HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Interesting question on the instigator penalty.

View Poll Results: Would the elimination of the instigator penalty help to stop another Bert. incident?
Yes 22 73.33%
No 8 26.67%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2004, 09:32 PM
  #1
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Interesting question on the instigator penalty.

Not really Rangers related but hockey related.

Question: Would the elimination of the instigator penalty, help to stop another Bertuzzi/Moore icident?

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
03-12-2004, 09:43 PM
  #2
Big Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Land of milk & honey
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Big Bill Send a message via MSN to Big Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidClown
Not really Rangers related but hockey related.

Question: Would the elimination of the instigator penalty, help to stop another Bertuzzi/Moore icident?
I think the prevailing thought is that morre would of had to "stand up" for his actions in the game that the Naslund hit happened. But I do not really see how this stops cheap shots. I guess people will not commit cheap shots if they have to pay, but it does not really affect cheap retaliations ala bertuzzi

Big Bill is offline  
Old
03-12-2004, 10:20 PM
  #3
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,039
vCash: 873
The Bertuzzi incident

and other incidents of the like are so few and far between that the instigator rule will have had no effect whatsoever.

I concurr with Big Bill comments that during the game in which the initial hit on Naslund took place that the Canucks should have done something and if not then, then the next time they met.

I have a real problem with homers and how they go about their business. If the really wanted to send a message it shouldn't matter what rink it's done in, but teh Canucks seemed hell bent on exacting revenge on their home ice.

I do have to give Moore credit. Matt Cooke went looking for him in that game and Moore did the right thing and dropped the gloves. It should have been over at that point but Bertuzzi didn't see things the same way and did what he did.

They should get rid of the instigator rule to reduce stick infractions like the Havlat cross check to Recchi's face. Had there been no rule in place, Havlat wouldn't have gotten his stick above Marks shoulders.

those are the infractions that would be a thing of the past if you did away with the Instigator Rule.

just my onion

pld459666 is offline  
Old
03-12-2004, 10:24 PM
  #4
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
They should get rid of the instigator rule to reduce stick infractions like the Havlat cross check to Recchi's face. Had there been no rule in place, Havlat wouldn't have gotten his stick above Marks shoulders.

those are the infractions that would be a thing of the past if you did away with the Instigator Rule.

just my onion
I totally agree, if you knew you were going to have to pay for certain things, not as much cheap shots would go on.

Unfortunantly I don't think the instigator penalty will ever be dropped, because then it would appear that the league is "Pro-fighting" and that's not an image Bettman would ever let the NHL have.

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
03-12-2004, 10:45 PM
  #5
AngerBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
In close games and the playoffs, the instigator penalty keeps fighting down. In a blowout, it doesn't change anything. Who cares if you get a couple extra mins when you are down 5-1? Berttuzi wasn't worried about getting a penalty when he went after Moore. The game was already out of hand.

AngerBlue is offline  
Old
03-12-2004, 11:19 PM
  #6
Flounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Diego, CA...BWO LI NY
Posts: 10
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerBlue
In close games and the playoffs, the instigator penalty keeps fighting down. In a blowout, it doesn't change anything. Who cares if you get a couple extra mins when you are down 5-1? Berttuzi wasn't worried about getting a penalty when he went after Moore. The game was already out of hand.
That's true but that is not the whole issue. The suspensions that go with the accumulation of instigator penalties is a deterrant (something like 3 instigators = 1 game suspension)as well as the automatic game misconduct. If it's not an automatic anymore than I believe it is at least 17 minutes. 2, 5, and a 10. So players really need to pick their battles wisely.


Can anyone verify the ruling on the instigator penalty?

Flounder is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 12:11 AM
  #7
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
Eliminate cheap shots? No. A serious decrease? I think so.

Especially with the stick work. A guy is a lot less likely to do something with his stick if you can turn around and punch him in the face or send your enforcer after him. If you want a guy you just drop the gloves and grab him, which would seriously eliminate this stuff.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 12:50 AM
  #8
Macastropion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Trenton vicinity
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidClown
Not really Rangers related but hockey related.

Question: Would the elimination of the instigator penalty, help to stop another Bertuzzi/Moore icident?
This is an excellent question. While snapping a jab at the face of an agressor may satisfy the victim by sending a message & preventing the victim from seeking vengance in a more frustrated, violent fashion later on down the road.....I feel a complete elimination of violence would better serve the purpose. If a player is aware that any potential vulgar display will be met with certain penalty and a reduction/elimination regarding his paycheck...well....he'll think twice before commiting the act which initiated the crap in the first place. I think Luke Richardson said it best the other day:

Luke Richardson: "What happens on the ice should be controlled by officials and the league."

I understand most fans believe the Leauge should police itself and players should sort matters amongst themselves...through whatever means necessary. BUT ... stricter policies & official enforcement of these policies is certainly the best (safest) means to an end.

Macastropion is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 01:00 AM
  #9
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macastropion
This is an excellent question. While snapping a jab at the face of an agressor may satisfy the victim by sending a message & preventing the victim from seeking vengance in a more frustrated, violent fashion later on down the road.....I feel a complete elimination of violence would better serve the purpose. If a player is aware that any potential vulgar display will be met with certain penalty and a reduction/elimination regarding his paycheck...well....he'll think twice before commiting the act which initiated the crap in the first place. I think Luke Richardson said it best the other day:

Luke Richardson: "What happens on the ice should be controlled by officials and the league."

I understand most fans believe the Leauge should police itself and players should sort matters amongst themselves...through whatever means necessary. BUT ... stricter policies & official enforcement of these policies is certainly the best (safest) means to an end.
If I wanted to watch a bunch of girls with sticks I'd watch porn or golf. You can't "eliminate violence." That is a major part of the identity of the game.


Last edited by Barnaby: 03-13-2004 at 01:07 AM.
Barnaby is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 01:11 AM
  #10
Macastropion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Trenton vicinity
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
If I wanted to watch a bunch of queers with sticks I'd watch cricket or golf. You cant "eliminate violence." That is a major part of the identity of the game.
Unfortunately, I agree with you in that it has become a major part of the identity of North American Hockey. IMHO, that's very sad. That being said, I'll still venture to guess that more than half of the games played in the NHL don't contain fighting majors (just a guess, I have no stats to back it up). I enjoy foresaid games just as much.....if not more.

Macastropion is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 02:06 AM
  #11
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,391
vCash: 500
i voted yes. while not directly filtering out cheapshots, i believe that fighting allows the players to police themselves and the instigator rule hand cuffs the said policing. if say random hockey player A takes out a star player, the random hockey goon B should be able to pound him down without fear of the league putting him down, and only the fear of random goon C, D, and E retaliating. If the canucks were able to properly police the moore incident, then it would have never gotten to the point where bertuzzi would have even though about jumping moore. he'd just goad him into a fight. instigator elimates the necessary goading.

n8 is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 10:37 AM
  #12
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,779
vCash: 500
Awards:
Moore had already had a fight with Cooke. Evidently the Nucks didn't feel that that was enough retribution (at least Bertuzzi didn't). Not sure I see how the instigator rule factors into this one.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 03:30 PM
  #13
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Take the instigator out, for two reasons:

The first reason being that Moore would never have taken a shot at Naslund if he knew in the back of his head that he'd be forced to face the music. It would not have been a question of if but when and that's enough to stop any guy - especially one of Moore's stature.

The second reason being is that in the end, after the Naslund hit, the instigator rule didn't serve as any sort of deterrent to Bertuzzi anyways. Moore didn't want to fight yet he still ended up with a broken neck.

If you remove the instigator rule an instant level of respect is thrown back into the league. You're not going to have the Havlat's and Ruutu's taking cheap shots at the better players because they'll be taken care of. Players are going to watch where their stick goes and they will to an effect, police themselves.

Now I know many people cringe at the thought of player-policing and as witness to that is Todd Bertuzzi's act but it wasn't his intention to cause all the injuries and while he is certainly responsible I can think of worse things that have happened on a hockey rink. I've seen worse things happen on a hockey rink.

As funny as it sounds, the league will be a lot safer for the players if they remove the instigator rule.

BigE is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 03:57 PM
  #14
AngerBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
Watching the Flyer Devil game and Brown took an instigator penalty against Brasher. Brasher hit a Devil from behind and got a 2 minute boarding call. Brown immediately came over and fought Brasher and got the instigator even though they both threw the gloves off at the same time. If that is how they want to use the penalty get rid of it. It isn't like Donald Brasher can't protect himself.

AngerBlue is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 05:30 PM
  #15
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,633
vCash: 500
I'm confused about what people think regarding the instigator rule, yeah there's a first for everything :p

So say Martin St.Louis hits Ilya Kovalchuk in the neutral zone with a clean hit, Ilya goes down with a concussion - basically same circumstance as the Naslund incident. So does that mean with no instigator, the next time those teams meet it'd be ok for a guy like Bertuzzi, or May, or Cooke to go after St.Louis and pound him into tomorrow?


Last edited by Bluenote13: 03-13-2004 at 05:34 PM.
Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 06:26 PM
  #16
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
I'm confused about what people think regarding the instigator rule, yeah there's a first for everything :p

So say Martin St.Louis hits Ilya Kovalchuk in the neutral zone with a clean hit, Ilya goes down with a concussion - basically same circumstance as the Naslund incident. So does that mean with no instigator, the next time those teams meet it'd be ok for a guy like Bertuzzi, or May, or Cooke to go after St.Louis and pound him into tomorrow?
Really, you don't see many of those situations where it's a huge guy picking on a little guy. People seem to think that Bertuzzi picking on Moore or a player of Moore's size is the norm but it is an isolated and extremely rare incident.

The instigator rule was designed to "protect" the small guys from the big guys. However, as we all know designing something for a certain purpose often does not work. By implementing the instigator rule you give the turtles of the NHL free reign to hack and whack away. They can take all kinds of liberties with other players and feel safe in knowing that they won't be "touched". So in turn, to get back at those turtles for their arrogance and many liberties, other players have to go to extreme methods to get them back (because they can't fight) such as Bertuzzi's sucker-punch, knee-on-knee hits, or an elbow etc.

You remove the instigator and not only are the initial hacks and whacks being toned down, you're also seeing less acts of retribution. Now if I've got something to say I can drop the gloves and say it...turtle if you want but i'm still going to knock the back of your head a few times and teach you a lesson. All of this opposed to me catching you coming across the ice with a flying elbow that would make the Rock proud.

BigE is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 07:45 PM
  #17
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
By implementing the instigator rule you give the turtles of the NHL free reign to hack and whack away. They can take all kinds of liberties with other players and feel safe in knowing that they won't be "touched".
This is why the whole system is wax. If they would just call the hacks & whacks we wouldn't be seeing the blatant disregard for other players safety.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 09:30 PM
  #18
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
players are gonna have to be able to back their B.S. up if they know they might get beat up.

its like throwing at batters in baseball. it doesnt stop the incident but when you hit a batter, you KNOW you're going to have to answer to it.

checking a guy is legal, but just like 20 years ago a team must respond to it. Had moore done his check in say, 1994 and not 2004 he would have been in a fight. his check was perfectly legal, but that would been the potential price.

Edge is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 10:27 PM
  #19
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,039
vCash: 873
Yes. A message has to be sent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
I'm confused about what people think regarding the instigator rule, yeah there's a first for everything :p

So say Martin St.Louis hits Ilya Kovalchuk in the neutral zone with a clean hit, Ilya goes down with a concussion - basically same circumstance as the Naslund incident. So does that mean with no instigator, the next time those teams meet it'd be ok for a guy like Bertuzzi, or May, or Cooke to go after St.Louis and pound him into tomorrow?
to lay off the talented guys, regardless if the opposing player is also talented.

BUT the key would be to make sure that it's done in a clean and honorable fashion.

pld459666 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 02:52 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.