• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Greatness=PavelDatsyuk

No suspension for Cooke

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

EDIT: And sort of on topic - Grier could have taken Rafalski's head off in the game tonight. Yikes! It was nice to see him step aside on that play.

But Torres (repeat offender) did blindside shoulder Helm's head tonight. (Thank God Helmer wasn't hurt) A guy like him is just licking his chops now with all this no-suspension for headshots s***.

esteef

Edited by esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pens fan here...first post. Though it was a dirty and vicious hit, you can't really suspend him because it is technically legal. Dont get me wrong, it should be a penalty and I don't approve of the hit in any way. Will be interesting on Thursday wehn we play the Bruins. Hopefully he gets his a$$ kicked. He's a good player but I am getting tired of his dirty ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pens fan here...first post. Though it was a dirty and vicious hit, you can't really suspend him because it is technically legal. Dont get me wrong, it should be a penalty and I don't approve of the hit in any way. Will be interesting on Thursday wehn we play the Bruins. Hopefully he gets his a$$ kicked. He's a good player but I am getting tired of his dirty ways.

The NHL has certainly been creative with "intent to injure" and "misconduct" when they hand out suspensions from bitings & stompings to saying "sloppy seconds". Campbell had it within his power to do the right thing, and he really screwed the pooch. It is nice to see a Penguins fan call a spade a spade here.... and from Guerin as well.

Edited by egroen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...As for the lack of response by Bruin players on the ice - I'm not sure if they were fully aware of the severity of Savard's injury, or who it was that nailed their teammate (even though Cooke was cornered up against the boards)...Honestly I was surprised nobody ripped Cooke's head off...The league warned the Canucks after Moore hit Naslund yet we all know what happened a few weeks later...It wouldn't surprise me if someone went after Cooke.

The league continues to be a farce when it comes down to handing out punishment; I'd much rather see Cooke get bloodied via Lucic/Thornton than no suspension, or a suspension lasting few measly games (but that obviously didn't happen).

It wouldn't surprise me either. Which is exactly why I say that the comparitively minor penalty for instigating is not a factor in situations like this. If someone at the time felt it was appropriate to go after Cooke, they would have, just like Bert going after Moore despite the instigator rule. No one was thinking "gee, Cooke really deserves a beating, but I just can't take a penalty...". If that was true, there'd be no chance of someone going after Cooke in the future. At best, you might suggest that the lack of a suspension would increase the likelihood of Cooke being targetted, but that is an argument for improving league discipline. Nothing to do with the instigator.

And I'll say one last time that removing the instigator will not force people to stand up and take whatever punishment they deserve. Bertuzzi was clearly ignoring the instigator rule, in that instance the rule might as well not have existed. Moore still just ignored him. Ergo, removing the instigator would not help anything. All it would do is open the door for tough guys to target anyone they want in any of the many post-whistle scrums in every game.

I'm sure I won't change your opinion, so I'll just say one final thing. At least you're admitting your blood thirst, it's a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bertuzzi was clearly ignoring the instigator rule

I don't think this is 100% the case. If you watch the whole clip, Bert was skating around Moore for a solid minute face to face trying to get him to go. Moore kept talking and skating away. I think with no rule in place, Bert would have dropped the gloves and went after him from the start when they were face to face, rather than letting it boil over and him going the cheap way out.

All it would do is open the door for tough guys to target anyone they want in any of the many post-whistle scrums in every game.

This happened very rarely when the rule wasn't in place, because most tough guys respected who and who not to go after. You would never see a Probert or a Kocur going after the likes of a Gretzky. How would it be different today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah   
Guest micah

No one was thinking "gee, Cooke really deserves a beating, but I just can't take a penalty...".

How do you know that?

If that was true, there'd be no chance of someone going after Cooke in the future.

Huh? Are you really unaware that different games have different levels of importance, and that the situation for a team on the bubble in a close game might be different for a team solidly in or out of the playoffs in a blowout game?

And I'll say one last time that removing the instigator will not force people to stand up and take whatever punishment they deserve. Bertuzzi was clearly ignoring the instigator rule, in that instance the rule might as well not have existed. Moore still just ignored him. Ergo, removing the instigator would not help anything.

You logic is interesting to say the least. Ths one time this one guy ignored the instigator rule, therefore removing the instigator rule will not help anything." Is this really the sort of logic you use in your life? Do you not buckle up because you've seen people who wear seatbelts die in wrecks?

All it would do is open the door for tough guys to target anyone they want in any of the many post-whistle scrums in every game.

That would be just fine with me. I loathe post-whistle scrums. Men should not stick their sweaty gloves in another man's face or shove a man that they are not willing to fight. That's cowardice and it's poor sportsmanship. If you're gonna be Joe Tuffguy and be a dick after the whistle, at least have the sack to follow through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I won't change your opinion, so I'll just say one final thing. At least you're admitting your blood thirst, it's a step in the right direction.

Pal - you don't even know me; for you to infer that I have some form of addiction for violence is...Well it's rather childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vigilante justice, commence!

Caution: This is a dual feed video. The first feed has really low sound while the second has high sound. Nonetheless, props to Jollymania for uppin the vid.

EDIT: How often does Stamkos go out of his way to make a hit?

Edited by titanium2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Making-Sidney-Crosby-pay-for-Matt-Cooke-s-sins?urn=nhl,228777&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So wrote Ron Borges of the Boston Herald in today's edition (via Kukla), who argues that Cooke won't give the Bruins satisfaction so they'll need to squeeze it out of Sidney Crosby's(notes) veins:

To take the traditional hockey fight route would be silly because:

a) He probably won't fight back, that not being his modus operandi.

b) Why get your own guys in hot water with Campbell sitting upstairs taking notes?

c) It's been 11 days since the original incident, which should have been taken care of at the time by Savard's teammates and wasn't - so it's a bit late for Machismo on Ice.

What the Bruins should do instead is play their most physical game of the year. Contest every loose puck. Take Sidney Crosby down every chance they get. He, not Cooke, is the Penguins' heart and soul. Make him bleed for the sins of his teammate. Take him into the boards. Knock him down every chance you get. Bounce a puck off his nose if you can. If you get a blind side shot at him, put your body through his chest.

Yay for vigilante justice! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Edited by mjlegend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline   
Guest Shoreline

Oh don't ya know - he's a xenophobic fossil who knows nothing about the game :rolleyes:

I don't agree with everything he said but I really can't argue it either. The countless video reels of Cooke doing knee and head shots really speaks for itself as far as he goes in terms of being a gutless and cheapshot-artist player.

Edited by Shoreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah   
Guest micah

I never thought I'd type these words, but props to Cooke. I loathe the guy and he does a lot of dumb s*** - but in this particular instance he did the right thing. Find the other team's toughguy early and fight him straight up, get it out of the way. Had Cooke gone after May instead of fighting non-fighter Cooke, Bert might not have broke his neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that Cooke obliged Thornton, but I wonder why he didn't ditch the lid when Thornton asked.

Because he wanted to hide behind his visor like the little ***** that he is.

Nice job by Thornton to continue throwing punches.

:thumbup:

Edited by Original-Six

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought I'd type these words, but props to Cooke. I loathe the guy and he does a lot of dumb s*** - but in this particular instance he did the right thing. Find the other team's toughguy early and fight him straight up, get it out of the way. Had Cooke gone after May instead of fighting non-fighter Cooke, Bert might not have broke his neck.

Wasn't Cooke wearing a visor for that fight?

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