Will it take a player getting killed before the instigator rule is eliminated?

Hi

While your presentation is not to be expected as many have blamed the instigator rule on the lack of repercussions. I think I may have a couple things to throw in the pot. One you said it yourself. There is a lack of respect. Reality is your can't beat respect into someone, those that lack respect for another though need to be punished. I am not sure the fight is a realistic solution. Since respect is a tricky subject I think that we need to supplement it. We do this by making repercussions that are stiff enough to fill the void left in the absence of the respect. A thirty sec beat down does not do this, but harsh suspensions and fines might. I feel when someone is a repeat offender teams need to feel the burn also. Something in the order of for every game missed due to suspension counts X against next years cap. These repeat offenders would then have a more difficult time finding work.

If we look at what your asking, more fighting, I think you will notice the absence of qualified heavyweights on several teams. Toronto being on of them. In last nights game the announcers where talking about the lack of anyone to go against George if it came down to it. Then again the announcers were also suggesting going after Montreal's top players. Back to my point about heavyweights, as the teams have gotten more skilled many no longer have heavyweights anymore. Between salary cap and skill of the other team the roster spot has dissolved

Thank You

I won't be surprised to see one of these incidents get prosecuted some day. If the aggressor's stick made contact with the victim that would likely meet the definition of aggravated battery (felony) as opposed to simple battery (misdemeanor). Although the circumstances vary among jurisdictions, aggravated battery in most US jurisdictions can bring jail terms up to 25 years.

In the meantime, why not redefine misconduct penalties. They're pretty much meaningless as is and have been for years. Make boarding and charging 10 minute shorthanded penalties. Then the violators would be gone overnight because their teams couldn't afford to let them on the ice..

I think they should eliminate the instigator rule so guys can get the proper penalty for cheap shots.

You guys should youtube Don Cherry. He's a Canadian guy on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. He wants the instigator back and no-touch icing so guys don't break legs like that. That is just as bad or worse than boarding and its really bad.

It may, I doubt someone will die though. The thing is, we need an instigator because people will jump non-fighters to start a fight. I think we still need this rule but just survey the situation carefully before u assess and instigator penalty. The rule change that really needs to be put in place is no touch icing.

As to the hit in question...he will get his in due time (meaning he'll have to "answer the bell").

I'm all for getting rid of the instigator rule, but while you're at it, eliminate all hits to the head. And when you're doing this, you have got to get guys in the habit of keeping their head up and on a swivel (which is how they were taught). You can't have guys with their head down...you just can't.

Brad H - You sound a bit too confident in your answer. I don't ever wanna see someone die from a hit but it could be a possibility.

Now...I do not believe in changing the NHL. But I'm on the verge of saying just eliminate it. I've been seeing one too many guys get seriously injured, and the last thing I want to see is someone get seriously injured from these pointless shenanigans.

No body is going to die from a hit in hockey ... broken necks and crap, yes. Instigator prevents players getting jumped ... if I guy is going to fight someone, they are going to fight