Players Policing Themselves

[Taro T]

The recent discussions regarding the Cooke hit and Ovechkin hit have lead to posters talking about how "players should police themselves", "there's no respect among players", and "the NHL should(n't) get rid of the instigator rule."

 

I'm curious as to what people think the phrase "the players should police themselves" does entail and what it actually should/shouldn't entail.

 

Shrader's comments about the possibility of Downie apparently trying to injure Cindy in retribution for the hit from Kennedy(?) on Stamkos points out that it isn't always the original perpetrator that gets sprayed w/ bullets, sometimes it's the innocent bystander. Although interestingly enough Kennedy and Downie were the 2 dancing in the corner after 87 was lying on the ice.

 

It seems to me there is some romanticized version of what "policing themselves" is supposed to be. It seems to conjure up images of Marty McSorley making certain that no one ever dared lay a hand on the Great One. But it also entailed items such as Dave Schultz "protecting" Bobby Clarke after one of his little slash and run tactics. It also entails Matt Cooke challenging Steve Moore to protect Naslund's honor, a challenge which Moore did accept, and then pinheads like Brad May not believing enough penance had been served resulting in Bertuzzi nearly killing him and ending his career.

 

Too often, I think "policing themselves" can end up with either "jackbooted thugs" kicking in the door such as whichever '70's vintage Phlyer had Clarke's back that particular night or a lynch mob such as the one that Brad May organized and Todd Bertuzzi was all too eager to lead. I think that we tend to forget that "policing" means enforcing the existing laws, not creating new ones on the fly and more importantly not meeting out the justice that follows the police action. Oftentimes when the discussion is about "policing" the game, it is more referring to the players additionally handing out and carrying out sentence.

 

To my way of thinking, it should be rare for the players to truly "police" the game; it should be the refs and league officials that perform that task. The reason being that when the person doing the policing is getting emotionally involved and imposing the sentence, the justice may be swift but it isn't necessarily well served.

 

Now, getting back to WHY do the players take it upon themselves to police the game, the most likely and obvious cause is that the league itself often doesn't do a good job of handing out justice in an equitable manner. Because the league doesn't do a great job of coming off as impartial and equitable, there is frustration w/ the league's system of justice. But I actually think that it has improved (albeit slightly) and that the new rules against headhunting could/should make it better.

 

The fact that the league did decide to suspend Ovie a second time (I guess Pronger's club isn't as exclusive anymore) might be an indication that the league is starting to catch on to the idea that the best way to get the players to respect each other is to severely punish any player that doesn't show respect to the opponent.

 

Anyway, I find this to be an interesting topic and would like to read what people think about it. Apologies on not fleshing stuff out more precisely.

[inkman]

I guess traditionally I always thought it meant that you had to drop the gloves if you took liberties with a player the opposition deemed "untouchable".

 

If it really means an eye for an eye justice, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Players skating around gladiator style weilding their sticks as weapons is not exactly what I want the league to become.

[Taro T]

I guess traditionally I always thought it meant that you had to drop the gloves if you took liberties with a player the opposition deemed "untouchable".

 

If it really means an eye for an eye justice, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Players skating around gladiator style weilding their sticks as weapons is not exactly what I want the league to become.

I agree with you in part in that that is the definition people want to refer to when they talk about it, but it also has always included the subtext of "if your goons injure our star, we'll injure yours" and "if you run our goalie, we'll run yours." I didn't really want to see the Sabres take liberties with Lundqvist when Gomez injured Miller; but I definitely wanted to see them make sure that Gomez realized that kind of behavior was unacceptable.

 

People like the fights and there are a lot of purists of the Don Cherry mold that don't like it taking a diminished role w/in the game. Which seems to be the primary reason for the calls to let the players police themselves. Heck, back in the late '90's, next to Hasek, Ray was far and away the most entertaining part of a Sabres game. But it seems to me the game is more entertaining now with an occassional fight breaking out rather than the other way around. (Of course, that could just be due to getting old.)

[That Aud Smell]

Shrader's comments about the possibility of Downie apparently trying to injure Cindy in retribution for the hit from Kennedy(?) on Stamkos points out that it isn't always the original perpetrator that gets sprayed w/ bullets, sometimes it's the innocent bystander.

I guess traditionally I always thought it meant that you had to drop the gloves if you took liberties with a player the opposition deemed "untouchable".

i think it's largely a myth that, in days gone by, a guy had to answer for touching a star player.

 

i have a memory of attending a game where lafontaine talked very pointedly to someone on his own team (gord donnelly?) as he (not #16) sat in the box during a tv timeout after taking liberties with a #1 forward on the other team (damphouse?). i had no idea what was going on, but someone in my section proffered to anyone in earshot that lafontaine was basically saying "geez, thanks a lot, elohssa." may was injured -- rayzor had definitely been tossed already for a third man in.

 

there's always been a twisted proxy system used in the players' purported "policing" of themselves. (i always come back to laraque having something like an "nhl code: summit" with our bench after someone did something not so nice to someone on pittsburgh -- we hadn't dressed peters so no one could answer the bell -- laraque later KO'd paetsch with a nasty elbow.) it's a shame that the league's management is so divided and weak that it can't get control of these situations.

[static70]

Players are incapable of policing themselves. Thats part of the reason why you have officiating and you put a structure in place called the "NHL".

 

Can you imagine players policing themselves:

Roy to (insert player name here): "You tripped me, 2 minutes in the box pal"

(Insert player name here) to Roy: "You dive artist, 2 minutes in the box for bad acting"

 

:blink:

[Stoner]

Players are incapable of policing themselves. Thats part of the reason why you have officiating and you put a structure in place called the "NHL".

 

Can you imagine players policing themselves:

Roy to (insert player name here): "You tripped me, 2 minutes in the box pal"

(Insert player name here) to Roy: "You dive artist, 2 minutes in the box for bad acting"

 

:blink:

 

The name "Derek Roy" and the phrase "insert player name" should never be used in the same sentence.

[Taro T]

i think it's largely a myth that, in days gone by, a guy had to answer for touching a star player.

 

i have a memory of attending a game where lafontaine talked very pointedly to someone on his own team (gord donnelly?) as he (not #16) sat in the box during a tv timeout after taking liberties with a #1 forward on the other team (damphouse?). i had no idea what was going on, but someone in my section proffered to anyone in earshot that lafontaine was basically saying "geez, thanks a lot, elohssa." may was injured -- rayzor had definitely been tossed already for a third man in.

 

there's always been a twisted proxy system used in the players' purported "policing" of themselves. (i always come back to laraque having something like an "nhl code: summit" with our bench after someone did something not so nice to someone on pittsburgh -- we hadn't dressed peters so no one could answer the bell -- laraque later KO'd paetsch with a nasty elbow.) it's a shame that the league's management is so divided and weak that it can't get control of these situations.

And there you have it, the dichotomy of what it is/was and what it should be.

 

Personally, I like the direction the league appears to be headed in, which is to try and take the dirty stuff out of the game while still leaving the clean hitting in it.

[R_Dudley]

I guess traditionally I always thought it meant that you had to drop the gloves if you took liberties with a player the opposition deemed "untouchable".

If it really means an eye for an eye justice, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Players skating around gladiator style weilding their sticks as weapons is not exactly what I want the league to become.

 

 

I agree with you in part in that that is the definition people want to refer to when they talk about it, but it also has always included the subtext of "if your goons injure our star, we'll injure yours" and "if you run our goalie, we'll run yours." I didn't really want to see the Sabres take liberties with Lundqvist when Gomez injured Miller; but I definitely wanted to see them make sure that Gomez realized that kind of behavior was unacceptable.

 

People like the fights and there are a lot of purists of the Don Cherry mold that don't like it taking a diminished role w/in the game. Which seems to be the primary reason for the calls to let the players police themselves. Heck, back in the late '90's, next to Hasek, Ray was far and away the most entertaining part of a Sabres game. But it seems to me the game is more entertaining now with an occassional fight breaking out rather than the other way around. (Of course, that could just be due to getting old.)

 

 

i think it's largely a myth that, in days gone by, a guy had to answer for touching a star player.

 

i have a memory of attending a game where lafontaine talked very pointedly to someone on his own team (gord donnelly?) as he (not #16) sat in the box during a tv timeout after taking liberties with a #1 forward on the other team (damphouse?). i had no idea what was going on, but someone in my section proffered to anyone in earshot that lafontaine was basically saying "geez, thanks a lot, elohssa." may was injured -- rayzor had definitely been tossed already for a third man in.

 

there's always been a twisted proxy system used in the players' purported "policing" of themselves. (i always come back to laraque having something like an "nhl code: summit" with our bench after someone did something not so nice to someone on pittsburgh -- we hadn't dressed peters so no one could answer the bell -- laraque later KO'd paetsch with a nasty elbow.) it's a shame that the league's management is so divided and weak that it can't get control of these situations.

 

My bolded comments from the three posts sums up what I understand it to mean and still agree with. Now if the league was willing and able to get control of these situations I wouldn't mind at all if the goons and fighters went the way of the dinosaur.