NHL Discussion

[kirbypuckett]

Richards wasn't suspended for basically the same hit.

The rules for next season would have had Cooke suspended and further since he's a repeat offender.

But by the rule book today, the hit was legal.

Not taking sides, just saying.

[sgoodcore]

But it wasn't legal, a penalty simply wasn't called. Cooke hit him with his elbow.

[andrew13]

it was a dirty hit, just like richards. both should have been suspended. but, at least the NHL star rules coming into effect again.

[100resolutions]

Colin Campbell is seemingly a total moron.

Agreed. This guy is ridiculous.

[sgoodcore]

The big difference I see with Richards and Cooke, is Cooke has a major reputation and history for this crap and Richards did/does not. For that specifically, Cooke could have and should have been suspended. Again, this is why I hate the instigator rule. I doubt, with the guise of a Chara destruction, if Cooke takes a shot at Savard like that.

I wonder what Crosby thinks of it? I mean, you have guys taking cheap shots like that eventually it comes around and people are going to take shots at him, moreso than they already do.

[swankymodes]

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.

[drabley]

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.

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.

[swankymodes]

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.

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.

[drabley]

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. Perhaps you should work on your written communication skills a little.

The sentence I quoted reads that you are surprised that neither got suspended because of the injuries the other party sustained. Just prior, you pointed out how there was no infraction on the play and it was the correct call. So why would one be surprised at the outcome unless they thought otherwise?

There is no sarcasm font, man. You didn't give it context until your reply, which is necessary seeing as how I can't hear you speak the words to detect it. You're surprised they got it right. Nice shoes. I get it.

xo

[andrew13]

crosby in the post game interview didn't sound to happy with cooke from the part i caught. didn't see the whole thing though.

[kirbypuckett]

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 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.

[swankymodes]

Give blood. Play hockey. Injuries happen.

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.

[sgoodcore]

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.

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.

[swankymodes]

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.

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.

[swankymodes]

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 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.

[andrew13]

if you ever get seats on the glass between the blue lines, trade them for further up seats. i sat there at a WBS AHL game last year and it was moving so fast you couldn't tell what was happening, and they play about 2/3 NHL speed it seemed like. after that game, i had a ton more respect for those guys and how much skill it takes to make reactions that quickly.

[sgoodcore]

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.

Look, you think because the hits were legal they shouldn't get suspended. I think because the hits were dangerous, in Cooke's case something he'd done many times before, they were suspendable plays regardless of legality.

And frankly, the league has no credibility. Avery gets a rule 24 hours after he looks at Brodeur and face guards him. Richards and Cooke end people's seasons and put their careers at risk and everyone wrings their hands. Avery makes a stupid joke and gets suspended, again Cooke, a repeat-offender, puts someone in the hospital and gets nothing. There's a lack of consistency in that making Campbell's purporting of consistency on the matter laughable.

So, you ask why should they be suspended? Because, if we're talking consistency - and we are by Colin's standards - its no consistent for people to be suspended for words but not for putting people in the hospital.

And I've watched Cooke play long enough to know he goes out of his way to play dirty so I can take a pretty educated guess at the intent of the hit. To my eyes it has purposeful, more an elbow than anything, it was meant to injure, and it was dirty. You're not changing my mind there.

[swankymodes]

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.

[swankymodes]

Look, you think because the hits were legal they shouldn't get suspended. I think because the hits were dangerous, in Cooke's case something he'd done many times before, they were suspendable plays regardless of legality.

And frankly, the league has no credibility. Avery gets a rule 24 hours after he looks at Brodeur and face guards him. Richards and Cooke end people's seasons and put their careers at risk and everyone wrings their hands. Avery makes a stupid joke and gets suspended, again Cooke, a repeat-offender, puts someone in the hospital and gets nothing. There's a lack of consistency in that making Campbell's purporting of consistency on the matter laughable.

So, you ask why should they be suspended? Because, if we're talking consistency - and we are by Colin's standards - its no consistent for people to be suspended for words but not for putting people in the hospital.

And I've watched Cooke play long enough to know he goes out of his way to play dirty so I can take a pretty educated guess at the intent of the hit. To my eyes it has purposeful, more an elbow than anything, it was meant to injure, and it was dirty. You're not changing my mind there.

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.

[sgoodcore]

Oh jesus that's not even the same damn thing. You know it, its intellectually dishonest.

And do you really think the rules aren't up for interpretation? You're telling me Cooke didn't deserve anything when Richards got a major and a game misconduct for hitting Booth? And that's the basis for no suspension and this whole "it was legal" argument?

I mean, I've seen hundreds of games and less impact to head called roughing or elbowing. How is this specifically any different from that? Roughing is just a hit that's determined to be over-the-top, not anything specific.

[swankymodes]

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.

[sgoodcore]

I'm going to opt to discontinue the flogging of this horse. I'm confident in my position. Multiple people across the world share my outlook on it, I don't much care if you disagree with me. And it looks like I was wrong about the roughing penalty but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not devastated. Just to name two, for reference:

http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/2010/03/matt-cooke-avoids-suspension/

http://grossmisconducthockey.com/2010/03/10/consistency-meets-ignorance/

[swankymodes]

I'm going to opt to discontinue the flogging of this horse. I'm confident in my position. Multiple people across the world share my outlook on it, I don't much care if you disagree with me. And it looks like I was wrong about the roughing penalty but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not devastated. Just to name two, for reference:

http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/2010/03/matt-cooke-avoids-suspension/

http://grossmisconducthockey.com/2010/03/10/consistency-meets-ignorance/

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?

[swankymodes]

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."

[mcm1610]

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.

What the fuck is dek hockey? And ...court?