HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

instigator rule...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2004, 01:41 AM
  #1
LawnDemon
Registered User
 
LawnDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danger Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,984
vCash: 500
instigator rule...

two schools of thought (as i see them) in light of the bertuzzi incident...

1 - removing the instigator rule would allow players to settle grievances at the moment of the incident. this would prevent brooding and "bounties" and would promote a "what happens during a game stays with the game" attitude. hence, situations like we witnessed in vancouver would not occur. similarly, players like naslund would be protected with the knowledge that they will get beaten down by the resident tough guy. again, this would result in fewer "bounty" situations as the stars would not be run by the mediocre talent (as in the 80s)

2 - removing the instigator rule would cause more "bertuzzi-like" incidents as players would feel free to take out their aggressions without fear of repercussion. thus, if a player feels wronged he could simply start swinging (perhaps blindsiding) an opponent without worrying about putting the team down a man for two minutes. further, coaches would have the option to "goon" by sending out their tough guy to pummel someone of mediocre talent on the opposing team.

thoughts?

LawnDemon is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 06:48 AM
  #2
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
My opinion:

I think there is a correlation between the instigator rule and cheapshots. If you can't go out and pick a fight with someone, you'll get him some other way when the refs aren't looking. And that's usually by using your stick to spear or slash someone.

I actually think that by removing the instigator rule, players that commit cheapshots to begin with will think twice because they may end up paying the price later by getting punched in the mouth. Enforcers and other players that don't mind dropping the gloves won't have to result to cheapshots to get back at other dirty players.

I really don't think the Bertuzzi thing has nothing to do with the instigator rule. This was simple case involving a nut that just lost it and an organization that just a few weeks before failed to act on a bounty that one of their players or employees placed on another player. That's all.

Just my $0.02

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 03:21 PM
  #3
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Since the rule was instigated, it appears to me that the aplication of the rule actually goes like this...a player makes a big hit...the player getting hit, fights the player who hit him...the player making the initial hit, albeit legal and part of the "old way" the game was played, is ruled the instigator, not necessarily the man who threw the first punch...and that my friends, is why there is so little hitting in hockey today. And it's a dirty rotten shame.
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 03:35 PM
  #4
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,776
vCash: 500
A problem I see is if Moore takes out Naslund, then Parker fights him, people say there shouldn’t be an instigator penalty because it’s justified.

So what if Forsberg hits Naslund like that. If Parker beats on Forsberg, people would be screaming for a penalty. The nhl is a 2 tiered league and there’s no simple answer.

Cawz is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 03:48 PM
  #5
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
The way I see it;

Bertuzzi like incidents will continue to pop up irregardless of if the instigator rule is in or out. They happened 60 years ago, 50 years ago, 40 years ago....you get the idea.

However I think that removing the instigator rule will clean up other, more subtle aspects of the game.

It can be suggested that if the instigator rule was not in the game, then Moore doesn't hit Naslund that way in the first place.

For example, when Semenko was riding shotgun for Gretz in the 80's he didn't have to scrap everyone who hit Gretzky because nobody dared to touch him. Nobody dared to touch him because then Semenko would have to scrap. It was a tidy little cause and effect that doesn't exist today.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 04:08 PM
  #6
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,023
vCash: 500
no rule would have prevented the bertuzzi incident. He completely lost it and did not consider the consequences of his actions.

The rule that needs to be enforced is the premeditation aspect of the incident. IMO, the moment the nucks started talking about revenge, the canuck org should have been hit with a 100k fine and a warning. It should have been made clear to them that any act of unsportsmanlike revenge would be dealt with harshly including major fines / suspensions to ownership and coaching.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 05:42 PM
  #7
PineJockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: E-Town
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
I think the whole notion that fighting cannot be removed from hockey because it prevents stickwork is ridiculous.

If fighting was outlawed like it is in every other sport, and, if the players, coaches, league, refs, etc., would just call the rules like they are in the book we wouldn't need to worry about it. Please note that both parts of the equation are required.

There are three real problems.

First, without long-term support by everyone involved, the refs will never call a game properly because everyone then complains about the number of whistles. If there was a long-term committment to eliminate fighting, stickwork, etc., it could be done. Players are not stupid, if they know that they will get tossed for five games for a high stick (an extreme example to make a point) I guarantee there will be less high sticking; but only if it is consistently called for the duration of the season, and no matter when it happens during a game. At the beginning there will be lots of whistles, but everyone will adapt.

Second, the idea that we should "let the players decide the game" and so put the whistle away at the end of games, and in overtime is equally detrimental. For the same reasons, it prevents rules from being called consistently. In no other sport do they let players get away with holding, tripping, etc., depending on when it takes place in the game - think basketball and the number of games that get decided on last second free throws because of foul calls. Letting players break the rules at certain points in the game rather than others is not letting them decide the game on their own.

Finally, people want fighting. Which is fine with me. If you think fighting should be part of the game that's great. But admit that it is because it is exciting to watch Big-G pummel someone, and don't try to justify it by saying it is necessary. It isn't.

I'll now get off my soapbox and get ready for the game.

I believe.

PineJockey is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 06:06 PM
  #8
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PineJockey
In no other sport do they let players get away with holding, tripping, etc., depending on when it takes place in the game - think basketball and the number of games that get decided on last second free throws because of foul calls.
But this is pretty much why I don't watch basketball. Too many whistles and stoppages. In hockey momemtum is even more important and to blow the whistle for every little infraction would destroy the entertainment aspect of the game. And the entertainment aspect is, of course, where the money is.

There is no easy solution but I, for one, believe that a sport that dresses its players with spears and attaches knives to their feet should allow punches to be thrown and I say again - I have no sympathy for Bertuzzi but Colin Campbell blew this one when he did not punish Moores. That is why Simon was just suspended for his hit on Zubov - Campbell knows he blew it. You want to be the judge and jury you have to make sure everybody knows you are doing the job - even if it is an almost impossible job to do and keep everybody happy.

theoil is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 06:27 PM
  #9
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
There's an ebb and flow to this sport, and the instigator rule was brought in for a pretty good reason (anyone want to see a 4 hour hockey game? drop the rule).

These things (imo) are always going to happen when you have hockey and alls of its elements. It's big men doing dangerous things at high speed, and you could play a completely clean season and still have people going off to the hospital.

Before they change the rules, any of them, the NHL should:

1. tell the teams to shut the freak up about the officiating. Don't like it? TOUGH! Do you know that the Boston Bruins LOST A STANLEY CUP in 1974 because an official blew a call?

2. do what they're doing now, which is calling the game and giving teams several man advantages. Nothing hurts a team like some nut taking a selfish penalty and costing his team a goal.

3. Understand that with the ebb and flow of the game, someone, somewhere is figuring out the counter to it. I remember when the Flyer ran all over the NHL, and they looked like world beaters. Well, Larry Robinson ran Gary Dornhoefer through the boards and the Habs made the Flyers pay by dominating without taking penalties.


Lots of people say Anaheim and Minnesota are ruining the game, but they're just continuing a tradition. The 60s Leafs were based on Punch Imlach owning you until the puck got out, and they payed some pretty boring games. Guess what? Habs figured it out.


As for Bertuzzi, well I think he's been beaten up enough for what has happened, and its pretty damn clear he didn't mean for that to happen (anyone remember Messier's slug to the head in Calgary 15 years ago?)

But, do you know how the NHL could stop this stuff right now?

Take away draft picks.


Stops tomorrow.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 07:35 PM
  #10
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
I have no sympathy for Bertuzzi but Colin Campbell blew this one when he did not punish Moores. That is why Simon was just suspended for his hit on Zubov - Campbell knows he blew it.
What exactly should the punishment have been?

I mean it was a very marginal hit... and it was marginal. If that hit was punishable, then so was the Doig hit on Lindros...

And any high stick, or hook, or slash. Where do you draw the line? Even if Colin saw it and thought that a penalty (roughing, interference, etc...), was warranted, do you suspend a guy for a non-call for a minor penalty?

At what point is a solid hard hit not allowed in hockey? That is what is wrong with the game, the second anyone who is considered a skilled player gets hit (no matter how clean the hit), everyone wants blood.

2 years ago, the Oilers missed the playoffs. They had one game against the kings where they were winning 2-1 in the 3rd period. L.A. wasn't putting any pressure on the Oilers and the game was seemingly in hand. Someone drilled Comrie with a clean hit, and Eric Brewer took exception and ended up getting a roughing penalty. The kings scored on the power play, scored again, and ended up winning in OT... this potentially cost the Oilers a playoff spot!

This isn't hockey. It's like these clowns who expect Laraque to drop the gloves anytime someone gets touched. That's not what he is there for. He is there to prevent liberties being taken, not solid hits in the middle of the game.

This is what is going to fix hockey.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 08:48 PM
  #11
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
What exactly should the punishment have been?

I mean it was a very marginal hit... and it was marginal. If that hit was punishable, then so was the Doig hit on Lindros...

And any high stick, or hook, or slash. Where do you draw the line? Even if Colin saw it and thought that a penalty (roughing, interference, etc...), was warranted, do you suspend a guy for a non-call for a minor penalty?

At what point is a solid hard hit not allowed in hockey? That is what is wrong with the game, the second anyone who is considered a skilled player gets hit (no matter how clean the hit), everyone wants blood.

2 years ago, the Oilers missed the playoffs. They had one game against the kings where they were winning 2-1 in the 3rd period. L.A. wasn't putting any pressure on the Oilers and the game was seemingly in hand. Someone drilled Comrie with a clean hit, and Eric Brewer took exception and ended up getting a roughing penalty. The kings scored on the power play, scored again, and ended up winning in OT... this potentially cost the Oilers a playoff spot!

This isn't hockey. It's like these clowns who expect Laraque to drop the gloves anytime someone gets touched. That's not what he is there for. He is there to prevent liberties being taken, not solid hits in the middle of the game.

This is what is going to fix hockey.
Dawgbone, I completely agree. Hockey has become a mindless game of retaliation in which tough, clean hits seem to warrant a reaction. Drives me crazy to watch these skirmishes and too often stick retaliations which result from tough, honest hits.

WRT the Bertuzzi incident, I felt the league missed the boat in not warning the Canucks organization when their team began talking revenge and bounties for Moores. This behavior was right out of the movie 'Slapshot' and fueled by media needlessly escalating the emotion surrounding the rematch game. Nip it in the bud with league issued warning of fines and suspensions. Follow through with punishment if the team does not comply.

I love a good tussle just like the next guy. Eliminate the instigator rule to help protect the stars. But for gosh sake, please target the mindless retaliation which litters this game and reality of playing an inherently physical sport.


Last edited by Behind Enemy Lines: 03-24-2004 at 08:52 PM.
Behind Enemy Lines is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 09:36 PM
  #12
Oi'll say!
Registered User
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,012
vCash: 500
I don't understand why the instigator rule is such a deterrant in the first place. Who gives a rip about a minor penalty in a 60 minute game? Every team gets an average of 3 or 4 anyways, if I was a coach I'd tell my tough guys at the beginning of the season to t-c-o-b whenever they felt it was warranted. I'd rather kill a penalty than scrape my teammates off the ice.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
03-24-2004, 09:44 PM
  #13
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
But this is pretty much why I don't watch basketball. Too many whistles and stoppages. In hockey momemtum is even more important and to blow the whistle for every little infraction would destroy the entertainment aspect of the game. And the entertainment aspect is, of course, where the money is.
I don't think he meant there should be more penalties, just that penalties whould be called consistantly.

My personal view is that if the instigator rule had unintended side effects (cheap shots), eliminate the side effects, not the rule itself. The problem with "the players policing themselves," is that the players are from impartial judges, juries and executioners. Only disintersted referees and officials should police the game, because they can consider things rationaly and without bias.

The Rage is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 12:48 AM
  #14
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oi'll say!
I don't understand why the instigator rule is such a deterrant in the first place. Who gives a rip about a minor penalty in a 60 minute game? Every team gets an average of 3 or 4 anyways, if I was a coach I'd tell my tough guys at the beginning of the season to t-c-o-b whenever they felt it was warranted. I'd rather kill a penalty than scrape my teammates off the ice.
Except that it's almost always 2, 5 and a game misconduct.
That's a whole lot more than a 2 minute penalty.
And after 3 instigator penalties, it's an automatic 1 game suspension.
Gretzky would have been toast if Sammy was handcuffed like that.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 01:10 AM
  #15
Oi'll say!
Registered User
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceDragoon
Except that it's almost always 2, 5 and a game misconduct.
That's a whole lot more than a 2 minute penalty.
And after 3 instigator penalties, it's an automatic 1 game suspension.
Gretzky would have been toast if Sammy was handcuffed like that.
Guys were turtling before the instigator rule, and you only get the gamer if the other guy doesn't fight back. I'd still rather see it happen anyways for a couple of reasons:
1) it's better than doing something really dumb that gets you 5 and a big suspension
2) if a guy who needs a beating for playing like a chump turtles (a-la Jarko Ruutu) it's an embarassment to his whole team and that loss of morale can be far more important than just the two points for that particular game.

Look what the Canucks are going through right now after Bert pantsed his whole organization, the guys on the bench don't like to be labelled as losers just because one guy on their team can't be a man.

I'd much rather have my self respect, respect for my teammates, and the respect of the league and the fans than have a 7 minute powerplay.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 01:14 AM
  #16
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
What exactly should the punishment have been?

I mean it was a very marginal hit... and it was marginal. If that hit was punishable, then so was the Doig hit on Lindros...

And any high stick, or hook, or slash. Where do you draw the line? Even if Colin saw it and thought that a penalty (roughing, interference, etc...), was warranted, do you suspend a guy for a non-call for a minor penalty?

At what point is a solid hard hit not allowed in hockey? That is what is wrong with the game, the second anyone who is considered a skilled player gets hit (no matter how clean the hit), everyone wants blood.

2 years ago, the Oilers missed the playoffs. They had one game against the kings where they were winning 2-1 in the 3rd period. L.A. wasn't putting any pressure on the Oilers and the game was seemingly in hand. Someone drilled Comrie with a clean hit, and Eric Brewer took exception and ended up getting a roughing penalty. The kings scored on the power play, scored again, and ended up winning in OT... this potentially cost the Oilers a playoff spot!

This isn't hockey. It's like these clowns who expect Laraque to drop the gloves anytime someone gets touched. That's not what he is there for. He is there to prevent liberties being taken, not solid hits in the middle of the game.

This is what is going to fix hockey.
Well Dawgbone, I disagree again. It was a deliberate attempt at a head shot as far as I am concerned and Chris Simon just got 2 games from Campbell for a non- called penalty on Zubov. The league announced they were going to protect players from head shots. IMO it was a very deliberate attempt to hurt Naslund and it was successful. You disagree, fine, but I have watched the replay at least as many times as you have and that is what I think. Does it excuse what Bertuzzi did? No. But make no mistake about this. If some 4th liner for Vancouver that you never heard of laid the same hit on Forsberg or Sakic the response from the Avalanche would not have been pretty either. And IceDragoon is right. You took a shot like that on Gretzky when Semenko was here and there would have been a moment of silence at the next game for whoever had to die over it. If the league does not have a way to protect its stars it soon will have no stars and then those $100 seats will look deserted in every barn in both countries.

theoil is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 01:23 AM
  #17
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
... If the league does not have a way to protect its stars it soon will have no stars and then those $100 seats will look deserted in every barn in both countries.
Exactly!!!

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 01:29 AM
  #18
Oi'll say!
Registered User
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Well Dawgbone, I disagree again. It was a deliberate attempt at a head shot as far as I am concerned and Chris Simon just got 2 games from Campbell for a non- called penalty on Zubov. The league announced they were going to protect players from head shots. IMO it was a very deliberate attempt to hurt Naslund and it was successful. You disagree, fine, but I have watched the replay at least as many times as you have and that is what I think. Does it excuse what Bertuzzi did? No. But make no mistake about this. If some 4th liner for Vancouver that you never heard of laid the same hit on Forsberg or Sakic the response from the Avalanche would not have been pretty either. And IceDragoon is right. You took a shot like that on Gretzky when Semenko was here and there would have been a moment of silence at the next game for whoever had to die over it. If the league does not have a way to protect its stars it soon will have no stars and then those $100 seats will look deserted in every barn in both countries.
Sorry to wade in on this, but I don't think the intention was so bad. Moore just wanted to get a piece of the guy and cut hard to get him, but only got the part of Nazzy that was sticking out the furthest.

I'm not saying it was the perfect hit, and a more experienced player who wasn't still trying to make an impression just to stay in the league might have passed it up. Time will tell (hopefully, if Moore's allright) whether or not Moore's of the same ilk as Cooke, Ruutu, Drake et al, I think it's a bit early to label that as an intentional cheapshot. Obviously Mogilny never wanted to hit LaFontaine as hard as he did, things happen on the ice when you're going full speed that you wish you could take back. I've felt that way lots of times before, stuff happens.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 02:11 PM
  #19
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
You took a shot like that on Gretzky when Semenko was here and there would have been a moment of silence at the next game for whoever had to die over it. If the league does not have a way to protect its stars it soon will have no stars and then those $100 seats will look deserted in every barn in both countries.
Exactly! Who protects the stars right now? I've heard a lot about Nashville doing cheap shots and dirty play in order to win games. In fact, if I was an expansion team coach of Columbus. Why wouldn't I send Jody Shelley to take out Naslund? Ok, he gets suspended for a couple of games. So what? I'll send my next goon to take out Forsberg. and then Sakic. And Colorado retaliates by trying to take out my Rick Nash? Fine. Outside of Zherdev and Nash, there's no one else on the Columbus roster who's got top line talent. I'll reserve my two stars to play only in games against the other Expansion teams and sit out my stars and send out the goons against the starry teams like Detroit, and Dallas. In fact, I honestly don't understand why someone doesn't just goad Iginla into a fight and try to take him out of the Calgary lineup with penalties. In a game where the stars are knocked out, Columbus then has a greater chance of winning against Colorado. That's what the bottom line is right? Winning? That's why we have the defensive trap in place. Why not a strategy of goonism?

Master Lok is offline  
Old
03-25-2004, 02:37 PM
  #20
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Well Dawgbone, I disagree again. It was a deliberate attempt at a head shot as far as I am concerned and Chris Simon just got 2 games from Campbell for a non- called penalty on Zubov. The league announced they were going to protect players from head shots. IMO it was a very deliberate attempt to hurt Naslund and it was successful. You disagree, fine, but I have watched the replay at least as many times as you have and that is what I think. Does it excuse what Bertuzzi did? No. But make no mistake about this. If some 4th liner for Vancouver that you never heard of laid the same hit on Forsberg or Sakic the response from the Avalanche would not have been pretty either. And IceDragoon is right. You took a shot like that on Gretzky when Semenko was here and there would have been a moment of silence at the next game for whoever had to die over it. If the league does not have a way to protect its stars it soon will have no stars and then those $100 seats will look deserted in every barn in both countries.
theoil, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if Moore did anything illegal when trying to hit Naslund. I've seen the hit a hundred times (heck, I have the video of as an .mpg if anyone wants it). I even did a bunch of editing work on it. A local hockey show had two guys who were going to debate on it, and I spent time with both of them as they more or less pointed out things in the incident that they wanted to stand out (i.e. zooms, shadowing, etc...).

Having watched it (over and over), to me it looked like Moore did everything he could to not hurt Naslund. I mean, if he really intended to hurt Naslund badly, he went about it the wrong way. Moore tucked his elbow against his body, avoided Naslund's exposed knee, lowered himself down, and in the end he more or less glanced off of him as opposed to hitting him full on. That to me doesn't look like someone who is head-hunting or trying to hurt someone. If Moore had stood up and just smoked Naslund with an elbow, I'd definitely think Moore was trying to hurt him. Could he have bailed out of the hit? Maybe. I mean Naslund didn't fully expose himself until Moore had already turned towards him to finish his check.

And as every "good Canadian kid" knows, you have to finish your checks.

With regards to Gretzky... he is my alltime favorite hockey player, but to me he is also the main reason the NHL is the way it is now. He was more or less the first superstar who wasn't allowed to get hit. That too me is a big problem. Yes I know you need the skilled players to sell those $100 seats, but are we going to get to the point where if you make over x amount of dollars or score more than x amount of points you aren't allowed to be touched? That to me is the starting point of what is wrong with the NHL.

dawgbone is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.