Hawerchuk Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Please, in laymens terms what is the damn Instigaor rule? No fancy talk, just plain English. I've been watching hockey 25+ years and I still can't figure it out. Thanks SabreHeads!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabregoats Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 From my understanding it basically adds an extra penalty to a player who instigates a fight. That is if a player is the first to drop his gloves he will receive an extra 2 minutes. the rule effectively makes all fights occur between two fighters (they will both drop their gloves at the same time). I believe their is also some sort of fine that goes along with an instigator penalty. The rule also stops players from defending teammates by throwing a punch at the offending player. If this explanation is off someone please correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Balls Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Basically what it sounds like. You instigate a fight, you get the extra 2, plus a misconduct I believe. And after your 2nd instigator (maybe it's the 3rd) a 1 game suspension comes with it. It's to keep the goons from going out and pummeling the nancy-boys on the ice for cheapshotting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 If you want to read the non-plain English rulebook entry, go HERE. Apparently there is a lot more to consider than just who throws the gloves off first: An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season. The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant. A player must be deemed the aggressor when he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 It's back to the Refs controlling the game...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawerchuk Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Thanks guys. That explains it. Don't know if its necessary or not though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Thanks guys. That explains it. Don't know if its necessary or not though? It can be argued both ways. On one hand, you have the game being controlled by the refs. It is their job to call a penalty and to control any extra curricular activities. On the other hand, the instigator rule penalizes players from policing themselves. One can argue that slashing, stomping, and general bad sportsmanship type of penalties or non-penalties go unpunished on the ice. For example, if there was no instigator rule, you better damn well believe that peters would have sucker punched malkin in retaliation to laroque's elbow to paetsch. Or, from the canes game, if there was no instigator rule, someone would have ripped off john graham's mask and punched him, taking a 2 minute roughing call in retaliation to his punch of paille or goose or whoever it was. Personally, the instigator rule is great in theory. It SHOULD work, and work well. However, in practice, it is terrible. Traditional hockey goons are being phased out of the league in favor of cheap shot artists who injure the players and give the league a black eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 It can be argued both ways. On one hand, you have the game being controlled by the refs. It is their job to call a penalty and to control any extra curricular activities. On the other hand, the instigator rule penalizes players from policing themselves. One can argue that slashing, stomping, and general bad sportsmanship type of penalties or non-penalties go unpunished on the ice. For example, if there was no instigator rule, you better damn well believe that peters would have sucker punched malkin in retaliation to laroque's elbow to paetsch. Or, from the canes game, if there was no instigator rule, someone would have ripped off john graham's mask and punched him, taking a 2 minute roughing call in retaliation to his punch of paille or goose or whoever it was. Personally, the instigator rule is great in theory. It SHOULD work, and work well. However, in practice, it is terrible. Traditional hockey goons are being phased out of the league in favor of cheap shot artists who injure the players and give the league a black eye. Redressed Communism, IMHO. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 It's back to the Refs controlling the game...... Which is sad because they are the least qualified. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 <snip> Traditional hockey goons are being phased out of the league in favor of cheap shot artists who injure the players and give the league a black eye. And that's why IMO it needs to go - although I'm sure it won't anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.