Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

No suspension for Cooke


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#61 WalnutSt2366

WalnutSt2366

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 12:54 PM

I don't think it is the same thing:

1) Not a blindside hit
2) Head was not targeted
3) Kronwall (and the team) was severely punished in the game - he was thrown out - Cooke went unpenalized


I wasn't referring to the legality of the hit, I was responding to the poster's comment about the 'respect' factor. In that way, it doesn't matter HOW he hit him or the conse

That said, you're omitting the ways it IS the same:

1. Havlat has his head is on the puck, not the play
2. Havlat is extended
3. Everyone knows Kronwall blows people up at the blue line all the time.

Punishment aside, its a part of the game and will not change. It will still happen, but the consequence will just be different.

Edited by WalnutSt2366, 11 March 2010 - 01:00 PM.


#62 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,844 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:06 PM

Excuse me? This guy has had his best season so far and has totally left the cheap shotting behind. Don't even try to compare him with Cooke.


O.K. so I called out a Finn for being cheap. Big deal.

I don't think Ruutu has left cheapshotting behind, no matter what kind of season he's having.

What did he do an interview where he promised he wouldn't run anybody into the boards illegally or something?
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#63 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,671 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:09 PM

O.K. so I called out a Finn for being cheap. Big deal.

I don't think Ruutu has left cheapshotting behind, no matter what kind of season he's having.

What did he do an interview where he promised he wouldn't run anybody into the boards illegally or something?

He's this years #1 seller of Girl Scout cookies.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#64 Frozen-Man

Frozen-Man

    Thanks for the memories

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:16 PM

I wasn't referring to the legality of the hit, I was responding to the poster's comment about the 'respect' factor. In that way, it doesn't matter HOW he hit him or the conse

That said, you're omitting the ways it IS the same:

1. Havlat has his head is on the puck, not the play
2. Havlat is extended
3. Everyone knows Kronwall blows people up at the blue line all the time.

Punishment aside, its a part of the game and will not change. It will still happen, but the consequence will just be different.


Havlat's head may have been on the puck but it sure looks like he knew Kronner was coming at him. Look at the replay and you'll see Havlat look up the ice right where Kronwall was. Kronner also went straight at him face to face and hit his whole body not just his head. Very different hit.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain


#65 egroen

egroen

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,619 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:18 PM

I wasn't referring to the legality of the hit, I was responding to the poster's comment about the 'respect' factor. In that way, it doesn't matter HOW he hit him or the conse

That said, you're omitting the ways it IS the same:

1. Havlat has his head is on the puck, not the play
2. Havlat is extended
3. Everyone knows Kronwall blows people up at the blue line all the time.

Punishment aside, its a part of the game and will not change. It will still happen, but the consequence will just be different.

Still a big difference between a hit coming straight at you, and one from your blindside where the head is targeted (which the GMs recently designated). Havlat even looks up to see Kronwall coming, before the hit. One is definitely more "dirty" than the other and one definitely shows less "respect" for the safety of the other player.

In-game consequences often have a bearing on the suspension - if it was not caught in-game, there is a higher likely-hood of a suspension. See Neidermayer and Pronger on Holmstrom in the 08 playoffs -- Niedermayer received a penalty and no suspension; Pronger received no penalty and a suspension.
Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

#66 edicius

edicius

    Professional drinker.

  • HoF Booster
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:Budd Lake, NJ

Posted 11 March 2010 - 02:24 PM

Cooke is a piece of s*** and I am getting really sick of the Penguins getting away this crap constantly...

Brutal blindside elbow to the head and away from the play: no suspension.
But Gonchar is a "good guy" so no suspension. It seems every excuse in the book is pulled out for the Penguins this year.

But now if it happens to a Penguin?
See Carcillo's (repeat offender, just like Cooke) cheapshot to Max Talbot:

Suspension of course.

My Penguins anti-bias aside - I am curious how many times "good guys" can get away with it because they "don't have any suspensions"?


At least I'm not the only one seeing it. It's shocking with how much the Penguins are allowed to get away with - both in terms of suspendable infractions AND penalty-worthy infractions on the ice. Meanwhile, they have the most power play opportunities in the league. And I don't buy that, "Well, they're a skilled team, so their style of play earns them more power plays!" excuse. There's something rotten in the state of Pennsylvania.

ABV_sig.png

                     Can't listen live? Check out MoreLikeRadio.org for show archives!


#67 Electrophile

Electrophile

    Ipsa scientia potestas est.

  • Silver Booster
  • 9,390 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 11 March 2010 - 04:01 PM

I don't know if this has been posted in this thread already or not, so if so then apologies:


http://www.theglobea...article1497502/


Guerin expected Cooke to be suspended.

“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.”



Okay, when your own teammate thinks you should be suspended, that's a sign that the league screwed up.





electrophilewingsfloyd.jpg

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."  -- The Doctor


#68 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:28 PM

O.K. so I called out a Finn for being cheap. Big deal.

I don't think Ruutu has left cheapshotting behind, no matter what kind of season he's having.

What did he do an interview where he promised he wouldn't run anybody into the boards illegally or something?

Well I think he just has been changed. And I think he was never comparable to a guy like Cooke. Ruutu is actually a wise player.

I can't even remember many examples of actual cheap shots by him now that I think about. Other than the Jagr hit in some international game. I think biting someone's finger nowhere near cheapshotting when you compare it to those headshots.
Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#69 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:40 PM

Well I think he just has been changed. And I think he was never comparable to a guy like Cooke. Ruutu is actually a wise player.

I can't even remember many examples of actual cheap shots by him now that I think about. Other than the Jagr hit in some international game. I think biting someone's finger nowhere near cheapshotting when you compare it to those headshots.






Also, as you mentioned, he is the cheap cowardly little ***** that BIT Andrew Peters?

Edited by micah, 11 March 2010 - 07:41 PM.

"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#70 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:48 PM





Also, as you mentioned, he is the cheap cowardly little ***** that BIT Andrew Peters?

Peters, Kaleta, Lapierre... all cheapshotters themselves! He's just handing some justice that's all. It's kinda different when you take out the other team's star player. And BTW Ruutu did fight after that Lapierre hit. So obviously the fighting didn't solve anything there.
Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#71 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:53 PM

Peters, Kaleta, Lapierre... all cheapshotters themselves! He's just handing some justice that's all. It's kinda different when you take out the other team's star player. And BTW Ruutu did fight after that Lapierre hit. So obviously the fighting didn't solve anything there.


He fought a non-fighter and ducked the other team's toughguy. Laraque *should* have forced Rutuu into it - and 20 years ago, before the instigator rule, whoever was playing in Laraque's place would have.

I do not advocate cheapshots by anyone - not Rutuu, not Peters, not Laraque, not Kaleta, not Lapierre. All are equally detestable.

Edited by micah, 11 March 2010 - 07:54 PM.

"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#72 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:57 PM

He fought a non-fighter and ducked the other team's toughguy. Laraque *should* have forced Rutuu into it - and 20 years ago, before the instigator rule, whoever was playing in Laraque's place would have.

I do not advocate cheapshots by anyone - not Rutuu, not Peters, not Laraque, not Kaleta, not Lapierre. All are equally detestable.

You clearly see how many holes that removing the instigator rule leaves. You really can't be sure that it takes care of anything. I think hockey fights are OK, but they just don't work in this situation as a punishment. It's a too random thing. Removing the instigator creates more harm than good.
Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#73 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:02 PM

You clearly see how many holes that removing the instigator rule leaves. You really can't be sure that it takes care of anything. I think hockey fights are OK, but they just don't work in this situation as a punishment. It's a too random thing. Removing the instigator creates more harm than good.



Serious question, how much NHL hockey did you watch before the rule? It really wasn't the way you might immagine it was.

And I do not think that removing the instigator rule is all that is needed to stop cheapshots - it is one step of many that should be taken.

Penalize blindside hits, remove the instigator, outlaw hard pads, get serious about suspending offenders. That would be a good start.

In the event that there would come a time that league thugs started forcing Dats and those like him into fights, I would want to see that addressed. I don't think it would become an issue, as it wasn't an issue before.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#74 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:10 PM

Serious question, how much NHL hockey did you watch before the rule? It really wasn't the way you might immagine it was.

And I do not think that removing the instigator rule is all that is needed to stop cheapshots - it is one step of many that should be taken.

Penalize blindside hits, remove the instigator, outlaw hard pads, get serious about suspending offenders. That would be a good start.

In the event that there would come a time that league thugs started forcing Dats and those like him into fights, I would want to see that addressed. I don't think it would become an issue, as it wasn't an issue before.

As I said in the other thread. Removing the instigator would just create an another way to hurt player with diry way. If players do cheapshotting now, I can easily imagine to hurt the players they want when the rule is removed.
Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#75 rbochan

rbochan

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 12 March 2010 - 09:12 AM

Julien should line Thornton up against Crosby from the very first shift he takes and tell him to run him until he lands on a stretcher the same way Savard did. I'd bet good money Campbell would do something then.

...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs;
it's Don't Tread On Me.

#76 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:23 PM

Serious question, how much NHL hockey did you watch before the rule? It really wasn't the way you might immagine it was.

And I do not think that removing the instigator rule is all that is needed to stop cheapshots - it is one step of many that should be taken.

Penalize blindside hits, remove the instigator, outlaw hard pads, get serious about suspending offenders. That would be a good start.

In the event that there would come a time that league thugs started forcing Dats and those like him into fights, I would want to see that addressed. I don't think it would become an issue, as it wasn't an issue before.


I would say that the other changes you suggest, beyond the insitgator, would be enough. (Well, I'd also mandate proper chin straps on helmets, and probably look for improvements to visors. Hard pads need some analysis. The pads themselves aren't a problem, but they probably contribute indirectly to more reckless play.)

Now on to the instigator rule. Serious question for you. Do you really believe that the chance (not even a guarantee) of getting a minor penalty is keeping enforcers from preventing cheap shots?

First of all, the instigator rule does not prevent violent retaliation; it only assesses a penalty for it. Now think about it logically.

You have a 'cheap-shotter', under current rules, if he delivers a cheap shot (like the Cooke hit), he faces the possible consequences of: Penalty in game (minor, major, misconduct, ejection...up to the discretion of the refs), League Discipline (suspension, fines), Retaliation from the opposing team. So cheap-shotter must either ignore or at least not be thinking about any of those consequences before taking a cheap shot.

You have an enforcer, under current rules, he may (probably even) get a minor penalty for retaliating and a misconduct. Frequent offenders (or in certain circumstances) may face more serious discipline. To NOT retaliate, he must consider the value of his 'enforcement' to be less than what would be lost by taking the penalty. This alone suggests that the 'deterrence factor' of enforcers can not be very high (at least in the minds of the enforcers themselves).

Furthermore, removing the instigator rule would NOT allow an enforcer to force someone into a fight. All Cheap-shotter has to do is ignore the enforcer. How many enforcers are going to chase someone down from behind and risk a Bertuzzi-Moore incident. (Oddly enough, people often cite that case when arguing against the instigator rule. As if removing the instigator would make it impossible to turn your back and skate away from someone.) The league would never allow someone to just pummel another player who wasn't defending themselves. There would be legal ramifications. So at best it allows maybe one or two shots that maybe (not even guarantee) doesn't result in a penalty on the 'instigator'. Consequently, it would also allow the same for bullies to do the same to star players / non-fighters (even if such a thing would be rare [as an aside, I'd suggest you look into the old Flyers borad street bullies]) Also note that the NHL has had at least some version of the instigator rule since the Original 6 days. And really, most of the criticism of the instigator rule would more properly be directed at the Agressor rule, which is the one that penalizes players for fighting unwilling or defenseless opponents.

So you trade increased risk (even if only slightly) to star players for an increase in the likelihood of one potential consequence (the value of which has already been determined to be less than a minor penalty) for the cheap-shotter.

You seem to have this romanticized, WWE-esque notion of enforcers as some kind of super hero, before whom the forces of evil cower in fear. Or rather, they would be, if not hamstrung by the instigator rule. As though they have the ability to protect others from harm, but are too honorable to break the rules in order to do so. As if having a just cause would instill them with some righteous power to conquer their enemies. Like said enemies would, if the instigator were removed, be unbreakably bound by some code to accept their due punishment.

The truth is, players can't police themselves. Like I said before, all that does is allow the toughest guy around to make the rules, even if that guy happens to be one of the 'bad-guys'. Discipline has to come from authority. Authority can not come from violence. It's too inconsistent.

#77 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:46 AM

lots of words


Hockey teams are supposed to win. Actions which draw penalties, especially from borderline players, are not generally smiled upon by coaches.

Me personally, I'd rather get a few days off work in punnishment for doing something dumb than have an angry Derek Boogard come after me. *and* get a few days off work. I doubt I'm the only one.

Elimination of the instigator rule is not the anwer to all of the league's problems, it's part of the answer.

First of all, the instigator rule does not prevent violent retaliation; it only assesses a penalty for it. Now think about it logically.

Rules against crosschecks to the face, hits from behind into the boards and slew foots do not prevent these acts, they merely penalise them. Now think about it logically.

The instigator is not a 2 minute minor - it's 2, 5, 10 and sometimes fines (for coach and player) and suspensions. As the rule stands today, players must be very careful about instigating fights.

Furthermore, removing the instigator rule would NOT allow an enforcer to force someone into a fight. All Cheap-shotter has to do is ignore the enforcer.


It's hard to ignore a man who's punching you in the head.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#78 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,671 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:58 AM

I would say that the other changes you suggest, beyond the insitgator, would be enough. (Well, I'd also mandate proper chin straps on helmets, and probably look for improvements to visors. Hard pads need some analysis. The pads themselves aren't a problem, but they probably contribute indirectly to more reckless play.)

Now on to the instigator rule. Serious question for you. Do you really believe that the chance (not even a guarantee) of getting a minor penalty is keeping enforcers from preventing cheap shots?

First of all, the instigator rule does not prevent violent retaliation; it only assesses a penalty for it. Now think about it logically.

You have a 'cheap-shotter', under current rules, if he delivers a cheap shot (like the Cooke hit), he faces the possible consequences of: Penalty in game (minor, major, misconduct, ejection...up to the discretion of the refs), League Discipline (suspension, fines), Retaliation from the opposing team. So cheap-shotter must either ignore or at least not be thinking about any of those consequences before taking a cheap shot.

You have an enforcer, under current rules, he may (probably even) get a minor penalty for retaliating and a misconduct. Frequent offenders (or in certain circumstances) may face more serious discipline. To NOT retaliate, he must consider the value of his 'enforcement' to be less than what would be lost by taking the penalty. This alone suggests that the 'deterrence factor' of enforcers can not be very high (at least in the minds of the enforcers themselves).

Furthermore, removing the instigator rule would NOT allow an enforcer to force someone into a fight. All Cheap-shotter has to do is ignore the enforcer. How many enforcers are going to chase someone down from behind and risk a Bertuzzi-Moore incident. (Oddly enough, people often cite that case when arguing against the instigator rule. As if removing the instigator would make it impossible to turn your back and skate away from someone.) The league would never allow someone to just pummel another player who wasn't defending themselves. There would be legal ramifications. So at best it allows maybe one or two shots that maybe (not even guarantee) doesn't result in a penalty on the 'instigator'. Consequently, it would also allow the same for bullies to do the same to star players / non-fighters (even if such a thing would be rare [as an aside, I'd suggest you look into the old Flyers borad street bullies]) Also note that the NHL has had at least some version of the instigator rule since the Original 6 days. And really, most of the criticism of the instigator rule would more properly be directed at the Agressor rule, which is the one that penalizes players for fighting unwilling or defenseless opponents.

So you trade increased risk (even if only slightly) to star players for an increase in the likelihood of one potential consequence (the value of which has already been determined to be less than a minor penalty) for the cheap-shotter.

You seem to have this romanticized, WWE-esque notion of enforcers as some kind of super hero, before whom the forces of evil cower in fear. Or rather, they would be, if not hamstrung by the instigator rule. As though they have the ability to protect others from harm, but are too honorable to break the rules in order to do so. As if having a just cause would instill them with some righteous power to conquer their enemies. Like said enemies would, if the instigator were removed, be unbreakably bound by some code to accept their due punishment.

The truth is, players can't police themselves. Like I said before, all that does is allow the toughest guy around to make the rules, even if that guy happens to be one of the 'bad-guys'. Discipline has to come from authority. Authority can not come from violence. It's too inconsistent.

1st off - no one here is claiming that enforcers will prevent each, and every attempt of a cheap shot from occurring; all they'll do is to seek "payback" in the form of fisticuffs upon the guilty party which may make them think twice about future attepmts to run an opponent.

2nd - most tuff guys follow a "code" in which they'll leave a smaller/skilled opponent alone - unles provoked.

3rd - for those of us here that were watching hockey back in the 1980's we didn't see as many head shots/cheap shots, and overall blatant disrespect that we see in todays game...Much of that is due to the fact that players aren't being held accountable by other players...It's not as though fighting was the only form of punishment - suspensions were handed out by the league as well...Unfortunately the league doesn't make the right decisions as we have seen with Cooke; now there's a chance the Bruins will seek their own justice which could get ugly...20 years ago we would've seen someone go after Cooke, and it would've been taken care of (although there's always potential for follow-up beatdowns in every game thereafter), but now with the league NOT SUSPENDING Cooke - I wouldn't be too surprised if things got ugly the next time the Pens/Bruins meet.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#79 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:18 AM

I wouldn't be too surprised if things got ugly the next time the Pens/Bruins meet.


Don't hold your breath - generally, league spokesfolk talk to teams before games that are expected to be heated and threaten suspensions to anyone who steps out of line. Players taking matters into their own hands draws attention to the fact that the league is either unwilling to or incapable of handling the situation.

In a perfect worls, Chara, Thornton, and Lucic would draw straws to see which one of them gets to pound Cooke first.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#80 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,671 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:30 AM

Don't hold your breath - generally, league spokesfolk talk to teams before games that are expected to be heated and threaten suspensions to anyone who steps out of line. Players taking matters into their own hands draws attention to the fact that the league is either unwilling to or incapable of handling the situation.

In a perfect worls, Chara, Thornton, and Lucic would draw straws to see which one of them gets to pound Cooke first.

Wasn't there a similar response by the league just before the whole Bertuzzi/Moore incident, or did the league get involved after Brad May made the remarks about "geting even"?...My memory is a bit foggy concerning the exact details.

'Evolution' created by Offsides





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users