be the cure of what's happening on the ice. I think some of the onus is on these jerk off players who have been growing up in today's society.
Hockey and fighting go hand in hand. The problem with the instigator rule is as simple as that. People who don't like the rule don't like/understand fighting. In today's NHL there is NO RESPECT for the opposing team. Sticks are flying around people are getting hit from behind and pests are running wild doing everything they can to throw the other team off with cheap-shot plays. The bottom line is this - I believe that the goons and enforcers can do a better job policing the game than the refs and suspensions. That's how hockey used to be and that's how it should be.$10,000 and a 3 game suspension or Boogard breaking your face and your eating dinner for a week out of a straw? It may be barbaric but that's how I like my hockey. BRING HOCKEY'S BALLS BACK!
But Americans don't like fighting!!! The arenas would be empty if there were more fights in games! Already crowds start protesting very loudly when a fight breaks out and they cheer wildly when linesmen go between the players to prevent a fight. We need more European hockey because it's more exciting to watch games which don't have any of those horribly boring aspects like intensity hatred emotion and passion.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=445358
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
