Tkachuk speaks out on dirty play

[DamnLocust 0]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=201026&hubname=nhl

"I think guys are taking a little more liberties now whereas years ago you had to be held accountable," Tkachuk said on a conference call Wednesday. "Now with more and more players coming in there's a lot of guys who aren't accountable. It's not fair. You want to go out and do something but you can't because you're worried about the consequences.

"We all have to be a little more careful and have a little more respect for each other."

What Tkachuk says echoes and reenforces a lot of what's been said around here in the past few weeks. If more players feel the way he does and speak out about it, the instigator rule may be headed the way of the dodo.

[Viking 1]

Even if it makes sense to hockey people to get rid of it, I don't think we're going to see the instigator rule go anywhere. Particularly in light of what we watched happen to Todd Fedoruk last night, it's not going to make the NHL look very good to do something to allow/encourage even more fighting.

[DamnLocust 0]

I think it may actually decrease the amount of fights. Cheap shots/dirty shots get players' blood boiling and will make them more prone to fight later in the game or at the next meeting. The reason that Orr went after Fedoruk (21 seconds into the game) is because Fedoruk was running amok the last time the Rags and Flyers played eachother.

If someone takes issue with a dirty or borderline hit, and a fight occurs, that issue is over and done- in most cases it won't come up again. If there is no opportunity to fight without possibility of ejection, it simmers and festers.

edit for elaboration: Without the instigator penalty, players who run around all day throwing questionable hits will be held accountable for their actions, and it just may deter them from doing so.

[DarkStar50 679]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/sport...y_greenberg.htm

Its the last few paragraphs that speak the truth. The game has chewed up and spit out Fedoruk. "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Its not pretty but its the truth in the NHL.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

The problem is, the NHL is trying to compete in the US as if it were still one of the big sports. And thats not the case.

There is the NFL, NBA, MLB, Nascar, Golf, College Sports.

The NHL in this country is on par will none of these, when it comes to television ratings, and revenue.

Yet it things changes like the instigator rule will get the soccer moms to bring little timmy to the game because there is no violence.

Instead, what it does is create boiling pots for teams who do not risk taking an instigator, and instead, put someones name in the little book in their head, to get them later (like Orr)

So then the national media picks up when a player goes over the edge, report it like its part of the everyday game of hockey, and Soccermom keeps little timmy even further away.

They need to think more about making the game better for their existing fans, then growing the game regionally.

Versus is not even a blip on most non hockey/cycling/bullfighting fans radar, but I still like the change, and if the network grows, it will be good for hockey.

But they put all their marketing eggs in the Versus basket, instead of making things better regionally, and hoping the regional support grows, which in turn will feed their tiny tiny national footprint.

Gary Bettman got his cap for owners, but in the process of bringing cost certainty, he has marginalized the game itself, and alienated both his prospective market, and existing one

[Chadd 916]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

[regularjoe 1]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

I have to agree with this. I think 20-40 game suspensions will deter a lot more than worrying about fighting the other guy's goons. Either take off the cuffs and bring back the full ice brawls of the 70s-80s or legislate with a heavy hand. What's in place is an unhappy medium trying to placate everybody.

[DamnLocust 0]

Chadd, you bring up a good point. I know you're not the biggest fan of Colin Campbell, and I never was either. I think he's just "too nice" of a guy to be in that position. Same problem I had with him as coach of the Rangers.

I think the PA needs to get their shit together and make a stand one way or the other. Since nobody likes serving suspensions, I think it'll get back to the players policing themselves via removal of the instigator. Then again, we saw what Bonehead Bettman did the last time the PA took a stand on something.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

I think the problem is, and has been, the guys who cross the line don't get the suspensions. They are they guys who create a mess, then when someone goes at them, they are the ones who get the suspension.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending anyone in particular here, but Hollweg has taken many liberties, and put Simon into the boards head first. This is not his first time doing something like that.

Simon gets an NHL record suspension, but Hollweg does not get a single game for his charging from behind that upended simon.

Jordin Tootoo is dirty as hell, see a lot of his play this year, and his calder cup play last. But he gets a 5 game suspension for a sucker punch.

Colton Orr gets 3 for the cross check to ovey's mouth.

The problem is, the wrong people are getting away with too light a suspension.

Bertuzzi was punished because of the outcome of his actions, not the actual action. Because if it were the actual action that gets punished, Tootoo would be out the rest of the season and playoffs too for that sucker punch.

It's not the heavyweights who create the bulk of the problems, its the smaller guys who won't back themselves up. The agitating turtles, like avery. He is a great agitator, but he turtles against bigger guys. Look at someone like Barnaby, a pest, an agitator, but would drop them too, to back up his actions. Same with tucker, he has had some questionable hits, but he will also drop them against most.

Avery will drop them against smaller guys, or if the refs are close. And that leads to guys taking the runs at him after the fact, which leads to more dangerous plays and suspensions for the wrong people.

If the dirty players are punished, then fine, but when you have the NHL punishing the outcome not the incident, then it's not going to make much of a difference who does what unless someone gets hurt

[chippa13 1844]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

I have to agree with this. I think 20-40 game suspensions will deter a lot more than worrying about fighting the other guy's goons. Either take off the cuffs and bring back the full ice brawls of the 70s-80s or legislate with a heavy hand. What's in place is an unhappy medium trying to placate everybody.

What has the McSorley suspension prevented? How about Bertuzzi's suspension? What will Simon's suspension prevent? Answer to all: Nothing.

[DamnLocust 0]

When a long suspension becomes the norm as opposed to the exception, it will deter a whole lot more. If you punish the smaller infractions, the bigger ones don't happen.

Still, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Chadd 916]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

I have to agree with this. I think 20-40 game suspensions will deter a lot more than worrying about fighting the other guy's goons. Either take off the cuffs and bring back the full ice brawls of the 70s-80s or legislate with a heavy hand. What's in place is an unhappy medium trying to placate everybody.

What has the McSorley suspension prevented? How about Bertuzzi's suspension? What will Simon's suspension prevent? Answer to all: Nothing.

McSorely never did anything to get suspended again, his career was over. Bertuzzi has yet to do anything to warrant a suspension that I can recall, we will have to see with Simon.

Has it prevented others? No, not yet. Is that a reason to give up on that line of thinking? I don't believe so. You have to have consistently harsh suspensions to send the message, not random reactions to public opinion.

[Trooper 8]

It's not the heavyweights who create the bulk of the problems, its the smaller guys who won't back themselves up. The agitating turtles, like avery. He is a great agitator, but he turtles against bigger guys. Look at someone like Barnaby, a pest, an agitator, but would drop them too, to back up his actions. Same with tucker, he has had some questionable hits, but he will also drop them against most.

Avery will drop them against smaller guys, or if the refs are close. And that leads to guys taking the runs at him after the fact, which leads to more dangerous plays and suspensions for the wrong people.

Agree 100%. It's guys like you mentioned and guys like Brendan Witt that are causing problems. His main reputation in the league is a guy who refuses to fight. Last night he tried to kick Malkin and then ran when a little scrum started. He's one of the biggest pussies in the league. Of course he plays on the same team as Blake so I guess birds of a feather...

[chippa13 1844]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

I have to agree with this. I think 20-40 game suspensions will deter a lot more than worrying about fighting the other guy's goons. Either take off the cuffs and bring back the full ice brawls of the 70s-80s or legislate with a heavy hand. What's in place is an unhappy medium trying to placate everybody.

What has the McSorley suspension prevented? How about Bertuzzi's suspension? What will Simon's suspension prevent? Answer to all: Nothing.

McSorely never did anything to get suspended again, his career was over. Bertuzzi has yet to do anything to warrant a suspension that I can recall, we will have to see with Simon.

Has it prevented others? No, not yet. Is that a reason to give up on that line of thinking? I don't believe so. You have to have consistently harsh suspensions to send the message, not random reactions to public opinion.

You're missing the point, the argument is that supposedly long suspensions will take this kind of stuff out of the game. It won't. Sure, McSorley did nothing afterward, but Bertuzzi did. Has Bertuzzi done anything since? No, but Simon did. Will Simon do something else? I don't know, but someone else will. Players aren't thinking about suspensions when they do these kind of things.

[Chadd 916]

You can't prevent players from policing themselves and then refuse to police it from the league office. With the instigator rule in place the NHL needs to hand down serious suspensions to guys who cross the line, make those marginal players fear the league office more than the goons on the other team.

I have to agree with this. I think 20-40 game suspensions will deter a lot more than worrying about fighting the other guy's goons. Either take off the cuffs and bring back the full ice brawls of the 70s-80s or legislate with a heavy hand. What's in place is an unhappy medium trying to placate everybody.

What has the McSorley suspension prevented? How about Bertuzzi's suspension? What will Simon's suspension prevent? Answer to all: Nothing.

McSorely never did anything to get suspended again, his career was over. Bertuzzi has yet to do anything to warrant a suspension that I can recall, we will have to see with Simon.

Has it prevented others? No, not yet. Is that a reason to give up on that line of thinking? I don't believe so. You have to have consistently harsh suspensions to send the message, not random reactions to public opinion.

You're missing the point, the argument is that supposedly long suspensions will take this kind of stuff out of the game. It won't. Sure, McSorley did nothing afterward, but Bertuzzi did. Has Bertuzzi done anything since? No, but Simon did. Will Simon do something else? I don't know, but someone else will. Players aren't thinking about suspensions when they do these kind of things.

You make a valid point but since the NHL has not consistently handed down long suspensions for egregious acts, any deterrent effect is lost.

[chippa13 1844]

From 1998 to today there have been 12 suspensions handed out of 10 games or longer. I'd say the league is definitely a lot more heavy handed with suspensions than it has ever been.

[Chadd 916]

I'd say it's indicative of the increase in dangerous plays and lack of respect shown by players. I can think of at least half dozen incidents in the last year and a half that deserved a suspension of that length but got far less, if anything.

[chippa13 1844]

I'd say it's indicative of the increase in dangerous plays and lack of respect shown by players. I can think of at least half dozen incidents in the last year and a half that deserved a suspension of that length but got far less, if anything.

This is where I disagree. I don't think incidents have increased, merely that with the information age we hear more about them. Twenty years ago you were lucky to know pretty much anything of what was happening outside of your local team. That isn't true anymore. Now we see highlights from around the league, get info from tons of online sources and hear from folks all over in forums like this one.

[Chadd 916]

I'd say it's indicative of the increase in dangerous plays and lack of respect shown by players. I can think of at least half dozen incidents in the last year and a half that deserved a suspension of that length but got far less, if anything.

This is where I disagree. I don't think incidents have increased, merely that with the information age we hear more about them. Twenty years ago you were lucky to know pretty much anything of what was happening outside of your local team. That isn't true anymore. Now we see highlights from around the league, get info from tons of online sources and hear from folks all over in forums like this one.

I've had the center ice package or earlier versions since I got a primestar dish back in 96. There are far more incidents than even ten years ago. Furthermore, officials allow far more brutal hits than ever before. A lot of people are mistaking the cheap or borderline stuff for the big, clean hits of the past. Rarely do you see big, clean hits anywhere on the ice anymore. Most of the big hits are the marginal players hitting someone in a vulnerable position, simply because they can. A lot of the stuff that is permitted now would have been called hits from behind or boarding a few years ago, let alone the hits that are seconds after a puck has been passed to another player.

[DarkStar50 679]

I agree with both of you. I think though, that when Simon snaps, when Bertuzzi snaps, or when McSorley snaps, they are so crazed out with adrenaline that they just carry out the vicious act with no thought whatsoever to the other player, themselves, the consequences, or the game. One incident that no one has mentioned since it was in the mid 90s and everyone has forgotten is Dale Hunter's take-out of Pierre Turgeon after scoring a goal in a playoff game. That incident didn't stop anything from happening. Hunter got about 20 games, I think. Sorry to say, this stuff will never stop happening.