Simon not the only problem

[Cheesehead 0]

Just look at youth hockey nowadays (15-16-17 years old). If you can knock/injure one of your oppenents who never saw you at the end of a game, most of your friends are going to congratulate you. More than if you score a great winning goal. Even your coach if he's some type of asshole.

This is true. My bantam team was playing a AA team (were A) in a tournament. The first game we played them we won, no cheap shots whatsoever. We played them in the semifinals, and they hit late, from behind, dirty slashes, and even punched our goalie in the face when we "shook" hands(after we beat them). It just shows what goes on in youth hockey carries on to the pros.

On topic, the article brought up a good point about the instigator rule. I guess i hadn't really thought about players not starting fights because of it. I think they should do away with the rule 1.because it protects the dirty players(in a way)and 2. fighting is a part of the game.

[Eazy_b97 1]

As for the Kaberle Janssen thing most ppl thought it was a nasty thing to do, I agree the Janssen hit was dirty but after kaberle made that pass, i dont know where the hell he was looking cuz it took him 3 seconds to maybe see Janssen coming. I mean guys with that kind of skill are always alerts and kaberle wasnt there, i know you can argue this statement but its true, watch the video. I think most of these guys are tired of seeing guys think there tough, cuz guys like Simon were fighters at some point and i guess when they see this kind of bullshit they just take matters into there own hands and do something stupid. But look at Simon closely on the video, it looks like he just wanted to swing at Hollweg for his hit, his intention was not to hit him in the face he just took a swing and hit him the face, he just swung and hit him in the head, i can guarantee you that if Hollweg was something like 6 foot 5 that stick would not have hit him in the face. Just my 2 cents

He's watching the play, Janssen blind sided him. He's arguably the best D-man in the East and I can't remember a time when anyone even laid a big hit on him, let alone one like Janssen.

[Chadd 916]

As for the Kaberle Janssen thing most ppl thought it was a nasty thing to do, I agree the Janssen hit was dirty but after kaberle made that pass, i dont know where the hell he was looking cuz it took him 3 seconds to maybe see Janssen coming. I mean guys with that kind of skill are always alerts and kaberle wasnt there, i know you can argue this statement but its true, watch the video. I think most of these guys are tired of seeing guys think there tough, cuz guys like Simon were fighters at some point and i guess when they see this kind of bullshit they just take matters into there own hands and do something stupid. But look at Simon closely on the video, it looks like he just wanted to swing at Hollweg for his hit, his intention was not to hit him in the face he just took a swing and hit him the face, he just swung and hit him in the head, i can guarantee you that if Hollweg was something like 6 foot 5 that stick would not have hit him in the face. Just my 2 cents

He's watching the play, Janssen blind sided him. He's arguably the best D-man in the East and I can't remember a time when anyone even laid a big hit on him, let alone one like Janssen.

Kaberle does a good job of not putting himself in a position where he has to take a big hit.

[#28 0]

Did anyone see the Blackhawks vs. Coyotes game Saturday night? The Hawks felt like they needed an enforcer on the team after Tuesday's game against LA so they brought up David Koci from the minors. The guy was an absolute goon. He got into three fights and got a game misconduct. He got another game misconduct for a major charge after delivering a big open ice hit on Bill Thomas in the neutral zone (similar to the hit on drury against ottawa). Koci had 2:31 minutes of playing time and had 42 PIM. Today he was recalled back down to the minors.

[Eazy_b97 1]

From the few clips I saw, I thought his hit was clean. He got clocked in his first fight by what appeared to be a lucky shot, then wanted another chance. I would've liked to seen a few more games to see if he was really that dirty or it was just a coincidence.

[Chadd 916]

From the few clips I saw, I thought his hit was clean. He got clocked in his first fight by what appeared to be a lucky shot, then wanted another chance. I would've liked to seen a few more games to see if he was really that dirty or it was just a coincidence.

Probably not a coincidence. 298 PIM one year, 311 the next.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdispla...pid%5B%5D=51285

[MDE3 0]

I watched him play for the W-B Penguins in more than a few games..he is not much of a fighter...aggressive and willing yes..skilled no...He is the classic hired goon, just not a very efficient one.

Never forget that on the way up the ladder your "skills" are pretty well defined in the scouting manuals, and by the time you are in your first year of Junior A, your "role" as a player has been defined in 90% of the cases. So your path of entry into the NHL has been defined too. If you are going to be a fighter and "policeman" you need to get noticed....if you aren't a great fighter...you need to be a superior hitter, or a dirty enough player to be considered an agitator(Claude Lemiuex..agitator with some skills)..and the lines get blurred for these players. It's easy for us to blame the players, but it's the coaching and the "code" of the game that demands and instigates their play. Not to mention the pressure to stay employed that drives them over the line many times..although not always.

My son played for teams that had designated fighters to protect him and others....some of these guys actually hated their role, when you talked to them in private, but, that was the only way they made the team.

[halfmoonyote 0]

He fought Josh Gratton twice in the game. Gratton won the first, while Koci may have had the edge in the 2nd bout. He and Grats have a history from the 'A' when Grats was with the Phantoms and Koci with W/B. Anyway, Koci isn't just a tough guy - he is a goon, he is also a dirty, filthy player.

[4toes 0]

What Chris Simon did was wrong, and is part of a bigger problem in the NHL. Two things were wrong, 1. Simon did not square up and throw em, 2. Betts did not go after Simon. I don't care who it is , grow some and stick up for your teamate.

I see all too often, guys unwilling to just go at it when it is warrented. We don't need the 70's craziness, but certainly the justice that was delivered on the ice in the early - mid 80's is appropriate and needed. There are way too many chicken&^*(s.

[4toes 0]

Theo , I know, but I have seen way too many guys like Betts look at a situation that deserves retribution and not take care of it..Too many guys will not get their hands dirty. Everyone wants someone else to do it.

The number of hits that should have resulted in a severve beating over the last several years, but ended up in nothing more than a pushing scrum is because too many guys are not willing to take care of things. The instigator rule was a major cause and so was the escalation of salaries. But that is a longer thread.

[Chadd 916]

Theo , I know, but I have seen way too many guys like Betts look at a situation that deserves retribution and not take care of it..Too many guys will not get their hands dirty. Everyone wants someone else to do it.

The number of hits that should have resulted in a severve beating over the last several years, but ended up in nothing more than a pushing scrum is because too many guys are not willing to take care of things. The instigator rule was a major cause and so was the escalation of salaries. But that is a longer thread.

The instigator rule is used as an excuse by guys who don't want to fight. If you care about your teammates, you get in there and stick up for them no matter what. Stafford from Buffalo is a perfect example. When Drury got hit, he jumped in and fought with Neil despite the fact that he isn't the designated enforcer. Hell, Stafford only has 50 PIMs if you combine his AHL and NHL totals.

[B-Nads 0]

I agree that the instigator rule is a major problem - it allows idiots like Avery to act like instigators without having to face the consequences - a severe @ss-kicking. Worse yet, it facilitates liberties on star players.

As far as what Simon did, there is no place for that in hockey, regardless of the level. I don't think it reflects a total lack of respect between players - I think it reflects the idiocy of an individual player. Simon is known as a tough-guy...why the hell didn't he just throw down and take the mits to the guy - decapitating him with a stick couldn't have been very satisfying.

As for the hits, we're getting into much murkier waters. I don't think the hit was truely from behind, a la Lemieux on Draper, although I do see where the shove of Simon's head into the glass would have gotten him mad. The fact is, however, the League is having enough trouble coming up with a definition of an illegal hit, let alone consistently enforcing it. I have been listening to XM all week and all they talk about is how it is being sensationalized in the US media, and that the look for any excuse to slam hockey or make it look like a variation of roller-derby, but how many good players have been injured by dumb hits than sticks to the head? I am, by no means, defending what Simon did, but if you look at the hits on Kaberle and Drury, you have to ask - how legal is legal? Yeah, they have a responsibility to protect themselves on the ice and be aware of who is on with them, but shouldn't there be some expectation on the part of the players that they won't get drilled through the glass well after turning a play? I think there needs to be some attention given to such hits - I love to see a good hit, but it makes me sick to see a player go out and throw hits that are geared towards injuring other players. Ultimate hipocracy (and I know some here will slam me for this), XM had Scott Stevens on talking about this all week, like he was the perfect image of tough, gritty, but clean hockey. He was, IMHO, one of the biggest head-hunters in the NHL. He would stalk the lines looking for opportunities to catch people in compromising positions.

This could be a bi-product of the open ice the ''New NHL'' has created, it could be roid-rage, or it could just be an isolated incident, but one fact remains: when I watch a hockey game and see players try to cripple someone else with a dumb check or try to decapitate them with a hockey stick, I question very deeply whether I want my child watching and playing organized hockey - this from an avid player and fan who lived through and followed some of the greatest periods in recent hockey history.

[DarkStar50 679]

As the fan of Cam Neely that you are and that's a good thing, as long as you teach your child right from wrong on the rink and in life, he will be ok. He will also know to protect himself at all times on the rink and in life.

[B-Nads 0]

As the fan of Cam Neely that you are and that's a good thing, as long as you teach your child right from wrong on the rink and in life, he will be ok. He will also know to protect himself at all times on the rink and in life.

I agree 100% - only problem is; what is the whack-job next door teaching his kid???

[narwhal 0]

I'll agree with adding Tootoo to that list. The punch he hit Robidas with tonight was flat out wrong. It was like the hit on Rudy Tomjanovich.

[MDE3 0]

I agree that the instigator rule is a major problem - it allows idiots like Avery to act like instigators without having to face the consequences - a severe @ss-kicking. Worse yet, it facilitates liberties on star players.

As far as what Simon did, there is no place for that in hockey, regardless of the level. I don't think it reflects a total lack of respect between players - I think it reflects the idiocy of an individual player. Simon is known as a tough-guy...why the hell didn't he just throw down and take the mits to the guy - decapitating him with a stick couldn't have been very satisfying.

As for the hits, we're getting into much murkier waters. I don't think the hit was truely from behind, a la Lemieux on Draper, although I do see where the shove of Simon's head into the glass would have gotten him mad. The fact is, however, the League is having enough trouble coming up with a definition of an illegal hit, let alone consistently enforcing it. I have been listening to XM all week and all they talk about is how it is being sensationalized in the US media, and that the look for any excuse to slam hockey or make it look like a variation of roller-derby, but how many good players have been injured by dumb hits than sticks to the head? I am, by no means, defending what Simon did, but if you look at the hits on Kaberle and Drury, you have to ask - how legal is legal? Yeah, they have a responsibility to protect themselves on the ice and be aware of who is on with them, but shouldn't there be some expectation on the part of the players that they won't get drilled through the glass well after turning a play? I think there needs to be some attention given to such hits - I love to see a good hit, but it makes me sick to see a player go out and throw hits that are geared towards injuring other players. Ultimate hipocracy (and I know some here will slam me for this), XM had Scott Stevens on talking about this all week, like he was the perfect image of tough, gritty, but clean hockey. He was, IMHO, one of the biggest head-hunters in the NHL. He would stalk the lines looking for opportunities to catch people in compromising positions.

This could be a bi-product of the open ice the ''New NHL'' has created, it could be roid-rage, or it could just be an isolated incident, but one fact remains: when I watch a hockey game and see players try to cripple someone else with a dumb check or try to decapitate them with a hockey stick, I question very deeply whether I want my child watching and playing organized hockey - this from an avid player and fan who lived through and followed some of the greatest periods in recent hockey history.

Great post...here you have in a nutshell the inigma of the NHL and unfortunately hockey as a sport....Fan interest apparently peaks when the violence of the game excalates..or so it has been reported....but parent's interest in their kid's playing hockey drops off a cliff when they see the goonshit lying all over the ice.

The NHL now seems to be subscribing to the theory that any publicity is good publicity...So today's game is fractured between making it the more pure playmaking sport that has been ideolized by the "new" NHL officially....the ultimate purpose being to help grow the number of youth playing the sport, and ultimately grow more fans..... and the pressure many US owners of weak clubs are putting on the NHL to let the cheap stuff take place, so that more fights ensue..in order to get more seats in the stands right now...

[stevoc 0]

I am going to put out what I believe is going ot be an un-popular question, but I am curious to what everyone thinks regarding this. What does fighting in the NHL offer the game? Outside of entertainment for the fans, what does it bring to the game? Does it really belong?

As far as the thugs and illegal hits and other actions, I think for situations as Bertuzzi and Simon (well, maybe not Simon), legal actions should be taken. I think that's a pure case of assault. Yeah, Bertuzzi lost 13 games from his career he'll never get back....Steve Moore lost his career and livelyhood. That's got to count for something.

OK, I'll take my flames and bashing now.

[GSHL99 0]

You just can't approach the subject in a one sided way like that. If you want to talk about fighting you have to talk about why fighting happens. If the NHL, and really hockey programs at all levels have to be involved in this, wants fighting out of the game they have to offer the players the protection that goons provide now.

[stevoc 0]

You just can't approach the subject in a one sided way like that. If you want to talk about fighting you have to talk about why fighting happens. If the NHL, and really hockey programs at all levels have to be involved in this, wants fighting out of the game they have to offer the players the protection that goons provide now.

Not sure how my question is one sided. I didn't say I favored or disfavored fighting, I was just looking for some points of view from others here.

I agree however, if fighting is banned, I think the NHL and the ref's need to show who's in control and protect those non-goon players.

One last thing, I am not certain I would agree in saying a goon protects others. Isn't the goon role mostly a retaliation or instigator role? By the time the goon gets in the play, the hit or other action has already taken place against those they are suppose to be protecting.

As a non-ice player, I may not konw the proper role of the goon, so feel free to correct me if i am incorrect in my line of thinking.

[Hidious 0]

Hockey is an intense physical game and if you ban fighting, the best way to get payback on a hit you didn't like would be to give a dirty hit.

Fights are supposed to happen because of high tension during the action, not just goons that "have to do it' like it often is today.

George Laraque vs Donal Brashear doesn't really interest me. But when i see Francis Bouillon vs Darcy Tucker, i can't tolerate the theory that fighting should be banned.

[DamnLocust 0]

One last thing, I am not certain I would agree in saying a goon protects others. Isn't the goon role mostly a retaliation or instigator role? By the time the goon gets in the play, the hit or other action has already taken place against those they are suppose to be protecting.

The fact that the "goon" is dressed for that night is often warning enough that if you mess with our stars, we'll mess with you, either directly, or through your stars.

A good example of this was when the Rangers Played the Flyers a few weeks back (the game in which Shanahan and Knuble collided). The Rags didn't have tough guy Colton Orr in the lineup, and Philly tough guy Todd Fedoruk runs amok throwing the body like a madman. Rags' response was just the other night, when Renney starts the game with his 4th line, including Colton Orr, who squares off with Fedoruk and knocks his lights out.

Hadd Orr been dressed for the first game, He would have fought Fedoruk then, or at the very least would have been enough of a deterrent to keep him from running all over the ice smashing people up.

There's some really good discussion of the abolishment of fighting Right Here.

[Chadd 916]

You just can't approach the subject in a one sided way like that. If you want to talk about fighting you have to talk about why fighting happens. If the NHL, and really hockey programs at all levels have to be involved in this, wants fighting out of the game they have to offer the players the protection that goons provide now.

Not sure how my question is one sided. I didn't say I favored or disfavored fighting, I was just looking for some points of view from others here.

I agree however, if fighting is banned, I think the NHL and the ref's need to show who's in control and protect those non-goon players.

One last thing, I am not certain I would agree in saying a goon protects others. Isn't the goon role mostly a retaliation or instigator role? By the time the goon gets in the play, the hit or other action has already taken place against those they are suppose to be protecting.

As a non-ice player, I may not konw the proper role of the goon, so feel free to correct me if i am incorrect in my line of thinking.

The theory is that having a goon in the lineup will prevent the other teams moron from running around nailing people with cheapshots. Doing that stuff will result in having to stand up to the goon.

In reality, those morons throwing the cheap shots and late hits just refuse to fight the goons. For those who believe in the theory in question, the solution is to remove the instigator penalty for those who start fights. That belief is that allowing a guy to just beat the living crap out of another guy is the best way to solve the problem.

Personally, I believe in heavily suspending the guys throwing the cheap shots and I think that's better for the marketability of the sport.

[Neal 41]

Why not both? Suspend the gutless little puke running around with his elbows up and cranking guys from behind and let the enforcer pound his face into goulash. Immediate feedback is always best and the suspension adds a few nice touches 1) the league looks like it is doing something postive to avoid violence 2) the puke loses a pile of cash 3) teams may realize that they can't afford a Tootoo or Hollweg because he is suspended more than he plays and when he does play he is tenative because he doesn't want another beating or suspension.

Perhaps the no-hands, high and late hitting, cheap shot artist (AKA energy player) disappears from the NHL after a year or two.