It makes perfect sense. It's true, they didn't have replays in the past either, which is why you saw this exact same thing happen as well. Some people like to pretend that there was a mythical past where everyone adhered to an oh so great code, there wasn't.This does not make sense. Players did not see replays in the past either. The sane reaction should always be that the check was clean and not assume otherwise.
Just an example of what I’m talkin about- Kurashev gets caught clean, gets up, and gets 2 free rabbit punches on Krebs, who already got jumped by Bertuzzi. It’s hockey, stop being wusses, hit happens. I’d argue for a 1 game sussy for any sissy who jumps a guy while play is ongoing. You wanna fight, square up, but this stuff is just stupid.
It makes perfect sense. It's true, they didn't have replays in the past either, which is why you saw this exact same thing happen as well. Some people like to pretend that there was a mythical past where everyone adhered to an oh so great code, there wasn't.
Players jumping opponents after big hits has been around for ages. And yes, that includes both dirty and clean hits. In the case of clean hits, sometimes it may just looked have dirty to the player watching (hint: this is were not having any replay comes in), sometimes they just acted to protect their teammates and to show a reaction.
Arguing with "sane reactions" is completely illogical. For one, because - as already mentioned above - players can very much perceive something to be dirty from their point of view, even if it wasn't. And secondly, because jumping an opponent is a spur of the moment reaction, not the result of carefully weighting up the pros and cons of such a move. On top of that, you also get the concept of making a point. Even if a big hit was clean, some teams can still have come to the conclusion that showing a forceful reaction to such a hit is worthwhile in terms of deterrence or team cohesion.
Why? We don’t like fights suddenly? The league has always been like this. It’s not some new revelation. When your team mate takes a violent hit you defend him. Makes guys think twice about crushing your team mates. It used to only be Montreal Canadien fans that preach this. Now Americans are preaching it? Hockey teams used to employ fighters just so Americans would watch the sport.
That's likely why he jumped in like he did.Bertuzzi should fight himself, since it was his pass was the most dangerous part of that play. Krebs was just doing what every NHL player should do in that instance.
This 100000%. Unless the player getting hit was a bonafide superstar, the play went on, the player got up, and possibly later in the game the aggressor was caught in the train tracks.this is often repeated but false, unless you mean ages = the last 10 to 15 years.
Doesn't matter; if there is no penalty called, you just keep playing. If you want to retaliate for the hit, do it later in the game with a clean hit in kind. That's how it used to be before the snowflake generation.Players can’t tell if it’s clean in real time. They may not even be looking. They may have a bad angle
It could be easily said that people complaining or offended by fights after a big hit clean or not are snowflakes. It’s just a word to denote complaining of “the other side”. Some people will take exception if someone takes a big run at their teammate. Big hits are part of the game. So is fighting. Guys who go for big hits are aware that players on the other side will probably take offense to it. It is what it is. As long as players will attempt to crush a player the other team will defend himDoesn't matter; if there is no penalty called, you just keep playing. If you want to retaliate for the hit, do it later in the game with a clean hit in kind. That's how it used to be before the snowflake generation.
This.Except the players dont get the benefit of a replay or seeing the hit from off the ice. NHL just needs to do a better job at protecting players from each other.
Instigator penalty is the one penalty the NHL fails at using properly. It’s a black and white rule that’s used with too much discretion.I don't have a problem so much with the response as the refs not calling the instigator. It's either an infraction or not. The sometimes we call it thing is a problem with most calls.
It's about as black and white as any penalty, in practice. The proof is in the gelloThis.
All the players on the ice see is a teammate fall victim to a big hit, they don’t see if it was clean or dirty. Nothing wrong with teammates standing up for a player in my opinion
Instigator penalty is the one penalty the NHL fails at using properly. It’s a black and white rule that’s used with too much discretion.
Did you eat all the pudding?It's about as black and white as any penalty, in practice. The proof is in the gello
I don't eat pudding after that one night, everyone remembers. It wasn't pretty, but we're still here.Did you eat all the pudding?
You’re not supposed to bring that night up.I don't eat pudding after that one night, everyone remembers. It wasn't pretty, but we're still here.
I know, I know, I left out all the incriminating stuff. And, again, my apologies to El Jefe.You’re not supposed to bring that night up.
This is the wayThey should quit handing out penalties to the guy that is just defending himself for being jumped. Just a penalty to the jerk that starts the whole thing. That would eliminate the offsetting of penalties and actually penalize the offending team.
Of course if the refs would enforce the instigator rule this wouldn't be necessary.
No, it hasn't always been like this.Why? We don’t like fights suddenly? The league has always been like this.
It makes perfect sense. It's true, they didn't have replays in the past either, which is why you saw this exact same thing happen as well. Some people like to pretend that there was a mythical past where everyone adhered to an oh so great code, there wasn't.
Players jumping opponents after big hits has been around for ages. And yes, that includes both dirty and clean hits. In the case of clean hits, sometimes it may just looked have dirty to the player watching (hint: this is were not having any replay comes in), sometimes they just acted to protect their teammates and to show a reaction.
Arguing with "sane reactions" is completely illogical. For one, because - as already mentioned above - players can very much perceive something to be dirty from their point of view, even if it wasn't. And secondly, because jumping an opponent is a spur of the moment reaction, not the result of carefully
weighting up the pros and cons of such a move. On top of that, you also get the concept of making a point. Even if a big hit was clean, some teams can still have come to the conclusion that showing a forceful reaction to such a hit is worthwhile in terms of deterrence or team cohesion.
Boomers?Doesn't matter; if there is no penalty called, you just keep playing. If you want to retaliate for the hit, do it later in the game with a clean hit in kind. That's how it used to be before the snowflake generation.
This is what winning this silly thread looks likeGood job by Dahlin preparing Krebs for getting jumped.
Well as long as I can remember guys have been attacked and forced to fight after violent hits. All the way back to Gretzky days. I was born in 85 so I can’t speak to anything pre 1990 ish. The 90’s and 2000’s were far more violent than now. That’s undeniable. The league is way more regulated in regards to fighting rules. Fighting is way down. Violent hits are way down too. The game has less fighting now than ever. People who are complaining about this obviously want football/basketball fighting rules. I didn’t realize so many fans want fighting removed from the game. Fun suckers.No, it hasn't always been like this.
yup. but for some reason the refs just choose to never enforce itThat’s where the instigator rule is supposed to be used.