Fourth Line Enforcer
View Single Post
07-30-2012, 01:44 PM
Expectations - high
Join Date: Oct 2007
Originally Posted by
I was hoping something would soon come along that I could agree with you, and this fits the bill nicely.
I've been religiously watching the game for well over 10 years, and the more years that separate me from my initial assessments of hockey and now, the less sense an "enforcer" makes to me. I just don't see why an opposing team would care at all that my team has one, whether he is on the ice or not, nor how good he was at beating other player's brains in. There are just too many ways that players legitimately avoid such "justice" to justify the expenditure in terms of salary, playing time, and the roster spot.
Glad we could find some common ground.
My thinking is this: When a "dirty hit" is laid out, the kind of hits that an enforcer will apparently deter, it's either accidental or intentional.
If the hit was accidental, whether the enforcer was on the ice (or on the team) is irrelevant, since the hit was likely a clean hockey play turned badly. An example (in Canes history) would be Weight's hit on Sutter or Staal's hit on Markov. Having an enforcer wouldn't have prevented those from happening.
If the hit was intentional, whether the enforcer was on the ice (or on the team) is irrelevant, since those players that intentionally lay dirty hits will do so regardless of who's on the opposing team. The most recent example was Torres hit on Hossa. Having an enforcer wouldn't have prevented that hit from happening. It may have caused more repercussion for Torres (though he likely wouldn't have fought anyway), but the hit still would have happened.
View Public Profile
Blueline Bomber's albums
Find More Posts by Blueline Bomber