HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Reactions to Legal Clean hits

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2010, 04:19 PM
  #1
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,214
vCash: 500
Reactions to Legal Clean hits

They had an Interesting Discussion on NHL live this morning about Legal Hits. Basically why is a Legal hit now in this NHL met with a reaction or fight...

Back in the Dead Puck era people just dusted them selves off, and looked for you later.

What do you guys think is causing the Change?

damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 04:30 PM
  #2
Maynard
Registered User
 
Maynard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Maynard
Wayne Gretzky and Dave Semenko.

Maynard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 04:35 PM
  #3
Pucknut50
Registered User
 
Pucknut50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,284
vCash: 500
Money, Momentum, Money, Your going to pay if you hit one of our guys legal or not, Money.

Pucknut50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 04:36 PM
  #4
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
They had an Interesting Discussion on NHL live this morning about Legal Hits. Basically why is a Legal hit now in this NHL met with a reaction or fight...

Back in the Dead Puck era people just dusted them selves off, and looked for you later.

What do you guys think is causing the Change?
I have discussed this with friends and IMO it has alot to do with media and ego. Years ago we didn't get anywhere near the media coverage or highlight packages we do today. Things like Hit of the night or what have you has really changed the mind set of players. Nobody wants to be seen getting nailed over and over again. I remember Bo Jackson running over Brian Bosworth yrs ago in football and they played that clip over time and time again.

Standing up for teammates when you think they were hit illegally is one thing. But now even a classic hipcheck or shoulder to shoulder check is greeted with a scrum. Players need to swallow their pride and just learn to take a hit.

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 05:04 PM
  #5
Cutty Sarkn3ss*
I bet u trade me
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cutty Sarkn3ss*
The only time I'm OK with a fight is when the hit is questionable . . but unfortunately, in this new era of the NHL . . every solid hit is questionable and leads to a penalty or a GM

Cutty Sarkn3ss* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 05:42 PM
  #6
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 42,277
vCash: 500
Because you have to make your opponent consider the potential price for their effort. It's also intimidating. I don't have a problem with it. If teams are willing to risk the penalties, they do so at their own discretion.

kingsholygrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 05:58 PM
  #7
KingsCorona
Registered User
 
KingsCorona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
I don't know. I think it is pretty lame, honestly. Hockey is supposed to be a hard-hitting game, and to me it seems like someone that feels the need to start a brawl over a perfectly legal hit is just showing a lack of poise and the inability to take what the game dishes out.

If someone smacks you good, shrug it off and smack him back the next time he touches the puck -- legally. Posterizing someone with a good hit is 10 times as satisfying, IMO. Besides, I don't think fights intimidate anyone, especially since most of the time it is just the two guys whose job it is. It just slows the game down and cause penalties that could possibly hurt your team.

KingsCorona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:03 PM
  #8
riseandfall9
Registered User
 
riseandfall9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,386
vCash: 500
I am fine with fights after Legal hits. Specially if its against the Kings. If a guy like Downie nails Doughty I would expect Clifford or Westgarth to either knock his remaining teeth out or knock out Stamkos.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles. Stars should still be protected clean or not.

riseandfall9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:03 PM
  #9
tantrum4*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Ya I think it sucks. When I played and you layed out a guy with a big, hard check, you were praised for it, sometimes even by the other team. Now, it's a fight. I LOVE fights and have been in a ton myself, but I think it's getting a little ridiculous. Pretty soon there won't be any hitting because the players won't want to have to fight or get jumped because of it. Could you imagine if Scott Stevens had to fight every time he hit somebody? He'd be sitting in the box the entire game.

tantrum4* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:09 PM
  #10
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,956
vCash: 500
It blows. Do they start fights in a football game every time a guy gets tackled? It's a contact sport. Deal with it.

santiclaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:15 PM
  #11
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
The instigator rule is the reason that things have changed, period.

It is just that simple.

You can't simply take the players number any longer and then get even later on because you have to consider that you could cost your team the game by putting them down a player at a critical time.

Now the real question in my opinion is that if you have changed the game that significantly by adding in the instigator then the beneficial results should be obvious shouldn't they? If the instigator is keeping players from getting even for cheap shots then shouldn't there be a notable fluctuation in the amount and or severity of injuries as a result of these types of hits?

The answer is yes and that there absolutely has been a significant increase in the amount and number of man hours lost to injury as a result of these types of hits. Heck, the amount of and number of man hours lost to concussions is up by over 52% since the instigator rule has been a part of the game (52,3% according to the NHLPA as of 3/12/10).

Allot to consider and of course an argument could (and maybe should) be made for the result of these significant increases being caused by other variables (size and age of the players, equipment changes etc) but clearly the game has been changed significantly by adding the instigator rule and in my opinion quite obviously for the worse.

To quote Kevin Lowe "the instigator rule is only going to cause skill players to get hurt, real bad".

Its tough to argue that it hasn't.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:20 PM
  #12
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
It blows. Do they start fights in a football game every time a guy gets tackled? It's a contact sport. Deal with it.
No, they don't start fights every time someone gets tackled, blocked hard or hit for any other reason.
But they do get even more often than not and how many times have you seen a QB get run and then the next time the offending team has the ball that their QB gets run also?

How about Baseball, throw at a player at bat and it is gonna happen to you.

Soccer, run a guy knee on knee and your gonna be laying on the ground as soon as the ball gets dropped.

Basketball is a game that has an effective rule for cheap shots in the flagrant foul....well sort of anyways.

Also in hockey it isn't about fighting after a cheap shot, its about the idea of retribution in total. Prior to the instigator rule if you ran a skill player you better be ready to pay for it. Now there are too many things to consider allowing for players to take greater and greater chances when considering how and when to take a questionable hit on an opponent.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:30 PM
  #13
tantrum4*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
Also in hockey it isn't about fighting after a cheap shot, its about the idea of retribution in total. Prior to the instigator rule if you ran a skill player you better be ready to pay for it. Now there are too many things to consider allowing for players to take greater and greater chances when considering how and when to take a questionable hit on an opponent.
Yes but we aren't talking about only skill players getting hit, because that's always been the case that there will be a fight afterwards from the beginning of time. We are talking about how nowadays, someone could hit Peter Harrold, Brandon Prust or Manny Molholtra with a clean, hard check, and there is a fight. I love seeing big hits, and I love fights, but I don't like fights because of a big hit.

And I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on your comparisons to football and baseball. I've seen HUGE clean hits in football, and no one retaliates ever. Hell, even these past few weeks with all the helmet to helmet hits I have not seen one team retaliate and go and hit someone back with their helmet on purpose. And the baseball comparison is just not even in the same ballpark (sorry about the pun). Hitting is part of hockey and is legal. Hitting players in the head with a 100 mph fastball is not part of the rules of baseball. The only way you could compare that to hockey is if someone got hit and then your goalie retaliated by swinging your stick McSorley style at the players head next time he was in the crease.


Last edited by tantrum4*: 11-15-2010 at 06:37 PM.
tantrum4* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:41 PM
  #14
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
I agree and stand by the same set of facts. These types of hits typically happen after a team has taken command of a game and or series for the most part and then the obligatory scrum to fight happens afterward.

That also has been a part of the game forever and is part of how it should be in my opinion. Fighting is not only part of the game it is a significant part of the game.


I am not saying that it isn't tedious watching a clean check happen and then everyone mulls around shoving each other because it is. I am saying that if the instigator rule was removed that there would be allot less of that sort of thing due to players who aren't typically physical enough to actually drop their gloves not wanting to take a chance that the guy that they just shoved might just drop the gloves and beat them down.


I base my opinion on the years of international play that I have watched and how the absence of fighting makes watching those games/leagues pretty tedious at times. I spend a season following the SEL (one team in specific but in person) and while at first it was fun because it was a different style of hockey after a time it became apparent that something was missing from the game and that was the physical play.

Sure they would check each other and every now and then push and shove but it seemed obligatory and the heart of the game had been set aside. You could argue that the international size ice was the culprit but having played two seasons on Intl ice and having just as many fights as I did on NA ice I would argue that it didn't have an impact.

In my opinion while it has become a bit excessive (the post clean hit scrum) I believe that it is a result that due to the instigator rule it can't be solved the way that it used to be.

I know that my position is debatable but stand by it.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:48 PM
  #15
tantrum4*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
I agree and stand by the same set of facts. These types of hits typically happen after a team has taken command of a game and or series for the most part and then the obligatory scrum to fight happens afterward.

That also has been a part of the game forever and is part of how it should be in my opinion. Fighting is not only part of the game it is a significant part of the game.


I am not saying that it isn't tedious watching a clean check happen and then everyone mulls around shoving each other because it is. I am saying that if the instigator rule was removed that there would be allot less of that sort of thing due to players who aren't typically physical enough to actually drop their gloves not wanting to take a chance that the guy that they just shoved might just drop the gloves and beat them down.


I base my opinion on the years of international play that I have watched and how the absence of fighting makes watching those games/leagues pretty tedious at times. I spend a season following the SEL (one team in specific but in person) and while at first it was fun because it was a different style of hockey after a time it became apparent that something was missing from the game and that was the physical play.

Sure they would check each other and every now and then push and shove but it seemed obligatory and the heart of the game had been set aside. You could argue that the international size ice was the culprit but having played two seasons on Intl ice and having just as many fights as I did on NA ice I would argue that it didn't have an impact.

In my opinion while it has become a bit excessive (the post clean hit scrum) I believe that it is a result that due to the instigator rule it can't be solved the way that it used to be.

I know that my position is debatable but stand by it.
The only thing I question about your post is that you say big hits only happen after a team has taken command of a game or series. Big hits happen at any time during a game or series, weather it's in the first or last minute or anywhere in between. A good example is Sean Avery's hit last night. He laid a good, clean, hard body check on whoever it was, then Smid came in to fight him, got dropped, and a brawl broke out. In the olden days after a hit like that the game continues without incident.

tantrum4* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 07:15 PM
  #16
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
I meant more big meaning clean but just barely so that might be the difference but your mentioning of Avery's clean hit last night brings up another fair point.

Players like Aver prior to the instigator rule were either very capable fighters are weren't long for the NHL.

The fact that it was Avery is what caused the fight to break out. Avery is a dirty player and the fact that he was involved typically means that there is going to be a fight as a result of it. To me the players who aren't dirty that throw a clean check and a scrum breaks out is where we are in total agreement. Of course I still stand by my opinion that if you took away the instigator rule that they wouldn't happen near as often if it all.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 08:35 PM
  #17
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
I meant more big meaning clean but just barely so that might be the difference but your mentioning of Avery's clean hit last night brings up another fair point.

Players like Aver prior to the instigator rule were either very capable fighters are weren't long for the NHL.

The fact that it was Avery is what caused the fight to break out. Avery is a dirty player and the fact that he was involved typically means that there is going to be a fight as a result of it. To me the players who aren't dirty that throw a clean check and a scrum breaks out is where we are in total agreement. Of course I still stand by my opinion that if you took away the instigator rule that they wouldn't happen near as often if it all.
I could be wrong. But I think no one ever said a word to Scott Stevens;cause they were afraid he would beat the hell out of them. Or they were certain that Stevens would find you later on the Ice with your head down.

damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:09 PM
  #18
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
The instigator rule is the reason that things have changed, period.

It is just that simple.

You can't simply take the players number any longer and then get even later on because you have to consider that you could cost your team the game by putting them down a player at a critical time.

Now the real question in my opinion is that if you have changed the game that significantly by adding in the instigator then the beneficial results should be obvious shouldn't they? If the instigator is keeping players from getting even for cheap shots then shouldn't there be a notable fluctuation in the amount and or severity of injuries as a result of these types of hits?

The answer is yes and that there absolutely has been a significant increase in the amount and number of man hours lost to injury as a result of these types of hits. Heck, the amount of and number of man hours lost to concussions is up by over 52% since the instigator rule has been a part of the game (52,3% according to the NHLPA as of 3/12/10).

Allot to consider and of course an argument could (and maybe should) be made for the result of these significant increases being caused by other variables (size and age of the players, equipment changes etc) but clearly the game has been changed significantly by adding the instigator rule and in my opinion quite obviously for the worse.

To quote Kevin Lowe "the instigator rule is only going to cause skill players to get hurt, real bad".

Its tough to argue that it hasn't.
On HNIC they talked to the doctor in charge of all concussion issues and he works with the NHL. He said he was glad to see the rise in concussions because it showed that more concussions were being diagnosed properly. IMO you can't equate the instigator with hard clean checks. Heck look at the Savard and Booth hits. They caused damage and were deemed clean.

Also look at the result of fights as of late. Ivanans gets a concussion, Koci broken jaw, and there is always the head hitting the ice issue. Fighting ADDS to the concussion and injury problem

As for Avery I remember guys like Ken Linseman and Bill Barber being very dirty and they never dropped the gloves regularly. Yes they had bigger teammates looking after them but why didn't someone jump them to set them straight? Yesterday Smid should have just grabbed Avery and started punching him if he truly deemed the hit on Fraser as dirty. The score was 7-2 at the time and the game out of question. Don't half ass being tough. Also even the goons that play the game often try to get the jump on one another.

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:20 PM
  #19
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Was the instigator rule in effect when Domi suckered Samuelsson? I can't recall. However it hasn't stopped guys like Walker doing the same to Ward in the playoffs and I don't think it does affect the game as some would like to believe. I mean c'mon every time people talk about the instigator rule handcuffing players from settling scores or policing themselves its the same players mentioned. Avery, Lapierre, Downie, Cooke, Ruutu ,Ott etc. At least Ott and Ruutu do fight on occasion. Why don't teams just have players jump these guys when games are in hand? Or if out of the playoffs why not get even and send a message. Is a one or two game suspension not worth it?

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:24 PM
  #20
Josh Deitell
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Josh Deitell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
I understanding hunting a guy down after a cheap shot, but I think going after a guy for a clean hit, whether it causes injury or not, is pointless. It's the league norm now, but I'm not a fan of it. Get back at the other team by hitting them, not trying to start a scrap and getting put in the box.

Take last week when Greene went after Neal for hitting Stoll, for example. He gets an instigator, fighting major, and ten minute misconduct. Not only do we go on the PK in a tie game, but we do so without one of our top PK defenseman, who also has to take half a period off. And for what? Stoll was shaken up, but he was fine. Even if he was hurt on the play, I still don't think Greene's actions are justified. Stoll had his head down and went across the middle, he deserved to get hit. Had the shoe been on the other foot, Greene or Stoll both would have made that contact without hesitation, and would probably be asked to answer the bell in the same way.

What message is that sending? "If you hit our players with clean shots, enjoy a powerplay"? It's overreaction to me. Guys need to keep their emotions in check in these situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
I could be wrong. But I think no one ever said a word to Scott Stevens;cause they were afraid he would beat the hell out of them. Or they were certain that Stevens would find you later on the Ice with your head down.
If you watch highlights of Stevens' hits, he'd lay guys out, and then just hang out while the trainers and referees took care of things. He'd rarely even get chirped, much less grabbed onto. I think part of it was the intimidation factor, but part of it was that there was a respect for those kind of hits. Aside from a few cheapshots, Stevens' hits were within the rules. Other teams' goons would skate right by him afterwards, I'm sure they'd tell him "nice hit" when they weren't in a game setting.

Josh Deitell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:34 PM
  #21
The Tikkanen
Pest
 
The Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,389
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to The Tikkanen
I find it disturbing watching NHL players turning their backs to shield the puck against the boards. If a guy is barreling down on you and you turn your back to protect the puck you deserve to have your face smashed against the glass.

The Tikkanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:40 PM
  #22
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikkanen View Post
I find it disturbing watching NHL players turning their backs to shield the puck against the boards. If a guy is barreling down on you and you turn your back to protect the puck you deserve to have your face smashed against the glass.
You can thank the Automatic Boarding calls for that. I think it's ridiculous that Forwards can basically play head down all the time now.

damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 11:42 PM
  #23
ginblossoms
Registered User
 
ginblossoms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,135
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ginblossoms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Deitell View Post
Take last week when Greene went after Neal for hitting Stoll, for example. He gets an instigator, fighting major, and ten minute misconduct. Not only do we go on the PK in a tie game, but we do so without one of our top PK defenseman, who also has to take half a period off. And for what? Stoll was shaken up, but he was fine. Even if he was hurt on the play, I still don't think Greene's actions are justified. Stoll had his head down and went across the middle, he deserved to get hit. Had the shoe been on the other foot, Greene or Stoll both would have made that contact without hesitation, and would probably be asked to answer the bell in the same way.
i agree with your thoughts in principle. but in this particular case, if i recall correctly, the kings broadcast later asked one of the players (think it was richardson) about the hit. richardson (or whoever it was) explicitly said that the bench THOUGHT it was dirty, even though replay clearly proved otherwise. recall also that many of us INITIALLY thought neal went for stoll's head. in this sense, greene's immediate reaction can be justified.

but again, i agree in principle. to you hockey players, take it like a man. this hockey fan will respect you more for it.

ginblossoms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2010, 11:36 AM
  #24
DeeMeck
Registered User
 
DeeMeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,366
vCash: 50
The problem is that at game speed players don't know if it is a clean hit or not.

Going back to the Artyukhin hit on Doughty a couple years ago. The players on the ice didn't know it was a knee-on-knee...it looked like a clean hit at first glance. Nothing was done about it and I recall Murray and Lombardi both being unhappy about it.

The players tend to err on the side of dirty hit, because you don't want to be "that guy" on the ice not sticking up for a teammate.

Players are going to fight first and ask questions later just so they aren't labeled with a "bad teammate" tag, because most of the time the players aren't watching the hit.

DeeMeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 12:47 AM
  #25
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeMeck View Post
The problem is that at game speed players don't know if it is a clean hit or not.

Going back to the Artyukhin hit on Doughty a couple years ago. The players on the ice didn't know it was a knee-on-knee...it looked like a clean hit at first glance. Nothing was done about it and I recall Murray and Lombardi both being unhappy about it.

The players tend to err on the side of dirty hit, because you don't want to be "that guy" on the ice not sticking up for a teammate.

Players are going to fight first and ask questions later just so they aren't labeled with a "bad teammate" tag, because most of the time the players aren't watching the hit.
My question is why didn't that happen in the Dead puck ERA. Scott Stevens didn't even so much get a whisper at him. And some of his hits looked like he killed people.

Right now in the NHL a Decent Body check gets met with Rugby Scrum.

damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:16 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.