Certainly there's an advantage to removing one of the better players of the opposing team, but I don't think you could accurately describe that as a spark. A spark would be some kind of emotional/morale factor.
- BulliesPhan87

I'm just saying that Rindalo did change the course of the game, if in no other way, by removing one of the Penguins better players from the ice with an illegal hit. Labeling of it as a 'spark' or not aside, doing something like that really effects the outcome of the game in my mind more than any emotional/morale factor.

I mean, would you rather have (a) your team play with a spark, but Giroux be unavailable for the remainder of the game or (b) have one of your best players on the ice and healthy? To me its a no-brainer for choice (b).

should be a min of 5 if it's an inperson hearing.

I'd like to see 8-10 but I bet it's 6.
- Isles_since_6

Who knows anymore?

I'm sure this is going to be unpopular, but:

If Letang isn't injured and doesn't have to leave the game, it's a 2-minute minor with no hearing.
- jmatchett383

totally agree.. If he had popped right back up its a minor.

Another reason Ryan's article has such a valid point. First, as he said, "enforcers" are reactionary. Second, as you elude to in your first paragraph, people always start gooning it up with other goons to respond to the initial infraction. That never made sense to me.

"I'm going to beat up your 6 point a year player because his linemate injured our 20 goal scorer! That'll show you!!!"


- stashu

There is a way to be a deterrent, but it has to be more of an intimidation thing. It can't be reactionary, it has to be proactive. Craig Berube told this story:

When he was on the Flyers, there was "a team" (the Rangers) where one of their players was running around a bit. He went up to "one of their stars" (Brian Leetch) and told him to calm the guy down, or he would go after Leetch.

That's the only way it works. You don't threaten the 4th line goon, you threaten the star player. The goon can get beat up and he only has to deal with himself. Having to have a teammate answer for you is much worse.

That said, with the instigator rule, there's not really a way to do it any more.

Another reason Ryan's article has such a valid point. First, as he said, "enforcers" are reactionary. Second, as you elude to in your first paragraph, people always start gooning it up with other goons to respond to the initial infraction. That never made sense to me.

"I'm going to beat up your 6 point a year player because his linemate injured our 20 goal scorer! That'll show you!!!"


- stashu

it's a tough spot though - teams sign these guys because they believe they make the team tougher, then tell them to play with an edge (which means right on the edge) and if they don't they lose their jobs, but if they do, they frequently go over the line, especially with weak discipline after the fact from the league.

stop signing these clowns and it does more for the game than the nhl head office can do.

There is a way to be a deterrent, but it has to be more of an intimidation thing. It can't be reactionary, it has to be proactive. Craig Berube told this story:

When he was on the Flyers, there was "a team" (the Rangers) where one of their players was running around a bit. He went up to "one of their stars" (Brian Leetch) and told him to calm the guy down, or he would go after Leetch.

That's the only way it works. You don't threaten the 4th line goon, you threaten the star player. The goon can get beat up and he only has to deal with himself. Having to have a teammate answer for you is much worse.

That said, with the instigator rule, there's not really a way to do it any more.
- jmatchett383

yessir. this.

it's a tough spot though - teams sign these guys because they believe they make the team tougher, then tell them to play with an edge (which means right on the edge) and if they don't they lose their jobs, but if they do, they frequently go over the line, especially with weak discipline after the fact from the league.

stop signing these clowns and it does more for the game than the nhl head office can do.
- Isles_since_6

I laughed at Buffalo for bringing in Scott and Ott to be "tough" like Boston.

Toughness is not a goon, or even one or 2 players. It is a team mentality. It's 20 players who will go to hell and back with each other. It's 20 guys who will treat each other like brothers and stand up for each other. It's not about some oversized meathead punching a guy for 10 seconds.

Another reason Ryan's article has such a valid point. First, as he said, "enforcers" are reactionary. Second, as you elude to in your first paragraph, people always start gooning it up with other goons to respond to the initial infraction. That never made sense to me.

"I'm going to beat up your 6 point a year player because his linemate injured our 20 goal scorer! That'll show you!!!"


- stashu

Exactly. As i've tried to reiterate, I don't agree with the 'eye-for-an-eye' approach, but I do agree with the concept for MAD (mutually assured destruction). However, in order for MAD to work you have to target what the opposing side values & no one values Zac Rinaldo.

There is a way to be a deterrent, but it has to be more of an intimidation thing. It can't be reactionary, it has to be proactive. Craig Berube told this story:

When he was on the Flyers, there was "a team" (the Rangers) where one of their players was running around a bit. He went up to "one of their stars" (Brian Leetch) and told him to calm the guy down, or he would go after Leetch.

That's the only way it works. You don't threaten the 4th line goon, you threaten the star player. The goon can get beat up and he only has to deal with himself. Having to have a teammate answer for you is much worse.

That said, with the instigator rule, there's not really a way to do it any more.
- jmatchett383

Its a weird rule.

it's a tough spot though - teams sign these guys because they believe they make the team tougher, then tell them to play with an edge (which means right on the edge) and if they don't they lose their jobs, but if they do, they frequently go over the line, especially with weak discipline after the fact from the league.

stop signing these clowns and it does more for the game than the nhl head office can do.
- Isles_since_6

Seems like there are always guys out there willing to do it though because they feel it must be done. Probably isn't a real thing, but I wonder if the players union would cry about collusion if they GMs had some sort of discussion at meetings about it.

Ultimately, a guy like Downie, who has skill and can move up and down the lineup if they are in a pinch, has value where some other guys simply don't. He can actually play. If he couldn't...I wouldn't want him at all. Frankly when he's taking unneccesary penalties I feel that way. Same way with Cooke when he wa shere(maybe more so). If he kept his nose clean he was a very cheap player who brought a lot to the games.

Are we talking about the same hit?
- rangerdanger94

Game 4 Ranger vs. Caps 5/5/12... leaving his feet, targeting the head!!!... NO SUSPENSION
very ugly example of the incomprehensibility of NHL discipline
iN THIS CASE
Ovie s intent was to injure by leaving his feet and targeting the head. Ovie has also been suspended multiple times in the past.
Ovie not suspended because:
1) Hes Ovie
2) the situation
3) Girardi not hurt

Whew.... Sounds like we dodged a bullet.

Seems like there are always guys out there willing to do it though because they feel it must be done. Probably isn't a real thing, but I wonder if the players union would cry about collusion if they GMs had some sort of discussion at meetings about it.

Ultimately, a guy like Downie, who has skill and can move up and down the lineup if they are in a pinch, has value where some other guys simply don't. He can actually play. If he couldn't...I wouldn't want him at all. Frankly when he's taking unneccesary penalties I feel that way.
- HopintheCordoba

I mean they basically did it with the goons so why not start doing it with the rats?

Yea, need more guys willing to try and purposely injure guys. Its the real manly way to win.

Unless Rinaldo is suspended for 20+ games. The NHL will again fail with player safety.
- ImThatGuy

so let me get this straight. While Rinaldo's hit was dirty the game is fast and he finished a hit. yes should NOT have finished it but he did. 20 games is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think. James Neal received just 5 games for kneeing Marchand in the head while he was on the the ice. that was a obvious intent to injure but a hockey play, body check, illegal yes, gets 20 games. wow.

There is a way to be a deterrent, but it has to be more of an intimidation thing. It can't be reactionary, it has to be proactive. Craig Berube told this story:

When he was on the Flyers, there was "a team" (the Rangers) where one of their players was running around a bit. He went up to "one of their stars" (Brian Leetch) and told him to calm the guy down, or he would go after Leetch.

That's the only way it works. You don't threaten the 4th line goon, you threaten the star player. The goon can get beat up and he only has to deal with himself. Having to have a teammate answer for you is much worse.

That said, with the instigator rule, there's not really a way to do it any more.
- jmatchett383

Very much disagree. If that is the approach you want to take, wait until the target has the puck, charge at them, & aim for the head w/ an elbow or dive at their knees. Do not concern yourself with the hit being late; just go for the injury regardless. Hell, you don't even have to wait for them to have the puck if you really feel like it.

Personally, I think its a stupid plan, but to say that you can't threaten/injure a star player because of the instigator penalty is simply not true. Getting punched sucks; getting a flying elbow to the head or tearing your ACL can end your season or career.

I mean they basically did it with the goons so why not start doing it with the rats?
- Vukota

I'm with you. No skin off my back. Do whatever is necessary to make the game a competition of skill and talent. That's what I pay for---not to see careers shortened and the talent on the ice diminished. If a player with real ability(Downie, Cooke, Marchand) that can play on the edge steps out of line, send them to the moon. I don't care. I want REAL hockey.

Could not agree more Ryan with what you wrote.

I would even take it a step further. First suspension would be 10 games, and every suspension after that would be doubles, meaning 20, 40, 80, etc.

That is the only way to get this garbage, and that is what it is, out of the game. Make it a true deterrent, not the joke that it is now.

I think anybody that voted no in your poll did so wearing clown shoes.

It is going to be very difficult to get the old mentality out of the game, where players like this are seen as important for a team. It's going to take giant suspensions handed out for first offenses to make minds change.

so let me get this straight. While Rinaldo's hit was dirty the game is fast and he finished a hit. yes should NOT have finished it but he did. 20 games is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think. James Neal received just 5 games for kneeing Marchand in the head while he was on the the ice. that was a obvious intent to injure but a hockey play, body check, illegal yes, gets 20 games. wow.
- RobFlyers#1

Neal's suspension was 15 games - but the NHL gave him a 10-game credit for hitting Marchand (only if).

so let me get this straight. While Rinaldo's hit was dirty the game is fast and he finished a hit. yes should NOT have finished it but he did. 20 games is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think. James Neal received just 5 games for kneeing Marchand in the head while he was on the the ice. that was a obvious intent to injure but a hockey play, body check, illegal yes, gets 20 games. wow.
- RobFlyers#1

Yes it does. There is no other way to get the clowns to think otherwise of administering a hit like that.

Could not agree more Ryan with what you wrote.

I would even take it a step further. First suspension would be 10 games, and every suspension after that would be doubles, meaning 20, 40, 80, etc.

That is the only way to get this garbage, and that is what it is, out of the game. Make it a true deterrent, not the joke that it is now.

I think anybody that voted no in your poll did so wearing clown shoes.

It is going to be very difficult to get the old mentality out of the game, where players like this are seen as important for a team. It's going to take giant suspensions handed out for first offenses to make minds change.
- kingcong39

Agree completely. Unfortunately we have been reading this material for far too long already and the end of the nonsense does not appear to be in sight.

Yes it does. There is no other way to get the clowns to think otherwise of administering a hit like that.
- kingcong39

what that says though is what Rinaldo did was worse than Neal's and it was wasn't. Neal is a bigger clown.

Penguins have recalled Derrick Pouliot from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton ... send Farnham down.
— Jason Mackey (@Mackey_Trib

I wonder if this is insurance in case Letang doesn't play tonight or if maybe they will sit someone else if he does.

Normally when players who take cheap shots are interviewed later they either try to mitigate it like Carcillo did recently (by claiming his crosscheck was a "hockey play") or they are apologetic. The incident can often be put down to them letting their emotions get the better of them during play. This never justifies it but at least I can understand it to a small extent. Rinaldo essentially bragged about it and implied that it was not only intentional but also part of their overall strategy to win. I think the hit itself should probably earn about 5 games but these comments should get him 20. Comments like this by players make the league look really bad.

Taking out Letang killed the Pens power play. It was upsetting to see them not score on the five minute major but not surprising because the PP is pretty much completely ineffective without him. Malkin can play the point too but not as well. Letang is only our best defenseman.

I am also curious to see if anything will result from Del Zotto's headshot on Bortuzzo. I thought that was even dirtier but unfortunately it seems to be forgotten about in the context of everything else that happened. It would serve the Flyers right to lose another defensman for a few games.

what that says though is what Rinaldo did was worse than Neal's and it was wasn't. Neal is a bigger clown.
- RobFlyers#1

Neither is good. Maybe you're right. Maybe Neal was worse. Let's say I agree. But remember, he's a real talent. If he plays hockey and isn't an ass, then he has a ton of value. What does Rinaldo have? Jack squat. Maybe it's a bit unfair but the league won't forget that.

Not right. Players should get the punishment their crime deserves with history taken into account and nothing else. Doesn't change the fact that Rinaldo can be replaced easily. Neal can't.

No you provide a lot for this blog in a positive way, the weird obsessive fish guy does not.

To be honest im not even sure he watches hockey.
- nbartley9

Certainly not on here everyday. Couldn't stomach it for that long though you have some objective posters I wont blanket statement everyone. The problem is when your blogger writes a blog like this it comes off as hypocritical and attracts attention from other fans. coincidentally you're quite the hypocrite yourself with all of the times you trolled both of our blogs bfr and after the playoffs and in between. Also, you questioning my knowledge of the sport is laughable. Your posts are consistently incoherent.