George Laraque played his role to perfection last night. He played a phenomenal game, causing penalties, working well in the offensive zone and scarring the **** out of Neil.
Rutuu is like tucker, nothing more than a little clown with skates and a stick. His shot on Lapierre was dirt, and it is borderline suspension material. If he would have hit like kovy or koivu , I'm sure the league would have a look into it...
Neil was Laraque's target last night, and Laraque went to talk to him a couple of times yesterday to make sure Neil knew that if he would do stupid things, Laraque would destroy him. Joel bouchard said something interesting and funny last night , he said : '' OH george laraque fait très bien son travail, il est aller voir neil pour lui dire : '' hey , t'es chez nous, tu feras pas le nono han? '' '' ... and thats exactly what I expect from george... if rutuu craches the net, guys like komi, hammer, bouillon, kosto, begin can deal with him size wise... rutuu would never fight BGL. they shouldn't hesitate to drop them to kick the **** out of Rutuu. BGL's job is to keep neil busy.
George is playing well , with or without the puck ... there was one shift where he just tried to fight someone, and nobody wanted... then the game cooled down... Anyone who says BGL isn't doin his job should at leats try and explain why, because from my point of view, in my humble opinion, he is a guy that perfectly understood his role, and is even giving us and offensive upside on the 4rth line, by causing penalties and using his body to keep the puck deep in the offensive zone.
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."
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.
I agreed with you, although I think a new interpretation of the rule could help.
The way I see it, Ruutu would of been the instigator of a fight between he and Laraque, because the hit to the head of Lapierre INSTIGATED the fight.
__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
It seems a lot of people are upset that Ruuttu went head hunting after Lapierre with his elbow.
I don't get something, though. Isn't the mere PRESENCE of Georges Laraque supposed to "prevent" this type of thing?
Boullion stepped in rather quickly and if I'm Ruuttu I gladly dropped them with a guy who's much much smaller. Laraque tried to get both Ruuttu and Neil to fight but they shied away like little school girls.
Laraque was smart enough not to instigate because at the time the game w too close to take a bad penalty. Laraque is a smart player and knows that they will meet 5 more times this year. Theri will lots of time to take a bad penalty during the course of those games.
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.
No it means you shouldn't be punished because you start a fight. That simple.
Quote:
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.
Well this already exist even WITH the instigator rule! Most of the time when you see two guys fighting and the ref has not seen who started it, he will gave the same penalty. Also it advantages the cowards because they can take cheap shot anybody and when the other player retaliate he's punished for it?
Quote:
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
You make no sens. I've watched the NHL since the 70s and this has rarely happened even without the instigator rule.
Quote:
These situations are ridiculous, and that's why the instigator penalty was put on the books
What? things that you just made up out of the blue?
Quote:
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."
Refs are not just stupid drones, they understand what's happening on the ice, believe me. Ruutu should have the game for the elbow and 5 minutes each between him and George for the fighting. I don't see the problem. You talk like you've only started watching hockey in the last 5 years.
Quote:
Are you guys SERIOUS????
ARE YOU? The game was fine before the instigator rule. In fact it was better as far as getting rid of the dirty guys.
During last nights game, when Lappiere was elbowed by Ruutu, and then the fight between Bouillon & Ruutu, The commentator said "And Laraque is coming on" or something of that sort. I was really thinking there would be a fight between Laraque & Ruutu, but there wasn't! I was so dissapointed! Laraque is like the enforcer of the team, the guy who stands up for our players and gives us that physical & Mental confidence. Last night, he stayed out of the way! Anyone think he was wrong in what he did? or didn't do?
laraque didnt avoid anything. bouillon just got to him first.
ruutu is not even in laraques weight class so i wasnt surprised they didnt go. there is no way ruutu would choose to drop them with george. ruutu is an agitator not a fighter.
Just read some threads in the sens board and they really make me happy to see them bottom of the division. Justifying this cowards actions just cements my opinion of them. Garbage team, nothing makes me happier than watching their window for a cup close a little bit with ech and every loss.
I saw Neil get into scrums and go after players last night, so I'm not sure why the media and fans are creaming their pants at George ''calming down'' Chris Neil and teh Sens. All George did last night was have a few words with Neil in the middle of a third period comeback. No intelligent player would oblige in a situation like that so Neil didn't. Neil had nothing to gain by obliging Laraque and that's why he declined him and only smiled at BG, hoping he would take a stupid penalty but George is just as smart a player as Neil is so he didn't.
Neil is not wetting his pants at all, he's an enforcer not an agitator, He's had wars with guys like Cairns, Simon, Oliwa, etc in their prime. Yeah I'm sure he's ******** his pants. These big media mouths like Bouchard should shut the **** up and get real. Neil's not afraid of George at all and as a matter of fact, I bet he challenges him early in next week's game.
I saw Neil get into scrums and go after players last night, so I'm not sure why the media and fans are creaming their pants at George ''calming down'' Chris Neil and teh Sens. All George did last night was have a few words with Neil in the middle of a third period comeback. No intelligent player would oblige in a situation like that so Neil didn't. Neil had nothing to gain by obliging Laraque and that's why he declined him and only smiled at BG, hoping he would take a stupid penalty but George is just as smart a player as Neil is so he didn't.
Neil is not wetting his pants at all, he's an enforcer not an agitator, He's had wars with guys like Cairns, Simon, Oliwa, etc in their prime. Yeah I'm sure he's ******** his pants. These big media mouths like Bouchard should shut the **** up and get real. Neil's not afraid of George at all and as a matter of fact, I bet he challenges him early in next week's game.
An enforcers job is to fight to shift momentum in a game. If Neil was smart and played his role he would have went after Laraque when it was 1-0 in order to get his teammates skating again.
Last year Neil was all over the Habs, running into Price, hitting everyone and even calling the Habs bench on. None of that happened yesterday. Neil is a ***** and he'll keep avoiding Georges.
I saw Neil get into scrums and go after players last night, so I'm not sure why the media and fans are creaming their pants at George ''calming down'' Chris Neil and teh Sens. All George did last night was have a few words with Neil in the middle of a third period comeback. No intelligent player would oblige in a situation like that so Neil didn't. Neil had nothing to gain by obliging Laraque and that's why he declined him and only smiled at BG, hoping he would take a stupid penalty but George is just as smart a player as Neil is so he didn't.
Neil is not wetting his pants at all, he's an enforcer not an agitator, He's had wars with guys like Cairns, Simon, Oliwa, etc in their prime. Yeah I'm sure he's ******** his pants. These big media mouths like Bouchard should shut the **** up and get real. Neil's not afraid of George at all and as a matter of fact, I bet he challenges him early in next week's game.
Neil usually runs around like crazy hitting everything in site in games against the habs... he didn't seem to be his usual self last night.
I agreed with you, although I think a new interpretation of the rule could help.
The way I see it, Ruutu would of been the instigator of a fight between he and Laraque, because the hit to the head of Lapierre INSTIGATED the fight.
I'm really surprised you as a moderator would say that.
Here, on HF Boards, the mods frequently remind us that we are NOT individually to take the law into our own hands and slap down posters we don't find acceptable with tactics that would themsleves be infractions. Instead we are to report posts that ofend us and an independent party (a mod) decides what is over the line.
George is the type of guy who will only look to go with the enforcer on the other team, never the guilty party. Which kinda eliminates the who "protection of players" thing.
I almost would have preferred a much angrier, volatile, unstable nutcase who would jump on anybody who cheap shots players. Brashear or Roy or Godard or some such wack job.
George is the type of guy who will only look to go with the enforcer on the other team, never the guilty party. Which kinda eliminates the who "protection of players" thing.
I almost would have preferred a much angrier, volatile, unstable nutcase who would jump on anybody who cheap shots players. Brashear or Roy or Godard or some such wack job.
Wow, We finnally get one that's able to keep himself out of the penalty box, beat the crap out of evreybody when necessary and who's able to play hockey effectively and you want to exchange him Godard or André Roy
I'm really surprised you as a moderator would say that.
Here, on HF Boards, the mods frequently remind us that we are NOT individually to take the law into our own hands and slap down posters we don't find acceptable with tactics that would themsleves be infractions. Instead we are to report posts that ofend us and an independent party (a mod) decides what is over the line.
Well I'm not going to compare an internet message board with a sporting event, but if you do, I would compare what Ruutu did to Lapierre as a troll coming on to the habs board.
We usually penalize the troll, not the posters who tell him to shut up.
These big media mouths like Bouchard should shut the **** up and get real. Neil's not afraid of George at all and as a matter of fact, I bet he challenges him early in next week's game.
