Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Flames Game Day: Over the Hedge
Kings @ Flames, 730PM MT, RSN West
But, the fencepost is finally out of my rear, and it's because -- as is so often the case with situations like this -- someone arguing for the other side sounded sufficiently insane. Take it away, "Uncle Pedro" (as told by David Staples):
Before I move on, there's a few problems here. One, if the league were to get rid of the instigator rule, I don't believe it would signify a green light on merciless beatings. Two, if that's the rationale, you may see some moderates withdraw their support (I'm trying to be understated here). Three, "within an inch of his life"? Come onnnnn. I think Raffi Torres is one of the dirtiest players in the league (he's dished out at least four concussions in the past 3 years) and I have zero use for the guy, but yeesh.
Stu Hackel has a terrific mythbusting piece on this same issue today, and made several of the points I intended to make here, so I'll just go with the basics.
First: the Instigator penalty has the intended deterrent effect on instigating fights, to some extent. Bigger than trivial, smaller than nuclear. There are players who will never instigate a fight, regardless of whether it's penalized or not; there are players, in some situations, who instigate fights regardless of the fact that it's penalized. It is in the middle (exact breadth unknown) where the difference is made.
Second: hockey fights (where no Instigator is assessed) in 2008 are between two voluntary combatants. For the most part, one guy is the initiator, but the other guy is willing (if not necessarily eager). Scrapping the Instigator would lead to more fights (or pummellings if you prefer) involving an involuntary combatant.
Putting those two items together: the "fights" that are not happening today, but would happen tomorrow if the Instigator rule was scrapped, are ones between (Player A) someone who is presently deterred only by the Instigator penalty and (Player B) someone who doesn't want to be in it.
These, and these fights only, are the fights that we're talking about when we debate the merits of the Instigator. As the story goes, the lack of these fights (and these fights only) allow Player B to behave cavalierly about opponent safety, among other things. I don't buy it.
Were there no Instigator, there would presumably be more fights where some Jarko Ruutu type gets what's coming to him whether he likes it or not. Hooray. But there would also be more fights period, and most of those additional fights would not be of the "Ruutu gets pounded" variety. I think it behooves those of us who aren't firmly on one side or the other to think about whether (A) more fighting than there is now is desirable, and (B) the majority of the "new" fights we would get is desirable, where, QED, one combatant is not in it voluntarily.
The one other point worth making is that there is a certain paradox in play here. You will no doubt notice that the crew most vocal about scrapping the Instigator is generally the same old-time-hockey bunch who are most vocal about hockey being a crash-bang game: you can't suspend someone like Randy Jones or Tom Kostsopolous for 50 games because these are split-second moves at a fast pace, and if you want to keep hitting in the game, you have to accept that these things happen sometimes.
You will also be well aware (as alluded above) that those who are most vocal about scrapping the Instigator believe/insist that many (if not most) players only ever deliver a dirty hit (or slash, etc.) because they do not fear reprisal in the form of a knuckle sandwich. These players, the thinking goes, would always mind their manners if there were no Instigator penalty.
Now: think of some random player who (A) plays physical but not dirty, and (B) doesn't like getting punched in the face. I'd say this describes 25-50% of the players in the league. If the Instigator is scrapped, what happens the next time this player delivers a big, clean hit? We already have what I would describe as a problem with teammates "avenging" perfectly legal hits -- do we really want to remove one of the major disincentives for doing so? And if we do, are we pretty confident that it won't have a negative impact on plain-old, good hard physical play? I'm not, at all.
Calgary 5, Los Angeles 2. Go Flames.
----------
I've written before on this site and others that I'm agnostic on the instigator rule. While I think it's clear that many of the people who rail against it are full of crap (these guys argue almost explicitly that nothing bad would ever happen to anybody if the dang instigator rule was just scrapped), I never had any strong feelings about it and I doubted it would make much difference one way or another.But, the fencepost is finally out of my rear, and it's because -- as is so often the case with situations like this -- someone arguing for the other side sounded sufficiently insane. Take it away, "Uncle Pedro" (as told by David Staples):
"That is why I would support a rule change that would (a) get rid of the instigator rule so the guilty party can beaten up within an inch of his life (he risks other people's lives, after all, doesn't he?), ..."
Before I move on, there's a few problems here. One, if the league were to get rid of the instigator rule, I don't believe it would signify a green light on merciless beatings. Two, if that's the rationale, you may see some moderates withdraw their support (I'm trying to be understated here). Three, "within an inch of his life"? Come onnnnn. I think Raffi Torres is one of the dirtiest players in the league (he's dished out at least four concussions in the past 3 years) and I have zero use for the guy, but yeesh.
Stu Hackel has a terrific mythbusting piece on this same issue today, and made several of the points I intended to make here, so I'll just go with the basics.
First: the Instigator penalty has the intended deterrent effect on instigating fights, to some extent. Bigger than trivial, smaller than nuclear. There are players who will never instigate a fight, regardless of whether it's penalized or not; there are players, in some situations, who instigate fights regardless of the fact that it's penalized. It is in the middle (exact breadth unknown) where the difference is made.
Second: hockey fights (where no Instigator is assessed) in 2008 are between two voluntary combatants. For the most part, one guy is the initiator, but the other guy is willing (if not necessarily eager). Scrapping the Instigator would lead to more fights (or pummellings if you prefer) involving an involuntary combatant.
Putting those two items together: the "fights" that are not happening today, but would happen tomorrow if the Instigator rule was scrapped, are ones between (Player A) someone who is presently deterred only by the Instigator penalty and (Player B) someone who doesn't want to be in it.
These, and these fights only, are the fights that we're talking about when we debate the merits of the Instigator. As the story goes, the lack of these fights (and these fights only) allow Player B to behave cavalierly about opponent safety, among other things. I don't buy it.
Were there no Instigator, there would presumably be more fights where some Jarko Ruutu type gets what's coming to him whether he likes it or not. Hooray. But there would also be more fights period, and most of those additional fights would not be of the "Ruutu gets pounded" variety. I think it behooves those of us who aren't firmly on one side or the other to think about whether (A) more fighting than there is now is desirable, and (B) the majority of the "new" fights we would get is desirable, where, QED, one combatant is not in it voluntarily.
The one other point worth making is that there is a certain paradox in play here. You will no doubt notice that the crew most vocal about scrapping the Instigator is generally the same old-time-hockey bunch who are most vocal about hockey being a crash-bang game: you can't suspend someone like Randy Jones or Tom Kostsopolous for 50 games because these are split-second moves at a fast pace, and if you want to keep hitting in the game, you have to accept that these things happen sometimes.
You will also be well aware (as alluded above) that those who are most vocal about scrapping the Instigator believe/insist that many (if not most) players only ever deliver a dirty hit (or slash, etc.) because they do not fear reprisal in the form of a knuckle sandwich. These players, the thinking goes, would always mind their manners if there were no Instigator penalty.
Now: think of some random player who (A) plays physical but not dirty, and (B) doesn't like getting punched in the face. I'd say this describes 25-50% of the players in the league. If the Instigator is scrapped, what happens the next time this player delivers a big, clean hit? We already have what I would describe as a problem with teammates "avenging" perfectly legal hits -- do we really want to remove one of the major disincentives for doing so? And if we do, are we pretty confident that it won't have a negative impact on plain-old, good hard physical play? I'm not, at all.
----------
Calgary 5, Los Angeles 2. Go Flames.
# posted by Matt @ 4:47 pm 
Comments:
I'm with ya.
There's zero empirical evidence that removing the instigator will lead to more (efficient? equitable? justifiable?) on-ice policing.
There's a certain segment of sloped foreheads who think hockey is defined by fighting, or that the code demands it, or that "it's always been done that way."
Nobody ever considers that if the selectively blind zebras would just call the rulebook as it's currently written - paying special attention to the sections on Boarding, Elbowing, Charging, Roughing (anybody remember that one?) and Match & Gross Misconduct - and stop making phantom calls based on the Hooking and Interference sections, the game could be sorted out without having to resort to the nuclear arsenal.
Not that I don't enjoy seeing various Ruutus getting fed with fists. But if boarding and charging were majors, the potential liability of having talentless hacks play even 4th-line minutes would outweigh any potential benefit.
There's zero empirical evidence that selectively blind zebras calling the rulebook as it's currently written will lead to more efficient on-ice policing either.
In fact, I think there's zero empirical evidence when it comes to anything related to hockey fighting. Feel free to correct me with a graph on injuries inflicted per fist eaten from 1980 to 2007 or something, mind. But it seems to me that, as much as we might like to pretend that calculators hold all the answers, this is an area which defies statistical analysis with the information currently available.
Personally, I'd get rid of the instigator rule because if Jesse Boulerice smacks a guy in the face with his stick, I find Derek Boogaard punching him so hard in the face that his fist comes out the other end viscerally satisfying, and like everybody else who cheers lustily when the gloves come off, I like a good hockey fight. Bearing in mind that most injuries suffered in hockey fights come from a combatant - let's call him "Sheldon Moreau" - injuring himself by trying to do too much.
(Blogger word verification: 'trust'. I believe that's the first one I've had that's an actual word.)
I like a good hockey fight too, I'm just not sure that I need to see more of them, particularly when 100% of the increase comes from guys who (as of today) would rather not be involved, or are basically in self-defense mode after being jumped, etc.
I like a good hockey fight too, I'm just not sure that I need to see more of them, particularly when 100% of the increase comes from guys who (as of today) would rather not be involved, or are basically in self-defense mode after being jumped, etc.
And how many of those unwilling fights are Jonathan Roy on Bobby Nadeau and how many are somebody tuning up on a Jarkko Ruutu-style gutless puke? The former, we can all agree, is pretty horrifying but I'd be all for seeing more of the latter.
They lost me with the subject of their ire. Torres has knocked some guys out and surely most of the ones I can remember were executed with extreme prejudice. The one on Smid though? Don't buy it at all. Nobody on the ice was choked when it happened either.
Btw, I think Staples had the chronology wrong there too. I thought Smid bitched about the hit before Torres talked to him.
And how many of those unwilling fights are Jonathan Roy on Bobby Nadeau and how many are somebody tuning up on a Jarkko Ruutu-style gutless puke? The former, we can all agree, is pretty horrifying but I'd be all for seeing more of the latter.
I don't know, but there are a whole lot of reasons why A might pick a fight with an unwilling B, and only one of them is that B objectively deserves a beating.
I don't know, but there are a whole lot of reasons why A might pick a fight with an unwilling B, and only one of them is that B objectively deserves a beating.
Well, let me put it another way. Suppose you're Jonathan Roy and you're skating towards Bobby Nadeau because you crave the sweet caress of his face against your fist. And a little voice in your head says "don't do it, you'll be suspended for so long the next time you step on the ice will be at an old-timers' game". And the other little voice in your head says "don't do it, if you start whaling on this guy you'll take a two-minute penalty."
Which one do you listen to?
For particularly egregious poundings, the NHL has quite a nice... er, workable... er, it has a suspension system in place. The worst excesses won't be deterred by a two-minute penalty, just as high sticking being in the rulebook doesn't stop Jesse Boulerice. What you're preventing with the instigator ruling is action that's more exciting than dangerous or bad for the game.
The problem is that many who like the instigator rule also hate fighting, like me. I won't let my daughter watch it, so she gets no hockey. I think fighting is dumb and I'd like to see less of it.
I can't believe you call Jarko on the carpet like that. He's a pest, but there are far dirtier players than him. Those are the guys I'd like to see hammered.
And how many of those unwilling fights are Jonathan Roy on Bobby Nadeau and how many are somebody tuning up on a Jarkko Ruutu-style gutless puke? The former, we can all agree, is pretty horrifying but I'd be all for seeing more of the latter.
It also bears pointing out that the former can be adequately punished under the little-known, seldom-called "Aggressor" portion of the "Fighting" page.
As I see it, the real purpose of the instigator rule (at least at this point) is less about discouraging fighting, per se, and more about trying to get players to respect the authority of the League and its designated officials, i.e. the referees and Captain Wheel of Justice. It's a nice idea in theory, but the problem is, referees can't and don't see everything, and sometimes misjudge what they do see, Captain Wheel of Justice is just that, and his judgments can be charitably described as random, and both segments can only act on that which is in the rulebook, which in my opinion, does not cover every act that could be considered dirty. I'm thinking specifically of the "clean" forearm to the skull that somehow eludes all punishment despite a mountain of physiological evidence that it's actually pretty much as dangerous as a flying elbow or sucker punch (see: Sauer v. Kostitsyn, Hollweg v. Parise, to name a couple of recent examples). Given all this, I'm perfectly content with players settling matters on their own. At the very least, I think it's reasonable to not assign instigators in cases where a guy's responding to a huge hit that leaves an injury, simply because that amounts to rewarding the team of the player who unleashed the injurious hit, and how does that make any sense?
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think it's better to approach the instigator from the perspective of what it implicitly punishes (and rewards) on a larger scale, rather than simply looking at the face-beatings, as such, because in the majority of cases, if The Code demands a face beating, there will be a face beating, and more face beatings are prevented by fast-skating, quick-thinking officials than any minor penalty. In other words, I'm in favour of removing the instigator rule not because I want to see more face-beatings, but because I feel that as it's currently applied, it doesn't really work as intended, and it carries counterproductive implicit rewards.
And just to clarify, in other circumstances, like where an instigator is applied to some guy randomly starting shit late in a 7-1 game, it's perfectly valid. I'm specifically against how it's applied in revenge fights, which is pretty much what Matt's talking about here.
I do wish there was a way to get rid of the quasi-staged goon battles, but I think that requires more forward thinking on the part of NHL coaches and GMs than we're ever going to see.
Good article, and nice prediction...care to share your 6/49 numbers for tonight?
Doogie2K, you talked about fights after injurious hits...are you referring to clean (notice, no quotes) hits? Because I'm sick of fights after good, hard hits - injurious or not. I suppose the instigator is trying to take momentum back for his team, but not assessing an instigator in these cases essentially punishes a clean hit. Last month's 9-minute penalty assesed to Bourque for responding to a good hit (the hitter got zero minutes, as I recall) was bizarre, but appropriate - and I'm a Flames fan.
Maybe the NHL should just publish a list of 20 guys to whom the instigator rule doesn't apply. Want to instigate a fight with Sean Avery? Go nuts. The list could be maintained on the basis of an ongoign poll on NHL.com.
re: Torres: When you say he's dirty, do you mean that he violates the rules? Because I can see saying that the hits he throws that hurt people shouldn't be allowed, I just can't see how they're illegal. The Williams hit in particular - Torres was gliding when he hit him.
I agree with the idea that head hits are bad, but I don't know how you can call the guys who throw them dirty under the present rules.
@Hacker's In: Let's just say the rulebook and I have our differences over what constitutes a clean hit. I don't think a fight is necessary after a good, clean hit, but what I consider clean, and what the letter of the law says is clean, are two different things. I suspect the average player's definition of clean is closer to mine than the rulebook's, based on the evidence before us.
A hard hit that sends a guy flying: fine, whatever. I didn't see the hit on Langkow, so I can't comment, but there's lots of clean but spectacular hits that get responses, and I don't think it's really necessary. A hard hit that turns into a head shot through no fault of the hitter, such as the Weight-Sutter hit: I can see why a player would respond, but I don't think that's necessary, or even fair. A hard hit that involves avoidable head contact, such as the Sauer and Hollweg hits: no, you have to respond to that. Those guys could've gone in with their arms six inches lower and had just as solid a hit.
@Tyler: The solution, of course, is to change the rules, but good luck with that. The NHL seems to see head shots as an all or none proposition, where either you ban all hits or you ban none, and I think that's completely bogus. As I noted before, I find it baffling that hitting someone in the head with your elbow or fist warrants a suspension, while hitting them with a forearm warrants a trip to the highlight reel. Because that's not fucking dangerous or avoidable at all.
@Doogie and Lord Bob, mainly, a few thoughts:
- You may not like the job Colin Campbell does distinguishing egregious hits from clean ones, but a player-avenger who catches a real-time glimpse of a hit out of the corner of his eye is even worse at it (see: Bourque, Rene).
- Players can avenge bad acts without getting an Instigator, and frankly it can work out a lot better that way. See S-Mac and Vandermeer/Pouliot in the preseason. That whole situation is over and "policed"; if MacIntyre starts that fight before V is ready and willing, it might not be and might have run into the regular season.
- I repeat again: when assessing the merits of the Instigator penalty, it seems awfully important to stick close to the situations that are presently being deterred by it and forget about the ones that aren't. Jonathan Roy, or Darren McCarty on Claude Lemieux, or Rene Bourque on Blake Sloan, or Trent Hunter on Mike Mottau, did what they did in spite of the existing Instigator penalty. If it's repealed tomorrow, Matthew Lombardi isn't suddenly going to be up in people's faces.
Repealing the Instigator penalty will lead to more people instigating fights and more fights. Maybe a few of these will feature some gutless puke who hits dirty being Instigated On, although per a couple examples in the paragraph above, that still happens anyway in egregious cases. Many will not; they will simply feature an involuntary combatant versus a guy who's pissed that he's down 4 goals, or who wants to impress his coach, or who thought the last goal celebration was excessive, or who's in a higher weight class, or ETC. And the bad will come with the good.
BTW, Matt, good stuff on the concept of the instigator rule and ramifications of getting rid of it.
I have no strong, strong feelings on the rule, at this point, but advocate far, far, far longer suspensions handed out far, far, far more often as the best way to deal with the Raffis of the world (as I said in my original post).
While more and lengthier suspensions may not deter hotheads in the moment, teams will grow tired of paying suspended hotheads, the hotheads will not be able to injury anyone when they are suspended, and I do believe they will reconsider their reckless and violent play as they go forward, and realize their place on the team was put in danger by their long absence, not to mention whatever financial penalties are incurred.
To add to what David said, heavier suspension and don't allow teams to dress a replacement player. That way players that are suspended hurt their team and in the player code that is a big deal
You may not like the job Colin Campbell does distinguishing egregious hits from clean ones, but a player-avenger who catches a real-time glimpse of a hit out of the corner of his eye is even worse at it (see: Bourque, Rene).
True as that may be, the fact of the matter is, as long as Colin Campbell continues to hand out baffling sentences, no one is going to have any faith in the NHL's supplementary discipline system, and as long as players (A) don't have any faith in the system, and (B) are allowed to fight at all, they will take matters into their own hands. Sometimes they'll make poor judgments, but I'm not sold on them actually being worse at calling a hit "dirty," all things considered.
Players can avenge bad acts without getting an Instigator, and frankly it can work out a lot better that way. See S-Mac and Vandermeer/Pouliot in the preseason. That whole situation is over and "policed"; if MacIntyre starts that fight before V is ready and willing, it might not be and might have run into the regular season.
I can't really argue that, except to point out that grudge-match recursion might be considered by some a good side storyline to the BoA. Most times, I tend to forget about grudge matches between games, unless they happen within a week or two, and I was pretty satisfied with how it all turned out as it was, so if anything, I could see myself getting annoyed if the story dragged on, but to each his own, I guess.
And regarding the bad coming with the good, I think a lot of that could be dealt with by making better use of the Aggressor rule. From Note 1, Rule 56b:
It is the intent and purpose of this Rule that the Referee shall impose the "major and game misconduct" penalty in all cases where the instigator or retaliator of the fight is the aggressor and is plainly doing so for the purpose of intimidation or punishment.
Look, I don't think it's realistic that the instigator is going to be repealed at any point ever. I'm just saying that there are circumstances where a beatdown can be justified, above and beyond where the rulebook says that a victim has been hard done by, and that the instigator can have the (unintended) effect of rewarding a player for making a questionable hit.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I'm with ya.
There's zero empirical evidence that removing the instigator will lead to more (efficient? equitable? justifiable?) on-ice policing.
There's a certain segment of sloped foreheads who think hockey is defined by fighting, or that the code demands it, or that "it's always been done that way."
Nobody ever considers that if the selectively blind zebras would just call the rulebook as it's currently written - paying special attention to the sections on Boarding, Elbowing, Charging, Roughing (anybody remember that one?) and Match & Gross Misconduct - and stop making phantom calls based on the Hooking and Interference sections, the game could be sorted out without having to resort to the nuclear arsenal.
Not that I don't enjoy seeing various Ruutus getting fed with fists. But if boarding and charging were majors, the potential liability of having talentless hacks play even 4th-line minutes would outweigh any potential benefit.
There's zero empirical evidence that selectively blind zebras calling the rulebook as it's currently written will lead to more efficient on-ice policing either.
In fact, I think there's zero empirical evidence when it comes to anything related to hockey fighting. Feel free to correct me with a graph on injuries inflicted per fist eaten from 1980 to 2007 or something, mind. But it seems to me that, as much as we might like to pretend that calculators hold all the answers, this is an area which defies statistical analysis with the information currently available.
Personally, I'd get rid of the instigator rule because if Jesse Boulerice smacks a guy in the face with his stick, I find Derek Boogaard punching him so hard in the face that his fist comes out the other end viscerally satisfying, and like everybody else who cheers lustily when the gloves come off, I like a good hockey fight. Bearing in mind that most injuries suffered in hockey fights come from a combatant - let's call him "Sheldon Moreau" - injuring himself by trying to do too much.
(Blogger word verification: 'trust'. I believe that's the first one I've had that's an actual word.)
I like a good hockey fight too, I'm just not sure that I need to see more of them, particularly when 100% of the increase comes from guys who (as of today) would rather not be involved, or are basically in self-defense mode after being jumped, etc.
I like a good hockey fight too, I'm just not sure that I need to see more of them, particularly when 100% of the increase comes from guys who (as of today) would rather not be involved, or are basically in self-defense mode after being jumped, etc.
And how many of those unwilling fights are Jonathan Roy on Bobby Nadeau and how many are somebody tuning up on a Jarkko Ruutu-style gutless puke? The former, we can all agree, is pretty horrifying but I'd be all for seeing more of the latter.
They lost me with the subject of their ire. Torres has knocked some guys out and surely most of the ones I can remember were executed with extreme prejudice. The one on Smid though? Don't buy it at all. Nobody on the ice was choked when it happened either.
Btw, I think Staples had the chronology wrong there too. I thought Smid bitched about the hit before Torres talked to him.
And how many of those unwilling fights are Jonathan Roy on Bobby Nadeau and how many are somebody tuning up on a Jarkko Ruutu-style gutless puke? The former, we can all agree, is pretty horrifying but I'd be all for seeing more of the latter.
I don't know, but there are a whole lot of reasons why A might pick a fight with an unwilling B, and only one of them is that B objectively deserves a beating.
I don't know, but there are a whole lot of reasons why A might pick a fight with an unwilling B, and only one of them is that B objectively deserves a beating.
Well, let me put it another way. Suppose you're Jonathan Roy and you're skating towards Bobby Nadeau because you crave the sweet caress of his face against your fist. And a little voice in your head says "don't do it, you'll be suspended for so long the next time you step on the ice will be at an old-timers' game". And the other little voice in your head says "don't do it, if you start whaling on this guy you'll take a two-minute penalty."
Which one do you listen to?
For particularly egregious poundings, the NHL has quite a nice... er, workable... er, it has a suspension system in place. The worst excesses won't be deterred by a two-minute penalty, just as high sticking being in the rulebook doesn't stop Jesse Boulerice. What you're preventing with the instigator ruling is action that's more exciting than dangerous or bad for the game.
The problem is that many who like the instigator rule also hate fighting, like me. I won't let my daughter watch it, so she gets no hockey. I think fighting is dumb and I'd like to see less of it.
# posted by 
: November 25, 2008 9:25 pm
: November 25, 2008 9:25 pm I can't believe you call Jarko on the carpet like that. He's a pest, but there are far dirtier players than him. Those are the guys I'd like to see hammered.
And how many of those unwilling fights are Jonathan Roy on Bobby Nadeau and how many are somebody tuning up on a Jarkko Ruutu-style gutless puke? The former, we can all agree, is pretty horrifying but I'd be all for seeing more of the latter.
It also bears pointing out that the former can be adequately punished under the little-known, seldom-called "Aggressor" portion of the "Fighting" page.
As I see it, the real purpose of the instigator rule (at least at this point) is less about discouraging fighting, per se, and more about trying to get players to respect the authority of the League and its designated officials, i.e. the referees and Captain Wheel of Justice. It's a nice idea in theory, but the problem is, referees can't and don't see everything, and sometimes misjudge what they do see, Captain Wheel of Justice is just that, and his judgments can be charitably described as random, and both segments can only act on that which is in the rulebook, which in my opinion, does not cover every act that could be considered dirty. I'm thinking specifically of the "clean" forearm to the skull that somehow eludes all punishment despite a mountain of physiological evidence that it's actually pretty much as dangerous as a flying elbow or sucker punch (see: Sauer v. Kostitsyn, Hollweg v. Parise, to name a couple of recent examples). Given all this, I'm perfectly content with players settling matters on their own. At the very least, I think it's reasonable to not assign instigators in cases where a guy's responding to a huge hit that leaves an injury, simply because that amounts to rewarding the team of the player who unleashed the injurious hit, and how does that make any sense?
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think it's better to approach the instigator from the perspective of what it implicitly punishes (and rewards) on a larger scale, rather than simply looking at the face-beatings, as such, because in the majority of cases, if The Code demands a face beating, there will be a face beating, and more face beatings are prevented by fast-skating, quick-thinking officials than any minor penalty. In other words, I'm in favour of removing the instigator rule not because I want to see more face-beatings, but because I feel that as it's currently applied, it doesn't really work as intended, and it carries counterproductive implicit rewards.
And just to clarify, in other circumstances, like where an instigator is applied to some guy randomly starting shit late in a 7-1 game, it's perfectly valid. I'm specifically against how it's applied in revenge fights, which is pretty much what Matt's talking about here.
I do wish there was a way to get rid of the quasi-staged goon battles, but I think that requires more forward thinking on the part of NHL coaches and GMs than we're ever going to see.
Good article, and nice prediction...care to share your 6/49 numbers for tonight?
Doogie2K, you talked about fights after injurious hits...are you referring to clean (notice, no quotes) hits? Because I'm sick of fights after good, hard hits - injurious or not. I suppose the instigator is trying to take momentum back for his team, but not assessing an instigator in these cases essentially punishes a clean hit. Last month's 9-minute penalty assesed to Bourque for responding to a good hit (the hitter got zero minutes, as I recall) was bizarre, but appropriate - and I'm a Flames fan.
Maybe the NHL should just publish a list of 20 guys to whom the instigator rule doesn't apply. Want to instigate a fight with Sean Avery? Go nuts. The list could be maintained on the basis of an ongoign poll on NHL.com.
re: Torres: When you say he's dirty, do you mean that he violates the rules? Because I can see saying that the hits he throws that hurt people shouldn't be allowed, I just can't see how they're illegal. The Williams hit in particular - Torres was gliding when he hit him.
I agree with the idea that head hits are bad, but I don't know how you can call the guys who throw them dirty under the present rules.
# posted by : November 26, 2008 10:32 am
: November 26, 2008 10:32 am @Hacker's In: Let's just say the rulebook and I have our differences over what constitutes a clean hit. I don't think a fight is necessary after a good, clean hit, but what I consider clean, and what the letter of the law says is clean, are two different things. I suspect the average player's definition of clean is closer to mine than the rulebook's, based on the evidence before us.
A hard hit that sends a guy flying: fine, whatever. I didn't see the hit on Langkow, so I can't comment, but there's lots of clean but spectacular hits that get responses, and I don't think it's really necessary. A hard hit that turns into a head shot through no fault of the hitter, such as the Weight-Sutter hit: I can see why a player would respond, but I don't think that's necessary, or even fair. A hard hit that involves avoidable head contact, such as the Sauer and Hollweg hits: no, you have to respond to that. Those guys could've gone in with their arms six inches lower and had just as solid a hit.
@Tyler: The solution, of course, is to change the rules, but good luck with that. The NHL seems to see head shots as an all or none proposition, where either you ban all hits or you ban none, and I think that's completely bogus. As I noted before, I find it baffling that hitting someone in the head with your elbow or fist warrants a suspension, while hitting them with a forearm warrants a trip to the highlight reel. Because that's not fucking dangerous or avoidable at all.
@Doogie and Lord Bob, mainly, a few thoughts:
- You may not like the job Colin Campbell does distinguishing egregious hits from clean ones, but a player-avenger who catches a real-time glimpse of a hit out of the corner of his eye is even worse at it (see: Bourque, Rene).
- Players can avenge bad acts without getting an Instigator, and frankly it can work out a lot better that way. See S-Mac and Vandermeer/Pouliot in the preseason. That whole situation is over and "policed"; if MacIntyre starts that fight before V is ready and willing, it might not be and might have run into the regular season.
- I repeat again: when assessing the merits of the Instigator penalty, it seems awfully important to stick close to the situations that are presently being deterred by it and forget about the ones that aren't. Jonathan Roy, or Darren McCarty on Claude Lemieux, or Rene Bourque on Blake Sloan, or Trent Hunter on Mike Mottau, did what they did in spite of the existing Instigator penalty. If it's repealed tomorrow, Matthew Lombardi isn't suddenly going to be up in people's faces.
Repealing the Instigator penalty will lead to more people instigating fights and more fights. Maybe a few of these will feature some gutless puke who hits dirty being Instigated On, although per a couple examples in the paragraph above, that still happens anyway in egregious cases. Many will not; they will simply feature an involuntary combatant versus a guy who's pissed that he's down 4 goals, or who wants to impress his coach, or who thought the last goal celebration was excessive, or who's in a higher weight class, or ETC. And the bad will come with the good.
BTW, Matt, good stuff on the concept of the instigator rule and ramifications of getting rid of it.
I have no strong, strong feelings on the rule, at this point, but advocate far, far, far longer suspensions handed out far, far, far more often as the best way to deal with the Raffis of the world (as I said in my original post).
While more and lengthier suspensions may not deter hotheads in the moment, teams will grow tired of paying suspended hotheads, the hotheads will not be able to injury anyone when they are suspended, and I do believe they will reconsider their reckless and violent play as they go forward, and realize their place on the team was put in danger by their long absence, not to mention whatever financial penalties are incurred.
To add to what David said, heavier suspension and don't allow teams to dress a replacement player. That way players that are suspended hurt their team and in the player code that is a big deal
# posted by : November 27, 2008 8:39 am
: November 27, 2008 8:39 am You may not like the job Colin Campbell does distinguishing egregious hits from clean ones, but a player-avenger who catches a real-time glimpse of a hit out of the corner of his eye is even worse at it (see: Bourque, Rene).
True as that may be, the fact of the matter is, as long as Colin Campbell continues to hand out baffling sentences, no one is going to have any faith in the NHL's supplementary discipline system, and as long as players (A) don't have any faith in the system, and (B) are allowed to fight at all, they will take matters into their own hands. Sometimes they'll make poor judgments, but I'm not sold on them actually being worse at calling a hit "dirty," all things considered.
Players can avenge bad acts without getting an Instigator, and frankly it can work out a lot better that way. See S-Mac and Vandermeer/Pouliot in the preseason. That whole situation is over and "policed"; if MacIntyre starts that fight before V is ready and willing, it might not be and might have run into the regular season.
I can't really argue that, except to point out that grudge-match recursion might be considered by some a good side storyline to the BoA. Most times, I tend to forget about grudge matches between games, unless they happen within a week or two, and I was pretty satisfied with how it all turned out as it was, so if anything, I could see myself getting annoyed if the story dragged on, but to each his own, I guess.
And regarding the bad coming with the good, I think a lot of that could be dealt with by making better use of the Aggressor rule. From Note 1, Rule 56b:
It is the intent and purpose of this Rule that the Referee shall impose the "major and game misconduct" penalty in all cases where the instigator or retaliator of the fight is the aggressor and is plainly doing so for the purpose of intimidation or punishment.
Look, I don't think it's realistic that the instigator is going to be repealed at any point ever. I'm just saying that there are circumstances where a beatdown can be justified, above and beyond where the rulebook says that a victim has been hard done by, and that the instigator can have the (unintended) effect of rewarding a player for making a questionable hit.
Post a Comment
<< Home
