DirtyDeeds Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 After reading the Laine hit thread it bought to mind something Dion Phaneuf said when he was still here. He said the game is changing and he did not like it the fact when he gave a big clean hit, he now had to defend himself in a fight, with someone who was defending his teammate. The key of his thoughts were why should a clean hit mean I had to fight someone??? I agree however the game is changing... Instigator rule: Was bought in to help stop fights. It served its purpose but now is pretty much a useless rule. No fighters or enforcers in game means there is little need for an instigator rule. Enforcers: Gone like dinosaurs. No longer needed and the only remewants are smaller tough players who can fight a bit but also play. They are almost gone too.. What is the upside? Upside is you don't see the staged fights much at all. You don't get the fights for some dirty hit from another earlier game. In this respect it is good. Mom's all over don't want thier kids in a game which has built in violence. However.... What is the downside? Downside is there is no deterrent for cheap penalties anymore. You see Slashing, Head shots, roughing and all sorts of dirty plays now because there is no deterrent. Don't misread this as there has always been head shots, roughing and slashing in the game too just now there is no deterrent to stop it. Well the refs can call the penalties but they tried that a few years back and the league and players put a stop to that because it was slowing the game down and not enough 5 vs 5 hockey being played. I have no answers. Well maybe get rid of the instigator penalty. It is no longer useful. That would at least allow a teammate to dish out some retribution for those extreme slashes and such. There is no answer for the few players like DF who dish out clean heavy bone crushing hits.. No should there be a need for fighting to defend a clean hit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 33 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: After reading the Laine hit thread it bought to mind something Dion Phaneuf said when he was still here. He said the game is changing and he did not like it the fact when he gave a big clean hit, he now had to defend himself in a fight, with someone who was defending his teammate. The key of his thoughts were why should a clean hit mean I had to fight someone??? I agree however the game is changing... Instigator rule: Was bought in to help stop fights. It served its purpose but now is pretty much a useless rule. No fighters or enforcers in game means there is little need for an instigator rule. Enforcers: Gone like dinosaurs. No longer needed and the only remewants are smaller tough players who can fight a bit but also play. They are almost gone too.. What is the upside? Upside is you don't see the staged fights much at all. You don't get the fights for some dirty hit from another earlier game. In this respect it is good. Mom's all over don't want thier kids in a game which has built in violence. However.... What is the downside? Downside is there is no deterrent for cheap penalties anymore. You see Slashing, Head shots, roughing and all sorts of dirty plays now because there is no deterrent. Don't misread this as there has always been head shots, roughing and slashing in the game too just now there is no deterrent to stop it. Well the refs can call the penalties but they tried that a few years back and the league and players put a stop to that because it was slowing the game down and not enough 5 vs 5 hockey being played. I have no answers. Well maybe get rid of the instigator penalty. It is no longer useful. That would at least allow a teammate to dish out some retribution for those extreme slashes and such. There is no answer for the few players like DF who dish out clean heavy bone crushing hits.. No should there be a need for fighting to defend a clean hit.... The player is in complete control with regards to how much force he inflicts on his opponent in the form of a body check. You don’t have to put someone through the boards, rubbing them out is just as effective at taking them out of the play. If the player chooses to inflict excess force, then he should be prepared to immediately receive knuckle sandwiches from the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 This is a trickle down effect of the Bertuzzi-Moore incident from a decade ago. Whenever you get a chance to sit on the bench before retaliation, then that's called premeditated assault. That carries probable suspension along with potential off-ice court dates. But when you retaliate instantly, then thats called "in the heat of the moment" and the penalty for that, as the NHL has made clear, is zero. Big difference. Apply that over a decade and now players are programmed to "jump the guy first in case it was a dirty hit and then apologize later if it turns out to be clean". "In the heat of the moment" has become a "get out of jail free" card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertaBoy12 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 21 hours ago, The_People1 said: This is a trickle down effect of the Bertuzzi-Moore incident from a decade ago. Whenever you get a chance to sit on the bench before retaliation, then that's called premeditated assault. That carries probable suspension along with potential off-ice court dates. But when you retaliate instantly, then thats called "in the heat of the moment" and the penalty for that, as the NHL has made clear, is zero. Big difference. Apply that over a decade and now players are programmed to "jump the guy first in case it was a dirty hit and then apologize later if it turns out to be clean". "In the heat of the moment" has become a "get out of jail free" card. In my opinion in the way the rules are held up, mark scheiflie should have got the instigator the other night for the way he jumped mcabe after that hit on laine, it makes no sense now a days why on a clean hit like that, a guy literally drops his gloves and starts pounding on a guy why instigating and a game misconduct isent applied to that play, along with supplemental discipline if necessary for the player. I dont see a need for fighting in hockey, but I dont mind it, but at the same time the NHLneeds to start enforcing its rules, so there isent a need for these kind of plays, clean hit followed by a dirty play like that, is ridiculous. Id like to see fighting, but proper enforcement of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted January 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 5:39 PM, AlbertaBoy12 said: In my opinion in the way the rules are held up, mark scheiflie should have got the instigator the other night for the way he jumped mcabe after that hit on laine, it makes no sense now a days why on a clean hit like that, a guy literally drops his gloves and starts pounding on a guy why instigating and a game misconduct isent applied to that play, along with supplemental discipline if necessary for the player. I dont see a need for fighting in hockey, but I dont mind it, but at the same time the NHLneeds to start enforcing its rules, so there isent a need for these kind of plays, clean hit followed by a dirty play like that, is ridiculous. Id like to see fighting, but proper enforcement of the rules. This is very true. If the refs would actually enforce the rules there would be no need for instigators, retaliations etc. They don't and won't so these things will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.