[Where's Bure?]

I hate hits like this - these blind side hits that get all head. You have all this time to line the guy up and you can't even connect to the body. I definitey don't believe players when they say they were just finishing their check. They fail to mention that they were finishing a check intended to injure the opposing player they know doesn't see them coming. If Cooke wanted to, he could've hit hit shoulder to shoulder. He wanted to hit Savard's head. This is exactly like Richards' hit on Booth. Cooke will have that as leverage for why he shouldn't be suspended, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is, and I have to agree he should be, and the league should really address hits to the head. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[bagsbie]

I hate hits like this - these blind side hits that get all head. You have all this time to line the guy up and you can't even connect to the body. I definitey don't believe players when they say they were just finishing their check. They fail to mention that they were finishing a check intended to injure the opposing player they know doesn't see them coming. If Cooke wanted to, he could've hit hit shoulder to shoulder. He wanted to hit Savard's head. This is exactly like Richards' hit on Booth. Cooke will have that as leverage for why he shouldn't be suspended, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is, and I have to agree he should be, and the league should really address hits to the head. This is getting ridiculous.

Can't agree with you more on this assessment! It was clean hit to the head, alright. Savard was blindsided, his head was up, knees bent while making a pass. Cooke easily could have hit Savard's body. You could even see Cooke's arm separate from his body while delivering the hit if you watch it closely. All of you who are saying that it was a clean hit are crazy.

 

[LGP87_71]

Can't agree with you more on this assessment! It was clean hit to the head, alright. Savard was blindsided, his head was up, knees bent while making a pass. Cooke easily could have hit Savard's body. You could even see Cooke's arm separate from his body while delivering the hit if you watch it closely. All of you who are saying that it was a clean hit are crazy.

Its morally a dirty hit, but under current nhl rules its a clean hit, only hits to the head whilst charging or boarding are penalties, so Cookes hit, whilst dangerous is allowed in the current circumstances, although the general managers are meeting for a rule change.

 

[Where's Bure?]

Its morally a dirty hit, but under current nhl rules its a clean hit, only hits to the head whilst charging or boarding are penalties, so Cookes hit, whilst dangerous is allowed in the current circumstances, although the general managers are meeting for a rule change.

Yeah, it's legal, but it's definitely not right. I think the NHL and GMs finally meet to address this soon.

The whole, "I was finishing my check" justification these players are giving for these hits is BS to me. Cooke had Savard lined up for enough time to ensure shoulder to shoulder contact. It's not like Savard saw Cooke at the last second, and tried to move out of the way, making his head vulnerable; Savard didn't see Cooke coming at all, meaning Cooke connected with exactly what he was aiming for - Savard's head.

 

[LGP87_71]

Yeah, it's legal, but it's definitely not right. I think the NHL and GMs finally meet to address this soon.

The whole, "I was finishing my check" justification these players are giving for these hits is BS to me. Cooke had Savard lined up for enough time to ensure shoulder to shoulder contact. It's not like Savard saw Cooke at the last second, and tried to move out of the way, making his head vulnerable; Savard didn't see Cooke coming at all, meaning Cooke connected with exactly what he was aiming for - Savard's head.

Exactly it is dirty, but i dont see how under the current rules Cooke deserves a suspension as the hit is classified as a clean check , Richards didnt get one for a hit that was just as bad. I love the way Matt Cooke plays but sometimes he needs to tone it down a little as many of his hits are questionable, whether they be headshots or knee- on -knees, however im all for him finishing his check, but as you say if he had nailed Savard in the body with that hit as he should have , most people would be saying what a great hit.

 

[VICE™]

Exactly it is dirty, but i dont see how under the current rules Cooke deserves a suspension as the hit is classified as a clean check , Richards didnt get one for a hit that was just as bad. I love the way Matt Cooke plays but sometimes he needs to tone it down a little as many of his hits are questionable, whether they be headshots or knee- on -knees, however im all for him finishing his check, but as you say if he had nailed Savard in the body with that hit as he should have , most people would be saying what a great hit.

There's a bunch of factors that the NHL can cite if they suspend Cooke. Score of the game, time left in the game and prior suspensions have all been cited in suspensions in the past.

The thing about suspensions is that the NHL looks for suspensions in the past 18 months. They don't look at the players whole career. Cooke has two separate suspensions in the past 18 months.

Richards' hit might have been just a vicious, but he didn't have prior suspensions, it happened in the second period as opposed to the third period like the Cooke/Savard hit. The Bruins were down, with little time left on the clock and Cooke targeted the Bruins' key offensive cog, practically guaranteeing victory. All of these are factors that have influences suspensions before, and if Cooke is suspended, I wouldn't be surprised if some combination these come up.

Of course, whether the cited factors are just excuses for suspending a fourth liner for a violent hit on a star on the other team remains to be seen.

 

[JL]

While the Lapierre hit was dirty and cheap, this one by Cooke is basically head hunting. With his history, the league will have to come down hard on him.

 

[Nashvillejohn]

While the Lapierre hit was dirty and cheap, this one by Cooke is basically head hunting. With his history, the league will have to come down hard on him.

I agree they will come down hard on him.

 

[VICE™]

We'll find out on Tuesday if he's suspended or not. I'm predicting.. 2 games. Anyone else have any prediction?

 

[nossagog]

Was watching NHL Live at lunchtime today. They were covering the GM's meetings, and the GM's that they were talking to waffled alot about what needed to be done in the rules for this, and commented on the fact that there isn't a consensus within the GM community. Whatever happens, you can bet that there will be some waffle words that will allow them to pick and choose what to do by whom did it.

Vice, My prediction is five games, basically because its Matt Cooke and he already has one strike this year with a two game suspension.

But the league is screwed either way, if they suspend him, there will be cries of the two tier system for stars and non stars. If they don't suspend him, there will be cries of how the league doesn't protect its players.

 

[flyerfan2]

I don't see a suspension coming to Cooke for this hit.

By definition it was a clean shoulder check in the open ice.

Until the league puts a rule in regarding hits to the head with a shoulder i don't see how they {NHL} could justify a suspension for this hit.

Past track record in Cookes case should not and cannot factor into what by league rules is a clean acceptable hit.

 

[VICE™]

You're right, they can't suspend him for checking to the head. They can, however, suspend him for intent to injure.

Given the surrounding factors of the hit (time left in the game, the score of the game, who was 'targeted', etc) and Cooke's suspension record within the past 18 months, I wouldn't be surprised to see the league make a case for intent to injure and suspend him based on that.

 

[nossagog]

I don't see a suspension coming to Cooke for this hit.

By definition it was a clean shoulder check in the open ice.

Until the league puts a rule in regarding hits to the head with a shoulder i don't see how they {NHL} could justify a suspension for this hit.

Past track record in Cookes case should not and cannot factor into what by league rules is a clean acceptable hit.

I would agree, but the only thing that the league is consistant on is its inconsistancy. My guess is that the league will pull out the "Intent to Injure" card, and say that this case was "special".

 

[esuhock22]

Its going to be interesting to see. I hate these types of hits, its what has become known as the "shoulder" check, on an unsuspecting player. You coil your lower body, and as you strike you come up with your shoulder and contact the head. This is almost identical to the hit Richards put on Booth.

The league really needs to address this and make a clear statement of what they want. WIth the body armour that the players have as shoulder pads, someone is going to really get hurt.

I think there are some differences other than Richards and Cookes history. Booth didn't see Richards coming because he decided to look back and admire his pass in one of the most dangerous areas of the ice. Savard didn't see Cooke coming because for most of the play he wasn't even facing him until his head twisted because of the shot. Im not saying one player should be suspended and the other not, I think neither should be, although I would like to see a rule added to eliminate these kinds of hits. They are both brutal shots to the head but to me still pretty different.

 

[flyerfan2]

You're right, they can't suspend him for checking to the head. They can, however, suspend him for intent to injure.

Given the surrounding factors of the hit (time left in the game, the score of the game, who was 'targeted', etc) and Cooke's suspension record within the past 18 months, I wouldn't be surprised to see the league make a case for intent to injure and suspend him based on that.

Yet no talk of suspending Chris Neal for the exact same hit vs the Leaf Saturday night.

No suspension for Mike Richards hit on Booth.

This is the problem i have with this whole gray area the league continues to run with.

It should be either a head shot is suspendable or it's not.

What player throws the hit should be irrelivant.

Any thing other than that cut and dry and the league become mind readers as to what a players intent was.

 

[datsun260z]

Bah, I don't care how you cut it. Sure - if the rules say that's a clean hit then so bit it however it's a cowardly hit and it's a hit that ironically enough Bettman instituted into the game when he introduced the instigator rule. Sorry to say but the MAtt Cooke's of the game have been running loose for far too long.

And all the GM meetings in the world wont change it until you allow dog **** like Matt Cooke to pay the price for being a coward.

I love hard hockey, I appreciate good hits but this guy was vulnerable and thus very easy to hit. Anyone here could have laid this hit just as effectively.

One thing for sure, a lot of guys who walk the line are going to have their day. I am not sure they would be many players in the game today who would shed a tear if someone ended MAtt Cooke's career.

IT's happened to better players before him and his day will come.

Looking forward to it.

rb

 

[VICE™]

FF, I agree, punishment should be the same for the same action, but past actions should also be taken into account as well. Boogaard kneed Jones, and if once his suspension is finished, he knees another player, then he should get a longer suspension.

For the record, I don't support a suspension to Cooke, I'm simply predicting one. Earlier in the thread I said it would be hard for me to support supplementary discipline for hits to the head until they introduce a rule against it and that still stands. In the same breath, my opinion (and yours, since we're basically on the same page here) likely isn't the same as the league's.

 

[nossagog]

Yet no talk of suspending Chris Neal for the exact same hit vs the Leaf Saturday night.

No suspension for Mike Richards hit on Booth.

This is the problem i have with this whole gray area the league continues to run with.

It should be either a head shot is suspendable or it's not.

What player throws the hit should be irrelivant.

Any thing other than that cut and dry and the league become mind readers as to what a players intent was.

And that's why they will never write a black and white rule. If the player lowers his head at the last moment and creates the head shot, is that still bad. If it looks like a player is trying to avoid the hit, and then gets hit in the head, is it HIS fault or still the hitters. It will all be up to someone trying to determine what the intent of the hitting player was, and to met out the punishment. Is it any different than it is now? They will punish whom they see fit.

 

[beavboyz]

And that's why they will never write a black and white rule. If the player lowers his head at the last moment and creates the head shot, is that still bad. If it looks like a player is trying to avoid the hit, and then gets hit in the head, is it HIS fault or still the hitters. It will all be up to someone trying to determine what the intent of the hitting player was, and to met out the punishment. Is it any different than it is now? They will punish whom they see fit.

It's true, a lot of calls are based on the refs judgement, it has to be that way otherwise every call would go upstairs for reveiw by a panel of judges.

 

[SabresFan101]

Matt Cooke did this so many other times and got away with it. It was a direst elbow to the head. Unless u got ur shoulder into him. That maybe a suspension too.?