Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm
That's pretty much my point. It existed in the time of "old time hockey", and didn't deter anyone from playing dirty. The argument that if the instigator was rescinded the Cookes and Tootoos of the world would go away just doesn't make sense.
The only way to completely rid the game of them is the league itself punsihing the players/teams with suspensions. If the rule existed that said offense 1 was 40 games and offense 2 was a full 82, shit would stop.
|
Two thoughts here. First of all, if the league went to a permanent 4 on 4 format (not just during OT), there would be a lot more open space on the ice and we would probably not see nearly as many injuries, especially to the head. This would also ensure that coaches play their best players (nobody wants their 4th line scrub on the ice in a 4 on 4 situation do they?). Second, fining/suspending the team/coach would do a lot more in deterring future infractions, outside of meaningful discipline to the player (I like your 40/82 game suspension idea above). I would take it a step further and argue that the 1st offense for a head infraction is a 1-year ban, second offense if lifetime ban. A good example of where this should have been implemented is the Todd Bertuzzi incident. I happen to like the guy and I don't think he intended to injure/end Moore's career (FWIW, Moore was a douchebag in his own right, often taking cheap shots at Markus Naslund), but the fact remains that Bertuzzi ended his playing career. That was an instance where it could be argued that an eye-for-an-eye approach would be fitting.