It’s time to eliminate the instigator rule

Fighting has been a part of the National Hockey League since the early days.

Many great… Fighting has been a part of the National Hockey League since the early days.

Many great players, like Gordie Howe, have used fighting as an added tool to their arsenal, while some, like Bob Probert, have used it as their only tool.

Whichever is the case, there is one part of fighting that needs to be gone from the league faster than Rico Fata: the instigator rule.

By getting an instigator penalty for a fight, the infracting player receives two minutes for instigating, five for fighting and a 10-minute misconduct.

That is a ludicrous amount of penalty time served for a fight that the opposing player agreed to do.

Rarely do you see one player jump another randomly.

Normally, the players have enough respect for each other to avoid that.

They set up their fight on the ice and proceed to carry out the bout.

By instituting the instigator rule, the league has tried to cut back on the number of retaliatory fights in the league.

But that is the heart and soul of hockey.

Fights are an acceptable form of retaliation that players from both teams agree to do.

If someone hits a star player or slashes someone without a call, the player has the right to retribution.

They shouldn’t slash back or randomly punch a guy in the face because that would put their team on the penalty kill.

They should just drop the gloves without having to worry about being shorthanded because of their actions.

This can’t be done with the instigator rule.

The current rule states that an instigator of an altercation “shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled, gloves off first, first punch thrown, menacing attitude or posture, verbal instigation or threats, conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident and obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.”

When breaking down the criteria that this rule states as warranting an instigator penalty, one would notice that nearly every fight should have one attached to it.

Distance traveled – if you’re going to run a guy over from across the ice then you deserve to get penalized, but if you’re going skate from one side to the other to engage in fisticuffs with an opponent, there should be no extra penalty.

First punch thrown – this one is simple.

Someone has to do it.

Menacing attitude or posture – hockey fights aren’t going to happen at a tea party in Buckingham Palace, so the menacing attitude is acceptable, and as for posture, you need to fight somehow, so you might as well do it in a fighting stance.

Verbal instigation and threats are a part of sports.

It’s a talent to be able to trash talk someone successfully and, if they don’t like it, they can fight you for it or ignore you.

This goes back to the sticks and stones argument.

Conduct in retaliation to a prior game incident – if someone takes the liberty on a star player then the “enforcer” should step up and do his job of protecting the star player.

Maybe he’ll keep himself away from a team’s Sidney Crosby if a guy like Georges Laraque is there to back him up.

Obvious retribution for a previous incident – see previous paragraph.

This rule is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Fights are used to sway momentum and protect the stars of the game.

With this penalty, the league is trying to cut down on the number of fights, but in reality, we might as well be watching a beer league hockey game where no one cares what is going on.

If you think about it, without fighting, the league would be in shambles.

You would have a slew of very violent assaults on players that wouldn’t happen if they could sort out their differences by other means. You know, like fighting.

By limiting the brawls, the league is creating more liberties taken on its star players.

Memo to the NHL: Eliminate the instigator penalty and increase the fighting to protect your stars.