The "spirit of the rule" is taken into consideration by courts and juries all over this country every day when deciding legal matters. No matter how black & white or crystal clear a rule/law is, the spirit of it has to be considered, otherwise we become a civilization of robots incapable of allowing for an exception to a rule in situations where it is warranted.

Why should the NHL be any different where fairness is concerned? We are an imperfect species and these rule provisions pertaining to exceptions account for that.

The instigator rule went on the books in 1992.

I think that the comparison between NHL officiating and our legal system is a bit of a stretch. We're talking about sports, not debating the differences between manslaughter and murder.

The NHL's biggest problem is so many different interpretations of their rules. Too many different ways to handle the same situation. An action taken in game 1 is called a penalty, but that same action in game 24 is not. Briere got suspended once for an accidental high stick on Brian Leetch. It was clearly accidental, one of those ones that his stick just rode up Leetch's and caught him. Why was he suspended then? The 'spirit of the rule' is for players to be in control of their sticks at all times. He was in control of his stick, it was just an accident that it came up.

When the NHL starts calling things the same, no matter what happens, no matter WHO is involved, they'll be better off. Right now it's like playing roulette when a player does something to find out their punishment.

Exactly Squanto!

_________________

But don't some argue that the instigator is the reason we are seeing a lot of the head shots and other questionable hits... players are taking more liberties with hits because they don't have anyone on the ice to answer to... just Colin Campbell and he's proven to be inconsistent... Im pretty sure Ive heard Razor talk about this a lot....

_________________

This is a great point! To much inconsistency in how and when things are called...

_________________

[lundbergh]Uh, yeaaa, I'm gonna need some evidence, mkay? Thaaanks[/lundbergh]

_________________
mechaphil

Nice lundbergh tags!

Well, yea, and I don't think anyone will dispute that, but we were just talking about when it went into effect.

(So glad a certain member is gone and headshot threads don't ultimately spiral out of control anymore)

_________________
mechaphil

Actually, citing the parallels between athletic regualtions and the dispensation of jurisprudence in this country is quite appropos.

The interpretation and application of the rule of law in this country is filled with inconsistencies and arcane logic, not to mention senetencing guidlines that are sometimes so far out of whack (if you look at a cross-the-board-comparison) that it would make your head spin----and we're talking about people's lives and FREEDOM for cryin' out loud! Needless to say, sports infractions are significantly less serious and relevant in the sceme of things, certainly less than what you encounter in a court of law, so why should it be meted out with a far more strict and inflexible system of regulations and penalites?

You inadvertantly backed up my point.

yeah, the instigator has been around for a while. BUT i think the whole last two minutes = suspension is newer.

_________________

Am I the only one who noticed they gave NO reason for not suspending Chara?

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Well since peoples lives are at stake in regards to the legal system, it seems like it makes more sense to be more flexible in that area.

In sports where there is far less at stake, there shouldn't be any problem with rigidly defining a set of rules and appropriate conduct.

I think you inadvertently backed his.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I knew somebody would say that, but it's facile reasoning. Fallible is fallible. When the rule was created, it was assumed that it would not be perfectly and completely applied to the letter, for any one of a number of reasons. Allowing for that is rational.

To put it in simple terms, since it's not life or death and ISN'T as serious as "real life", why be so up tight about it? THAT is the underlying point that I found ironic in light of the previous comment.

And would you be fighting this point so hard if it was Gaustad who turned and punched Chara after a slash? This is not as black and white as some would like it to be, mainly because they want Chara out, period. If the tables were turned, many here would be stroking out had Gaustad been suspended for exactly the same thing they want Chara gone for.

C'mon.

The instigator rule really applies to situations where one guy goes off on another guy, UNPROVOKED. Chara was absolutely provoked by Gaustad. PERIOD. I'm sure that had everything to do with the league's decision.

And the league is not out to get Buffalo. Let's stop with this "woe is me" victim mentality. It's so...predictable.

As it is, the Bruins are missing one of their 2 all-stars. If the Sabres are so desperate that they also need the other all-star to be off the ice in order to win, then the next round will be epic humiliation.

Personally in sports I favor a by the book approach to eliminate any cause or accusations of bias whether they are intentional or unintentional.

That having been said, in order to be the best, you have to beat the best. So I have no problems with Chara not being suspended. What I do have an issue with is that the NHL shows an appalling lack of consistency in these areas.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

We humans tend to be that way, in ALL facets of life.

True, but the NFL seems to handle its officiating much better than the NHL does.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

The instigator rule was instituted to cut down on fights. Provocation has nothing to do with it. In fact, the rule specifically mentions that retaliation from a previous incident is ground for an instigator penalty.

Also, there is no woe is me mentality. I've said already in this thread that the incident was a pretty weak example of an instigator call, and I have no problem with the fact that the NHL didn't suspend Chara.

My main consternation is the instigator rule in general, and the inconsistencies surrounding it's application. I think we can all agree that if Chara gave Gaustad a whack on the ankles, and Goose threw a punch, he'd be sitting Monday night.

That is consistant with my point.

Fights start under 2 different sets of circumstances:
1) Out-of-the-blue payback for a previous perceived wrong, and
2) as the result of a spur-of-the-moment dust-up.

The latter applies to this situation, while the former is the reason for the instigator rule.

You can't just say it's a stupid rule. It's a written rule and if it was Gaustad retaliating he would have been out. Even if Gaustad did do something, which in the replay Chara is a baby bitch over nothing, a penalty is a penalty and a suspension should be a suspension. If it was Goose he would be out because Chara is a superstar and Goose isn't.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.