Should Matt Cooke Have Been Suspended?
by Derek B on Mar 10, 2010 10:34 PM MST
101 comments
Probably one of the hottest topics in the NHL right now are the seemingly endless amounts of hits to the head of NHL players. Should NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell suspended Penguins forward Matt Cooke for his devastating hit on Marc Savard?
Marc Savard suffered a grade 2 concussion on the play when Cooke came across and leveled him with a shoulder to the head. By definition it was a "clean" hit and Cooke didn't violate any league rules. At least not yet. The main focus of this past weeks general manager's meetings in Boca Raton, FL (they definitely spare no expense putting these meetings on).
From everything that has come out of the meetings, it looks like that it is now going to cost players at a minimum a two minute minor, potentially a five minute major. The thinking behind this is that if while the player is in the box and a team scores a goal against, it could cost the team a win. Now a days, with points being as vital as there are to making the playoffs, this could really make a difference. What does everyone else think?
0 recs |
101 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
while i agree, head shots are no good, elbow to head or shoulder to head..from the video i’ve seen it didn’t really look as if cook had a malicious intent
'I googled what the white stuff in a Ho-Ho was, i found out it has NINE cups of sugar..that will KILL YOU, it would turn your blood into fruit punch!'
I don't think that he did either.
But the argument isn’t whether or not the intent was there, but the injury sustained caused the player to miss significant time. I have been an advocate of the longer the player is going to be out, the player causing the injury should face a similar suspension. For example, when Berdooche ended Moore’s career? Yeah, the hit by Cooke was nothing compared to that, but with a grade 2 concussion, Savard is going to miss some significant time.
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
What about Wilson’s hit to Elias? That hit was 100% clean, but when Wilson tried to shoulder to shoulder, somehow Elias’ head got involved, how are they going to rule situations like that- or is that even comparable? I’m just really confused on this whole hitting and suspending business.
by xskatebakerrx on Mar 10, 2010 10:59 PM MST up reply actions
Wilson tried to shoulder to shoulder
I think this is the difference. Wilson had every intention of going for a clean hit. Elias himself said it was a clean hit (tho he confessed it was like getting hit by a truck…hence the “Mack” nickname I’ve given Wilson). Cooke clearly went for the head. There is NO way he had any intention of going for the shoulder, no matter what he, his coach, his agent, nor anyone else says. The video is too clear for that. No we can’t read his mind, but we can read his body language.
How that plays into suspensions tho is, as you said, totally confusing and gets into that marshy area that will always cause controversy. Still, Cooke deserved to get at least 2-3 games no matter what precedent was set earlier this season. Two wrongs and all.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
by NurseBeachie on Mar 11, 2010 9:40 AM MST up reply actions
I disagree
What about seemingly innocent hits, that the player just has terrible luck and gets injured somehow?
2009-2010 Avs: Totally not about to win the Stanley Cup!
Stationed in Canada for the Burgundy Army
I DO NOT concur
He could have easily taken the body on Savard. He went straight for the head, and the fact he’s done this at least twice before removes any benefit of the doubt in my opinion.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 6:53 AM MST up reply actions
I agree 100%. It wasn’t so much the hit, it was where it was from: blindside. It was a dangerous hit even without the head shot aspects thrown in. Add in Cooke’s past history and this should have been something in the 6-8 game territory.
He ended Savard’s season with a dangerous hit that has no place in hockey. Case closed.
The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.
I trust what Mike and Jibbles say, since they are older men and all.
In this instance, they both happen to be dead on correct as well.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - On the upside, there's only 16 more (regular season) games of Darcy Tucker left!
Agreed. He clearly intended to hit the head, and the only reason to intentionally hit the head is to cause injury. Cooke could have hit Savard in the body and easily knocked Savard off his feet and left a significant impression without causing injury.
Should have been a major penalty and a suspension even without Cooke’s long history of cheap shots.
by Inebriated Simian Miscreants on Mar 11, 2010 10:23 AM MST up reply actions
Exactly
Not only did he aim for the head, but if he really believes it was a shoulder-to-shoulder as he said afterwards, why didn’t he get his full force behind it? He didn’t lift or lean his upper body into the check at all. Hell, he didn’t even LOOK at where he was hitting.
He saw Savard’s head sitting still after the shot, adjusted his shoulder/elobw, and glided right through as nonchalantly as you can. That’s not what someone does when they’re trying to make a clean check.
It’s ridiculous.
They say the Avs look like smurfs when they wear these jerseys... I just don't see it.
by Guitarpick8120 on Mar 11, 2010 11:41 AM MST up reply actions
Not to mention that Cookes own teammates won’t defend him. That says a lot.
"Sometimes you think they must have come out of the chimp cages at the Bronx zoo" - Gerry Cheevers, former Boston Bruins goalie, on New York hockey fans
Detroit Sucks
I just read that Guerin says the NHL has to legislate against head shots on thehockeynews.com. That says a lot when your own teammate is pretty much calling you a douche, but inbetween the lines.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 2:13 PM MST up reply actions
Do we really want to suspend the victim? If we’re talking about Cooke, then definately, he went out of his way to hurt another player.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 10, 2010 10:46 PM MST reply actions
haha ya, I voted no suspension cause the question asked how long Savard should suspended, and I’m a smart ass.
meh
by Jimmy_the_scumbag on Mar 10, 2010 11:29 PM MST up reply actions
It would be the definition of “adding insult to injury.”
It's all fun and games until someone blows up Detroit.
by Busted Twigg on Mar 11, 2010 9:59 AM MST up reply actions
Whoops!
Yeah, it was definitely supposed to ask how long Matt Cooke should have been suspended. I had a little too much wine last night and got my wires crossed last night as I was making the poll. :-)
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
Meh
I had a much better drunken post about a month ago.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 12:49 PM MST up reply actions
That one was a freaking classic if there ever was one around here. It should go in the hall of MHH fame for sure.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
by NurseBeachie on Mar 11, 2010 1:43 PM MST up reply actions
Headshot rule or no, there is a certain point where the NHL should be allowed to use common sense and say yeah, this guy was clearly headhunting, has a previous record of running other players, and should not be on the ice. Terrible call.
And no way should Marc Savard be suspended, hasn’t his year been bad enough already?
In this case
I don’t think Cooke has a history of running people, at least i didn’t think he did…
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
I’ve heard he does. Some of the girls in my hockey LJ community were talking about how badly he injured Vincent Lecavalier.
by xskatebakerrx on Mar 10, 2010 11:31 PM MST up reply actions
Let’s not forget, Cooke had his own minor role in the Moore incident as well. Being on that team at that time isn’t necessarily a guilty by association type of scenario, but maybe seeing Berdouche get away with that shit first hand has desensitized him to what’s truly acceptable and what’s not.
meh
by Jimmy_the_scumbag on Mar 10, 2010 11:53 PM MST up reply actions
Its almost the same exact hit.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Mar 11, 2010 6:35 AM MST up reply actions
Yes
Yes he does.
Matt Cooke is a horrible human being.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 6:57 AM MST up reply actions
The first and third ones are terrible, but I really didn’t see anything wrong with that second one. From what I could see it looked like he just shoulder to shoulder laid that guy out.
by xskatebakerrx on Mar 11, 2010 7:11 AM MST up reply actions
He goes knee-to-knee, which is visible in the replay. (22 seconds in)
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 7:15 AM MST up reply actions
Oh shiz I wasn’t even looking at their legs. That is TERRIBLE. He had to have gotten suspended for that right?
by xskatebakerrx on Mar 11, 2010 7:17 AM MST up reply actions
He also threw a brutal knee-on-knee hit on Donovan earlier this season, which he wasn’t suspended for—and then in a re-match, refused to drop the gloves with Donovan, which was pretty weak in my mind. It just made the initial hit that much more reprehensible, because he wouldn’t stand and be accountable for it.
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 11, 2010 9:06 AM MST up reply actions
Pictures of CC perhaps? Oh, who am I kidding, Colin couldn’t suspend his way out of a paper bag…wait…did that come out the way I wanted to. Wait again, am I think this or writing this…D’oh!!
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 9:36 AM MST up reply actions
How long should Marc Savard been suspended for?
talk about kicking a guy when he’s down….
by Paul's Coffey on Mar 11, 2010 11:35 AM MST up reply actions
At least he wont remember it.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 11:37 AM MST up reply actions
short answer, no with a but. Long answer yes with a maybe.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 12:50 PM MST up reply actions
It was a typo.
I meant to ask how long should Matt Cooke been suspended for? A little too much wine and my brain gets all jumbled. :-)
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
we know...
hence the appropriate debate that carried on nonetheless =)
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
by NurseBeachie on Mar 11, 2010 1:44 PM MST up reply actions
No suspension.
It was basically identical to the Richards hit, who didn’t receive a suspension, in that they’re both technically legal hits. You can’t suspend a guy for doing something that doesn’t break any rules.
I don’t mind the proposed rule change for headshots, but you can’t change the rules mid-season and suspend one guy for the exact same hit another guy got away with.
by ExiledAmongYou on Mar 10, 2010 10:58 PM MST reply actions
Agree 100%
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
I don't think the Richards hit is comparable
Richards came at Booth from in front, Cooke came at Savard from behind.
Even if they were comparable, making a mistake on the Richards hit doesn’t justify making a mistake on this one. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The NHL was doomed to be inconsistent on this one because they had already punished Cooke for the exact same hit on Anisimov earlier this season.
The NHL could have either been inconsistent and right or inconsistent and wrong. They got it wrong.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 7:02 AM MST up reply actions
intent, richards was making a hit, cooke is trying to put Savard to sleep. That alone should have got him suspended.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 7:27 AM MST up reply actions
Just because some think that the hits are comparable, doesn’t mean that they can’t suspend Cooke when they didn’t suspend Richards. The league could come out and say "the continuation of these types of hits over the season has lead us to take stronger action. " Most people would be OK with that (of course then they would actually have to continue to be tough). Plus we all know that they look at previous history in making these decisions (or they say the do). As Jibbles has displayed, Cooke has some history that should influence the decision.
MHH: The Burgundy Army is on the March!
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Mar 11, 2010 8:54 AM MST up reply actions
Richards should have been suspended, too
Campbell said that there’s no rule he broke, but the NHL does have a rule for intent to injure, and it’s quite obvious based on the replay and on Cooke’s reputation that his hit on Savard was a clear intent to injure.
Campbell dropped the ball by not mistaking Richards, and now instead of fixing the mistake and setting a new precedent he just allowed the old—and awful—one to stand.
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 11, 2010 9:07 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
this.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 9:37 AM MST up reply actions
Didn’t Cooke go into that with an elbow? I watched the replay of that many times and it looked like an elbow to me.
His elbow might have been a little high
but I think he made contact with the shoulder.
by ExiledAmongYou on Mar 10, 2010 11:05 PM MST up reply actions
he adjusted his arm to aim a hit to the head with his shoulder. The thing about these bad cheap shots is that they are pretty easy to judge intent on a replay-you see the guy see the other guy, he makes adjustments, then he takes the shot. Phadouch’s hit in the preseason was just like that.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 3:24 PM MST up reply actions
Hit him with his shoulder
right upside of Savard’s grill piece.
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
But let's be honest,
a shoulder pad is just as hard as the elbow pad. Even more then that, the shoulder is going to have the weight of the person behind it. The elbow may only have the strength of his arm behind it…either way, they (NHL) needs to make a tough stand on these types of hits and stick to their guns.
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
I voted no suspension
Technically speaking, he didn’t do anything wrong. You can’t make up rules because it has an unfortunate outcome. By all means outlaw it, but as it stands, in the letter of the law, there is nothing wrong with it.
I wouldn’t have liked Wilson suspended because of his clean hit on Elias, which knocked him sparko
It's hard to be a saint in this city
Yep. The blindside crap is real cheap, but that’s all that needs to be penalized, at the start of next season. Hits to the head are a fact of life if you’re a hockey player. Ice hockey is a rough sport, and the warning sticker on every helmet sold new in stores will tell you that.
meh
by Jimmy_the_scumbag on Mar 11, 2010 6:28 AM MST up reply actions
How?
How is this not either charging or unsportsmanlike conduct? Why does there have to be a specific rule that says “You can’t headshot someone from behind when he’s in a vulnerable position” in order for it to be illegal.
Charging - Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice
How was that not charging?
75.1 Unsportsmanlike Conduct – Players, goalkeepers and non-playing Club personnel are responsible for their conduct at all times and must endeavor to prevent disorderly conduct before, during or after the game, on or off the ice and any place in the rink. The Referees may assess penalties to any of the above team personnel for failure to do so.
How was it not unsportsmanlike conduct?
If a player eye-gouges someone that’s not “technically” called out in the rule book, but we all damn well know they would be suspended, deservedly. The Cooke check easily falls into charging or unsportsmanlike conduct.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 7:11 AM MST up reply actions
agreed, they don’t need new rules they just need to enforce the rules they have. Didn’t someone bite someone else within the last couple of years? I don’t think they have a ‘biting’ call.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 7:28 AM MST up reply actions
That’s the whole reason a thing like “Unsportsmanlike conduct” exists. It’s a broad umbrella that covers anything dirty that isn’t covered in the rules, so that these situations don’t happen.
I’m in favor of the new rule that goes into effect next season, but that doesn’t mean that this wasn’t covered in the first place.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 7:33 AM MST up reply actions
Agreed. Just because there wasn’t a rule about it doesn’t mean Billy Blank should have pulled the gun and shot the opposing team on the way to the end zone.
The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.
top movie
it’s been a long time since I watched it, but a terribly underrated movie
It's hard to be a saint in this city
when i was 18 I went with the Bruce Willis haircut when he was with the secret service, it didn’t go over well, but I always liked it.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 9:39 AM MST up reply actions
I agree that was a bs call.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 3:26 PM MST up reply actions
Let me clarify
I was speaking specifically about a rule concerning headshots. Nothing prohibits the head being targeted.
Now, having re-watched the video several times, I would change my mind regarding this particular call. Savard was unaware, completely unaware because Cooke was behind him.
Unlike Elias who’s own coach said “he should have kept his head up,” Wilson was coming toward him and Elias should have seen him. Savard had no such chance.
Unsportsmanlike conduct should have covered it.
It's hard to be a saint in this city
I agree, there is nothing to stop a player from lining you up, even from far away, if your head is down you’re asking to be knocked out, but there was no way savard knew what was coming and his head was up and he wasn’t admiring his pass, it’s all on cooke.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 10:19 AM MST up reply actions
It looked like
Savard had just let the shoot go and Cooke came from the blindside and put the shoulder into Savy’s grill piece. Had he been able to see him coming it still would have been extremely difficult to prepare for that hit, let alone the fact that he came from the blindside. That being said, if Savard isn’t in the act of shooting the puck on net, this hit never happens because Savard is shifty enough that he could have easily gotten out of the way.
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
I believe there is a rule somewhere about deliberating trying to hurt a player, which if someone is aiming for the head is their intention.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 3:27 PM MST up reply actions
I’m going to have to agree to agree with you.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 9:39 AM MST up reply actions
No Suspension
However, its becoming clearer every time the NHL can’t try to eliminate fighting going forward (which is what is has been trying to do since the lockout). Had Cooke known a severe beating or three was coming (without referee intervention) he might have thought differently. Or been beaten down previously by another team.
Imagine Lucic relentlessly pounding Cooke in the face, while on his knees, and breaking his orbital bone. Cooke is out 3 months. Problem solved.
By definition it was a “clean” hit and Cooke didn’t violate any league rules.
I think ‘clean’ is a subjective call; it may have been ‘legal’, by definition, but it sure wasn’t a clean hit. It was almost as dirty as they come.
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 11, 2010 9:13 AM MST reply actions
I hope that the 26 votes for no suspension
Are for how the question is worded. It would, after all, be pretty ludicrous to suspend Savard for the hit. As others have said, it was worse than Richards’ hit on Booth. It was more from behind. The puck was long gone and Savard was in a more vulnerable position having just shot the puck, and there was more of a concerted effort by Cooke to make contact with the head. Given those facts, plus his history of being a gutless, cheap shotting piece of shit, 10 games would have been appropriate. No suspension was a joke. Colin Campbell is a joke.
Jibbles is an older man so you can trust what he says.
that was the first thing I noticed.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 9:40 AM MST up reply actions
I voted 1-3 and this is why
as much as I’d like it to be over 6, it never would be. 4 would be within the realm of possibility but 2-3 seems more likely. So when I look at the question of “How long should Marc Savard Matt Cooke be suspended for?” I’m going with what I think is reasonable within what the league would really do.
Now if we’re going with what my heart says, fry the mother fucker.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
by NurseBeachie on Mar 11, 2010 10:01 AM MST up reply actions
Yeah,
I messed that one up. It should read how many games should Matt Cooke have been suspended for. I tried editing the poll while I was at work, but the Navy still uses Internet Explorer 6 and the computer almost died when I tried opening the editor.
Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.
Campbell was sending a different kind of message
The Competition Committee was meeting at the time, and I think Campbell wants a clear rule on head shots. He wasn’t getting it, so poured some gasoline on the fire. If that’s the case, I’m with him.
It's all fun and games until someone blows up Detroit.
That's OK with me
As long as the next tank of gasoline he pours in on Cooke, followed by flinging a lit match on him.
Jibbles is an older man so you can trust what he says.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 11, 2010 10:04 AM MST up reply actions
don’t waste a match, flicking a cigar at him would be way more dramatic, maybe with a line like, “It’s just been revoked.” worked in.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 10:09 AM MST up reply actions
I’m really sensitive to the topic of head shots. My 17 year old son had to quit hockey recently due to 4 concussions in 3 years. From Bantam onward, no one makes a helmet that can protect a player from someone who really wants to hurt him (we tried many). 2 deliberate elbows and 2 cross-checks from behind into the boards — I had to say enough. I don’t want a cauliflower for a son.
It's all fun and games until someone blows up Detroit.
Oh wow.
I’m so sorry.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
by NurseBeachie on Mar 11, 2010 10:18 AM MST up reply actions
I believe that, every concussion makes you way more susceptible to the next one, I’m surprized a full cage can’t do it, thats like having a football helmet out there.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 10:22 AM MST up reply actions
I gave him crap about it. Big head, small brain. The thing sloshes around in there, and that’s where most of the damage happens. The skull handles the rapid accleration/deceleration pretty well, but the brain plows into the inside of the skull, and then rebounds into the other side. It’s a 2 for 1 deal. He’s fine, by the way. He took the high-road and is now coaching mites and mini-mites.
It's all fun and games until someone blows up Detroit.
by Busted Twigg on Mar 11, 2010 10:50 AM MST up reply actions
coaching is almost as fun as playing, if you’re into the x’s and o’s or devloping kids along.
I bet he's got more trophies than the pope and Wayne Gretzky combined!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 11:29 AM MST up reply actions
Lost in all this
Is Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 11, 2010 11:37 AM MST reply actions
True
He scored a goal in that game too, didn’t he? F Cooke. F Bertuzzi. F Crawford. F Burke. F May. F every moron who still defends Bertuzzi’s actions in any way.
Jibbles is an older man so you can trust what he says.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 11, 2010 11:41 AM MST up reply actions
I have a question: a woman I play hockey with defends Bert as a person, not his actions that night. She says he a nice guy, truly feels remorseful, yada yada. You’ve all heard it before. I, of course, don’t care and stick to my “he’s a mother fucker piece of Bertuzzi ….etc”
As many of you know, I am working with Marty McSorley whom I think is a nice guy who truly feels remorseful about his act of douchebagery that ended his career. Lots of people have very differing views on his situation (as they do with Bert’s) tho the general concensus is that what McSorley did was not as bad as what fuckhead did. I don’t defend Marty’s actions; I have my opinions on the whole matter but I know he was absolutely wrong to do what he did. Still, am I as bad as those who befriend said fuckhead because I have befriended McSorlely?
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
by NurseBeachie on Mar 11, 2010 1:58 PM MST up reply actions
what do you think? Thanks.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Mar 11, 2010 12:54 PM MST up reply actions
I voted no suspension
because the question asked how long Savard should be suspended for. Get that a-hole Cooke to sit for the rest of the season, imo.
"Sometimes you think they must have come out of the chimp cages at the Bronx zoo" - Gerry Cheevers, former Boston Bruins goalie, on New York hockey fans
Detroit Sucks
And yes, I i know you tried to change it.
The NHL is really dropping the ball on a lot of things lately and it’s starting to depress me a little bit. The increasingly bad reffing, inconsistency in suspensions, or even a call in the first place, the inability to handle the Phoenix situation, the feeling that they have to change the rules every year to affect scoring but not to affect other things (like repeal the damn instigator already) etc etc. It shoes why the players have always had to police the ice themselves I guess.
"Sometimes you think they must have come out of the chimp cages at the Bronx zoo" - Gerry Cheevers, former Boston Bruins goalie, on New York hockey fans
Detroit Sucks
“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.”
Interesting that a teammate would come out and say this publicly. I wonder what his coach and GM think about it….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_sp_ho_ne/hkn_penguins_cooke_hit
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: People can stop waiting for these kids to hit the wall. They won’t.
No suspension for Cooke - Savard out for the season
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2010/3/10/1366913/no-suspension-for-matt-cooke
I originally voted for no suspension. However, after reviewing the hit a few more times and being educated about the “Intent to injure” rule (Thanks, Jibble, that’s why I come here, to be educated on the finer points of this great game)
I have changed my viewpoint on this. Now it seems that not only is Savard likely to be out for the rest of the season, but nothing is going to happen to Cooke for a severe case of twattery.
Now, I am just a poor, dumb Brit, who for years has had to sift through the morsels on the interweb before being treated to the glory that is ESPN. I find it very hard to tell what is a legal hit and what isn’t.
There is no continuity for similar hits. Colin Campbell has said that although Cooke has a history of suspensions, he won’t get suspended this time. Why not? I thought that was the whole point of the NHL disciplinary process. If the offender is a serial offender, he gets the book thrown at him.
It makes me very confused.
It's hard to be a saint in this city
It makes me very confused.
Well then, you could be Colin Campbell.
Jibbles is an older man so you can trust what he says.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 12, 2010 9:21 AM MST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
