[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by fotze

I don't think there is anything I understand less in hockey than the benching to motivate dynamic. In all these years I just cannot grasp how it works, how it is applied, who it is applied to, what reasons are for sitting out. Its most likely due to me not being on the bench or locker room, but I just cannot understand it.

I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to the coaching, obviously they want the players to be the best they can be and the team to win. There seems to be an age or some point where the sitting out games thing cannot be used anymore. I don't know what it is. Is it the number of NHL contracts you have played through? Do you have to be North American? Is it age based? What makes a player untouchable? I have no idea?

There has to be a male ego dynamic at work too, we all see it in our own workplaces, and it surely will be there in the NHL. How much does it come into play? Maybe it doesn't??

I just have this nightmare of the Savard scenario in my head that constantly lingers in my head. I know the coach apologists like to recall how that played out as 100% Savard's fault, but nothing is ever that cut and dry.

I feel the coach should use whatever means necessary to getting the best out of the player, whatever means, benching, embarrassing in the media, whatever. BUT, if you lose that player resulting in an eventual trade demand (resulting in a severe loss of value in the player), the coach has failed and probably needs to be fired. It can be a fine line for the coach to walk and will vary from player to player. The best coaches can walk that line and push it.

It is a ridiculous coaching move and you've hit the nail on the head. Once you hit 25 years old or hit some magical scoring level (i.e. Glencross and 20 goals) you are no longer allowed to be scratched. If you're 20 and make one mistake.. immediate icetime cut and scratch.