markierung Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 The instigator penalty makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't get it. The NHL clearly doesn't want to remove fighting from the game (which it shouldn't). Yet it puts this penalty in to reduce fighting. But if a person wants to reduce fighting in the NHL, why not get rid of it. All the rule does is punish players for defending their team mates and starting fights, which the league actually wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 The instigator penalty makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't get it. The NHL clearly doesn't want to remove fighting from the game (which it shouldn't). Yet it puts this penalty in to reduce fighting. But if a person wants to reduce fighting in the NHL, why not get rid of it. All the rule does is punish players for defending their team mates and starting fights, which the league actually wants. The instigator penalty is the result of a political compromise between the pro and anti fighting blocs of the NHL. That is why there is a mixed message. Fighting, as it existing pre instigator was becoming a PR problem for the league, but fighting, arguably, does serve some purpose to the game and it is very popular with a large and devoted niche of fans. In order to alleviate the blame and rancor that the NHL was receiving because of the fighting, it enacted the instigator penalty which did not completely derive the fight lovers of their "vigilante justice." The compromise has worked to some degree - fighting has gone down and the game is not universally viewed as a punchers league. The success of the Ducks and the shenanigans of the Flyers seems more likely to lead to further restrictions on fighting, rather than an end to the instigator. IMO, this especially holds true if the NHL returns to ESPN. Hockey's preeminence is unchallenged in Canada, so most decisions will be made in consideration of the swing viewers - Americans. On Versus, the NHL is free to be a niche league, and next to its peers on the channel (ultimate fighting and extreme hunting), it is comparatively non-violent. On the broadbased ESPN, the league would likely feel pressure to make the game more palatable to a wider audience, which almost certainly means less fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markierung Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 I don't believe that the Anti-Fighting Block is that large. It doesn't matter where you are in the NHL, everybody in an Arena gets on their feet during a fight. In a recent pole by the Hockey news, over 90% of players beleive that fighting has a place in the game. And honestly, i'm tired of the NHL trying to land this ESPN deal. The NHL is fine without it. It would be even better without many of the teams it has placed in the Sun Belt. Besides, the educated hockey fans in the States, the ones in Detroit, New York, Phili, Chicago, they understand that fighting is part of the game and love that it's part of the game. This Anti-fighting block of NHL "Fans" are undoubtedly soccer moms who don't have enough PTA duties to take up the majority of their day. I doubt that if fighting was removed from the game, the NHL would attract many more fans. Don't Forget, the NHL used to get National US TV contracts before the instigator penalty was ever put in place. Fans turned away because of the dead puck era, not the fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Simonus, I'm not sure hwere your getting your info but fighting is way up this year, More and more GM / teams are pushing to get rid of the instigator rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Simonus, I'm not sure hwere your getting your info but fighting is way up this year, More and more GM / teams are pushing to get rid of the instigator rule. Easterbrook L&E analysis. Fighting might be up compared to last year, but how is it compared to the 90's? (I really don't know) Edited November 20, 2007 by simonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Gotcha, i thought you meant last year to this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.