• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jollymania

Cooke hits Savard

Rate this topic

84 posts in this topic

From TSN :

The Boston Bruins released a statement Tuesday evening denying a local report that suggested forward Marc Savard could miss the upcoming season with post-concussion syndrome.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he came back to play for boston in the playoffs so I think he would be fine unless he had a set back over the summer. either way, he's in lilja territory. one hit away from being done and savard ain't young either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Boston Globe:

Bruins center Marc Savard is going to be more cautious this time.

Savard played for Boston in the postseason after suffering a concussion in March, but acknowledged Saturday he was still feeling the effects of the injury during the Bruins' loss to the Philadelphia Flyers in the Eastern Conference semifinals.

...

...

"I think, of my own fault, I might've come back a little too early here, so that's my own fault.

...

I don't remember reading that Savard had training in self diagnosis; somebody is lying. Now, his statements seem to take the Bruins off the hook. The team's medical staff, and the other professionals who handled this case, should have stepped in and told him "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a priority, but how they go about writing new rules concerning hits to the head can soon become a slippery slope.

There was 1 example how a back-checking player cannot check the puck carrier (thus reducing the blind-sided hits)...Dunno if I like something like that.

I'm in favor of throwing the book at the offender; so for example - Matt Cooke had ample time to either not hit Marc Savard, or to concentrate contact with Savard's body, but instead we all had seen Cooke go for Savard's head...IMHO this could/should warrant a 15-20 game suspension - especially since Cooke has a habit of such hits.

EDIT - also the elimination of the instigator rule would be nice; watching somone like Lucic/Thorton/Chara smack that jerk Cooke around would be nice too.

Ok, explain this one to me. I understand the idea of "immediate payback" by having an enforcer. I've been a hockey fan for a long time, I grew up watching Probert and Kocur. But explain to me how eliminating the instigator rule gets rid of injuries.

Better yet, explain it to Cam Neely. Explain it to Pat LaFontaine. Explain to them about how enforcers protect star players from cheap shots. I bet they'd like to hear it as much as I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, explain this one to me. I understand the idea of "immediate payback" by having an enforcer. I've been a hockey fan for a long time, I grew up watching Probert and Kocur. But explain to me how eliminating the instigator rule gets rid of injuries.

Better yet, explain it to Cam Neely. Explain it to Pat LaFontaine. Explain to them about how enforcers protect star players from cheap shots. I bet they'd like to hear it as much as I would.

It's very easy to point out when, and where players were injured, and yet the enforcer didn't prevent it from happening thus giving ammo to the anti-enforcer crowd...It's hockey afterall, and yes nobody here including myself has ever claimed that enforcers will deter cheapshots by 100%...A more interesting question would be exactly how many attempts, or thoughts of going after guys like Yzerman, or Fedorov were deterred/thwarted because guys like Probert, Kocur, McCarty, Shanahan, etc, etc were out there?

As for the instigator rule - the vast majority who have to fear it's removal are those who have a penchant for taking liberties on their unsuspecting opponents...I watched an interesting interview of Shanahan talking about the instigator rule; he didn't have a problem with it...In fact he said that if he wanted to go after someone - he'd risk the extra 2 min pen, and rely on the teams strong pk to take care of business.

If anything - the teams tuff guy will make the opposition think twice about going after anyone - unless of course they don't mind having to answer for their actions...Not to sound redundant, but if tuff guys weren't needed - why do they exist on many teams rosters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy to point out when, and where players were injured, and yet the enforcer didn't prevent it from happening thus giving ammo to the anti-enforcer crowd...It's hockey afterall, and yes nobody here including myself has ever claimed that enforcers will deter cheapshots by 100%...A more interesting question would be exactly how many attempts, or thoughts of going after guys like Yzerman, or Fedorov were deterred/thwarted because guys like Probert, Kocur, McCarty, Shanahan, etc, etc were out there?

As for the instigator rule - the vast majority who have to fear it's removal are those who have a penchant for taking liberties on their unsuspecting opponents...I watched an interesting interview of Shanahan talking about the instigator rule; he didn't have a problem with it...In fact he said that if he wanted to go after someone - he'd risk the extra 2 min pen, and rely on the teams strong pk to take care of business.

If anything - the teams tuff guy will make the opposition think twice about going after anyone - unless of course they don't mind having to answer for their actions...Not to sound redundant, but if tuff guys weren't needed - why do they exist on many teams rosters?

My point was not that tough guys weren't needed; it was that if a guy like Cooke is going to throw a dirty hit, he's not going to say"Oh no, they have an enforcer on their roster. I'd better not." It's going to happen.

The secondary question I had was, of course, this one. You want to eliminate the instigator to allow enforcers to extract payback for dirty hits. What happens when it's a legal hit thrown by one team's star player at another team's star player, and the second player's enforcer extracts payback by going after the first guy, injures him, and puts him out for a week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was not that tough guys weren't needed; it was that if a guy like Cooke is going to throw a dirty hit, he's not going to say"Oh no, they have an enforcer on their roster. I'd better not." It's going to happen.

The secondary question I had was, of course, this one. You want to eliminate the instigator to allow enforcers to extract payback for dirty hits. What happens when it's a legal hit thrown by one team's star player at another team's star player, and the second player's enforcer extracts payback by going after the first guy, injures him, and puts him out for a week?

How do you know what Cooke thinks?

For all we know he might think twice about going after another teams top player? I could very well be wrong, but then again I may not be...Either way he's the villain everyone hates, and is the reason why many folks tune in with hopes he gets "his".

As for the star on star violence; I kinda see a guy like Mike Richards soon to be on the recieving end of a nasty hit; he's been dishing them out, and it's about time an opponent gives him a taste of his own medicine.

Most tuff guys believe in, and go by the "code" that more or less makes it a sin to go after an opponents skill players whom aren't accustomed to fisticuffs (from what I recall pre-instigator rule there weren't too many cases of skill guys getting jumped by the opposing enforcers - although the Yzerman/Maguire incident is the only 1 off the top of my head)...That said I dunno if the instigator rule would prevent a tuff guy from going after the opposing teams star player (if the guy is hell bent on getting revenge - he'll do it regardless of the rules).

If a guy known for his scrapping ability did in fact go after a star player (instigator rule, or no instigator rule) he'd most likely become a "marked man" by the opposition, and better have eyes on the back of his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, once a player takes a cheap shot I don't even give a s*** about the "code". I'm absolutely fine with a player like Downey or whoever pummeling the s*** out of whoever takes a run at one of our players. I don't care if it's Orpik or Briere or Malkin. You step into the ring, you get your ass beat, end of story. That's an enforcer, not, you hit Zetterberg so I'm gonna fight your enforcer bulls***. Whoever commits the crime gets his ass beat hard, end of f***in' story.

esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0