View Single Post
06-14-2011, 12:55 PM
Registered User
Patccmoi's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,100
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Frogurt View Post
A lot of conspiracy theories being tossed around in the last thread... The league doesn't want the Bruins to win (or at least not to the point of favoring them outside of letting that idiot Colin Campbell keep his job all season), they're just inept when it comes to discipline. The Bruins have taken advantage of it, but no more than any team in the past has taken advantage of fortuitous circumstances to win championships.

If you want to talk about an area where I think there's evidence that the Bruins have quite a bit of influence... Anybody else find it funny that they're the main trailblazers in the movement to eliminate hitting from the game?

I don't mean eliminating hitting entirely, of course, but that's the verbage commonly used by those who get up in arms every time the league brings up the headshot debate.

You have Savard taken out by a then legal Matt Cooke hit that was very similar to one thrown by Richards on Booth earlier that year that nobody cared about until after the Savard incident. The Bruins raise a stink, as they should because they lost their best offensive player, and the league adopts a new headshot rule mid-season that would eventually morph into Rule 48 that off-season. Good for those who care about player safety, bad for those who enjoy killing time with 10 minutes of Scott Stevens highlights.

Numerous incidents occur throughout the following season, with varying results. Some are suspensions, some aren't, with no real rhyme nor reason. Flash forward to last week and Rome takes out Horton on a textbook hit that the league went out its way to say was still acceptable, only problem is Rome throws it a second late. An update on Horton's condition comes out the next day, an hour later Rome is suspended an unprecedented 4 games for an interference penalty. Now we hear talk about expanding rule 48 to include any hit that targets the head. Sounds like a rule straight out of European hockey... But that can't be, because those Euros are a bunch of diving pansies, right?

If you're an advocate of player safety you should think positively of the impact the Bruins have had on the game. I don't think they're doing it on purpose, mind you. I think it's a combination of a team looking out for their own players (like all do) and having an owner with a lot of pull. The difference between having a Jeremy Jacobs and a Geoff Molson as an owner is the difference between getting your own rule in the book and being told to re-design your arena.

Just ironic is what it is.
So, are you suggesting that to insure player safety for the future we should just bite the bullet and headshot Bruins regularly so that they force the rule changes?

I think you make a very valid point with having Jacobs vs Molson as an owner. But I think it does have more influence than which rule gets in the book, it also has an influence on which rules get applied or not. Jacobs calls Murphy and screams at him after seeing one of his player taken out, there might be a much harsher sanction following than if Molson does it. Sure seems this way.

I mean, the NHL really does come off as a boys club with some friends at the top doing whatever they want together and laughing at the rest. Come on, Murphy ASKED BURKE'S ADVICE regarding Rome's suspension? A guy that had a conflict of interest with the team in question? And just seeing the previous emails from Campbell was proof enough of how things are handled there.

Note that the NHL is far from the only entity like that. That's how it works everywhere, Bruins just happen to be part of the group of friends at the top.

Patccmoi is offline