Lets fix the penalty: High Sticking

[Nogatco Rd]

You said they should, it's a personal choice, they should have the choice. The visor rule is hella lame.

Yup, should be able to choose whether or not to wear a helmet too. Personal choice used to mean something. now you can’t even smoke cigs on the bench anymore.

 

[JPT]

Nowhere in the rulebook does it say anything about blood. The term in the rulebook that determines whether it's a double minor is "injury." Somewhere along the way, probably because injuries to the face area usually involves blood, refs started calling it as if the deciding factor was whether the player was bleeding.

I've been saying this for years. Blood does not mean an injury, yet the NHL decided that for this particular thing it does. When Ovechkin was on mic saying "maybe he has soft skin" after a ref called a 4 min on a Capital, it was hilarious but also kind of accidentally a good point.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Make sticks so short you can't high stick problem solved

 

[JPT]

Yup, should be able to choose whether or not to wear a helmet too. Personal choice used to mean something. now you can’t even smoke cigs on the bench anymore.

It's always funny when libertarianism runs head-first into private sector business practices.

 

[ninetyeight]

I get the point, the blood thing is kinda silly. Anyone familiar with combat sports knows that some people just bleed easier and a softer grazing hit might cut someone more often than a hard direct hit. That said, shouldn't there be a difference if you hit someone in the helmet vs face? Should they review it instead? Should they review every single penalty, since apparently the refs are terrible?

Anyway there are way bigger problems in hockey that should be fixed first before this.