| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2009 : 06:15:51
|
Now, there has always been a lot of talk about the instigator rule in hockey and i think the vast majority on this site and hockey fans in general view the rule negativly and believe it should be removed, I simply don't know if it should be removed. I am not saying I am for the rule but in my opinion there is a huge problem in the NHL today that more and more is getting under my skin and i believe the instigator rule does not do enough to prevent this but removing it all together would furthur worsen the problem, I am for fighting in hockey it is in my mind an essential part of the game but nothing ticks me off more than someone laying an oponant out with a beautiful clean body check and then having to drop his gloves to defend his actions, here are a few examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BLUUNacvBw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN6knr0YxFE
here are just 2 examples, now if we took the instigator rule out every team would have to carry a derek boogard to stand up for his teamates and i agree with this when a player gets hit from behind or a slash the offender deserves all 275lbs of Boogard on him but if a guy like Luke Shcenn catchs Malkin as he did in the first clip whos to say boogard doesn't go after shcenn and then you have a guy like Malkin who noone will hit skateing around like god because even if you get him clean you have to drop the mitts??? personally i love seeing a good tilt between good hockey players but for good reasons aswell, i like seeing guys get layed out clean it could be my favorite part of hockey but after every clean hit these days there always seems to be a fight or at least a scrum its ticks me off
Pasty
|
|
|
Guest4150
( )
|
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 06:48:08
|
Let them go. For years this stuff wasn't happening and now it's mainstream.
(ADMIN EDIT - LINK REMOVED - SPAM) |
 |
|
|
Lunchbox
Top Prospect
Canada
88 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 07:10:58
|
| I was gonna post something to this effect myself...it seems like it was only a few years ago that if a guy got rocked, he'd get up, shake his head, and keep playing. Guys would even get a bit of ribbing from teammates for getting caught with their head down. I think all the recent scrutinization of hits by the NHL and the media is partly to blame. So many times you see slow motion replays of hits on Sportscentre, trying to see if an elbow slips up or if its a "cheap shot" and nowadays players get asked all the time what they thought of this hit or that, and now everyone's seeing cheap shots where they used to just see a good hit! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 14:43:48
|
I think the instigator penalty is a direct contributor to the amount of cheap hits and injuries you see today.
In my way of thinking, this comes from about 38-39 years as both a hockey player and fan, the only thing that helped keep the game honest in some respects, was the fact that if you didn't mind you manners, so to speak, you stood the chance of getting pummeled for your rudeness.
Before the instigator rule, a Sean Avery with his antics, would be a wet spot somehere on the ice. With no instigator rule, Scott Stevens would have made a popsicle of him,(let's seem him wave the stick then), with the Brodeur incident.
I'd venture to guess that 80 percent of the questionable hits that happen now, happen because of a couple things. There is a general lack of physical respect amongst the players, and this is directly a result from a team's inability to self police.
Some posters talk of the 'can't hit Gretzky' rule that was rampant. I prefer to think of it as the rest of the league's common sense. With no instigator rule, and, the off chance you could hit Gretzky, if you took too much liberty playing the body on him, you had a McSorley, Semenko, Mclleland, Brown, Smith..etc. holding you accountable.
That is what's missing with the instigator rule.
If, as an opposing player today, you get the chance to catch someone and put some mustard on it, why wouldn't you? You might have to tussle with someone right after, but then it seems like you get a free pass after that. Without the instigator rule, the game for that player would lenghten greatly as he would be reminded more than once why you should have manners out there.
If there were no instigator rule, every player would take that millisecond to contemplate possible repercussions directly related to their actions, and how many times have we seen lately where that could have been the difference between physical hockey and stupid, pointless injury?
so...the instigator, not such a good thing. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 14:52:11
|
i agree 100% in the sense of holding people acountable for cheap shots and avery type antics..... but i'm sorry if i catch Malkin Crosby Ovetchkin or the Grezky's with their head down and paste them to the ice in a clean but punishing fashion in no way shape or form should i have to fight a mcsorly boogard laraque or brasher in order to have the right to play hockey,,,, forget that noise i don't care what names on the back of your jersey if i get you clean noone has any buisness getting me back in any other way then trying to catch me with my head down.... if you remove the instigator these cant touch superstars rules will ruin hockey,, i'm not saying the instigator rule is right or good but we're not bully's takeing lunch money we're hockey players
Pasty |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 15:25:20
|
Actually, the funny thing is, you won't often see the superduperstars get caught like that, they are usually too smart to get themselves in those positions.
Also, I am not referring to the obviously clean, yet punishing checks that are thrown, the players seem to know when a guy got caught with his head down and the game carries on. Watch some clips of heavy, clean checks and you'll notice that more often than not, there is no scrum afterwards.
The types of checks I am talking to are the borderline, overly aggressive checks that today's players are going out of their way in some cases, to throw. Steve Downie, Ryan Hollweg etc. These are fringe players who are too aggressive with their physical games, and without an instigator rule, would be taught to tone it down, while remaining physical, forthright.
The game is physical, and then some, and that's one of it's beauties, but the instigator rule has only made some players more fearless, not more intelligent, and that is harmful to the game. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 16:23:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
I think the instigator penalty is a direct contributor to the amount of cheap hits and injuries you see today.
In my way of thinking, this comes from about 38-39 years as both a hockey player and fan, the only thing that helped keep the game honest in some respects, was the fact that if you didn't mind you manners, so to speak, you stood the chance of getting pummeled for your rudeness.
Before the instigator rule, a Sean Avery with his antics, would be a wet spot somehere on the ice. With no instigator rule, Scott Stevens would have made a popsicle of him,(let's seem him wave the stick then), with the Brodeur incident.
I'd venture to guess that 80 percent of the questionable hits that happen now, happen because of a couple things. There is a general lack of physical respect amongst the players, and this is directly a result from a team's inability to self police.
Some posters talk of the 'can't hit Gretzky' rule that was rampant. I prefer to think of it as the rest of the league's common sense. With no instigator rule, and, the off chance you could hit Gretzky, if you took too much liberty playing the body on him, you had a McSorley, Semenko, Mclleland, Brown, Smith..etc. holding you accountable.
That is what's missing with the instigator rule.
If, as an opposing player today, you get the chance to catch someone and put some mustard on it, why wouldn't you? You might have to tussle with someone right after, but then it seems like you get a free pass after that. Without the instigator rule, the game for that player would lenghten greatly as he would be reminded more than once why you should have manners out there.
If there were no instigator rule, every player would take that millisecond to contemplate possible repercussions directly related to their actions, and how many times have we seen lately where that could have been the difference between physical hockey and stupid, pointless injury?
so...the instigator, not such a good thing.
I could not agree with this more, nor could I post anything better. Well said. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
the instigator rule, a good thing!? 
