swankymodes

I watch just about every Flyers game and I don't really think there is that big of a difference between Leighton, Emery or Boucher. The offense runs so hot and cold, that really is what determines if they win or not. Maybe Boooosssshhh can call upon the spirit of 2000. He was off his ass that year in the playoffs.

“I am truly sorry that my friend Brent Seabrook was hurt on the play," Wisniewski said in a statement released by the Ducks. "I certainly wish him the best. I am, however, very disappointed in the length of the suspension. Eight games is incredibly hard to swallow, especially in comparison to other recent hits that have resulted in lesser punishment.” What a douche bag. Have they said how Seabrook is doing?

Haha, I just looked that up and saw that. I was like shit, I'm older than him. Damnit!

all those years of art classes have finally paid off...

I don't know, the Yotes core group is older. Jovanovski, Doan, Aucoin, and Lang are all older. I was shocked when I saw Jovanovski's name showing up in boxscores this year. I figured he was retired and gone after the strike. He's old but I guess not as old as I would have assumed.

I'd say Campbell put himself in a bad position as much as Ovechkin pushed him. Man, I don't know about that. I just watched the hit again. Campbell doesn't even have the puck when Ovie puts him down. We disagree again, haha.

As for the suspension: Rule 23.5 of the NHL rulebook states: "Any player or goalkeeper who incurs a total of two (2) game misconduct penalties for stick-related infractions, Boarding - Rule 42, or Checking from Behind - Rule 44, shall be suspended automatically for the next league game of his team." interestingly enough... the fine print of the rule: When a player or goalkeeper has played in 41 consecutive regular League games without being assessed a boarding and/or a checking from behind major and a game misconduct according to Rules 42 and 44, he will have the previous game misconduct penalties removed from his current record. They will remain part of his historical record. Apparently this was the 42nd game since Ovie got his last game misconduct for boarding. Good timing on his part, haha.

Ovechkin definitely gets the boarding penalty because he extends his arms and pushes Campbell down and into the boards. Checking from behind isn't necessary for a boarding call. You just need to violently check someone into the boards. It usually gets the call when you are 3 or 4 feet from the boards and the player falls. It's kind of a judgment call for the refs.

Wow, I just watched the Crosby/Downie play. I'm not even sure that's a slew foot. That's like a chop block. Personal foul, 15 yards and automatic first down. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that before. I had the displeasure of watching Downie play with the Flyers for a short time. He's definitely got a few dirty plays in him. Strange thing about him is the Flyers talked him up like he was a prospect or something. He showed nothing at all in Philly. They traded him in for Matt Carle, which is like one of the best trades I can recall the Flyers making.

I doubt he'll get suspended, certainly nothing major if he does. He is a superstar. I didn't see the game, but I watched the replay. It was a nasty boarding hit. He definitely deserved the 5 and the 10 in my opinion.

Dek hockey is just a fancy term for indoor street hockey. It's played in shoes, not roller blades. There's never been contact allowed in any roller hockey league I've played in. Even most adult recreational ice hockey leagues only allow light contact.

Bill Guerin weighed in on the head hits and Matt Cooke: "If a guy gets hurt like that with a shot to the head, there's got to be something," Guerin said. "Actions happen. Guys don't mean to hurt each other, but they do. You got to pay a price for that." Guerin said players must know they can play the game with protection against hits to the head, especially those that a player can't see coming. "We're all under the same umbrella, whether the guy's on my team and I'm sitting right next to him or he's playing in California," Guerin said. "It doesn't matter. We're all playing in the same league. We all want the same safety. We all want to be looked after the same way. I understand he [Cooke] is on my team but, hey, he's in a tough spot."

I think we agree on quite a bit of this stuff. I just have a hard time understanding your view on how you want games to be officiated consistently and fairly when you seem to want officials and the league to take into account reputation and assume players intent. I try to apply the logic you seem to use to other game situations and it doesn't seem to work. I also agree with a lot of what these blogs say. I like how the one blog is titled "Matt Cooke Avoids Suspension" haha. Like he's on the run or something. Dodging bullets and shit. And the other one sighting a "Conspiracy" yet not writing about any conspiring at all in the blog. Decent opinions but shitty choice of headlines. There's been several discussions like this on the board which involve labeling a play or player "dirty." I know I do it in my head, but sometimes I wonder how others define it. Are they dirty according to the rulebook or dirty in the sense of basic human decency? or some hybrid of both?

How is it not the same thing??? Both are legal plays according to the NHL rules and both put another player in harms way from a player with a history of infractions for that exact kind of play. Explain it to me. The only people who the rules are "up to interpretation" for are the on-ice officials. That's it. I think the penalty to Richards was complete bullshit myself. You are completely wrong about what a roughing penalty is. Rule 51 - Roughing – Roughing is a punching motion with the hand or fist, with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of an opponent.

In your opinion, do you think Marian Hossa should have been suspended when he hit Bryan Berard in the eye with his stick after shooting the puck? By the rules it was a legal play since he was merely following through with his shot... but it did blind Berard in one eye and ended his season (and basically ended his career). It was "dangerous" for Hossa to shoot the puck with a player that close to him. Hossa has high sticked players in the past, so he has a history of hitting players with high sticks.

Sammy, first we ARE in agreement that the league's credibility is pretty much non-existent. I said it in my post too, they aren't balanced or fair in their actions. But in turn, if you want the league to become more fair, you can't let them rule on intent. There is too much gray area when you try to determine what a player intended to do. You need to rule and officiate based on what they actually did. I think it's really unfortunate Booth and Savard got hurt and I hate to see it happen. I'm all for the head shot rule getting put into place. But also, hockey is a really rough, contact sport. Every player in the NHL knows that and every player also knows that when they check another player they are going to hurt them in some way. But you make it out like there's a bunch of sociopaths out there looking to kill or hospitalize everyone. It seems a bit over the top. What Cooke and Richards did was within the confines of the rule of the game, so no, I don't think they should be suspended.

I don't have the quote on hand, but Chris Pronger (can't believe I'm siding w/ him), said something along the lines of, if there's a guy near the crease and I have to let up on him a bit, then he might get a goal and I'll be considered soft and people will question why I didn't stand up. Hockey is such a fast paced game that it is very hard to analyze the situation and make a decision based on that within a few seconds. I always knew hockey was fast, but now that I've been playing dek hockey, it's way faster than I thought on the court. And that's playing in a league w/ a bunch of n00bs. I'm not defending what Cooke did, but sometimes things happen too fast. I remember hearing this from Pronger too (I don't have the quote either) and I'd agree with him and you. I play (shitty) men's league recreational hockey as well and the games are incredibly fast paced. It's hard to line someone up for a clean body check.

By the letter of the law, you're correct the hits were quasi-legal. Still doesn't matter they both went out of their way to injure someone, I think that's a suspendable offense. Now, Campbell and some of you disagree but I don't care. Hockey can be a lethal game but when its clear-cut head-hunting I think people should know that won't be allowed. Are you really telling me Sean Avery dropping the phrase "sloppy seconds" is worth being suspended for whereas Cooke ending Savard's season is not? I think that's a bit ridiculous. No, by the letter of the law, the hits were legal (not quasi-legal). Neither you or I know if Cooke or Richards went out of their way to hurt anyone. You're making an assumption on their intent. In my opinion, intent shouldn't really weigh into the equation. I don't care what they intended, if it happens it happens. If you accidentally high stick somebody, it's still a high stick. I read the rule the GMs approved and thought it was pretty good. Honestly, I don't even know why they inserted the "blind side" part of the rule. Just make it all head shots where the head is the primary point of impact. Umm... I'm not telling you anything about Sean Avery. Personally, I don't think Avery should have been suspended for that. Fined, maybe. Suspended, no. Lyle Odelein used to insult Matthew Barnaby's wife all the time. The league didn't feel the need to do anything about it then. Of course Barnaby also used to call him Cornelius, haha. As far as Richards and Cooke go, as of right now they didn't do anything wrong according to NHL rules. Why should they get suspended? If either would have been suspended, I wouldn't have been surprised. I'm more surprised that they didn't. Concussions are all the rage right now in sports. I thought the league would have acted. It sounds like we can mostly all agree the league doesn't make the most balanced and fair decisions/rulings.

I'll be sure to make all future posts in stupid, meaningless slogans that only belong on t-shirts and bumper stickers in the future so I can be sure you'll understand them.

Are you? If caught Malkin cruising through the neutral zone with his head down and I labeled him with a clean, open ice hit and he ended up with a broken collar bone and a concussion, would I deserve to get suspended? I think I'd deserve some kind of trophy, personally. Give blood. Play hockey. Injuries happen. When they happen on purpose, that's another story. How to determine that -- that's the million dollar question. I didn't say anything about them deserving to be suspended. I said I'm surprised they didn't get suspended. All too often the league punishes based off the injury, not the infraction. Personally, I think you deserve a trophy for being a dumb ass. Take a reading comprehension course.

I watched the videos of both the Cooke and Richards hits. I don't think either used their elbow to deliver the blow. By the current rules, I'd say they were both legal hits. Sounds like next year that's definitely over since all the GMs approved the new rule about blows to the head. I am surprised neither of them got suspended by the league, not because of what they did was dirty or anything, mostly because of the injuries the other players sustained. I don't think the league will ever do anything about the instigator rule. They want to do everything possible to get rid of fighting without actually getting rid of fighting. If they really want to cut down on fighting and cheap shots they need to eliminate some teams from the league. Shrink the number of players so the talent pool isn't so diluted. Of course that will never happen.

I think it was death by stereo!

I went to University of Delaware majoring in fine arts Illustration. Then also wen to University of Cincinnati for Civil Engineering.

I agree, you can't really determine an intent to injure. Especially as an on ice official. But to fix the problem you don't need to determine an intent to injure. Clean head shots are the issue, there's no body checking, just shoulders to the head. They've already put rules in place for elbows, I don't see how shoulders would change the game. Obviously a ban on something won't stop it from happening, elbows to the head still take place, but it will increase the penalty making it a five minute major and a match penalty which brings an automatic suspension. In turn it will lower the occurrence of that type of hit. To say hockey is filling with candy asses just seems dumb to me. These guys are bigger and stronger than the players of the past and they're paid millions of dollars to play. The league and the team owners are going to protect their players/investments. And kicking someone with a skate is definitely a penalty and in the rulebook. It's a five minute major and also a match penalty that will get you a suspension/fine. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26338

I do not give a flying iota of a fuck whether Cooke's hit or Richards' hit was "legal." They should NOT be legal, hitting a guy with a flying elbow or shoulder in their head is not right and we all know it. When the only argument is, "hey, its legal" than ones either brainwashed by Don Cherry or has no morals. I want to see Savard make plays not Cooke irritate people. I want to see Booth playing in the Olympics and scoring highlight reel goals, not shoulders to the head and stretchers. I'd agree, clean shots to the head (not just elbows) should be banned and I'm betting they will be next season. I'll be curious to see what the league does and how they word the rule if they do actually take action.