Eleven Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Here's the story. By giving a four-game suspension to Hannula on a play where Crosby apparently was not seriously injured, the IIHF is taking a step in the right direction--a step the NHL has yet to take. By punishing the act, rather than the result, the NHL would see fewer cheap shots. The NHL needs to stop waiting for serious injuries before imposing heavier suspensions (or in Cole's case, failing to do so) and should impose serious suspensions for hard illegal hits even if the victim skates away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Here's the story. By giving a four-game suspension to Hannula on a play where Crosby apparently was not seriously injured, the IIHF is taking a step in the right direction--a step the NHL has yet to take. By punishing the act, rather than the result, the NHL would see fewer cheap shots. The NHL needs to stop waiting for serious injuries before imposing heavier suspensions (or in Cole's case, failing to do so) and should impose serious suspensions for hard illegal hits even if the victim skates away. I really doubt that if it was someone other then the second coming of Gretzky, any discipline would be handed out to a player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I really doubt that if it was someone other then the second coming of Gretzky, any discipline would be handed out to a player If it was the NHL, the guy might have lost half a season for hitting the next "Golden Boy"...and maybe a game if it was anyone else. Really, though - I think the short-sightedness of the NHL's suspenions/discipline is hurting the game's image. Penalties need to be set in stone, no judgment calls, no "mitigating circumstances," nothing - for instance, you hit a guy from behind, its "X" number of games. Period. Don't like it? Go cry to the players union about how you tried to permanently injure someone. Personally, I wish the NHL would go nuclear on some of these guys - suspend the offender as long as his victim is out, and maybe pay some sort of penalty fine to the player/his family/his favorite charity - something substantial. Let's face it, $500 isn't much to almost everyone in the league. I'll stop now, suspensions are a hot button topic with me, and I'll sit here all day long and rant about the NHL if I don't walk away right now... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Bring back fighting with no instigator. These things would be punishable by fist and would happen a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Get rid of violence by introducing violence? I don't get it. If the instigator penalty is responsible for more cheap shots in the game, then the answer is not getting rid of the instigator but, as others here suggest, just bringing the hammer down on the goons, including our angelic Sabres. And banning fighting altogether. We learned last season that fans apparently didn't mind that fighting was dramatically reduced from the game. Attendance was at an all-time high. Fighting always disappeared in the playoffs, with games playing to 99% capacity. Why? The games were meaningful and entertaining on their own. Now that the league has gone a long way toward fixing the game, there no longer appears to be the need for the bizarre sideshow of two grown men engaging in "cat fights" with nary a blow landed. Off with their heads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Get rid of violence by introducing violence? I don't get it. If the instigator penalty is responsible for more cheap shots in the game, then the answer is not getting rid of the instigator but, as others here suggest, just bringing the hammer down on the goons, including our angelic Sabres. And banning fighting altogether. We learned last season that fans apparently didn't mind that fighting was dramatically reduced from the game. Attendance was at an all-time high. Fighting always disappeared in the playoffs, with games playing to 99% capacity. Why? The games were meaningful and entertaining on their own. Now that the league has gone a long way toward fixing the game, there no longer appears to be the need for the bizarre sideshow of two grown men engaging in "cat fights" with nary a blow landed. Off with their heads! I don't mind getting rid of the instigator penalty--it's not violence that I want the NHL rid of, but rather cheap shots with the potential for serious injury. Fists might break a nose, but look what Cole went through last season. Increased suspensions, increased fighting, both, matters not to me; just get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WanderingEye Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I missed fighting last season, and I know a lot of other fans did. Just because the games sold out doesn't mean that they're glad nobody fights anymore, the games sold out because it was faster, higher scoring, and more exciting - something you'd actually want to sit and watch. Ask most people why they started liking hockey last season and the answer most likely would not be "because they don't fight anymore." A good fight still gets the fans out of their seats as much as a good goal does, and I'd be incredibly disappointed to see it banned. Then we can ban hitting because sometimes the hits are excessively violent and people get hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAAAUGHT!!! Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Get rid of violence by introducing violence? I don't get it. If the instigator penalty is responsible for more cheap shots in the game, then the answer is not getting rid of the instigator but, as others here suggest, just bringing the hammer down on the goons, including our angelic Sabres. And banning fighting altogether. We learned last season that fans apparently didn't mind that fighting was dramatically reduced from the game. Attendance was at an all-time high. Fighting always disappeared in the playoffs, with games playing to 99% capacity. Why? The games were meaningful and entertaining on their own. Now that the league has gone a long way toward fixing the game, there no longer appears to be the need for the bizarre sideshow of two grown men engaging in "cat fights" with nary a blow landed. Off with their heads! I hope no one is advocating getting rid of the violence in hockey, it is just that no one likes cheapshots. I have promoted hockey to non-fans for years by pointing out how it is the perfect blend of speed, skill, and violence. If we get rid of fighting, lets get rid of body checks too because fans just want to see goals, right? I saw a lot of cheap shots last year, and I am convinced it was because players were not afraid of retaliation. The instigator penalty makes no sense anymore and should only be used when someone is throwing punches at a player that doesn't want to fight and doesn't punch back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I hope no one is advocating getting rid of the violence in hockey, it is just that no one likes cheapshots. I have promoted hockey to non-fans for years by pointing out how it is the perfect blend of speed, skill, and violence. If we get rid of fighting, lets get rid of body checks too because fans just want to see goals, right? I saw a lot of cheap shots last year, and I am convinced it was because players were not afraid of retaliation. The instigator penalty makes no sense anymore and should only be used when someone is throwing punches at a player that doesn't want to fight and doesn't punch back. I agree that players have no fear of potential consequences, whether it be someone coming to kick their a$$ or the prospect of a lengthy suspension without pay. Right now, there is little or no deterrent stopping players from cheapshotting their opponents. IMO, Brooks Orpik shouldn't have seen the ice until Eric Cole was able to play. As for retaliation? Cole says he is looking forward to the first time he plays against Orpik; but I am 100% positive the NHL will issue stern warnings against Cole looking for revenge, and would, in all liklihood, punish him more severly for retaliating than they did Orpik, who nearly ended Cole's career and life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 A good fight still gets the fans out of their seats as much as a good goal does, and I'd be incredibly disappointed to see it banned.... Note that you wrote "good fight." IMHO, they are very few and far between. A good fight is one that makes sense within the context of the game -- somebody going after somebody who cheap-shotted your teammate. And a good fight has to actually have some punches landed. Most of the time, someone starts a fight when his team is three goals down, and the combatants just dance around, throw some wild haymakers, hug each other and skate off. Boring. I'm not advocating getting rid of body checking. That's ridiculous. I'm advocating getting rid of something that is usually pointless and boring (see above) and is a black eye on the game that hurts efforts to increase the fan base. There are a lot of people who won't take their kids to a hockey game because of the fighting and the goonery. It turns a lot of women off too. And in many parts of the country, the only exposure people get to the game is when the local TV sports guy shows a fight. It's an awesome game that doesn't need the sideshow anymore. Now, anyone who disagrees... let's go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Bring back fighting with no instigator. These things would be punishable by fist and would happen a lot less. Amen to that! And get rid of the suspension for starting a fight with 5 minutes or less left in the third period. There is no accountability for anything anymore because players know they can get away with anything. Look at how Brooks Orpik only received a 3 game suspension last year for a cheap hit from behind that broke Erik Cole's neck. That's a disgrace. For years the NHL has had a terrible track record when it comes to suspensions. EDIT: And for the record someone should have given Orpik a beating. But not is this "new NHL" where breaking someone's neck is encouraged, yet grabbing the guy and making him pay for it could get a player suspended. Explain that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WanderingEye Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Maybe my family's just weird, but all of the women in my family loved fighting... guess it could be attributed to being "blue collar" fans. Some of my favorite players growing up were the tough guys. I'd just hate to see it be COMPLETELY banned - no fighting, ever, under any circumstances would be lame, IMO. I can see your point about the random "heavyweight" fights and how they're not necessary, but when the situation calls for a scrap, like a cheap shot or a running of a goalie, then it should still happen. Thinking back to 2003-04, when Dallas Drake smoked Alexei Zhitnik and then was taken to the woodshed by Adam Mair, how could you not have liked that? The fight happened for a reason and it was fun and satisfying to see. This was part of the reason why I liked Rhett Warrener so much - he didn't fight often for no reason, but if you took a liberty with his mates, he was going to make you pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Maybe my family's just weird, but all of the women in my family loved fighting... guess it could be attributed to being "blue collar" fans. Some of my favorite players growing up were the tough guys. I'd just hate to see it be COMPLETELY banned - no fighting, ever, under any circumstances would be lame, IMO. I can see your point about the random "heavyweight" fights and how they're not necessary, but when the situation calls for a scrap, like a cheap shot or a running of a goalie, then it should still happen. Thinking back to 2003-04, when Dallas Drake smoked Alexei Zhitnik and then was taken to the woodshed by Adam Mair, how could you not have liked that? The fight happened for a reason and it was fun and satisfying to see. This was part of the reason why I liked Rhett Warrener so much - he didn't fight often for no reason, but if you took a liberty with his mates, he was going to make you pay for it. Ruff played like that (Warrener). It may be part of why he's such a team-oriented coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.