What happened to the instigator penalty?

Why do we love the game of hockey?  Obviously, we love the speed, the skill and the passion, but we also love the physicality, the bodychecks and the big hits. This week we saw much of what we enjoy about the game and the New York Rangers, but we also saw what is wrong with the game.

The NHL has a rulebook, but based on the last two games, the referees feel that they don’t have to follow it. We’re talking specifically about the instigator penalty.  The New York Rangers have a legitimate beef when it comes to following the rules.

Here’s the rule:

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; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant. A player must be deemed the aggressor when he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.An altercation is a situation involving two players, with at least one to be penalized.

Here’s the punishment for being the instigator: A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major for fighting and a ten minute misconduct.

Here’s the punishment for being the aggressor:  A player who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed a major penalty for fighting and a game misconduct.

In 2005 they modified the punishment:  A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at any time in overtime, shall be assessed an instigator minor penalty, a major for fighting, a ten minute misconduct and an automatic one-game suspension. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. In addition, the player’s coach shall be fined $10,000 — a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.

So, in two games we had three incidents that should have resulted in different punishments than were handed out.   They all involved instigation and not aggression.

Trouba incident #1

Jacob Trouba laid a massive and legal hit on the Blackhawks Jujhar Khaira, knocking him out and sending him to the hospital.  Thankfully, Khaira seems to be okay and will be back in action soon.

A few minutes later, Chicago defenseman Riley Stillman retaliated against Trouba.  A Chicago player bumped Trouba who had just come off the bench and Stillman launched into him with a series of blows.  Trouba fought back and Stillman clearly lost the battle.

The penalties handed out were five minutes for fighting for both players, a call that clearly irritated Gerard Gallant.  Under the rules, Stillman should have got a two minute minor for instigating and a ten minute misconduct.  The two fighting majors handed out were the correct call.

In this case the Rangers were robbed of a power play.

Strome incident

Late in the same game, the Rangers’ Ryan Strome took exception to the Blackhawks’ Ryan Carpenter boarding Ryan Lindgren.  He went right at Carpenter and started a fight.

The penalties handed out were a double minor for roughing for Strome, while Carpenter got four minutes for roughing and boarding.  Strome also got a 10 minute misconduct.

Under the rules, Strome should have gotten a two minute instigating penalty, a fighting major, a 10 minute misconduct and a one-game suspension.   Carpenter should have gotten the two minute minor for boarding and a five minute major for fighting.  Gallant should also have gotten a $10,000 fine.  The severity of the penalties were because the incident happened in the last five minutes of the game.

In this case, Strome got away without a suspension and more important, none of this ends up on his disciplinary record.  The Rangers lucked out.

Trouba incident #2

In a bodycheck very similar to the hit on Khaira, Jacob Trouba laid out Avalanche star Nathan MacKinnon.  He was immediately challenged by Colorado captain Gabriel Landeskog.  Both players dropped their gloves and fought.

The penalties handed out were major penalties for fighting and Landeskog got an additional two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct.

This call was borderline bizarre.  Landeskog deserved an instigator penalty because his actions fulfilled two of the requirements. There was clearly “verbal instigation or threats” and the conduct was “in retaliation to a prior game incident.”

So, Landeskog should have gotten a minor for instigation instead of unsportsmanlike conduct along with a 10 minute misconduct.

The Avs had jumped out to a 4-2 lead by the time of the incident, but without Landeskog or MacKinnon in the lineup, could the Rangers have mounted a comeback?

The referees discretion

There’s no doubt that the NHL will point out that the referees have discretion when enforcing the instigation rules.   Here’s the language regarding that:  The Referee is provided very wide latitude in the penalties which he may impose under this Rule. This is done intentionally to enable him to differentiate between the obvious degrees of responsibility of the participants either for starting the fighting or persisting in continuing the fighting. The discretion provided should be exercised realistically.

In all three incidents, the referees exercised discretion, though whether it was “exercised realistically” can be debated.  The bottom line is Stillman should have gotten a minor for instigating and a misconduct.  Landeskog should have gotten the instigation minor and a misconduct.  Strome should have gotten an instigation minor and a one-game suspension.

Why the discretionary calls?  Is it because the refs think it is okay for a player to have to fight after throwing a legal check?  Is it because they didn’t want Strome to be suspended for defending a teammate?   Is it because they felt that Landeskog didn’t deserve a 10 minute break after starting a fight?

One thing is certain.  Calling instigator penalties won’t stop players from standing up for their teammates.  Does anyone think that if Landeskog had sat for 10 minutes it would have prevented Kurtis MacDermid from spending the rest of the game trying to goad Trouba into a fight?

By not following the rules, the referees are altering the outcomes of NHL games.  It’s impossible to know what the consequences of enforcing the rules would have been on the Rangers, Blackhawks or Avalanche, but the referees made a difference.

The consequences

There’s one big problem with how the instigator rule is not enforced.  In both cases, Jacob Trouba threw legal, legitimate hockey bodychecks into players who were vulnerable and they were both hurt.  However, their vulnerability was of their own doing. Both Khaira and MacKinnon were looking at the puck and not concerned with protecting themselves.  They both paid the price.  That’s hockey.

As a result of throwing two solid bodychecks what did Jacob Trouba get?  He was challenged and fought with two players who escaped without the punishment that is clearly spelled out in the rulebooks.  By not assessing instigator penalties, the NHL is condoning retaliation for legitimate hockey plays.  Hockey purists have bemoaned the fact that the league is getting “soft” and incidents like this will only make it softer.

Sure, Ranger fans can thank the referees for Ryan Strome avoiding a suspension, but he should have been suspended, it’s in the rulebook.  At least in his case, Strome was retaliating for a dirty hit that drew a boarding penalty (that wasn’t called right away).

If a player thinks that throwing a tough but legal check will end up in fisticuffs and five minutes in the penalty box, will he think twice before doing it?  In Trouba’s case, we hope not.

In a postgame interview he talked about the checks. “It’s a fast paced game…you’re in the middle of the game. I don’t think it was malicious.  I don’t think I jumped. I stay on my feet, try to tuck my shoulder and put it in the chest.  It’s  how I was taught to hit, the cleanest way I know how to hit.   I don’t have a reputation as a dirty hitter.  I play the game hard, pretty close to the edge, but I try not to go over the edge.”

Trouba clearly doesn’t believe he should have to fight, saying “Do I think you have to defend yourself, if the hit’s deemed clean? No.  Do I have a problem standing up for myself if someone wants to stand up for a teammate? No.  I don’t have an issue with that. It is what it is.”

Oh, by the way, is there anyone who thinks that Tom Wilson ragdolling Artemi Panarin last season didn’t deserve an aggressor penalty?

Remember the criteria?  A player must be deemed the aggressor when he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.  The penalty would be a major penalty and a game misconduct.   Wilson got a double minor for roughing and a 10 minute misconduct.  Not what the rulebook called for.

And so it goes.