| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hockeyrocks101 |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 16:25:27
What should Gary idiot Bettman and the rest of the NHL do to prevent headshots. Tell me what you think! |
| 37 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 22:02:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Its pointless to show these guys the results of a poll like that guest. They jump all over me when i endorse fighting, even though its pretty clear the players want it in the game.
They don`t like and don`t want to see fighting.
Actually Duke, no one is saying anything of the sort, you had the first post on this thread after the OP, and you started off by using the argument that the goon not being able to 'pay back' a dirty hit is the reason that you think headshots are up, at least I think that must have been your intent as that was the subject of the post to start with.
If not, it's another Dukejacking!!
Now, after you made this statement, you prepared yourself? for rebuttals, by ensuring anyone reading would know that we are all against you and your opinions....huh?
See above.....Dukejacking!!
One of your first points is that there are no goons anymore due to the instigator penalty, yet in another thread, you argue that every team has a goon??
Dukejacking!!!!
No one that I read in the thread, said anything about fighting being removed from the game, or Bertuzzi, or Lafleur, or the 80's or disco!, just you.
As I read throug this thread I find you take me so far all over the map of reason and logic, I have to run outside every now and then to make sure I am actually still in Armpit, Saskatchewan!!
I agree with Nuxfan, and I have stated in other posts, the tools to enofrce the game for the safety of the players is already there, it's just the mandate to use those tools that is missing. It has nothing to do with fighting, or instigating, or payback. Call penalties and give suspensions in favor of player safety and the culture of the game changes to reflect those calls.
If this were to happen, there would be no need to instigate a fight in retaliation of a bad hit, as the hitter would already be taken care with the proper rulings.
Then the beloved fighting can get back to what it should be, Lunk and Gink, punch, hug, fall, and the game can then be played while the watch the other 55 minutes from the bench....perfect! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 16:53:13
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Its pointless to show these guys the results of a poll like that guest. They jump all over me when i endorse fighting, even though its pretty clear the players want it in the game.
They don`t like and don`t want to see fighting.
Players at one point opposed adding the helmet to the mandatory equipment list. What does that say??
Don't show guys poll results like this??? What should have been said was don't try to show someone colors when they only see in black and white. The vast majority of people are not arguing to take fighting completely out of the game. Most people are arguing to penalize fighting more severely to reduce and/or elimante the useless staged fights.
Don't complain about people 'jumping all over you' for endorsing fighting when all you have been doing is 'jumpin all over people' for not endorsing fighting.
Hello Pot, I'm Kettle.
|
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 15:51:45
Its pointless to show these guys the results of a poll like that guest. They jump all over me when i endorse fighting, even though its pretty clear the players want it in the game.
They don`t like and don`t want to see fighting. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 18:51:42
98 per cent of recently polled NHL players think fighting should stay in the game.
I may not agree, but I think they deserve a voice! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 22:58:46
Whatever guys, the real deciding vote would be SOB's! How'd he vote?  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 20:36:13
quote:
Duke you do know that in this year's player survey, 65 percent of the players asked were in favor of the instigator penalty, right?
Yes. But not "seasoned pros" like Chelios, Tkachuk, and Horcoff. Just some other players. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 20:22:22
Duke you do know that in this year's player survey, 65 percent of the players asked were in favor of the instigator penalty, right? |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 19:34:31
quote:
Maybe someone knows for sure ( i really don`t ) but i thought i heard a hockey analyst say one night on CBC that 3 instigator penality`s and your suspended for the entire season....does anyone know what the actual rule states?
Rule 46.11 states that a player that gets 3 instigator penalties in the same season gets.... a GAME MISCONDUCT following their 3rd instigator. So, a one-game suspension.
There is no rule that would suspend a player for the entire season. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 16:20:47
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
I didn`t write the damn article..i just copied it. If you have any questions call the sports writer. Everything i have been saying about the instigator rule is highlighted in this article...Backed up by professional NHL seasoned hockey players.
Why dop you suppose C.Chelios, K. Tkackuk, S. Horcoff and others want the rule abolished ????...just for something to do ????
It doesn`t matter if I, sportswriters, hockey analyist, professional hockey players agree that the instigator rule has no place in hockey.......if Beans sez it has no bearing on the game...he is RIGHT.
Duke, do you understand the difference between opinion based information and fact based information. It doesn't appear you do.
Fact - There are more fights in the NHL today than any other time in history.
Fact - There are more players with diagnosed concussions from playing hockey than any time in history.
Opinion - The instigator rule will enforce clean play and reduce concussions.
Do you see the difference??? |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 15:40:37
Nuxfan your absolutely right...i agree 100 %.
Lunchbox, i`m not an expert on the instigator rule, but i think the suspension factor is more severe than the 2 minutes.
Maybe someone knows for sure ( i really don`t ) but i thought i heard a hockey analyst say one night on CBC that 3 instigator penality`s and your suspended for the entire season....does anyone know what the actual rule states? |
| Lunchbox |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 15:08:16
Duke, you name Chelios, Tkachuk and Horcoff, but these guys aren't exactly "enforcers" or "goons". The problem with your argument at the moment is that it is completely unfounded.
If you could find a report or an interview (just one!) that shows a Boogard-esque player saying" I'd totally punch Matt Cooke's lights out if it werent for that pesky extra two-minute penalty I'd get" then maybe everyone here would get off your back a little bit. The problem is that this mindset doesnt really exist.
Enforcers have no problem sitting for 56 minutes a game on the bench or going out and getting five-and-a-game for punching out the other team's genetic freak, but your saying they dont want to get a two-minute penalty to protect their stars when it matters most?
If any goon-type player thought they could have saved their teams star from a dirty hit, I think two in the bin is a small price to pay, and I'm sure they'd feel the same. The point that Beans, Alex and now I am trying to make, is that this just doesnt happen. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 15:07:20
The best enforcement for headshots would be stiff penalties and suspensions, period. Suspend a player for 10 games minimum for headshots that increases with subsequent incidents, and a "3 strikes and you're out" policy, you'll see them disappear. Or the players that do them will disappear. Its not rocket science, the NHL just has to actually grow a pair and implement the rule. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/04/2011 : 13:43:12
I didn`t write the damn article..i just copied it. If you have any questions call the sports writer. Everything i have been saying about the instigator rule is highlighted in this article...Backed up by professional NHL seasoned hockey players.
Why dop you suppose C.Chelios, K. Tkackuk, S. Horcoff and others want the rule abolished ????...just for something to do ????
It doesn`t matter if I, sportswriters, hockey analyist, professional hockey players agree that the instigator rule has no place in hockey.......if Beans sez it has no bearing on the game...he is RIGHT. |
| Pushrod |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 18:43:08
Exactly. A 2 min penalty is no diversion whatsoever if you want to actually drop your gloves with the guy, it's a pointless rule that won't affect anything.
If there was a proper penalty/suspension in place to discourage the ORIGINAL dirty play to start with than you would be circumventing the whole situation and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Dirty players are NOT going to play less dirty because an enforcer is on the other bench, because if they were we'd already be seeing it. There is nothing really preventing an enforcer from doing his "job" as it stands. A player who plays 5 min/game should not really care if he gets an extra 2 min minor penalty, or even a 2 game suspension for that matter in the long run if it's to supposedly to "prove a point to the opposition." |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 18:38:43
Duke, you are incredible.That is not a report with any kind of evidence what so ever. It is the opinion of a writer. Did you notice how many times the writer used 'I think" or a derivative of such in the story?? I could go online and find 1000+ opinion articles both for and against fighting. Find me one, just one, that cites any kind of data or proven fact that says fighting reduces dirty hits. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 18:30:00
Again, i ask, how the heck does the Moore / Naslund incident change if not for an instigator penalty??? "A career would be saved"?? What frickin' joke! Bertuzzi tried to fight Moore, Moore didn't want to. What your argument says is that Bertuzzi wouldn't have been willing to take a 2 min instigator penalty in a blowout loss in the 3rd period??? The instigator penalty was what made him instead choose to do what he did???
Simple fact is that Steve Moore wanted nothing to do with fighting Bertuzzi or Jovo and he'd already "answered the bell" earlier in the game and fought someone in his weight class. There was no way he was gonna fight Bert and he more or less told him that. Please feel free to explain how, that if the instigator penalty didn't exist, this situation would have been any different??? Suddenly Moore would have fought Bertuzzi? It was Bert looking for the fight and Bert who would be in danger of the extra 2 mins!!! And somehow Moore would now fight him???
I apologize if i'm missing something here but i don't see how "a career would have been saved" if there was no instigator penalty.  |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 18:26:19
Do you Alex and Beans understand my points now ?? Alex is there any part of this article YOU don`t comprehend ??
Please explain your rebutal clearly because my intelligence level is down you see.
I`ve only got players like Chris Chelios, Keith Tkachuk and Shawn Horcoff who see things my way. Which NHL players do you have on your side who think instigator rule is meaningless ?? |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 18:14:52
Have a read Beans, do you think i`m just making this s**t up off the top of my head, one analyst agrees with what i`m saying, and a lot of hockey people feel the same way.
Adam Greuel
(Senior Analyst) on July 23, 2008
Back in 1992, the NHL introduced a new rule that made non-fighting, cheap-shot artists rejoice with glee. This rule was the instigator penalty, and it stated that any player caught starting a fight would automatically end up with two extra minutes in the box. Also, after a certain amount of instigator penalties, the player would be suspended.
Without further ado, my question is: How has this rule helped the NHL since being introduced?
If anything, I think it has caused more problems then it has solved. Yes, fights are down, but barely, and I'd be surprised if you can name anybody who has had a recent injury due to a fight, except, maybe, Todd Fedoruk.
Not only do fights hardly ever end in injuries, but the instigator rule has been the cause of many. For example, when Steve Moore used his elbow and took it right into Canucks captain Markus Naslund's face, the Canucks players were rightfully furious and it was to be expected that they would seek revenge.
Now, instead of being able to just drop the gloves and beat Moore into the ground, the Canucks players had to make sure the fight was mutual! Being the passive fighter he is, Moore would only fight pesky lightweight Matt Cooke, and when players such as Todd Bertuzzi or Ed Jovanoski went up to him, he backed down immediately.
With Moore's unwillingness to fight, Bertuzzi decided to take matters into his own hands and wound up going too far and ending Moore's career with one quick blow to the back of the neck. Many people believe that, with no instigator rule, Moore's career would have been saved, and the worst he would have gotten out of it was a broken nose.
Now, I am definitely not condoning what Bertuzzi did. It sickened me to watch him pile-drive Moores face right into the ice. What I am saying is that, without the instigator rule, a career would have been saved.
Another good example is one involving the Dallas Stars and Phoenix Coyotes. Mike Modano was taken out from behind by then-Phoenix Coyote Jeremy Roenick. Derian Hatcher, then the Dallas Stars captain, attempted to fight Roenick, but he would have none of that. Knowing that he must do something as a captain, Hatcher proceeded to elbow Roenick in the jaw at full speed, breaking it, and taking Roenick out for a month.
Now, these are just two examples of why the instigator rule should be abolished, and I assure you there are plenty more. Without an instigator rule, there would be no more Steve Moores, Jordin Tootoos, Sean Averys, Riley Cotes and Ryan Hollwegs running around with no consequences.
There would be more accountability in the way a player plays, and the game would be much better. Many players (Chris Chelios, Keith Tkachuk, Shawn Horcoff, to name a few) are huge supporters of getting rid of the rule altogether. You can't find many players who want to keep it, that's for sure.
Trust me—without the instigator rule, the NHL would be a much better place.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/03/2011 : 09:32:15
No Duke, not everyone is wrong. Just you
Seriously, it's not that I think other people are wrong. I simply can not or will not accept a lame argument. Your argument on how the instigator rule/fighting in the league polices headshots is simply unfounded. You have not and can not argue the simple point that there are more fights today and more headshot type injuries today. That is not an opinion, those are the numbers.
My challenge to you is coming with something that argues that point. Don't tell me about how the school yard or local bar works. Tell me how your theory works when more fights means more headshot injuries. |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 19:43:57
I can't even remember the last instigator penalty called....... |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 11:56:56
No Beans, i just listed 4 players off two top teams at the time. Do you know how many fast skaters there were in the 70`s and 80`s...loads of them. This post would be a mile long if i had to list them all. Sure the game is faster now, but thats not to say it was by any means slow then.
The 70`s Canadians and 80`s Oliers were 2 of the fastest teams i ever saw in hockey, period......the 80`s Oilers were the fastest i ever saw...but you say the game was slow then.
You calim i dont adhere to other peoples opinions. What about you ? If some-one has a diffrent opinion on a matter than yours....they are wrong. You are always right, everybody else`s opinion is always wrong if it differs from yours. |
| Pushrod |
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 08:39:25
Duke, on average the game is definately faster today than it was in the 70s and 80s like Beans said. All those players you listed were superstars, and fast, but it was relative to the speed of the game at the time. You can only really compare people to their generation with regards to speed/skill/etc. because they're the only ones working on the level playing field with regards to workout regimes, nutrition, equipment and all the other intangibles.
How having an instigator rule so someone can go pound on someone else is going to REDUCE the number of head injuries is beyond me. I can't say it any better than Alex or Beans with regards to how ineffective the instigator rule is as they pointed out all the agitators who were unaffected by it in the past. In a previous post I mentioned some of the better hitters like Scott Stevens and Mike Peca also did not seem to be affected in any way from a fighter being present on the bench before deciding whether to line someone up or not. The instigator rule will not solve this, harsher (and consistent) penalties is likely the only way as respect between players certainly does not seem to be an option at this point. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 08:19:05
No, he doesn't understand. I say the game is faster today so he names 4 of the fastest players in the league at the time they play. Nothing about how the game over all is faster, just name a few fast players.
And the key point that he obvisouly missed is that I names a handful of many, many 'agitators' of the past to point out that even when there wasn't an instigator penalty there were still players who played that style of hockey. Ultimately, provided strong examples of how the instigator penalty means nothing and a goon does nothing to police the game. What does he come back with???
Nothing. Clearly he doesn't want to even understand any other opinion, he just wants to restate his opinion over and over and over hope that someone might agree with him. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 21:46:01
Duke, i understand that you're talking about the instigator penalty. Maybe this is the part YOU don't comprehend. In the past, if Matt Cooke threw and elbow like he recently got suspended for, you're implying that a goon could wander over, and smack him around a bit without having to worry about a freakin' instigator penalty? ? Really, because i don't think Matt Cooke would drop the gloves with a goon and actually fight him! The goon would still get a penalty, it wouldn't necessarily be for "instigating" seeing as there's no fight with Cooke not being a willing combatant, but there's sure as heck be a penalty! In fact, it'd prob be worse than an extra 2 for instigating!!!
The prob is, you can't seem to see that the Matt Cooke's of the league wouldn't drop'em and stick up for themselves in that situation. Heck, guys like Cooke rarely fight guys their own size for cryin' out loud let alone a goon who's coming to stick up for his smaller team mate who just got hammered!!!
Now, do YOU understand??? |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 18:22:22
Beans i took your advice and watched some 70`s and 80`s clips...of course i seen them games then anyway.....
Yeah those 70`s Montreal Canadians and 80`s Edmonton Oilers were super slow....Guy Lafleur, Mark Napier....Glen Anderson and Paul Coffey looked really out of place, kinda like watching paint dry  |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 18:04:17
Alex are you reading what i`m posting ??? WTF ???
I`ll bold it for you this time...
THE INSTIGATOR RULE HAS STOPPED PAY - BACK
GOONS CAN`T INSTIGATE FIGHTS ANYMORE....THERE ARE SUSPENSIONS !!!
Do you understand now ??? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 17:00:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Alex the problem is i can`t provide you with some recent examples of this because it doesn`t happen right now...thats the point i`m trying to make...since the introduction of the instigator rule and the goons gone off the benches these ( payback ) incidents are way, way down...headshots and concussions are way, way up, at least so it seems.
Am i missing something here? You're claim now is that these "incidents" (the goon pummelling a guy for crushing/cheapshotting, etc a teammate) don't happen because guys aren't getting hit/crushed/cheapshotted anymore? WTF??? Do you even watch hockey???
Here, i'll tell you what. Go look up the last 10-15 suspensions for dirty hits, cheapshots, etc. Then, look up the boxscores from those nights and tell me what "enforcer" was playing on the team of the player who got hit. I'm willing to bet that more often than not, there's some sort of enforcer dressed. Not every game, as some teams either don't dress one at all, or don't in certain circumstances vs certain teams.
Lemme know how your research goes. I'll even help you with it, here's a link to the suspensions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%9311_NHL_suspensions_and_fines
I'll tell you this much, i won't be wasting my time doing the research. I think i already know the answer. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 16:29:41
A bit faster?? Are you kidding?? Either your memery is selective or you are just being difficult. Take a hour and watch a game from the 70's or 80's on ESPN classic and then make your judgement.
Secondly, you have repeatively talked about this threat of getting a beating to stop players. Well, like you say you can say 100 players tougher than today players I can name agitators from 30+ years. Ken Linesman, Ulf Samulsson, Bobby Clarke, Claude Lemieux, Theo Fleury, Tie Domi, Eddie Shack, Esa Tikkanen, Matt Barnaby, Dale Hunter. Should I go on?? Did these guys stop their style of play when there wasn't an instigator rule?? Nope.
I don't argue that these type of players had to back it their actions more in the past than they do today. However, did the fear of Bob Probert ever stop Esa Tikkanen from shadowing Steve Yzerman like a hawk and getting in his kitchen?? Did the fear of Dave Brown ever stop Theo Fleury from spearing and jabbing and elbowing every Oiler he could get close to???
The answer is no. As Slozo has repeatedly argued you on, there is absolutely zero credibility to the argument that the enforcer has stopped garbage play. There was a time when a player would get a severe beating from Dave Semenko if Gretzky taken advantage of, but it's not like it stopped anyone from doing it after the beat nor stopped anyone from doing it before the beating. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 16:10:39
Beans i did say the game is a bit faster, did i not ?? why do you say i didn`t ??...as for players being tougher now-adays..Bulls**t....did you watch the Hunter`s, Sutter`s, K.Linsmen and Dino.Cicc in front of the net ?? i can name a 100 off the top of my head who were tougher than 95 % of the players today.
Alex the problem is i can`t provide you with some recent examples of this because it doesn`t happen right now...thats the point i`m trying to make...since the introduction of the instigator rule and the goons gone off the benches these ( payback ) incidents are way, way down...headshots and concussions are way, way up, at least so it seems.
I agree the equipment is for gladiators now, surely a cause for some of these incidents....but actions without re-precussion is also a major factor...no pay - back........elbows up !!!
T - Bar also raises a huge point, how many concussions were hidden by team doctors and symptoms not reported by players.
Just one question for anyone who wants to answer....Do you think that ( for example ) either Matt Cooke, Jarkko Tuutu, Sean Avery would play the exact same game if they were able to play againist the early 70`s Bruins or the Mid 70`s Flyers ??...your thoughts |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 12:58:20
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Bigger, check. Stronger, check. Fastee, check. Consider this, in Philly's Legion of Doom line comprised of Eric Lindros, John LeClair, and Mikael Renberg were bigger(average) in both height and weight than any defensive line in the NFL in 1998. The game is not bigger, stronger, and faster?? Give your head a shake.
So, the game today is bigger, stronger, and faster than any time in the past. The equipment being used in the game today is also far different than in the past. There was also a concerted effort by the NHL after the lock out to design the game to be more wide open with less clutching and grabbing which opens up the ice. But there are two things that people have yet to mention.
Firstly, helmets. The hockey helmet is essentially unchanged in the past 20 years. Literally every other piece of equipment being used by players today has evolved in either design or material used with the exception of the helmet. Secondly, the medical community is far more advanced today than they were in the past. What are now being called concussions might have been a 'smelling salts, pat on the back, and get our there for your next shift' kind of situation.
So great, we know all the reasons why. Maybe something should be done to make it better.
The part of beans post that I put in bold to me is bang on. Headshots are not way up, and I doubt concussions are. The difference is you got called a pu%%y if you didnt get back on the ice after getting your bell rung, and nowadays we realize that concussions can impact you for the rest of your life and that they are serious. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 12:31:51
Bigger, check. Stronger, check. Fastee, check. Consider this, in Philly's Legion of Doom line comprised of Eric Lindros, John LeClair, and Mikael Renberg were bigger(average) in both height and weight than any defensive line in the NFL in 1998. The game is not bigger, stronger, and faster?? Give your head a shake.
So, the game today is bigger, stronger, and faster than any time in the past. The equipment being used in the game today is also far different than in the past. There was also a concerted effort by the NHL after the lock out to design the game to be more wide open with less clutching and grabbing which opens up the ice. But there are two things that people have yet to mention.
Firstly, helmets. The hockey helmet is essentially unchanged in the past 20 years. Literally every other piece of equipment being used by players today has evolved in either design or material used with the exception of the helmet. Secondly, the medical community is far more advanced today than they were in the past. What are now being called concussions might have been a 'smelling salts, pat on the back, and get our there for your next shift' kind of situation.
So great, we know all the reasons why. Maybe something should be done to make it better.
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 09:39:59
quote:
And I certainly do question your assertion that headhsots have gone way up . . . I do think there may have been a marginal rise in occurrences, but if it is, it's slight, from what I see. What most certainly HAS risen is the incidences of injury as a result of the headshot
Bingo.
Headshots are nothing new in the game. Increasingly bad injuries as a result of headshots are. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 05:47:59
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Hockey rocks...heres a thought that i get shut down here on PUH. Most think goons have no place in hockey, i still believe they have an important part in policing the league, keeping dirt-bags honest shall we say.
When the instigator rule was brought in, goons lost their roles in giving dirty players a few smacks up the side of their head. Since this has happened most teams now DON`T have a goon in their line-up.
No-one can question the fact that head-shots and concussions have shot through the roof since the non-policing by goons....and the newly policing by the league and try as they may referees.
Some here still don`t agree with me and tell me i`m nuts but the fact of the matter still remains...a dirty skater may not be so dirty if he thinks he may get his nose broke.
For those who disagree with these comments...please explain another reason which makes more common sense than this one.
p.s...please don`t say ....players are tougher...game is faster. Maybe the game is a bit faster but the game was always pretty fast and players were always tough.
I don't think you're nuts, it's just that you bring zero facts to the table when discussing why fighting makes the game better, safer, and protects players. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support this opinion.
And I certainly do question your assertion that headhsots have gone way up . . . I do think there may have been a marginal rise in occurrences, but if it is, it's slight, from what I see. What most certainly HAS risen is the incidences of injury as a result of the headshot, and this to me points to:
1) equipment (far and away the biggest contributing factor)
2) larger, stronger, faster players
Back in the old days, specific stars were targetted just like now to gain a team advantage - and it always will be that way, it's a sport like any other where the best players are going to get the most attention. But with no change in the relative behaviour of the players, the padding - which used to be strengthened cloth - has turned into super hard plastic armour. It's a night and day difference, as the hitting player feels absolutely zero pain and the hit player gets many more times the concussive force from a much harder surface.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 22:13:54
Scott Thornton did fight Cooke after the hit on Savard last season, but other than that not so much.
Am I the only one who really hasnt seen the huge rise in headshots? The majority of the concussions this year have been on clean plays (kinda like the one i got that kept me out of sports work and pretty much everything for over a month earlier this year) and I really think the only reason everyone is seeing this massive rise in headshots Is because of the new rule against them, they are just being focused on way more this year that every little one is being shown Over and over again on the highlights that night.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 21:37:31
quote:
No-one can question the fact that head-shots and concussions have shot through the roof since the non-policing by goons....and the newly policing by the league and try as they may referees.
A lot of things have changed in the same timeframe - for example as Alex mentioned, equipment. What makes you so sure that it is the lack of goons that is the cause for an increase in headshots? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 17:13:35
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Hockey rocks...heres a thought that i get shut down here on PUH. Most think goons have no place in hockey, i still believe they have an important part in policing the league, keeping dirt-bags honest shall we say.
When the instigator rule was brought in, goons lost their roles in giving dirty players a few smacks up the side of their head. Since this has happened most teams now DON`T have a goon in their line-up.
No-one can question the fact that head-shots and concussions have shot through the roof since the non-policing by goons....and the newly policing by the league and try as they may referees.
Some here still don`t agree with me and tell me i`m nuts but the fact of the matter still remains...a dirty skater may not be so dirty if he thinks he may get his nose broke.
For those who disagree with these comments...please explain another reason which makes more common sense than this one.
p.s...please don`t say ....players are tougher...game is faster. Maybe the game is a bit faster but the game was always pretty fast and players were always tough.
One thing for sure is the bullet proof pads these guys wear. Many of these elbows to the head would not have concussed a guy "back in the day".
Back to the matter of goons, Duke, could you please provide us with some examples (preferably video) of when a goon like Orr, Shelley, the Boogyman, Laroque, McIntyre, etc ever went after a guy like Cooke, Ruuttu, etc for throwing ANY sort of hit. I'd love to see evidence of one of these guys "giving dirty players a few smacks up the side of their head". |
| The Duke |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 16:38:17
Hockey rocks...heres a thought that i get shut down here on PUH. Most think goons have no place in hockey, i still believe they have an important part in policing the league, keeping dirt-bags honest shall we say.
When the instigator rule was brought in, goons lost their roles in giving dirty players a few smacks up the side of their head. Since this has happened most teams now DON`T have a goon in their line-up.
No-one can question the fact that head-shots and concussions have shot through the roof since the non-policing by goons....and the newly policing by the league and try as they may referees.
Some here still don`t agree with me and tell me i`m nuts but the fact of the matter still remains...a dirty skater may not be so dirty if he thinks he may get his nose broke.
For those who disagree with these comments...please explain another reason which makes more common sense than this one.
p.s...please don`t say ....players are tougher...game is faster. Maybe the game is a bit faster but the game was always pretty fast and players were always tough. |
|
|
