11/21/24
March 19, 2010
NHL May Prohibit Attempted Decapitations: The NHL is considering a new rule against blind-side head checks that could take effect as early as the current season. Matt Cooke of the Pittsburgh Penguins, a skater described by Don Cherry as "gutless" and "backstabbing" for his headhunting, helped spur the move with a vicious shot that knocked out Boston's Marc Savard a day before general managers met to consider rules changes. Cooke's response: "It gives people something to talk about."
It seems like a hit to the head, blind-side or not, should already be a penalty. The problem is Cambell is inconsistent in handing out suspensions and they seem to base it on 'how much damage was done?' (though strangely not in the case of Savard). Keep it simple - a hit to the head is a penalty with referees discression on minor, double, or major. Automatic review with potential of a suspension based on intent (not on damage). The intent is measured against similar incidents.
In this case, Cooke clearly was aiming for the head and knew Savard wasn't looking - a suspension should've been handed down. I don't think Cooke actually hit him that hard (though hard to tell from YouTube) but that doesn't really matter - there's no telling what's going to ring a guy's bell, and it shouldn't be a risk he has to take (check all you want but don't go for a guy's head).
posted by kokaku at 10:10 AM on March 19, 2010
The problem is Cambell is inconsistent in handing out suspensions
He spent 5 minutes on NESN last night hemming and hawwing about how he really wanted to suspend Cooke but there was nothing in the rules that allowed it. Seems difficult to believe.
posted by yerfatma at 10:23 AM on March 19, 2010
Wha??? You are the league enforcer - isn't the rule whatever you say it is? A hit to the head is not allowed by the rules, is it?
In the NFL, even if a penalty isn't called, they often go back and assess a fine after the fact for something egregious.
posted by kokaku at 10:33 AM on March 19, 2010
Cooke and Booth both should have been suspended and I am looking forward to this rule being in place. While the hits were legal according to the letter of the law, there is no place for that in the game. The Bruins sent their tuff guy out(Thorton) and he and Cooke got it on 6 seconds into Cookes first shift last night. That fight took the crowd out of the game and basically the Bruins too.
Hopefully the rule will be in effect by the play-offs
posted by Debo270 at 10:40 AM on March 19, 2010
Cooke and Booth both should have been suspended
sorry I ment Richards, Booth
posted by Debo270 at 11:32 AM on March 19, 2010
Problem is, the NHL has always punished the result, and not the intent. A perfect example is high-sticking. Whether you bloody a player on a high-stick or mot should be irrelevant, a double-minor should be assessed on the ref deeming it was intentional or not. Case in point, Brian Rafalski got 4 minutes for high-sticking Craig Conroy on Monday, because Conroy was cut. But Conroy ran into Rafalski's stick as Rafalski was following through on a clearing attempt, and didn't even see Conroy coming. But the rules handcuff the refs...if there's blood, it's 4 minutes. So if a player goes headhunting and doesn't cause an injury, will he be punished more severely than a player going for a clean hit where his target bends down at the last second, and gets hurt?
On a related note, this has been posted before, I think, but it's timely, so here it is again. The NHL's Top Secret Suspension Flow Chart.
posted by MeatSaber at 12:02 PM on March 19, 2010
Breaking News: In an effort to give their team a tougher image, the team has gone out and signed Johnny Weir for the remainder of the season! He will now be the closest thing the team has to an enforcer.
I understand that they are fighting for the final playoff spot, but for the Bruins this is becoming a pattern. No one did anything after Patrice Bergeron took his hit last year (beside the laughing Jack Edwards), no one stood up for Aaron Ward after he took the cheap shot in the playoffs last year, and now everyone stood around and watched as Matt Cooke laughed at them after this incident. If the Bruins are not going to stand up for themselves, they will continue to be pushed around and teams will continue to go after the Bruins talented players because teams know that there will be no retribution.
I watched the game hoping that maybe the Bruins would grow a set, but instead knew that they were going to sit back and continue to take it. I turned off the game half way thru the second period when I realized that the single fight was all they were going to do since no one had touched Cooke since the Thornton fight. I am not a Bruins fan, but even I was ashamed of them.
It would have been one thing if the Bruins had gone out and gotten the win after only challenging Cooke once, but they lost by three friggin goals. If it were a one goal game, at least they had a chance to tie it and justify their actions, but they were losing by 3 for a large portion of the third period and instead proceeded to show that the yellow on their jersey's actually goes all the way down their backs.
posted by Demophon at 12:38 PM on March 19, 2010
Demophon:
Would you have been happy if the Bruins sent out Chara in the third period and he did this?
The fight at the beginning of the game was the extent that should have happened (if you believe in the "on-ice code of conduct/retribution" model).
posted by grum@work at 01:18 PM on March 19, 2010
No, what Bertuzzi did was a cheap hit and it was the nature of the cheap hit that caused the extent of Moore's injuries. Cooke who by the league's own definition is a repeat offender, with a league wide reputation for cheap shot hits, took the Bruins best offensive weapon out for the remainder of the season with another cheap shot.
The Bruins have struggled to score all season, and will now most likely struggle even more to score without their largest scoring threat. The Bruins were handed a gift when the league did not suspend Cooke through this game. The Bruins players should have been lining up to take their turn with Cooke. Instead only Scott Thornton stepped up and took on a player who turtled after taking a couple of punches.
I do not agree with the callers on the Boston radio sports talk shows that were calling for someone to go out and put a comparable hit on Crosby in the eye for an eye theory. But when a cheap shot artist such as Cooke has essentially ended your chances for a playoff run by taking out the best player, more than one player should be stepping up to teach that player a lesson. I am not saying you come up behind him and put a cheap shot on him like Bertuzzi did to Moore, you approach him the same way that Thornton did and you face off with him head on.
If Savard had returned after a couple of games, that is one thing, but the reports are saying that he is done for the year and the WEEI radio guys are reporting that he is currently unable to leave his house during day light hours because of the headaches associated with the grade 2 concussion that this known goon caused.
For the Bruins this is also imperative that you step up and show that you are capable of defending your teammates because as I stated earlier, this is not the first time that the Bruins have done nothing after a star player has been removed from the equation, and this time it has essentially ended their chances at a playoff spot.
posted by Demophon at 02:05 PM on March 19, 2010
The Bruins players should have been lining up to take their turn with Cooke. Instead only Scott Thornton stepped up and took on a player who turtled after taking a couple of punches.
So, in summary, you were expecting a long line of Bruins to the penalty box and dressing room (game misconducts)?
That'll teach'em!
Thornton got his chance to "exact retribution". I guess the only way Boston fans would have been happy would be if Cooke stood there and took 4 or 5 punches to the face and was bleeding profusely at the end of the encounter.
I think Cooke is a dirty player, but short of going all Bertuzzi on him, there isn't much else that Boston could do.
posted by grum@work at 02:15 PM on March 19, 2010
So, in summary, you were expecting a long line of Bruins to the penalty box and dressing room (game misconducts)?
That would be preferable than watching as the next Bruins offensive player who goes down with another injury because some thug took liberties he knew he could take since no one would teach him otherwise. Now that the Bruins have shown that they will not step up to defend a teammate who has suffered a season ending injury for the second straight year, how many other goons must be out there licking their chops at the idea of taking out another Bruins player?
The Bruins were already down by 3 goals half way through the third period and have struggled to score 1 goal recently, forget about 3 against a team near the top of the division. It was not as if they had to worry about losing the game, that had already happened. Now instead they have lost the respect of their fan base and been marked as being a team that will not defend itself. Right now the only member of the Bruins that is entitled to hold their head high is Scott Thornton.
posted by Demophon at 02:50 PM on March 19, 2010
That fight took the crowd out of the game and basically the Bruins too.
You must have seen a different fight or a different game. The crowd was going wild after the fight. The Bruins absolute egg of a game took the crowd out of it.
posted by yerfatma at 04:18 PM on March 19, 2010
Yeah, I thought that was handled appropriately. Cooke was ready to face the music. And the rule change is desperately needed.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:59 PM on March 19, 2010
You know how hits like Cooke's will stop?
Either A) The league makes the suspension that the offender is out until the victim returns or b) somebody goes Dr. Hook and bashes Cooke on his thick-headed fucking skull and removes him from the game permanently.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:16 PM on March 19, 2010
Thank you Meat - that link is hysterical
As for the Bruins - I would've liked to see them go out and hit every player on the Penguins with the hardest checks they could muster on every single hit. I wouldn't have cared if they didn't take a shot - just hit hit hit.
Let the Penguins realize that if they let their goon get out of control, everyone suffers - let them rein him in (because it's not like a fight against Thornton is going to do it - that was just theater, and not the Laurence Olivier kind of theater, more kindergarten puppet theater performed by a slightly skeezy guy who smells funny).
posted by kokaku at 04:42 AM on March 20, 2010
MeatSaber, this was classic, especially the part about Avery. God, what a pest ... but a smart pest. He pulled one hell of a rag-doll act in the second period to draw a penalty against the Flyers on Sunday.
posted by jjzucal at 11:51 AM on March 20, 2010
You know if that sort of violence is outside the norm for hockey, or could have or did result in serious injury, I think that criminal charges and an arrest would certainly be warranted. If Cooke were facing criminal charges and a potential prison term, maybe he wouldn't be so quick to make those callous comments about seriously hurting someone deliberately.
posted by irunfromclones at 07:26 PM on March 20, 2010
The thing about Cooke's hit - from the look of it he didn't hit him all that hard - but it really rang Savard's bell. Hard to see how you could convince a jury (outside of one packed w B's fans) that the hit wasn't outside the realm of hockey norms.
posted by kokaku at 08:29 PM on March 20, 2010
Cooke's return to the ice against the Bruins, 3/18/10.