| Yes it’s definitely on the decline, and nothing like before the rule changes, but it’s still an issue. Crosby has been punished heavily his whole career and suffered several concussions, so the Penguins had to make changes to give him more protection. The theory is backed by the evidence. It’s correlation, but the link seems obvious. Concussions went way up after the original instigator rule. They went up even more after the “no hits to the head if you can hit somewhere else rule”. The number of man games lost in the playoffs has also gone up steadily. So by all metrics, outcomes have gotten worse. Pests and cheap shots have no deterrent, and compared to fighting, those are what cause real damage. Your arguments sound plausible, but the numbers tell a far different story, and the coaches who have star players vocally disagree with you. https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-instigator-penalty-needs-to... ”The instigator rule may be limiting fights, but it isn’t protecting the players. It’s allowing dirty players to thrive. And that has to be worse for hockey than two players facing off in an effort to guard their teammates.” Don’t get me wrong, I get the moral argument and the issue with glorifying violence. I don’t have an opinion on fights, but I find the change in outcomes to be interesting in the behavioral economics sense. |