| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| admin |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 15:24:46
The GMs are meeting about a number of issues including the instigator rule. Currently the rules stipulate that a player who picks up three instigator penalties warrants a two-game suspension. Should the league raise the number of instigator penalties a player can take before getting suspended? |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ultimatetitman |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 15:36:20
Gotta disagree with you Beans.
With the instigator rule out of the way, the Bertuzzi situation would not likely have occured. Someone would have taken care of Moore that very night. It might very well have evolved into a tough guy vs. tough guy battle, but it would have ended there, that night. Seldom did a pre-Buttman cheap shot carry over to a future cheap shot. Sure there were fights that carried over, but very rarely did it devolve into the Bertuzzi fracas.
Besides, Moore would not likely have run Naslund like that if he knew there would be immediate and drastic circumstances.
Also, Lanny McDonald would never have run Gretzky simply because of Semenko. Yes, it might have evolved into a Hunter vs. Semenko scrap, but few players in the league were willing to risk that.
As far as the goalie issue, I do agree that if a goalie leaves the crease he should be fair game, but goalies are getting run IN the crease.
Take out the instigator penalty, and players will think twice about running a goalie or cheap shotting a star. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:49:47
I'd like to add my two cents.
Bab's, you are right. The instigator rule is prefect for the situation of Souray in that game. But the do hand them out too often.
The instigator rule will not bring respect back to the game. It will create an environment for more "Bertuzzi" situations. Pre 90's, there was no insitgator rule, but there was honor in the game. For example, if a Lanny McDonald ran Gretzky, Semenko would want a piece of McDonald. But if that McDonald didn't want to go, then the Tim Hunter would step in. Semenko would not just go at a McDonald if he didn't want to go. But the Calgary knew that if something happened to Gretzky, someone would have to pay. It's not like that any more. Too many players jumping guys that don't want to go. Too many 3rd man into the fight. The rule is needed.
And the goalies need to be protected?? NOT! If the goalie is in his crease, you are right, hands off. But once he leaves that crease, he should be just another player, subject to hits. So if the goalie wants protection, STAY IN THE BLUE PAINT. That would be a great rule. |
| ultimatetitman |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 13:43:01
quote:
Originally posted by I HATE CROSBY
well ultimateitman, are you trying to instigate me now hahahaha.....
Nah, just havin' fun this time!
I see your point and for once I pretty much agree with you! I would argue Sid is not the KID you think he is, but that point has been beaten to death.
Whether you like him or not, he, and all the game's top stars, need to be protected. What it all comes down to is money, and losing a top star, no matter which one it is, is bad for the team and bad for the game. Even you will admit that Sid draws fans in that may not normally watch, and wherever he plays there are people in the crowd that paid good money to see him. Even those fans need to be protected... they deserve to see Sid, or Ovechkin, or whoever they paid good money to see. The "enforcer" does that, and is, therefore, good for the game. Lose the instigator rule... then lose the commissioner! Wouldn't you like to see him take a cheap shot to the noggin? |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 22:16:21
I dont like the instigator rule at all, im sure if there was no instigator rule if a goalie got run a player would actually do somthing about it, or if theres been a not nessecarlly cheap hit but a hit that injured your player the other players would stand up for him
CANUCKS RULE!! |
| I HATE CROSBY |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 20:05:22
well ultimateitman, are you trying to instigate me now hahahaha.....
I think certain players deserve protectors, but a KID like Crosby brings most of it on himself...so he should back it up himself.....But a guy like luongo who gets run while not provoking anything himself, someone should have his back.
As for the topic itself, I like fights, so I think they should get rid of that rule all together...Remember the good old pre-Bettman days, ppl settled their grievences the ol' fashioned way...Now it's a joke.
You know in Atlanta, they hype up the games by promoting fights, cause they know that's how you draw an audience........I think I speak for us all when I say, more of us remember that Philly Ottawa Brawl a few years back rather than a "nice" assist sid got a week ago.
I HATE CROSBY |
| ultimatetitman |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 13:38:21
I think the Instigator Rule is a farce. A farce concocted and institued by a farce of a commissioner... but I digress.
Eliminating the Instigator penalty would improve the game so much. Firstly it would bring respect back in the game. Players wouldn't be so free to take cheap shots at the other team. Even IHC would have to admit that players like Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr, Sundin, and every single goalie should be protected. (Actually, now that I've said that, IHC will take the opposite stance on this... ;-D )
Anyhow, I truly believe there would be fewer penalties, fewer stick infractions, more respect, and, consequently fewer injuries.
Thing about it... you're a young NHL'er looking to make a name for yourself... would you take a shot at the other team's star if you know that Laraque or Booguard are watching you? Didn't think so.
|
| KariyaSelanne |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 16:35:57
quote:
Originally posted by admin
I am all for it. In fact, I would remove the instigator rule all together. If a guy is hesitant to drop em because he will get suspended, then increasing the number one can receive before getting suspended is only delaying the inevitable.
I find the game misconduct associated with the instigator a shame as well.
I agree, the NHL wants to make the damn nets bigger when, they are fine where they are because fans "like high scoring games". I figure a fight is just as entertaining as a goal. So don't make the nets bigger and get rid of that damn instigator rule.
Go Preds Go!!! |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 15:46:00
I don't mind the premise of the instigator penalty, but the refs have been dishing them out like candy on Halloween. I've seen fights where both guys seem to accept that they will be engaging in the fight and go at it, but one guy is given an instigator because apparently he made the first move. I think this penalty should only be given out in circumstances where a player drops the gloves with someone who is unwilling/not ready to engage in a fight.
Does anyone remember the Pittsburgh-Montreal game from a couple weeks ago where Colby Armstrong flattened Koivu on the end boards with a clean hit? Souray then tackled Armstrong from behind and started whaling on him. That's where the instigator penalty comes in and Souray deserved the 2-5-10-game misconduct that he got. But I've seen it dished out when a player approaches another player (possibly in defense of a star) and the two players push and shove each other and then they go at it. That isn't the right time to give a guy an instigator. |
| pucker |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 15:42:00
Pretty sure it is season:
http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule56.html
For a game, the instigator gets a 10 minute misconduct, but if it is in the final 5 minutes then its a game misconduct.
I think its fine the way it is to be honest. Guys like Cherry are always preaching against it but I dont think the rule has done any damage. |
| Guest4040 |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 15:36:14
u mean 3 instigator penalties in a game or whole season? |
| admin |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 15:28:48
I am all for it. In fact, I would remove the instigator rule all together. If a guy is hesitant to drop em because he will get suspended, then increasing the number one can receive before getting suspended is only delaying the inevitable.
I find the game misconduct associated with the instigator a shame as well. |
|
|
