View Single Post
11-12-2008, 11:51 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,387
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
BGL precisely said after the game:"should I fight him? he's no heavyweight". Meaning he could have found a way to fight him but he didn't want to. The guy was 6 foot 4.

I think that's where the problem of the instigator rule comes into play. If Laraque would have dropped the glove and that guy would have turtled or something like that it's George and the Habs that would have been punished with the extra penalty.
The instigator penalty is a good rule. Those out to abolish it always assume something unrealistic, such as that badasses are always and everywhere avengers for justice and never and nowhere predators themselves.

Without the instigator penalty, Chris Neil can start up with Komisarek by throwing punches until Komi retaliates and yet Neil would get the same penalty.

Without the instigator penalty, Lapierre can start throwing punches at Crosby with no worries other than that they will both go off for 5 minutes once Crosby retaliates.

These situations are ridiculous, and that's why the instigator penalty was put on the books.

People who call for its abolition are not thinking things all the way through. What they probably TRULY want is SELECTIVE non-enforcement of the rule. Bill McCreary is supposed to say to himself "I see Big Georges is instigating with Ruutu. I'm going to let that go even though I have decided that the Ruutu elbow was not serious. If I thought it was serious I would have tossed him with a five-and-a-game, but now that Georges doesn't agree with me, I'm just gonna let him have the option of interpreting things his way."

Are you guys SERIOUS????

BaseballCoach is online now   Reply With Quote