SabresFan526 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=ap-g...p&type=lgns So, it looks like the NHL GMs are looking at eliminating the staged fights, immediately after the faceoffs or between two goons that the refs consider to be having a staged fight. One of two things will happen, since the guys who do most of this type of fighting end up with only 2-3 minutes of ice time per game, having them sit in the box for an additional 10 minutes on top of their fighting major really means nothing. The other aspect as that this will discourage staged fights. From what I can tell, if this rule is adopted by the NHL Competition Committee and the Board of Governors, it effectively ends the career of Andrew Peters as I have never once seen him not have a staged fight. The theory of protecting "star" players doesn't seem to be his role as I've never seen him skate with a "star" player except for when Max was demoted to the fourth line. I, personally, don't have a problem with Peters and I don't think he takes up too much money against the cap, but if this rule gets passed, I really don't see any role he has for the Sabres or in the NHL in general as he immediately becomes rendered useless. I just don't see how Darcy can justify re-signing him if this rule gets passed. Just my take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=ap-g...p&type=lgns So, it looks like the NHL GMs are looking at eliminating the staged fights, immediately after the faceoffs or between two goons that the refs consider to be having a staged fight. One of two things will happen, since the guys who do most of this type of fighting end up with only 2-3 minutes of ice time per game, having them sit in the box for an additional 10 minutes on top of their fighting major really means nothing. The other aspect as that this will discourage staged fights. From what I can tell, if this rule is adopted by the NHL Competition Committee and the Board of Governors, it effectively ends the career of Andrew Peters as I have never once seen him not have a staged fight. The theory of protecting "star" players doesn't seem to be his role as I've never seen him skate with a "star" player except for when Max was demoted to the fourth line. I, personally, don't have a problem with Peters and I don't think he takes up too much money against the cap, but if this rule gets passed, I really don't see any role he has for the Sabres or in the NHL in general as he immediately becomes rendered useless. I just don't see how Darcy can justify re-signing him if this rule gets passed. Just my take. This won't take. A kid died in juniors fighting which sparked the discussion this year. Remove fighting from the game and suddenly GM's will be wondering why their $6 Million goaltenders and snipers are layed up 40 games every season from getting run. This will die down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Just proves what a soft league the NHL has become. Obviously fighting is a polarizing issue, but it's just another way for the NHL to turn the game into finesse Euro-trash brand of hockey. And that will appeal to some fans. To each his/her own. But all of this talk about outlawing fighting combined with some of the ridiculous penalty calls I've seen on clean and legal hits recently leads me to believe the NHL's goal must be finesse Euro-hockey. They want to neuter the game. Now the latest--they want to increase the frequency of instigator calls. This just proves how ass backwards the NHL is. All the instigator does is make cheap shot artists not have to answer the bell for their garbage. The message that is sent: hack, high-stick, and slash players all you want, because you won't have to be accountable. And don't stick up for your teammates either! This just frustrates the hell out of me. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 It seems easy, get rid of the instigator penalty and you get rid of the staged "after fights". Dun. Next rule? Someone hits your guy, U kick his ass and he thinks twice next time. What good is it if one of their guys hit a good player on your team and two totally different guys go at it? None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 This won't take. A kid died in juniors fighting which sparked the discussion this year. Remove fighting from the game and suddenly GM's will be wondering why their $6 Million goaltenders and snipers are layed up 40 games every season from getting run. This will die down. Nope. Scott Burnside summed it up perfectly: Want to know why the debate over fighting in the National Hockey League will never be resolved? It's because, for the most part, people in the NHL don't see that there's a debate about fighting at all. Fighting is part of the game. Has been since the days when they used frozen horse dung and curved tree branches. Move along, people. Nothing to look at here. "To me, it's not a debate within the game," Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke said Monday during the first day of the annual GMs meetings here. "It's a debate that's raging around [the game]." ------------ It is a hot-button topic at these meetings not because there is any movement from within the league to dramatically alter the place of fighting in the game but rather as a result of external pressures stemming from external events. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=3965861 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 First, of all, I don't think anything will necessarily happen here. Not sure if these rule changes will pass the competition committee. Second, I like fighting. I think it needs to be part of the game and it's fun and exciting. I could do without the staged goon fights because those fights have nothing to do with the game at hand or the flow of the game. I'm not really against doing away with those. BUT, I am against greater enforcement of the instigator rule and frankly I'm against the rule altogether. I don't like these guerilla pu$$ies who come out with borderline legal checks and are not held accountable. Also, if the league has no intention of doing anything about hits to the head, which seems to be the case based on what I've read at the GM Meetings today, then players should be held accountable for their actions and they should be destroyed for what I consider cheap shots whether they are legal or not. I don't need a staged Andrew Peters fight for their to be enforcement, but I don't think cheap shot artists should not be held accountable for legal but dirty shots. Hits to the head are dirty whether they are legal or not and if the league thinks these hits are legal, then the league should allow for retaliation on hits to the head. It's irresponsible if players are going to take out the best players in the NHL with hits to the head and those chicken :censored: are not held accountable. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anzaloha Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=ap-g...p&type=lgns So, it looks like the NHL GMs are looking at eliminating the staged fights, immediately after the faceoffs or between two goons that the refs consider to be having a staged fight. One of two things will happen, since the guys who do most of this type of fighting end up with only 2-3 minutes of ice time per game, having them sit in the box for an additional 10 minutes on top of their fighting major really means nothing. The other aspect as that this will discourage staged fights. From what I can tell, if this rule is adopted by the NHL Competition Committee and the Board of Governors, it effectively ends the career of Andrew Peters as I have never once seen him not have a staged fight. The theory of protecting "star" players doesn't seem to be his role as I've never seen him skate with a "star" player except for when Max was demoted to the fourth line. I, personally, don't have a problem with Peters and I don't think he takes up too much money against the cap, but if this rule gets passed, I really don't see any role he has for the Sabres or in the NHL in general as he immediately becomes rendered useless. I just don't see how Darcy can justify re-signing him if this rule gets passed. Just my take. Because he doesn't skate on the same line as a star player, doesn't mean he is not protect him. If you think that, then you don't really understand his role and shouldnt comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 They shouldn't have to change rules to get Peters out of the game. You would think pride would take care of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 They shouldn't have to change rules to get Peters out of the game. You would think pride would take care of that. You beat me to the punch. Peters should have been off the Sabres roster two years ago, rule change or not. To think that Regier has been bringing back Peters year after year when he has built this soft team of finesse players is mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I don't think many of you fully processed what this topic is about. It's not about removing fighting from hockey. It's not about removing a players ability to protect his teammates. It's about removing pointless STAGED fighting that accomplishes nothing. I'm sorry but Andrew Peters does not protect his teammates. Guys like Paul Gaustad and Craig Rivet protect their teammates. Andrew Peters takes a few swings at the other teams designated punching bag (and only if the designated punching bag agrees to it before hand). How does that discourage the other team from taking liberties? Andrew Peters was in the game when Connolly got run over by Tchachuk back in the fall. What did he do about it? Nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Because he doesn't skate on the same line as a star player, doesn't mean he is not protect him. If you think that, then you don't really understand his role and shouldnt comment on it. Can you give me an example of when Peters protected a star player in his career? If you give me one, I can give you 5 or 6 examples this year of when Gaustad, Mair, and Rivet have protected players. Second, can you give me an example of when Peters did not have a staged fight as defined by this potential rule change? I have been watching Peters over the last 5 years and I cannot think of one example when he has not had a fight off the faceoff or with the other team's designated goon that did not look prearranged as per this potential rule change. If you can justify his cap hit with this potential rule change, go ahead. Also, when you look at the history of enforcers until about the last 5 years, their role was to protect star players. That is specifically why Dave Semenko actually skated on a line with Wayne Gretzky. That is why Marty McSorley was often on the ice when Gretzky was on the ice. It is why Bob Probert or Joe Kocur often skated with Steve Yzerman in the early years. It is why Kelly Chase often skated with Brett Hull in St. Louis. If the role of the enforcer is to protect the star players, how can said enforcer do that when he is not on the ice with the star player? If the "enforcer" is only playing against another team's fourth line with its own enforcer, what protection does fighting the other team's designated goon provide? Clearly, it is you that does not understand the role of the enforcer and the history of hockey, not I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think it means Peters starts to see 9 minutes a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.