Instigator rule is done for?

[Theo 1]

I read somewhere that the GM's pretty much decided that for next year, there will be no instigator rule. Is this legit?

[chippa13 1844]

There still needs to be some form of instigator rule, if for no other reason that to keep meatheads from ragdolling stars into fights.

[pantherfan 0]

They just need to allow some discretion, because not all rules can be follwed 100% to the book for every situation.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I read somewhere that the GM's pretty much decided that for next year, there will be no instigator rule. Is this legit?

In the most recent hockey news (the power edition) it says brian burke successfully lobbied to get rid of the instigator (or change it, I can't remember which)

[slaw 1]

Cherry's been calling for the instigator rule to be canned for years. I guess if this is going to happen we will really see if its a change for the better?

[Chadd 916]

It's not going to help. In fact, I think it will make things worse.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

It's not going to help. In fact, I think it will make things worse.

One way or the other it will answer the question perhaps

[Chadd 916]

It's not going to help. In fact, I think it will make things worse.

One way or the other it will answer the question perhaps

Burke has been trying to bring back the 70s for a while now. This could really end up biting the NHL in the ass when a couple teams start gooning it up and taking it to an absurd extreme. Much like the Flyers have with the cheap shots. We see how seriously the league takes those problems; "If you do it again we may have to consider talking about what happened." I'll be waiting with a big ass bowl of popcorn for the first Flyer - Penguin game. Downie takes a run at Crosby and then starts beating the shit out of him while Boulerice, Hatcher, Cote and Hartnell square off with Malkin, Armstrong, Gonchar and Letang.

[camhockey16 5]

It's not going to help. In fact, I think it will make things worse.

One way or the other it will answer the question perhaps

Burke has been trying to bring back the 70s for a while now. This could really end up biting the NHL in the ass when a couple teams start gooning it up and taking it to an absurd extreme. Much like the Flyers have with the cheap shots. We see how seriously the league takes those problems; "If you do it again we may have to consider talking about what happened." I'll be waiting with a big ass bowl of popcorn for the first Flyer - Penguin game. Downie takes a run at Crosby and then starts beating the shit out of him while Boulerice, Hatcher, Cote and Hartnell square off with Malkin, Armstrong, Gonchar and Letang.

i think malkin might surprise a few people - he is obviously not a fighter but he has some decent size - i wonder how long before someone tries to goad him into his first nhl fight? crosby got his out of the way now it's his turn - i just hope he chooses wisely like crosby did..

oh and about the whole instigator thing - i think it will help a little bit - but obviously there are still problems afterwards. there has to be some better solution - but no one has thought of a good one yet.

[gxc999 7]

I don't know if taking the instigator penalty out would be good or not. The argument is that if you remove it, then the tough guys can retaliate fight on whoever keeps hitting their star players, but I'm not sure that's true.

[Karly14 21]

I'm not to sure if it'll make a huge difference if they take it out. Its only an extra 2 for insitigating and a misconduct. The guys likely to instigate don't usually play a huge role in determining the score of the game. I think with the rule in, if there's anm incident a team sees fit for instigiating 9 out of 10 times they'll probably go through with it.

[Chadd 916]

i think malkin might surprise a few people - he is obviously not a fighter but he has some decent size - i wonder how long before someone tries to goad him into his first nhl fight? crosby got his out of the way now it's his turn - i just hope he chooses wisely like crosby did..

oh and about the whole instigator thing - i think it will help a little bit - but obviously there are still problems afterwards. there has to be some better solution - but no one has thought of a good one yet.

Of course there's a solution, suspend the guys that are ruining the league. You want to remove the cheap shots, checks from behind and head shots? It's painfully simple to do and doesn't cost the league a penny, suspend the guys who do those things and fine their teams every time a player is suspended. Instead you have Brian Burke trying to bring back the big bad bruins and the broad street bullies. With all of the good young hockey players coming into the league, this is a step backwards that is going to hurt the league.

I'm not to sure if it'll make a huge difference if they take it out. Its only an extra 2 for insitigating and a misconduct. The guys likely to instigate don't usually play a huge role in determining the score of the game. I think with the rule in, if there's anm incident a team sees fit for instigiating 9 out of 10 times they'll probably go through with it.

The player also get s a game misconduct for instigating and after the second one, suspensions start. This encourages teams to have one guy whose job is to deal with everything. Personally, I think that guys should stick up for themselves and for their teammates. If there's something wrong happening to one of your guys, take care of it yourself. Don't be a pansy and expect someone else to come out and do all of the dirty work.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Yeah because having Crosby and all the other superstars fighting their own fights every single time would be great for the league as well

[Chadd 916]

Yeah because having Crosby and all the other superstars fighting their own fights every single time would be great for the league as well

First of all, we all gave him props for standing up for himself but none of us said he should be doing it all the time. Why can't Malone or Armstrong or anyone else on the ice with him come in and help him from time to time? Malone had been doing that quite a bit for a while. Hey, I'm in favor of getting the dangerous guys out of the game, I just think the potential threat of a goon on the bench is the wrong way to get there. Drive the guys out by punishing them for their actions, that seems much more logical than fighting fire with fire.

[Methane 0]

Removing the instigator is a decent idea, let the players handle things more like they used to. As has been said so many times, it seems that there is no respect on the ice anymore. It's not looked down upon by people to take a cheap shot that may end a career.

What you do see is dudes getting in fights because of a clean open ice hit on a star just as much as you see fights start because of a suspect hit. If your star player gets creamed because he came flying through the neutral zone with his head down, well shame on him. If he gets plowed into the boards from behind with an elbow to the head then pay back is going to be a bitch.

Campbell needs to have some rules in place as to what deed gets what punishment, is there a reason Simon is on his what, 8th suspension?

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I see Chadd. My bad, I took your comment as you think each player should fight their own battles and their own fights. I took it literally.

Malone and such do help him, and having a guy like Laraque on the Pens keeps guys honest whether he fights them or not. Just knowing he is on Sids bench has probably stopped quite a few guys from taking liberties.

They were just talking about the same type of thing in a game the other night with an enforcer type guy, but I can't remember what game it was.. Maybe a Phoenix game.

Theres only a handful of straight up goon guys in the league though. Laraque, Ruutu, Avery, Eager, etc. can all play the game decently well and fight when need be. Thats what the teams need in my opinion.

[Chadd 916]

Removing the instigator is a decent idea, let the players handle things more like they used to. As has been said so many times, it seems that there is no respect on the ice anymore. It's not looked down upon by people to take a cheap shot that may end a career.

What you do see is dudes getting in fights because of a clean open ice hit on a star just as much as you see fights start because of a suspect hit. If your star player gets creamed because he came flying through the neutral zone with his head down, well shame on him. If he gets plowed into the boards from behind with an elbow to the head then pay back is going to be a bitch.

Campbell needs to have some rules in place as to what deed gets what punishment, is there a reason Simon is on his what, 8th suspension?

Ok, let's assume your star gets a cheap shot. Your goon isn't generally going to be skating on his line so now you have to decide if you want to throw your gameplan out the window and try to get even. Assuming you do, how do you go about it?

1. Taking someone off your first line and putting your goon in his place until he can catch up with the offender?

2. Waiting for the offender to get on the ice so you can call someone off and send your goon right out to kick his ass?

3. Screw the 10 game suspension and send him right over the boards?

All of them are fine options and certainly going to improve the quality of the game on the ice. Now that your goon has caught up with the guy who needs to be taught a lesson, what happens when the guy turtles? Sure you can pound on him and feel better about yourself and your team but now you just gave the other guys a five minute powerplay.

Okay, now the guy has hit your star, forced you to change your game plan and drawn a five minute powerplay against your team. Damn, that sure will teach him a lesson. There's no way he's going to keep running around doing that after that kind of outcome and coaches surely won't want a guy like that in their lineup.

I see Chadd. My bad, I took your comment as you think each player should fight their own battles and their own fights. I took it literally.

I'm all for team toughness. I'm just against expecting one guy to do it all for everyone.

[Methane 0]

Removing the instigator is a decent idea, let the players handle things more like they used to. As has been said so many times, it seems that there is no respect on the ice anymore. It's not looked down upon by people to take a cheap shot that may end a career.

What you do see is dudes getting in fights because of a clean open ice hit on a star just as much as you see fights start because of a suspect hit. If your star player gets creamed because he came flying through the neutral zone with his head down, well shame on him. If he gets plowed into the boards from behind with an elbow to the head then pay back is going to be a bitch.

Campbell needs to have some rules in place as to what deed gets what punishment, is there a reason Simon is on his what, 8th suspension?

Ok, let's assume your star gets a cheap shot. Your goon isn't generally going to be skating on his line so now you have to decide if you want to throw your gameplan out the window and try to get even. Assuming you do, how do you go about it?

1. Taking someone off your first line and putting your goon in his place until he can catch up with the offender?

2. Waiting for the offender to get on the ice so you can call someone off and send your goon right out to kick his ass?

3. Screw the 10 game suspension and send him right over the boards?

All of them are fine options and certainly going to improve the quality of the game on the ice. Now that your goon has caught up with the guy who needs to be taught a lesson, what happens when the guy turtles? Sure you can pound on him and feel better about yourself and your team but now you just gave the other guys a five minute powerplay.

Okay, now the guy has hit your star, forced you to change your game plan and drawn a five minute powerplay against your team. Damn, that sure will teach him a lesson. There's no way he's going to keep running around doing that after that kind of outcome and coaches surely won't want a guy like that in their lineup.

I see Chadd. My bad, I took your comment as you think each player should fight their own battles and their own fights. I took it literally.

I'm all for team toughness. I'm just against expecting one guy to do it all for everyone.

And maybe that's the issue, that there are "stars" that are above the hitting and fighting. We want to talk about "the old days" then, as you point out everybody needs to step up and handle their own issues.

[Chadd 916]

And maybe that's the issue, that there are "stars" that are above the hitting and fighting. We want to talk about "the old days" then, as you point out everybody needs to step up and handle their own issues.

Stars not being willing to hit or fight isn't the issue here. When Downie took a flying leap at McAmmond, somone went right after Downie. When Jones drilled Bergeron, someone went after Jones. Guys are standing up for their teammates after these brutal plays that they claim to be addressing. The problem is that the guys who do slightly lesser things game after game aren't being punished by the league. Throw the book at these guys who run around and throw cheap shots all game, even if it isn't called during the game. The league set a precedent for doing just that with the diving program a couple years ago, so it could be done if they had the backbone. They watch every game in the league office in Toronto and they could afford to spend a couple minutes on each of borderline hits, just like they do on the replay goals.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm not to sure if it'll make a huge difference if they take it out. Its only an extra 2 for insitigating and a misconduct. The guys likely to instigate don't usually play a huge role in determining the score of the game. I think with the rule in, if there's anm incident a team sees fit for instigiating 9 out of 10 times they'll probably go through with it.

With the powerplay at such a premium in the NHL these days, that extra 2 means a lot. It isn't punishing the knucklehead, it is punishing the team.

The way I see it, if a guy grabs someone who just put his teammate on queer street with a hit, that shouldn't be an instigator. If someone grabs a hold of Crosby and starts swinging in order to take him off the ice, that should be an instigator.

[Chadd 916]

I'm not to sure if it'll make a huge difference if they take it out. Its only an extra 2 for insitigating and a misconduct. The guys likely to instigate don't usually play a huge role in determining the score of the game. I think with the rule in, if there's anm incident a team sees fit for instigiating 9 out of 10 times they'll probably go through with it.

With the powerplay at such a premium in the NHL these days, that extra 2 means a lot. It isn't punishing the knucklehead, it is punishing the team.

The way I see it, if a guy grabs someone who just put his teammate on queer street with a hit, that shouldn't be an instigator. If someone grabs a hold of Crosby and starts swinging in order to take him off the ice, that should be an instigator.

NHL officials have shown an astonishing lack of judgement in the past, ergo the crackdown on obstruction that was followed by the recent crackdown on interference.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm not to sure if it'll make a huge difference if they take it out. Its only an extra 2 for insitigating and a misconduct. The guys likely to instigate don't usually play a huge role in determining the score of the game. I think with the rule in, if there's anm incident a team sees fit for instigiating 9 out of 10 times they'll probably go through with it.

With the powerplay at such a premium in the NHL these days, that extra 2 means a lot. It isn't punishing the knucklehead, it is punishing the team.

The way I see it, if a guy grabs someone who just put his teammate on queer street with a hit, that shouldn't be an instigator. If someone grabs a hold of Crosby and starts swinging in order to take him off the ice, that should be an instigator.

NHL officials have shown an astonishing lack of judgement in the past, ergo the crackdown on obstruction that was followed by the recent crackdown on interference.

Definitely. I've noticed a little of the interference on dump ins creeping back into the game lately.

[Eazy_b97 1]

If the refs want, they don't have to give the unwilling participant a fighting major and can kick the other player out for intent to injure. I rarely see the instigator rule called and there are ways to penalize players for instigating without that "official rule".

[chippa13 1844]

If the refs want, they don't have to give the unwilling participant a fighting major and can kick the other player out for intent to injure. I rarely see the instigator rule called and there are ways to penalize players for instigating without that "official rule".

The unwilling participant, once he drops the gloves and defends himself has to get a fighting major, unless the NHL puts in a "self-defense" clause in the rulebook.

[tips09 0]

If the refs want, they don't have to give the unwilling participant a fighting major and can kick the other player out for intent to injure. I rarely see the instigator rule called and there are ways to penalize players for instigating without that "official rule".

Out of all the games ive watched this year which is mostly cancucks and a few leafs games i havent seen any called either. But when i go onto hockeyfights.com it seems that there is alot more instigator calls then i thought were happening.