Brophy Strikes Again

Mike Brophy is becoming my favorite hockey writer. Because he's so damn easy to mock.

Apparently not satisfied with embarrassing himself to the hockey community with this gem about why the Capitals should looked to trade Ovechkin (my commentary here), Brophy has penned a new piece about why the NHL should retain the instigator penalty.

I'm not nuts about removing the instigator rule; I think good arguments can be made both for keeping it and eliminating it. I'm not going to attack Brophy for his opinion, but rather for his reasoning and writing. After much consideration (must have been at least four seconds) I decided to use the tried-and-true method favored by the pros at FireJoeMorgan.com. Thus I give you the glory of Mike Brophy.

You hear it nearly every week – get rid of the instigator rule.

...

While we’re at it, let’s arm motorists, so if somebody follows too closely or cuts you off, you can pull out your piece and shoot out their tires. Let’s give grocery store cashiers baseball bats so if somebody gets in the 10-or-fewer items line with 12, they can be kneecapped.

Best. Analogy. Ever.

I'm kind of tempted to just let that sit and speak for itself, but I feel that I have to dig beyond the superficial, surface level of idiocy that jumps out of this article. Because it's just more fun that way.

The surface-level idiocy I referred to is the general absurdity of the analogy. But the ineffective use of analogy goes beyond that because it compares different things. And I just can't let butchering of the English language stand.

The issue of the instigator rule is an issue of severity of punishment. What Brophy talks about in his analogy [motorists; grocery store clerks] is providing people with the means to commit a violent act more effectively. The instigator penalty does not deal with means to commit an illegal act. It deals with punishment. These are two very different things. Acceptable analogies using the same basic framework would include:

(1) "Removing the instigator penalty would be like reducing the jail time for shooting out someone's tires because they cut you off from [current sentence] to [new, lesser sentence] - it's just not enough of a deterrent."

(2) "Arming motorists so they can shoot out the tires of people who have cut them off would be like giving grocery store cashiers baseball bats so if somebody gets in the 10-or-fewer items line with 12, they can be kneecapped or allowing NHL enforcer to carry sharpened sticks to injure players that have offended their team in some manner."

I'll assume Brophy didn't go with option number one because it doesn't have shock value and isn't "clever" and didn't go with option two because it makes no sense, since the issue of what equipment players can carry is not affected by the instigator rule. Why he chose to combine the two into a statement that makes even less sense is beyond me.

Oh, and let’s allow Chris Simon to drop his gloves and beat Ryan Hollweg to a pulp because Hollweg, who is not a fighter, has the audacity to hit him. Let’s let Chris Simon slug the snot out of Jarkko Ruutu because, like Hollweg, he banged the Islanders’ aging tough guy.

Keep in mind that this passage is already stupid because it references the aforementioned stupid and meaningless analogy. But then also consider this: "let’s allow Chris Simon to drop his gloves and beat Ryan Hollweg to a pulp because Hollweg, who is not a fighter, has the audacity to hit him".

Now watch this.

It's currently 6:56:01 PM, December 19. Ryan Hollweg fought 13 times in the 2006-07 season. It is now 6:56:45, December 19. It took me 44 seconds to research and write that.

I'm not a professional journalist in any sense. Especially not for one of the biggest hockey publications on the planet. I am a graduate student in Atlanta killing time and watching the replay of the Senators/Bruins game from last night. Yet I was willing and able to research this post before I posted it. Can't Brophy do the same? And if he can't (or isn't willing to), and as a result makes such an obvious oversight, why should anyone take his opinion seriously?

Here’s a novel idea for NHL players – if you don’t like the way Ryan Hollweg or Jarkko Ruutu hit your teammates, hit them back. Drive them hard into the boards. Crunch them with an open-ice hit. Get even or, heaven forbid, drop your gloves and fight them whether they want to fight back or not. Take that whopping risk of receiving an extra minor penalty for being the instigator.

So then, just to recap:

Oh, and let’s allow Chris Simon to drop his gloves and beat Ryan Hollweg to a pulp because Hollweg, who is not a fighter, has the audacity to hit him. Let’s let Chris Simon slug the snot out of Jarkko Ruutu because, like Hollweg, he banged the Islanders’ aging tough guy. Give me a break.

then...

Here’s a novel idea for NHL players – if you don’t like the way Ryan Hollweg or Jarkko Ruutu hit your teammates, hit them back...drop your gloves and fight them whether they want to fight back or not. Take that whopping risk of receiving an extra minor penalty for being the instigator.

So...this article's first point is that the idea that players should police themselves and fight is ridiculous ("give me a break"). This article's second point is that the much better solution is to...fight with opposing agitators whether they want to or not.

Oh. Well, at least that's clear.

Also, the phrase whopping risk of receiving an extra minor penalty for being the instigator is incorrect as well. Being the instigator results in a two minute minor, a five minute fighting major and a ten minute misconduct. Again, where's the research, Brophy? For that matter, where are the editors?

The NHL will never, ever get rid of the instigator penalty. It would be so politically incorrect it defies consideration. The league says repeatedly it is comfortable with where fighting is now, largely because stiff penalties have eliminated nasty brawls. Fact is, we see more brawls in baseball than we do in hockey these days.

You think Gary Bettman is going to stand before a microphone and tell the world the league has decided, for the good of the game, the NHL will let goons run the show? Ain’t gonna happen, folks.

If the NHL can give a guy on his eighth suspension 30 games for a play that could have easily ended another player's career and adversely affected his quality of life outside of hockey for the rest of his life less than a year after he used his stick like a baseball bat against a guy's face (an infraction which resulted in only 25 games) and give a guy who attacked another play from behind, cracking several vertebrae and not only ending his NHL career but taking away the chance to ever play hockey again 20 games, I think they can justify removing the instigator penalty.

Contrary to the opinion of some, removal of the instigator penalty would not turn NHL games into brawls on a regular basis. Why? The aggressor penalty that's still on the books in the NHL, which reads:

"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."

With this rule on the books players are still protected from completely unprovoked attacks or from being attacked after they've gone into a defenseless position, but the
player who has challenged an opposing player to a fight won't get an extra penalty for dropping their gloves first.

There's a decent case to be made for the instigator penalty, folks. But this ain't it.

Be sure to check back next week when Brophy advocates the return of the glowing puck!