Sid the Kid's Press Conference

[LGR4GM]

Sid is finally going to answer concussion questions and we may finally know if he will play this season. I hope he does, personally I think Crosby has done a lot of great things for the sport of Hockey even though I absolutely despise him... of course if he was a Sabre that would change. I feel like this deserves its own thread as his concussion is a huge deal to this sport and the league. I won't be home to listen but I am very interested in hearing what he has to say and if he will be like Savard and be hurt for possibly life.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=375241

 

http://pittsburgh.sbnation.com/pittsburgh-penguins/2011/9/6/2407707/sidney-crosby-press-conference-wednesday-penguins

[darksabre]

I don't think he's going to tell us anything, personally.

[Eleven]

I think he shouldn't say a whole lot more than his condolences regarding the KHL team crash and that his conference will be rescheduled.

[nfreeman]

I think he shouldn't say a whole lot more than his condolences regarding the KHL team crash and that his conference will be rescheduled.

good call.

[beerme1]

I suspect that he will announce he will not be playing this season and will continue therapy and decide on the future next off season.

[Andrew Amerk]

I think he shouldn't say a whole lot more than his condolences regarding the KHL team crash and that his conference will be rescheduled.

 

This.

[spndnchz]

He's at 80%

No timetable for his return.

He says is likely that he will play this season.

Doctors say he's made tremendous progress since January.

GM says they won't let him play until he's 100%.

[thesportsbuff]

He's at 80%

No timetable for his return.

He says is likely that he will play this season.

Doctors say he's made tremendous progress since January.

GM says they won't let him play until he's 100%.

 

Asked if he ever considered retirement, SC responded that he never considered retirement but knows the risks of the injury. He acknowledged there's a "slight possibility" he may never play again, but says "I wouldn't bet on it."

[notwoz]

I didn't watch the news conference, but a teaser on the Pirates' post-game show included a statement from a person who I can only infer is the doctor. He's quoted as saying he sees 4,000 cases a year. Based on an assumption that he works 250 days a year, that caseload is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 cases a day. That's one every half hour -- and I'm not sure that such an assembly-line approach would make me confortable with my treatment. I think that if I went to a doctor about a concussion, I'd expect more than 30 minutes from the doctor. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but that's what I think.

[LGR4GM]

sounds like Sid plans on being back this season which is good but I wonder how well he will play after missing what will be probably a year. I think its a shame that skilled players lose a year to these injuries but the thugs lose 1-2 games... Shanahan needs to correct this injustice

 

Illegal hit resulting in injury (as determined by league doctors not team doctors): Automatic 10 game suspension with an extra 5 games added for each previous infraction... Also ditch the instigator penalty. Bet ya if that were the case crosby would probably be playing in a couple weeks.

[Andrew Amerk]

80% of the time, it works 20% everytime.

[Taro T]

sounds like Sid plans on being back this season which is good but I wonder how well he will play after missing what will be probably a year. I think its a shame that skilled players lose a year to these injuries but the thugs lose 1-2 games... Shanahan needs to correct this injustice

 

Illegal hit resulting in injury (as determined by league doctors not team doctors): Automatic 10 game suspension with an extra 5 games added for each previous infraction... Also ditch the instigator penalty. Bet ya if that were the case crosby would probably be playing in a couple weeks.

By all indications, the hit by Steckel that sent Crosby out was not intentional. How exactly does removing the instigator penalty bring Crosby back 'in a couple of weeks?'

 

Crosby plays on a team w/ one of the worst current headhunters in the league; do you really think that Cooke didn't retaliate because he was worried about getting a game suspension for instigating?

 

If you take away the instigator penalty, you will encourage the lousy teams in the league to add several goons to their lineup. (If you can't beat 'em on the ice, maybe you can beat 'em on the ice.) You will also then force teams such as Buffalo and Detroit that don't have a true goon in their lineup to add one (or more) as well. Would the Sabres really be more entertaining to watch with Andrew Peters in the lineup instead of Cody McCormick?

 

Adding more goons to the game and putting an added premium on physicality makes it that much tougher for a young Danny Briere or Tyler Ennis to get a chance to crack an NHL lineup as GMs and coaches get reluctant to see whether their skills can offset their huge size disadvantage.

 

I'm not certain how you plan on implementing your 'illegal hit resulting in an injury' getting an automatic 10 games either. Crosby played the next game after the Steckel hit (and had played the previous one as well, where he'd taken a pretty viscious hit as well), when Sid finally starts missing games, do you go back and retroactively suspend Steckel (for his non-illegal hit) or the Islander that hit Crosby, or both?

 

Head injuries are NOT clear cut. Doctors are finding out now that individuals can pass the tests and still have issues. They also on occassion can be unconscious for a brief interval and not suffer any noticeable ill effects.

[LGR4GM]

1) By all indications, the hit by Steckel that sent Crosby out was not intentional. How exactly does removing the instigator penalty bring Crosby back 'in a couple of weeks?'

 

2) Crosby plays on a team w/ one of the worst current headhunters in the league; do you really think that Cooke didn't retaliate because he was worried about getting a game suspension for instigating?

 

3) If you take away the instigator penalty, you will encourage the lousy teams in the league to add several goons to their lineup. (If you can't beat 'em on the ice, maybe you can beat 'em on the ice.) You will also then force teams such as Buffalo and Detroit that don't have a true goon in their lineup to add one (or more) as well. Would the Sabres really be more entertaining to watch with Andrew Peters in the lineup instead of Cody McCormick?

 

4) Adding more goons to the game and putting an added premium on physicality makes it that much tougher for a young Danny Briere or Tyler Ennis to get a chance to crack an NHL lineup as GMs and coaches get reluctant to see whether their skills can offset their huge size disadvantage.

 

5) I'm not certain how you plan on implementing your 'illegal hit resulting in an injury' getting an automatic 10 games either. Crosby played the next game after the Steckel hit (and had played the previous one as well, where he'd taken a pretty viscious hit as well), when Sid finally starts missing games, do you go back and retroactively suspend Steckel (for his non-illegal hit) or the Islander that hit Crosby, or both?

 

6) Head injuries are NOT clear cut. Doctors are finding out now that individuals can pass the tests and still have issues. They also on occassion can be unconscious for a brief interval and not suffer any noticeable ill effects.

I will address this 1 point at a time.

 

1) Crosby would have been more protected on the Steckel hit and I have watched the replay a lot and something about the way it unfolds just doesnt look right... Steckel leans into crosby right before it happens. I am suggesting that if you could protect your own then it may help eliminate some of the issues

 

2) I think cooke wasn't on the ice originally and that he is a coward. Also along those same lines you contradict yourself later...

 

3) If goons arent worried about instigators which you say cooke wouldnt be then goons would be beating everyone up wouldnt they? Instead goons take cheap shots when refs backs are turned and then get away with everything because no one can touch them... Also why would it mean more goons had to play? It would have the opposite effect because goons would get dealt with and then both sides would be minus a player. As it stands the instigator penalty in its current form does more bad than good.

 

4) You are adding more goons because you think getting rid of the instigator would result in more goons but I have to say Myers, Weber, Goose, and others are not goons and could take care of issues on the ice, not to mention if this goon took out a key player which would probably be from a cheap shot not a fight and he received nothing then wheres the lack of physicality now?

 

5) If the hit is deemed illegal and effects set in then the punishment takes effect plain and simple, now you just want to be obtuse and confuse the issue with a lot of what ifs.

 

6) If you miss more than 1 game due to injury and are examined by a doctor it automatically defaults and your gone for 10 games... its pretty simple

 

I dont disagree with what you say but I think the instigator does more harm than good that just IMHO

[Taro T]

I will address this 1 point at a time.

 

1) Crosby would have been more protected on the Steckel hit and I have watched the replay a lot and something about the way it unfolds just doesnt look right... Steckel leans into crosby right before it happens. I am suggesting that if you could protect your own then it may help eliminate some of the issues

 

2) I think cooke wasn't on the ice originally and that he is a coward. Also along those same lines you contradict yourself later...

 

3) If goons arent worried about instigators which you say cooke wouldnt be then goons would be beating everyone up wouldnt they? Instead goons take cheap shots when refs backs are turned and then get away with everything because no one can touch them... Also why would it mean more goons had to play? It would have the opposite effect because goons would get dealt with and then both sides would be minus a player. As it stands the instigator penalty in its current form does more bad than good.

 

4) You are adding more goons because you think getting rid of the instigator would result in more goons but I have to say Myers, Weber, Goose, and others are not goons and could take care of issues on the ice, not to mention if this goon took out a key player which would probably be from a cheap shot not a fight and he received nothing then wheres the lack of physicality now?

 

5) If the hit is deemed illegal and effects set in then the punishment takes effect plain and simple, now you just want to be obtuse and confuse the issue with a lot of what ifs.

 

6) If you miss more than 1 game due to injury and are examined by a doctor it automatically defaults and your gone for 10 games... its pretty simple

 

I dont disagree with what you say but I think the instigator does more harm than good that just IMHO

1 - How would he be 'more protected' from an accidental hit? Would removing the instigator have kept Pat LaFontaine in the league another month or 2?

 

2 - Well, with no instigator rule, Cooke (or whatever goon you choose, he happens to be that squad's resident cheapshot artist) could go out on Steckel's next shift and just go up to him and beat the crap out of him. Even with the instigator rule, had the Pens deemed the hit far enough out of line, they would have addressed it. They didn't, so might that tell you something about how they viewed the hit?

 

Did the instigator rule prevent Stafford from going after Neil? When it's raw and true, the instigator doesn't deter anything - and it shouldn't in that situation. What it does do is keep the '74 Phlyers from re-taking the ice - which it should do.

 

Did the instigator rule keep Brad May from goading Todd Bertuzzi into nearly killing Steve Moore for a play that happened ~ a month earlier? Nope. Taking the instigator out of the rulebook encourages that behavior. Actions have consequences - taking the instigator out would be such an action.

 

3 - You clearly do not understand nuance. In THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE - the Pens would not have been concerned about the instigator. They didn't appear to be terribly concerned about the instigator in their game near the end of the year against the Isles. (At a minimum, the Isles weren't concerned about it that game.)

 

And you are very grossly mistaken if you believe cheapshots didn't exist in an instigator-less league. The way to remove cheapshots is to severely punish the infractor in such cases - it isn't to 'let the players police it themselves.' Hopefully, now that Shanny is in charge of league discipline they'll move in that direction. (But I won't hold my breath expecting/ waiting for it to happen.)

 

4 - So you're going to have Tyler Myers squaring off with a Georges Laroque or a Derek Boogaard? Really? (Great ###### plan.)

 

It is expensive to put a talented team on the ice and it is very expensive to put a talented winning entertaining team on the ice. To do it in a salary capped world, you have to draft well and get some younger, cheaper, talented players. Not every GM is capable of doing this (clearly). If you can't put an entertaining product on the ice via the players' skills, there is another way to get bodies into the seats. That's by putting a 'rugged' team out on the ice. Ever bother to watch videos of the Sabres' 1st year under Nolan? They couldn't beat ANYBODY, but they beat up most everybody, and teams really hated playing in the Aud that year. I guarantee you that without the instigator, you'll see the thugs coming back into the game. (Apologies, I don't have time to craft this point more clearly.)

 

The level of play has never been better than it is right now. I don't see why anyone would want to make changes to the rules that will give more of an edge to players that don't have the skills to compete at that level; regardless of whether they be bringing more fighting back to the game or more obstruction.

 

5 - Not being obtuse at all. Just looking at it realistically and pointing out that it is far grayer than you'd admit. That you can't address the gray areas of your suggestion is telling.

 

6 - What does your response to what you have #'d as paragraph 6 in my initial post, have to do with what I actually posted? As mentioned previously, DOCTORS can't agree on exactly what constitutes a concussion; it'd be easy for a borderline player to fake one.

 

And it's not realistic to think gamesmanship wouldn't occur. (Heck, there is a reason the refs check players for blood from high sticking instances immediately before anyone gets to check the player out. The Bruins' trainers were believed to have players bite on blood 'pills' to have blood pour out of their mouths upon examination.)

 

As a slightly different example. Suppose my team has Pat Kaleta on it's roster and he takes a minor slash from Alexander Ovechkin and 'breaks his wrist' and is out for 5 games, Ovie is automatically out as well? I'm certain there wouldn't be any gaming of that system. <_<

 

If I had the time, I'm certain that I could easily envision a dozen situations that makes your 'it's pretty simple' look pretty silly.

 

Removing the instigator is very poorly thought out on your part (and Mike Milbury's and Don Cherry's as well). Take a look at some of the stuff that went on prior to its implementation, and you'd see examples of why that is. And you do disagree w/ what I say - which is fine. (I'd consider that you disagree w/ me as you've just listed 6 separate items on which you believe we do disagree. If, that's what you consider agreement, I'd be very interested in seeing what you consider disagreement.) You are entitled to your opinion.

[qwksndmonster]

Great posts, Taro. A great read.

[LGR4GM]

1 - How would he be 'more protected' from an accidental hit? Would removing the instigator have kept Pat LaFontaine in the league another month or 2?

 

2 - Well, with no instigator rule, Cooke (or whatever goon you choose, he happens to be that squad's resident cheapshot artist) could go out on Steckel's next shift and just go up to him and beat the crap out of him. Even with the instigator rule, had the Pens deemed the hit far enough out of line, they would have addressed it. They didn't, so might that tell you something about how they viewed the hit?

 

Did the instigator rule prevent Stafford from going after Neil? When it's raw and true, the instigator doesn't deter anything - and it shouldn't in that situation. What it does do is keep the '74 Phlyers from re-taking the ice - which it should do.

 

Did the instigator rule keep Brad May from goading Todd Bertuzzi into nearly killing Steve Moore for a play that happened ~ a month earlier? Nope. Taking the instigator out of the rulebook encourages that behavior. Actions have consequences - taking the instigator out would be such an action.

 

3 - You clearly do not understand nuance. In THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE - the Pens would not have been concerned about the instigator. They didn't appear to be terribly concerned about the instigator in their game near the end of the year against the Isles. (At a minimum, the Isles weren't concerned about it that game.)

 

And you are very grossly mistaken if you believe cheapshots didn't exist in an instigator-less league. The way to remove cheapshots is to severely punish the infractor in such cases - it isn't to 'let the players police it themselves.' Hopefully, now that Shanny is in charge of league discipline they'll move in that direction. (But I won't hold my breath expecting/ waiting for it to happen.)

 

4 - So you're going to have Tyler Myers squaring off with a Georges Laroque or a Derek Boogaard? Really? (Great ###### plan.)

 

It is expensive to put a talented team on the ice and it is very expensive to put a talented winning entertaining team on the ice. To do it in a salary capped world, you have to draft well and get some younger, cheaper, talented players. Not every GM is capable of doing this (clearly). If you can't put an entertaining product on the ice via the players' skills, there is another way to get bodies into the seats. That's by putting a 'rugged' team out on the ice. Ever bother to watch videos of the Sabres' 1st year under Nolan? They couldn't beat ANYBODY, but they beat up most everybody, and teams really hated playing in the Aud that year. I guarantee you that without the instigator, you'll see the thugs coming back into the game. (Apologies, I don't have time to craft this point more clearly.)

 

The level of play has never been better than it is right now. I don't see why anyone would want to make changes to the rules that will give more of an edge to players that don't have the skills to compete at that level; regardless of whether they be bringing more fighting back to the game or more obstruction.

 

5 - Not being obtuse at all. Just looking at it realistically and pointing out that it is far grayer than you'd admit. That you can't address the gray areas of your suggestion is telling.

 

6 - What does your response to what you have #'d as paragraph 6 in my initial post, have to do with what I actually posted? As mentioned previously, DOCTORS can't agree on exactly what constitutes a concussion; it'd be easy for a borderline player to fake one.

 

And it's not realistic to think gamesmanship wouldn't occur. (Heck, there is a reason the refs check players for blood from high sticking instances immediately before anyone gets to check the player out. The Bruins' trainers were believed to have players bite on blood 'pills' to have blood pour out of their mouths upon examination.)

 

As a slightly different example. Suppose my team has Pat Kaleta on it's roster and he takes a minor slash from Alexander Ovechkin and 'breaks his wrist' and is out for 5 games, Ovie is automatically out as well? I'm certain there wouldn't be any gaming of that system. <_<

 

If I had the time, I'm certain that I could easily envision a dozen situations that makes your 'it's pretty simple' look pretty silly.

 

Removing the instigator is very poorly thought out on your part (and Mike Milbury's and Don Cherry's as well). Take a look at some of the stuff that went on prior to its implementation, and you'd see examples of why that is. And you do disagree w/ what I say - which is fine. (I'd consider that you disagree w/ me as you've just listed 6 separate items on which you believe we do disagree. If, that's what you consider agreement, I'd be very interested in seeing what you consider disagreement.) You are entitled to your opinion.

I think you took my post far to seriously and literally. I don't disagree with what you say, I just suggested that maybe the instigator should go and you provided reasons why that is a bad idea... I dont disagree with the reasons or the premise.

 

I was saying that if players policed themselves better than some of this could be eliminated instead of just going back after the retaliator which in a way helps propagate the acts of others. Kaleta, Avery, Cooke are all pests who try to get teams to retaliate. Cooke especially likes to hit people blindsided. Maybe if he was losing 10-15 games a season cuz of his actions he might reconsider.

 

Also you disregarded the point of punishing players for blindsided hits. I am not saying if ovechkin slashes someone he gets 10 games... I am saying if ovechkin blindsided Luke Adam and Adam is going to miss time because of a illegal dangerous hit then Ovechkin should be suspended.

 

Also I say that the League Doctor has the final say on an injury and if it falls into the category of concussion. That eliminates or at least severely restricts teams from just being like ooo he hit my guy and now he is injured.

 

You say that Doctors can't agree on a concussion but guess what a league can say this is what counts as a concussion and doctors can examine players accordingly. Doctors have a good general definition of a concussion and actual medical tests can determine these things. Will some players fake it? Maybe but honestly if it was an illegal play you should know better. The problem is that players do these cheap shots and illegal acts then get a game or 2 while their victims are gone for months or even forever (Marc Savard). Doctors know concussions, at least specialists do, so maybe the league should hire a couple to evaluate players and ct them. Obviously the system in place now has issues. Concussions or suspected ones should be treated with CT scans as well as the normal "test" of a players cognitive abilities.

 

If a player is knocked unconscious and is still unconscious when removed from the ice then that hit should be reviewed immediately. If your fine in a couple days great but make it that you have to sit for a week and that the person who hit you if it was illegal is out for 5games and could be out for the 10 previously mentioned.

 

I will concede that keeping the instigator may be the best option. You are probably right, crosby would still be out regardless because the 2 hits on him were not overtly horrendous. I think right now though it is being taken advantage of. Also you say that teams if they feel something is illegal would react... The game happens so fast that teams might not even see it to react. Everyone saw the Neal hit on drury because it was right in front of the whole team.

 

I like the complete exaggeration on the Myers v Boogard thing.... I am saying that if a goon did do something a good player could deal with it you do not have to have 10 goons on a team to ensure all is well. I dont think it will change the league as much as you think. Why? Well even with this penalty as it stands there is still a large number of cheap shots and illegal hits. There was before the penalty and the penalty may have curtailed some of it but players always figure out ways around the rules.

 

Bottom line is Crosby's concussion may have just been two iffy plays that had really bad results but other players like Marc Savard have been maimed by blatantly illegal hits and if a serious penalty for them was introduced then it could help. Obviously gameplay and time would determine if that were true but I still think the instigator penalty helps the cheap shot guy more than the poor sap who just got crossed checked into the boards.

 

I have not stated anywhere that a minor penalty resulting in an injury should be a 10 game suspension... I said a illegal hit resulting in a injury as determined by league doctors should be a 10 game suspension and who knows maybe 10 is to much maybe it should be 5 then +5 for each additional infraction and that should reset each season... Idk maybe instead of just basically saying I am right, you are wrong and stupid, we could discuss this.

 

Final thought here, you are trying to make me have an air tight argument by tossing in exceptions and what if's... I am more than willing to acknowledge that this would not solve every problem and that ppl would take advantage of it. There is no 100% air tight solution to blindside and illegal hits but discussing ideas like the removal or modification of the instigator penalty is a way for us to flesh out some ideas that could make the situation better. Look at TC for example, how many concussions did he have... A lot and now he is not the same player. When will these goons as you call them be punished properly.

 

I find it interesting how many times you personally go after me in your post as well... thats telling. This board does not suffer open conversation.

[Taro T]

I think you took my post far to seriously and literally.

 

I was saying that if players policed themselves better than some of this could be eliminated instead of just going back after the retaliator which in a way helps propagate the acts of others. Kaleta, Avery, Cooke are all pests who try to get teams to retaliate. Cooke especially likes to hit people blindsided. Maybe if he was losing 10-15 games a season cuz of his actions he might reconsider.

 

Also you disregarded the point of punishing players for blindsided hits. I am not saying if ovechkin slashes someone he gets 10 games... I am saying if ovechkin blindsided Luke Adam and Adam is going to miss time because of a illegal dangerous hit then Ovechkin should be suspended.

 

Also I say that the League Doctor has the final say on an injury and if it falls into the category of concussion. That eliminates or at least severely restricts teams from just being like ooo he hit my guy and now he is injured.

 

You say that Doctors can't agree on a concussion but guess what a league can say this is what counts as a concussion and doctors can examine players accordingly. Doctors have a good general definition of a concussion and actual medical tests can determine these things. Will some players fake it? Maybe but honestly if it was an illegal play you should know better. The problem is that players do these cheap shots and illegal acts then get a game or 2 while their victims are gone for months or even forever (Marc Savard). Doctors know concussions, at least specialists do, so maybe the league should hire a couple to evaluate players and ct them. Obviously the system in place now has issues. Concussions or suspected ones should be treated with CT scans as well as the normal "test" of a players cognitive abilities.

 

If a player is knocked unconscious and is still unconscious when removed from the ice then that hit should be reviewed immediately. If your fine in a couple days great but make it that you have to sit for a week and that the person who hit you if it was illegal is out for 5games and could be out for the 10 previously mentioned.

 

I will concede that keeping the instigator may be the best option. You are probably right, crosby would still be out regardless because the 2 hits on him were not overtly horrendous. I think right now though it is being taken advantage of. Also you say that teams if they feel something is illegal would react... The game happens so fast that teams might not even see it to react. Everyone saw the Neal hit on drury because it was right in front of the whole team.

 

I like the complete exaggeration on the Myers v Boogard thing.... I am saying that if a goon did do something a good player could deal with it you do not have to have 10 goons on a team to ensure all is well. I dont think it will change the league as much as you think. Why? Well even with this penalty as it stands there is still a large number of cheap shots and illegal hits. There was before the penalty and the penalty may have curtailed some of it but players always figure out ways around the rules.

 

Bottom line is Crosby's concussion may have just been two iffy plays that had really bad results but other players like Marc Savard have been maimed by blatantly illegal hits and if a serious penalty for them was introduced then it could help. Obviously gameplay and time would determine if that were true but I still think the instigator penalty helps the cheap shot guy more than the poor sap who just got crossed checked into the boards.

 

I have not stated anywhere that a minor penalty resulting in an injury should be a 10 game suspension... I said a illegal hit resulting in a injury as determined by league doctors should be a 10 game suspension and who know maybe 10 is to much maybe it should be 5 then +5 for each additional infraction and that should reset each season... Idk maybe instead of just basically saying I am right you are wrong and stupid we could discuss this.

 

Final thought here, you are trying to make me have an air tight argument by tossing in exceptions and what if's... I am more than willing to acknowledge that this would not solve every problem and that ppl would take advantage of it. There is no 100% air tight solution to blindside and illegal hits but discussing ideas like the removal or modification of the instigator penalty is a way for us to flesh out some ideas that could make the situation better. Look at TC for example, how many concussions did he have... A lot and now he is not the same player. When will these goons as you call them be punished properly.

 

I find it interesting how many times you personally go after me in your post as well... thats telling. This board does not suffer open conversation.

In a written word forum such as this, all we have is your written literal word to go by. You stated that you would like to see the instigator rule removed. I took you at your word on that, and posted reasons why I disagree with that opinion.

 

I did not disregard illegal hits (blindside or otherwise), I stated "(t)he way to remove cheapshots is to severely punish the infractor in such cases - it isn't to 'let the players police it themselves.' Hopefully, now that Shanny is in charge of league discipline they'll move in that direction. (But I won't hold my breath expecting/ waiting for it to happen.)"

 

You are all over the map on this issue, and it is very difficult to have a discussion with you on it. In your above post you have stated that you want the players to police themselves, you want the league to deal with 'illegal blindside hits' (and you continue to stress that one particular form of hit over other illegal hits), you imply that 'pests' are the major source of this problem, you imply that specialists fully understand concussions/ head trauma (try telling that to Tim Connolly or Mark Savard and see how much they agree with that statement), you consider a play that results in a concussion that knocks a player out specifically different from other hits, and that 'a illegal hit resulting in a injury' should result in a suspension but apparently not if the 'illegal hit' was the result of a minor penalty. (That's quite a route to follow.)

 

The Myers-Boogaard item was not an exaggeration.If a team doesn't have ANY goons on its roster and goons are allowed to start (aka 'instigate') fights randomly, that is what the result becomes. Watch some replays of the '70's vintage Phlyers, if you doubt this.

 

I don't go after you personally. I respond to posts that I disagree with. In this thread you are espousing a removal of the instigator rule and also espousing that discipline should be meted on based upon the severity of the outcome of an action. I disagree, strongly, with both these views. My views on the instigator should be clear enough from this and prior posts in this thread (and in other threads).

 

While I agree that if an action IS deemed suspendable, then the severity of an injury should be considered (amongst other factors) in determining the length of the suspension. I absolutely disagree that the result should be the basis for determining whether an action is suspendable. It should be the act itself. If someone throws a good clean shoulder to shoulder body check, the fact that the hittee falls and cracks his head on the ice shouldn't submit the hitter to discipline for the play. If a player trips another one up while he's heading directly towards the boards trying to waive off an icing, then he should be punished for his opponent in a dangerous situation regardless of whether he breaks an ankle or gets up and breaks the tripper's face.

 

And I have been a proponent for a LONG time of taking head shots out of the game. That in and of itself WILL NOT rid the league of concussions. The league is starting to take the issue of head shots seriously, but they are trying to do it on a (reasonably) consistant basis and I look forward to seeing how well they live up to that. And, concussions will ALWAYS be a part of this game - at least as long as its played on ice and with boards surrounding that ice they will.

[LGR4GM]

In a written word forum such as this, all we have is your written literal word to go by. You stated that you would like to see the instigator rule removed. I took you at your word on that, and posted reasons why I disagree with that opinion.

 

I did not disregard illegal hits (blindside or otherwise), I stated "(t)he way to remove cheapshots is to severely punish the infractor in such cases - it isn't to 'let the players police it themselves.' Hopefully, now that Shanny is in charge of league discipline they'll move in that direction. (But I won't hold my breath expecting/ waiting for it to happen.)"

 

You are all over the map on this issue, and it is very difficult to have a discussion with you on it. In your above post you have stated that you want the players to police themselves, you want the league to deal with 'illegal blindside hits' (and you continue to stress that one particular form of hit over other illegal hits), you imply that 'pests' are the major source of this problem, you imply that specialists fully understand concussions/ head trauma (try telling that to Tim Connolly or Mark Savard and see how much they agree with that statement), you consider a play that results in a concussion that knocks a player out specifically different from other hits, and that 'a illegal hit resulting in a injury' should result in a suspension but apparently not if the 'illegal hit' was the result of a minor penalty. (That's quite a route to follow.)

 

The Myers-Boogaard item was not an exaggeration.If a team doesn't have ANY goons on its roster and goons are allowed to start (aka 'instigate') fights randomly, that is what the result becomes. Watch some replays of the '70's vintage Phlyers, if you doubt this.

 

I don't go after you personally. I respond to posts that I disagree with. In this thread you are espousing a removal of the instigator rule and also espousing that discipline should be meted on based upon the severity of the outcome of an action. I disagree, strongly, with both these views. My views on the instigator should be clear enough from this and prior posts in this thread (and in other threads).

 

While I agree that if an action IS deemed suspendable, then the severity of an injury should be considered (amongst other factors) in determining the length of the suspension. I absolutely disagree that the result should be the basis for determining whether an action is suspendable. It should be the act itself. If someone throws a good clean shoulder to shoulder body check, the fact that the hittee falls and cracks his head on the ice shouldn't submit the hitter to discipline for the play. If a player trips another one up while he's heading directly towards the boards trying to waive off an icing, then he should be punished for his opponent in a dangerous situation regardless of whether he breaks an ankle or gets up and breaks the tripper's face.

 

And I have been a proponent for a LONG time of taking head shots out of the game. That in and of itself WILL NOT rid the league of concussions. The league is starting to take the issue of head shots seriously, but they are trying to do it on a (reasonably) consistant basis and I look forward to seeing how well they live up to that. And, concussions will ALWAYS be a part of this game - at least as long as its played on ice and with boards surrounding that ice they will.

Hold up, I never said anything about good clean shoulder checks... I said ILLEGAL hits. I said Illegal hits not regular minor penalties should be used for the 10 game suspension so a an errant slash did not incur a 10 game suspension. Also You introduced the idea of a player being KO'd then ok in a day or two so I was trying to address that for you. Personally I think if you knock someone out on AN ILLEGAL HIT you should get tossed for 10 games but then we are back to the ppl will fake thing. I am have some trouble following you because now we are talking about icing and tripping so lets bring this back and try to keep both our responses confined to:

1) Should the instigator penalty be removed?

2) Should and automatic 10 game suspension be issued for any player that does and illegal hit resulting in a concussion?

 

I see your point on the instigator penalty and your argument was persuasive. I think though that the instigator needs to be revised as in its current form it is being taken advantage of.

 

 

Lets forget about doctors and how to determine a concussion for now because its over complicating the issue. If someone illegal hits a player and that player receives a concussion as a result (right now lets just confine it to concussions and leave out anything else that could happen) then they should be suspended for 10 games. If the injured player returns in 4 or 5 o well, the hitter should have been more careful. Obviously players at various times may fall victim to bad timing but at least it sets a standard. I am not saying the result of any hit I am saying if an ILLEGAL HIT only. Example, if Pommers is skating towards the puck and cooke comes over before he gets there and levels him with a good yet blindsided shoulder check and pommers gets concussed that at a minimum it is 10 games. It is an illegal hit because it was early and a player got injured on the play. Now if a player has the puck and gets leveled kinda like RJ Umburger and Campbell then nothing happens because it was a fair hit. If a player gets blindsided and is unhurt then the hitter should get....? 10 games still, this is where it is definitely gray and I would love another opinion. I think you would say 10 games still but I could be wrong and i do not disagree with that all. If its an illegal hit you get X regardless of the other players injuries, it would solve some of the faking and judging issues for sure. Thoughts?

[shrader]

And I have been a proponent for a LONG time of taking head shots out of the game. That in and of itself WILL NOT rid the league of concussions. The league is starting to take the issue of head shots seriously, but they are trying to do it on a (reasonably) consistant basis and I look forward to seeing how well they live up to that. And, concussions will ALWAYS be a part of this game - at least as long as its played on ice and with boards surrounding that ice they will.

 

I really hope they are, but I can't help but doubt it. The league has officially reached the point where I'll believe it when I see it. We've had this conversation a million times around here and it does seem like things have finally changed a bit with the league, but that still doesn't mean they will finally take the right steps (whatever those are) to start to fix the problem.

[Taro T]

Hold up, I never said anything about good clean shoulder checks... I said ILLEGAL hits. I said Illegal hits not regular minor penalties should be used for the 10 game suspension so a an errant slash did not incur a 10 game suspension. Also You introduced the idea of a player being KO'd then ok in a day or two so I was trying to address that for you. Personally I think if you knock someone out on AN ILLEGAL HIT you should get tossed for 10 games but then we are back to the ppl will fake thing. I am have some trouble following you because now we are talking about icing and tripping so lets bring this back and try to keep both our responses confined to:

1) Should the instigator penalty be removed?

2) Should and automatic 10 game suspension be issued for any player that does and illegal hit resulting in a concussion?

 

I see your point on the instigator penalty and your argument was persuasive. I think though that the instigator needs to be revised as in its current form it is being taken advantage of.

 

 

Lets forget about doctors and how to determine a concussion for now because its over complicating the issue. If someone illegal hits a player and that player receives a concussion as a result (right now lets just confine it to concussions and leave out anything else that could happen) then they should be suspended for 10 games. If the injured player returns in 4 or 5 o well, the hitter should have been more careful. Obviously players at various times may fall victim to bad timing but at least it sets a standard. I am not saying the result of any hit I am saying if an ILLEGAL HIT only. Example, if Pommers is skating towards the puck and cooke comes over before he gets there and levels him with a good yet blindsided shoulder check and pommers gets concussed that at a minimum it is 10 games. It is an illegal hit because it was early and a player got injured on the play. Now if a player has the puck and gets leveled kinda like RJ Umburger and Campbell then nothing happens because it was a fair hit. If a player gets blindsided and is unhurt then the hitter should get....? 10 games still, this is where it is definitely gray and I would love another opinion. I think you would say 10 games still but I could be wrong and i do not disagree with that all. If its an illegal hit you get X regardless of the other players injuries, it would solve some of the faking and judging issues for sure. Thoughts?

1 - I have directly answered this at least 4 times in this thread alone.

 

2 - I have answered this multiple times as well. As with your other question, the answer is "no;" especially when the criteria used to implement this automatic 10 game suspension is an "illegal hit" resulting in a concussion.

[LGR4GM]

1 - I have directly answered this at least 4 times in this thread alone.

 

2 - I have answered this multiple times as well. As with your other question, the answer is "no;" especially when the criteria used to implement this automatic 10 game suspension is an "illegal hit" resulting in a concussion.

then I guess we are done. I just re read everything and it was quite interesting.

[nfreeman]

By all indications, the hit by Steckel that sent Crosby out was not intentional.

I agree with just about all of your posts in this thread, but I thought the hit was intentional, and that Steckel took the opportunity to take a shot at Crosby that would look accidental.

[LGR4GM]

I agree with just about all of your posts in this thread, but I thought the hit was intentional, and that Steckel took the opportunity to take a shot at Crosby that would look accidental.

I kinda thought the same thing and I think Taro made a good point about the instigator rule being necessary. The more I have thought about the instigator rule and the more I re read this thread the more I agree with Taro's feelings on it. I guess out of our 2 questions I have come to agree with him on 1.

 

Side note: did anyone else notice that Yahoo Fantasy Hockey does not have Crosby listed in the top 100 skaters? I am surprised they are usually not that on top of things.

 

[BetweenThePipes00]

 

 

Taro T, on 08 September 2011 - 07:16 AM, said:

 

By all indications, the hit by Steckel that sent Crosby out was not intentional.

 

I agree with just about all of your posts in this thread, but I thought the hit was intentional, and that Steckel took the opportunity to take a shot at Crosby that would look accidental.

 

This is the heart of the whole issue ... after nine months and a billion viewings from every possible angle, we are still left guessing as far as intent.

 

Personally, because there is player safety involved, I would err on the side of caution and penalize if there is contact to the head regardless of intent (like the over-the-glass delay of game) but let the league sort out any suspension after the fact. In some cases it may never be clear as to intent, like this Crosby hit, but you do the best you can.

 

I know some want to no part of a mandatory penalty, even 2 minutes... the big arguments against it seem to be either 1., it will take all the hitting out of the game; or 2., guys will still get hit in the head accidentally so you are not solving the problem.

 

Let me say up front I actually hate the automatic delay of game rule, because every other penalty is a judgement call ... for some reason we trust the refs to tell the difference between a real trip or a dive, or a legal bump on a dump in as opposed to obstruction, but they can't be trusted to judge whether a guy missed the glass by accident or not. It makes no sense. I think it is a bad rule. BUT ... we are talking about saving careers and possibly a life at some point, so if it means even one fewer hit to the head a week it's worth it.

 

As for the arguments against it ... guys still shoot the puck over the glass. It hasn't stopped because of the automatic penalty, because it's part of the game. Guys still need to use the glass, and they are probably more careful about it, but sometimes they will miss. I believe it would be the same way if there was a mandatory penalty for contact to the head. The hitting is not going to stop ... hopefully guys will try avoid the head more, but it's not going to take the hitting out of the game. Will there still be headshots? Of course.

 

And the argument that "You can't eliminate the accidental headshots, so it's not worth making that rule" makes no sense to me. By that logic we should never call tripping because sometimes a guy will get a penalty for tripping someone by accident. We give automatic double-minors for accidental high sticks that draw so little blood that my 3-year old would not miss a shift. Yet guys get knocked out for months and careers are ended, and we're afraid to TRY to minimize this because it MIGHT have been an accident? Makes no sense.

[Taro T]

This is the heart of the whole issue ... after nine months and a billion viewings from every possible angle, we are still left guessing as far as intent.

 

Personally, because there is player safety involved, I would err on the side of caution and penalize if there is contact to the head regardless of intent (like the over-the-glass delay of game) but let the league sort out any suspension after the fact. In some cases it may never be clear as to intent, like this Crosby hit, but you do the best you can.

 

I know some want to no part of a mandatory penalty, even 2 minutes... the big arguments against it seem to be either 1., it will take all the hitting out of the game; or 2., guys will still get hit in the head accidentally so you are not solving the problem.

 

Let me say up front I actually hate the automatic delay of game rule, because every other penalty is a judgement call ... for some reason we trust the refs to tell the difference between a real trip or a dive, or a legal bump on a dump in as opposed to obstruction, but they can't be trusted to judge whether a guy missed the glass by accident or not. It makes no sense. I think it is a bad rule. BUT ... we are talking about saving careers and possibly a life at some point, so if it means even one fewer hit to the head a week it's worth it.

 

As for the arguments against it ... guys still shoot the puck over the glass. It hasn't stopped because of the automatic penalty, because it's part of the game. Guys still need to use the glass, and they are probably more careful about it, but sometimes they will miss. I believe it would be the same way if there was a mandatory penalty for contact to the head. The hitting is not going to stop ... hopefully guys will try avoid the head more, but it's not going to take the hitting out of the game. Will there still be headshots? Of course.

 

And the argument that "You can't eliminate the accidental headshots, so it's not worth making that rule" makes no sense to me. By that logic we should never call tripping because sometimes a guy will get a penalty for tripping someone by accident. We give automatic double-minors for accidental high sticks that draw so little blood that my 3-year old would not miss a shift. Yet guys get knocked out for months and careers are ended, and we're afraid to TRY to minimize this because it MIGHT have been an accident? Makes no sense.

Just so we are clear, I am not against having an automatic penalty for head contact, and I believe the league is installing a version of that this coming season. I am against the automatic suspension based upon the results of a particular play rather than the play itself.