http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabre ... 59746.html

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/200 ... es+Edge%29

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=297979

In the first two links Miller pretty much says exactly what squanto, a few others and I have said about the issue. The last link talks about the latest GM meeting, and points out Colin Campbell having a rare moment of clarity while watching some games from the 1970s. He noticed the difference in physical play between then and now - obviously more fighting then, but far less hitting than now.

I think the media attention and pointed comments like those from Miller will actually force a change to be made before next season.

Removing the instigator rule is the only way to deal with this issue.

Any kind of ban on hitting would just be fucking stupid.

_________________
Wheelhouse

I guess Miller is fucking stupid then.

MMM... nope. I said any kind of ban on hitting would be fucking stupid.

I did not say that Ryan Miller is fucking stupid.

The instigator rule is the only way to solve this problem without disrupting the game of hockey.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Nope. Sorry.

Keep carrying that torch though.

Nope. Sorry. You're actually wrong.

Personally, I don't want to see players skate down the ice with their heads turned away from a checker so they can't be legally hit.

Sometimes, players turn their backs on checkers along the boards in hopes that they'll back off because that hit is illegal. And many times, it turns out pretty bad.

Connolly has obviously learned how to keep himself out of vulnerable positions.

He doesn't look as flashy, but he's still averaging a point per game this season.

Anyone who thinks you can eliminate certain open ice hits with the rulebook is just plain, flat out, dead wrong.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Not eliminate, but cut down on, and put a deterrence on head shots to defenseless players. There will always be unintentional head shots, and that can be accounted for appropriately with any suspension/no-suspension. It is the deliberate intent to injure type of hits, and the recklessly dangerous type of hits that can, need, and should be dealt with.

Miller thinks so, Adam Foote thinks so, and apparently many other members of the NHLPA that haven't been listened to so far think so.

No offense, but I think I'll stick with the opinions of the folks that PLAY AND WORK INTHE GAME AT THE NHL LEVEL.











Bunch of fucking idiots these guys are, right?

Bravo, Squanto.

_________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hockey Night in Buffalo

You got me, Squanto. You got me.

Now tell me; how many of them have come up with a solid, concrete way of preventing these hits, without creating even more controversy and inconsistent calling?

How many of them have ideas outside of banishing the instigator?

No fucking shit people want something done about it. Personally, I would have liked to have Connolly playing with us against Carolina in 2006. I'm not saying that something can't be done.

What I'm saying is, you can't outlaw specific hits. Open ice hits happen, almost solely, because somebody isn't paying the FUCK attention. They're looking down at the puck, or coasting after a release.

Removal of the instigator rule, is the ONLY WAY YOU CAN END CHEAP SHOTS IN HOCKEY, WITHOUT DESTROYING THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE SPORT.

_________________
Wheelhouse

It's pretty easy to hit a guy low when he's not looking, or whenever any opportunity to make a hit arises. It's not hard, you just bend the knees and lower your shoulder into the mid-section. You take a guy off the puck or down to the ice and his head never gets rocked into oblivion. Both players get to keep playing too. Crazy, huh?

There's no need to eliminate open ice hits, just cut down on head shots. You're being obstinate about it.

If a player doesn't have a reasonable opportunity to see the hit coming, and they get drilled in the head, it shouldn't be legal.

What does that mean? If I have my head down, and you come from an area that I could have seen you had I been paying attention, then the onus is on me to protect myself.

If I make a pass to my front left, and a second later you drill me in the head coming from my right, then the onus is on you to not headhunt a guy that has no idea is coming.

The ear hole rule is one of the worst I've heard of. Half the time, a blind side hit is safer than a head on, because it's not as much of a direct blow.

In addition, when you hit someone from the side, you're more likely to make shoulder to shoulder contact than you are if you're coming straight in.


You're only option after that is to eliminate hits to the head from straight on. But if you place a rule that says you can't hit a player with his head down, then players are going to be moving up the ice with their head's down all the time, keeping them safe from being hit.

If you remove the instigator, players will decide which battles they want to pick and choose. They'll think twice before delivering on certain players at certain points in a game.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm all for making the game safer. But modifying contact rules is not the solution. Improving equipment, and removing the instigator, are the only ways.


Some people suggest bending their knees more, which makes me wonder if they've ever played contact hockey. If you lower yourself by bending your knees before you make a hit, chances are it's YOUR head that's going to get rattled, and you're going to get steam rolled in the process.

Others say lean back and hit with your hip. Again, that's not allowing a player to properly brace himself for an open ice impact. Hip checks only work when hitting someone into the boards.

_________________
Wheelhouse

I've driven my shoulder into another player's ribs about a thousand times, about 65% of those in football, about 30% in hockey (yes contact), and about 2% in baseball during plays at the plate.

And that's fine and Dandy. Typically, when you lean forward and bend your knees slightly, which is what you naturally do when bracing for a hit, everything turns out fine.

But if you're dealing with a player who's smaller than you are, or a player who's skating up the ice with his head down, and you go to brace for a hit, you can only bend your knees so much before you put yourself in a vulnerable position.

Sometimes, the player doesn't even have to be smaller than you. They just lead with their heads like morons.

Campbell is smaller than Umberger, so when he made that hit, it was a shoulder to sternum hit.

But if Campbell was the size of say, Chris Pronger, a regular brace for impact would turn into a shoulder to head hit... just because of the way Umberger was coming up the ice.

There are a ton of variables to consider. Just like a batter has a unique batting box based on their size and stance, each player has a unique stance when they brace for impact.

_________________
Wheelhouse

At the end of it all, I think that both sides of the argument have the same goal. We both want safer play, but still maintain physicality in the game.

The major problem I have with your side of the discussion is that you assert that the ONLY way to improve things is the instigator rule removal, and NOTHING else with work.

I think that's misguided, and just not right. The instigator rule needs to go, and it's a step in the right direction. However, it's not a magic bullet. There's more that can and should be done to fix the problem.