Great Article on Bettman's incompetance

[HedleyLamarr]

-Second big mistake was the Instigator rule. This goes back to my point above that hockey thrives on rivalries and hatred. This came about as the league listened to those outside the sport that said fighting was the reason they didn't watch hockey when in reality it was probably because it is played on ice and didn't grow up with it. While I like that they got rid of bench clearing brawls fight does have a place in hockey strategically and entertainment wise. It's much like knocking down a batter in baseball if your team falls behind, it sends a message for next time. Also it helps keep people interested in a blowout game because at least their might be a fight. The instigator penalty has pretty much taken fighting out of the game which has taken some passion out of the game along with the extreme enforcement now of the rules that has taken physical play out of the game.

If you ask me what's wrong with hockey now it is not physical enough. Sure there is lots of goals but people like hockey not only because of the goals but also the saves, hitting, and physical play.

The only time the Instigator penalty is assessed is when it's just one guy pummelling another player, or whoever starts a fight in the last 5 minutes. The only thing that was trying to be erased were these late-game brawls that would fire up from time to time. I can agree that fights are "just part of hockey", brawls at the end of a lopsided game isn't hockey, it's nonsense.

[STL FANATIC]

-Second big mistake was the Instigator rule. This goes back to my point above that hockey thrives on rivalries and hatred. This came about as the league listened to those outside the sport that said fighting was the reason they didn't watch hockey when in reality it was probably because it is played on ice and didn't grow up with it. While I like that they got rid of bench clearing brawls fight does have a place in hockey strategically and entertainment wise. It's much like knocking down a batter in baseball if your team falls behind, it sends a message for next time. Also it helps keep people interested in a blowout game because at least their might be a fight. The instigator penalty has pretty much taken fighting out of the game which has taken some passion out of the game along with the extreme enforcement now of the rules that has taken physical play out of the game.

If you ask me what's wrong with hockey now it is not physical enough. Sure there is lots of goals but people like hockey not only because of the goals but also the saves, hitting, and physical play.

The only time the Instigator penalty is assessed is when it's just one guy pummelling another player, or whoever starts a fight in the last 5 minutes. The only thing that was trying to be erased were these late-game brawls that would fire up from time to time. I can agree that fights are "just part of hockey", brawls at the end of a lopsided game isn't hockey, it's nonsense.

We'll, that's not all correct.

The instigator isn't called much, but I've seen it called in more than just the situation you mention, plus the existance of the rule serves as a deterrant to fighting.

Further, normal fights during games are down too because the refs just don't let them go AND the fighters have in large part been forced out of the game.

So we get cheap shots instead. Good idea, huh?

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

while Stl Fanatic, VitaminD, JKR have all made valid and excellent points which i agree with, the biggest problem is marketing and promotion of its biggest stars. if you go to dallas or LA how many people actually know who sidney crosby or alexander ovechkin is? just where i live they are virtual unknowns. last years top 12 american idol finalists are more well known than the leagues top 12 players.