HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

[THE INSTIGATOR] Open letter to Geoff Molson

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-11-2011, 01:22 PM
  #301
Poulet Kostopoulos
Registered User
 
Poulet Kostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,843
vCash: 500
Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan, and Jim Thomson may file legal actions against Cherry:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=377851

Well served.

Hypocrite CBC said it's dissociating itself from its Clown's comments.

Poulet Kostopoulos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 01:23 PM
  #302
Souvenirs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Trois-Rivieres
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwishihadacup View Post
bravo, and I am quite thrilled that some people still have the will to counterargument those neanderthal fight lovers
Completely agree.

If you think hockey is nothing without fighting, then you watch the sport for the wrong reasons.

Souvenirs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 01:32 PM
  #303
Karl Pilkington
Registered User
 
Karl Pilkington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That is exactly the point of many. Fighting is only serving an entertainment aspect. It has close to no relevance to the actual game anymore.

The object of the game of hockey is to put a puck in the opponent's net the most, and so, win the game, not fight or entertain people.
I think fighting DID and can serve a purpose. With the instigator rule it became something else.. staged fights and all that were the result. The instigator rule did have a big effect on the "respect quotient", but of course that's not the only factor.. in general we have become more self centered and selfish, especially athletes who have to pump every ounce of energy they have into themselves..

It's not just about fighting. It's about respect. You can't mandate respect.. that only restrains the vicious element..

It's crazy we spend so much time discussing violence in sports.. violence in sports is the rule. Except maybe figure skating.. and that's not a derogatory statement towards figure skating, that's just the reality. HOCKEY IS VIOLENT. The speed now makes it even more violent. I guess maybe they can put a speed limit on skating.. that would limit injuries from hits to the head.. seriously.. these rules need to go. Players have to take responsibility for themselves.. enough media whining.. these reporters like to make themselves bigger than the events they are covering. All the whining and rule changing and Brendan Shannahaning in the world won't make players respect each other.

Don't ask me what will.. this is a wider societal issue. Sports reflect the "real" world on many levels. This issue with respect and common sense is one of those issues. Really, it comes down to each person taking responsibility for themselves and not blaming external factors for why they acted a certain way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poulet Kostopoulos View Post
Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan, and Jim Thomson may file legal actions against Cherry:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=377851

Well served.

Hypocrite CBC said it's dissociating itself from its Clown's comments.
The legal system really promotes the common sense/lack of respect/blame someone else attitude I'm talking about. We don't take anything head on anymore. We circle around the issue and point the finger through a third party while compiling the opinions of those interested in what's happening to justify our stance.

Every once and a while we all need to let it go..


Last edited by Habsfan18: 10-11-2011 at 09:01 PM. Reason: merged
Karl Pilkington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 08:38 PM
  #304
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The purpose in hockey is to score goals, not fight.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. The purpose in (pro) hockey is to win games. Scoring is one aspect, with the others being defending, hitting, skating, checking and fighting (amongst other things) in order to beat the opponent.

Now you feel that fighting has no bearing on a game, that's your opinion. I know that it does, from having lived it myself (although not at the pro level). Intimidation is a deciding factor in the game whether people want to admit it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poulet Kostopoulos View Post
Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan, and Jim Thomson may file legal actions against Cherry:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=377851

Well served.

Hypocrite CBC said it's dissociating itself from its Clown's comments.
In a country where idiots can sue McDonald's because their coffee is too hot, after spilling it on themselves, no one should be surprised that those three guys would do that. And that coming from a huge Chris Nilan fan here...

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 08:51 PM
  #305
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. The purpose in (pro) hockey is to win games. Scoring is one aspect, with the others being defending, hitting, skating, checking and fighting (amongst other things) in order to beat the opponent.

Now you feel that fighting has no bearing on a game, that's your opinion. I know that it does, from having lived it myself (although not at the pro level). Intimidation is a deciding factor in the game whether people want to admit it or not.
You're not the only one that has lived it. I have as well. They are useless 99% of the time in today's NHL and it's damn obvious. Removing them will change absolutely nothing to the game.
Intimidation can be a factor, I've said it before, but that doesn't mean it always is. Say whatever you want about him, Laraque was intimidating. Nobody wants to fight him and you rarely saw somebody try to stir crap after a whistle when he was around. That doesn't mean players won't do whatever they want for the other 50min when he isn't on. The same applies for every other enforcer.
Also, our team has proven to not be one that gets intimidated. Otherwise, after the beatdown in Boston, they wouldn't have owned the Bruins in the next home game and wouldn't have taken them 3 times in OT in the POs, including a game 7. Even more so, we wouldn't have scored 6 goals versus them in a game where they bullied us. It just doesn't add up.
You like the old days, it's clear, it's obvious, and that's okay. But things are different now, and while it is important to have tough guys like Byfuglien on your team, the same is not true of one dimensional fighters.

And no, the purpose of hockey is not to fight. What else do you want to add? hitting? poke checking?..
You win the game by scoring more goals than your opponent. That is the root of the game. You could make a case for defending, but even then, you can win a game without defending much of anything. You can win a game 10-9, there wouldn't be much defending there.
Fighting, hitting, penalties, are part of the game, they're not the purpose. There's a difference. Don't mix apples and oranges.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 08:52 PM
  #306
Poulet Kostopoulos
Registered User
 
Poulet Kostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,843
vCash: 500
Rules enforce order, regardless of respect. Using respect as an argument for fighting is as ridiculous as promoting uncontrolled access to firearms because they could enforce respect (or is it fear?). Genuine respect by definition cannot be enforced - it can only come naturally. Don't confuse respect with fear.

Laws exist in society to bring order. People who doesn't respect you will still behave within the law and that is what matters.

Poulet Kostopoulos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 11:02 PM
  #307
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
If this is what it takes to get that blathering idiot off tv than all the power to them.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 11:05 PM
  #308
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington View Post
It's not just about fighting. It's about respect. You can't mandate respect.. that only restrains the vicious element..
You know, many young (and less young) people think that having a hand gun will win them "respect". Does it ? What it earns you is fear not respect - not the same thing. Players do not "respect" a goon - they fear him. And fear (of being beaten) should not be a part of the hockey game, or in life - it's not the sort of intimidation I want to see in the 21st century.

If you capture a burglar in your house you will not shoot him or beat him to death. You will let the system take care of this.
If the refs enforce rules in a coherent and consistent manner - there is absolutely no need for goons or fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington View Post
Don't ask me what will.. this is a wider societal issue. Sports reflect the "real" world on many levels. This issue with respect and common sense is one of those issues. Really, it comes down to each person taking responsibility for themselves and not blaming external factors for why they acted a certain way.
There was never a functional advanced society that worked only on "respect" and "responsibility" - there are always laws and people to enforce them - otherwise, the one that's physically stronger will take what he wants and beat the others into submission. We are animals and we would act as animals without the laws. See the mobs and looting after a natural disaster.

I think many of the "violent hockey" fans would want hockey to be preserved as the last place for "cavemen rules" in our society. You may want it - society won't let it happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington View Post
The legal system really promotes the common sense/lack of respect/blame someone else attitude I'm talking about. We don't take anything head on anymore. We circle around the issue and point the finger through a third party while compiling the opinions of those interested in what's happening to justify our stance.

Every once and a while we all need to let it go..
English is not my first language so I would really want you to explain again what you said there. And how is this related to three ex fighters and Don Cherry. Were they supposed to go "head on" and beat him, instead of using the legal system ?

Newhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:04 AM
  #309
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,206
vCash: 500
KarlPilkington, I commiserate with NewHabFan. We're discussing hockey on HFBoards, not epistemology, so why should anyone have to reread your text to fathom its meaning?

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:36 AM
  #310
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
I disagreed with Cherry's choice of words, but think legal action is ridiculous, if they pursue legal action against cherry then I will agree that they are in fact pukes.

Many here used Nilans words as proof he was against fighting in the NHL. Now that Cherry does it on a larger scale they would support legal action. He was a little over the top, but didn't say anything worth being sued over. I actually agreed with 95% of what he had to say, Chris Nilan seems to be all over the place and Jim Thomson did actually say that his role as a fighter led to addiction bla bla bla, I'm pretty sure Nilan insinuated the same thing. Not particularly sure what Stu had to say, and really don't care.

They are entitled to their opinion, so is Cherry. Might as well throw big George Laraque into the legal suit as well, since he called them pukes too.

Next time someone says something about me or attempts to misrepresent my opinions I think I'll take them to court. Absolute hogwash if you ask me and a drain on the legal system that has more dire matters to deal with.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 07:51 AM
  #311
loudi94
Master of my Domain
 
loudi94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,368
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I disagreed with Cherry's choice of words, but think legal action is ridiculous, if they pursue legal action against cherry then I will agree that they are in fact pukes.

Many here used Nilans words as proof he was against fighting in the NHL. Now that Cherry does it on a larger scale they would support legal action. He was a little over the top, but didn't say anything worth being sued over. I actually agreed with 95% of what he had to say, Chris Nilan seems to be all over the place and Jim Thomson did actually say that his role as a fighter led to addiction bla bla bla, I'm pretty sure Nilan insinuated the same thing. Not particularly sure what Stu had to say, and really don't care.

They are entitled to their opinion, so is Cherry. Might as well throw big George Laraque into the legal suit as well, since he called them pukes too.

Next time someone says something about me or attempts to misrepresent my opinions I think I'll take them to court. Absolute hogwash if you ask me and a drain on the legal system that has more dire matters to deal with.
You can't go on a national stage and publicly besmirch someone's reputation. You just can't. Cherry didn't just attack their point of view, he attacked them. We can't just ignore everything he says because it's Don. He should have been gone when he called French players with visors cowards.

Chris Nilan probably relies on speaking engagements for some income. Who books him now that he's been called a puke and a hypocrite on national television by the #7 greatest Canadian in history.

This would not be a frivolous case should it ever get to court. Accountability. With Don's right to speak freely, he must not impede the rights of others. Has he done so in this case? Has he impacted someone from seeing Nilan's movie?

The legal system does see some pretty lame cases and the people bringing forth these cases do get punished by the judges. This I don't see as one of them.

I doubt it ever goes to the courts. Cherry will be advised to apologize by the CBC. He will refuse and quit. CBC will look like A-holes as will the 3 players in question and Cherry will be the hero once again.

loudi94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 08:33 AM
  #312
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
In all of this, Saturday's Coach's Corner should have some of the highest ratings... who's the loser?

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:10 AM
  #313
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I disagreed with Cherry's choice of words, but think legal action is ridiculous, if they pursue legal action against cherry then I will agree that they are in fact pukes.

Many here used Nilans words as proof he was against fighting in the NHL. Now that Cherry does it on a larger scale they would support legal action. He was a little over the top, but didn't say anything worth being sued over. I actually agreed with 95% of what he had to say, Chris Nilan seems to be all over the place and Jim Thomson did actually say that his role as a fighter led to addiction bla bla bla, I'm pretty sure Nilan insinuated the same thing. Not particularly sure what Stu had to say, and really don't care.

They are entitled to their opinion, so is Cherry. Might as well throw big George Laraque into the legal suit as well, since he called them pukes too.

Next time someone says something about me or attempts to misrepresent my opinions I think I'll take them to court. Absolute hogwash if you ask me and a drain on the legal system that has more dire matters to deal with.
They are not suing Cherry because he mentioned that they said things they never did say. He is being sued because he completely insulted them. People can misquote each other, nobody will sue someone for that. But call them ''pukes'', ''hypocrites'' and ''turncoats'' on national TV in front of millions of viewers, because they might have a different opinion than yours, then yes, don't think you might not get sued. Especially if one of the guy your insulting is actually a lawyer, but I bet he didn't know that.
Nilan was always pretty clear with his opinion. I listened to him on team 990 all the time. Remove the instigator rule, or just take fighting out. An opinion many here share with him.

As for Thomson, if the man says his role as an enforcer lead to his addiction, then you ought to shut up and listen to him no matter what your opinion on the matter is. He actually went through it, and I will listen to the guy that struggled rather than the guy making money off the guy that struggled.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:19 AM
  #314
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loudi94 View Post
You can't go on a national stage and publicly besmirch someone's reputation. You just can't. Cherry didn't just attack their point of view, he attacked them. We can't just ignore everything he says because it's Don. He should have been gone when he called French players with visors cowards.

Chris Nilan probably relies on speaking engagements for some income. Who books him now that he's been called a puke and a hypocrite on national television by the #7 greatest Canadian in history.

This would not be a frivolous case should it ever get to court. Accountability. With Don's right to speak freely, he must not impede the rights of others. Has he done so in this case? Has he impacted someone from seeing Nilan's movie?

The legal system does see some pretty lame cases and the people bringing forth these cases do get punished by the judges. This I don't see as one of them.

I doubt it ever goes to the courts. Cherry will be advised to apologize by the CBC. He will refuse and quit. CBC will look like A-holes as will the 3 players in question and Cherry will be the hero once again.
I disagree, firing him over calling french players cowards. Are we really this sensitive, really? Those who visit Nilans speaking engagements are unlikely to stop because of what Cherry had to say. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Words are just that, words, society as a whole has become terribly soft, I agree with you that CBC will force an apology and he won't deliver and will likely be fired, which would be a complete travesty imo.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:21 AM
  #315
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,283
vCash: 500
It's called defamation of character. Here for those that are confused by the suit !

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-defa...-character.htm

PunkinDrublic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:44 AM
  #316
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I disagree, firing him over calling french players cowards. Are we really this sensitive, really? Those who visit Nilans speaking engagements are unlikely to stop because of what Cherry had to say. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Words are just that, words, society as a whole has become terribly soft, I agree with you that CBC will force an apology and he won't deliver and will likely be fired, which would be a complete travesty imo.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go live on TV in front of millions of viewers and completely insult the integrity of a person off false basis.

I don't care if they sued or not, but it's understandable that you wouldn't want your name and reputation slandered as so. Maybe you wouldn't care, doesn't mean Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan and Jim Thomson also have to not care.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:50 AM
  #317
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHMB Prez View Post
It's called defamation of character. Here for those that are confused by the suit !

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-defa...-character.htm
I'm not confused by anything, I don't agree with what they are potentially doing, period.

They have stated their opinions and Don stated his. He may have misrepresented their positions a bit and been a little over the top in his approach, but suing is a joke.

I don't care about their abilities to sell books, quite frankly there are much more intelligent people I'd rather listen to or read about.

The whole fighting/addiction softy thing is a joke. I'm in the military, been oversees, my best friend was in Afghanistan 4 times. I know a little bit about working in a tough environment. Many soldiers are addicted to drugs and have developed long term mental conditions due to their occupational hazards, but in the end, it's a life we chose, we weren't forced to do it. Where is the outcry from sending 18-19 year olds to a foreign country to fight a war that can't be won and put in environment that is almost certain to cause long term effects? The whole debate makes me sick to be honest. We're so worried about a bunch of rich guys mental problems, but continually support to send others people's children into harms way and risk their life to serious injury and possibly death for nothing.

I would prefer we as society worry a little less about celebrities and their choices and focus on some real problems.

End rant.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:52 AM
  #318
icerocket
Registered User
 
icerocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlantis
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,310
vCash: 500
Oh no the guy who plays 3 min a game is sooo intimidating!

icerocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:58 AM
  #319
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go live on TV in front of millions of viewers and completely insult the integrity of a person off false basis.

I don't care if they sued or not, but it's understandable that you wouldn't want your name and reputation slandered as so. Maybe you wouldn't care, doesn't mean Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan and Jim Thomson also have to not care.
I never said that they don't have a right to be offended or upset. All I'm saying is legal action is a joke. You don't like what was said and disagree with how he represented you, fine, deal with it with him or not, I don't really care. I don't really care that these guys may have had their feelings hurt, their supposed to be grown men for christ sakes.

If Don is forced to retire over this then they are equally or more guilty than him imo. Anyways, I agree that Cherry was a bit obnoxious and over the top, but disagree that legal action is appropriate. Not to mention, I don't think they would win a defamation case to begin with. A defamation case is very difficult to win. They sound like a bunch of babies.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:14 AM
  #320
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I never said that they don't have a right to be offended or upset. All I'm saying is legal action is a joke. You don't like what was said and disagree with how he represented you, fine, deal with it with him or not, I don't really care. I don't really care that these guys may have had their feelings hurt, their supposed to be grown men for christ sakes.

If Don is forced to retire over this then they are equally or more guilty than him imo. Anyways, I agree that Cherry was a bit obnoxious and over the top, but disagree that legal action is appropriate. Not to mention, I don't think they would win a defamation case to begin with. A defamation case is very difficult to win. They sound like a bunch of babies.
Yes, they are big babies because they want that old idiotic fart that's been spewing nonsense after nonsense on TV for so many years be accountable for his unfounded insults. Damn babies.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:20 AM
  #321
DDs not undersized
Former Partisan duCH
 
DDs not undersized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bangkok
Country: Thailand
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I never said that they don't have a right to be offended or upset. All I'm saying is legal action is a joke. You don't like what was said and disagree with how he represented you, fine, deal with it with him or not, I don't really care. I don't really care that these guys may have had their feelings hurt, their supposed to be grown men for christ sakes.

If Don is forced to retire over this then they are equally or more guilty than him imo. Anyways, I agree that Cherry was a bit obnoxious and over the top, but disagree that legal action is appropriate. Not to mention, I don't think they would win a defamation case to begin with. A defamation case is very difficult to win. They sound like a bunch of babies.
See Jeff Fillion.

The only way to remove trash talkers from the air is to sue them. Don't kid yourself : the only reason why the CBC gives a tribune like that to Cherry is because he brings money in the house. The day he'll start costing more than he brings, he'll be fired.

DDs not undersized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:21 AM
  #322
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,324
vCash: 500
You can't go on national TV and say whatever you want, about whoever you want, and Grapes has been doing this for years...he's past his expiration date, might be time to shut him down...most will not have a problem, the leafs fan base would be the only group to support such an idiot...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:59 AM
  #323
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
You can't go on national TV and say whatever you want, about whoever you want, and Grapes has been doing this for years...he's past his expiration date, might be time to shut him down...most will not have a problem, the leafs fan base would be the only group to support such an idiot...
I disagree, Don is a cash cow for the CBC, it's not just Leaf fans who support this idiot. I agree with Don a lot and disagree just as much, he's sometimes a little over the top, but that's part of what makes coach's corner what it is. I Can't believe people are actually concerned about what Don Cherry says about Nilan, Grimson and Jim freaking Thomson. The premise of what he was saying was true for the most part.


Last edited by habsjunkie2*: 10-12-2011 at 11:32 AM.
habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:15 AM
  #324
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
I can't believe there's outrage that the three of them decided to pursue legal action. Lawsuits aren't just about money.

They were deliberately misrepresented on one of the most widely watched shows in Canada. This is defamation of character, they are right to seek an official record that Cherry twisted their words and attacked them. Unfortunately a lot of people do take Cherry seriously, and it's about time someone takes action against him.

Plus this will force the hand of the hypocrites at the CBC.

Et le But is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:18 AM
  #325
Cowen Time
Registered User
 
Cowen Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,072
vCash: 500
The whole idea that removing the instigator will make things so much better is a myth.

So a lower line player, not a fighter, runs a star from behind and takes him out of the game. Maybe an enforcer, in his 2 to 4 minutes on the ice, is on at the same time and gets to start a fight with the guy, who promptly turtles and goes down while the enforcer whacks his hands on his helmet. The more likely scenario is that as soon as the enforcer hits the ice, the other team responds in like, and two designated goons go at it; or a someone else jumps the player, who will fight or turtle depending on who he is tangling with.

And there is the assumption that starting fights will only be "used for good" if the instigator is gone. BS. What will happen is guys will be picking fights with star players just to get them out of the game, or to intimidate them. Posters here eloquently state that a fight can turn momentum, so without the instigator, we can look forward to fights being a normal tactic for loser teams that can't compete on talent.

I read a good article that made the point that is in the past the NHL operated with smaller rosters and basically 3 lines and advocated going back to that. There wouldn't be the room to carry one dimensional players who are clinging to the $500,000 to $700,000 salaries by doing anything they can. That will put more respect in the game.

Cowen Time 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 05:36 AM.

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.