| Author |
 Topic  |
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2010 : 07:52:36
|
Poll Question:
Was the hit by Matt Cooke of the Penguins that laid out Boston's Marc Savard a clean hit, dirty hit, or somewhere in between?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
|
|
Edited by - willus3 on 03/14/2010 09:42:33
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 07:57:41
|
Here is a link to the hit in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z1vJrIAg-0
I know there are a lot of people calling this a dirty play by a dirty player . . . but after watching the video, I am left scratching my head at these remarks (from other articles on the hit).
I see that the hit happens right after Savard releases the puck, so it's not a late hit; the hit is a hockey play, meant to throw off the shot or rush the shot; there is no big run at the player from what I can see and Cooke is going at half speed; Cooke never leaves his feet; and Cooke only braces himself as per usual for a check and does not stick out his elbow or lower his shoulder to aim for Savard's head.
I see it as an unfortunate, legal hit on a player that happens to lower his head after a shot.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
 |
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 08:27:17
|
I think it's safe to say Matt Cooke is going to be suspended. Agree with it or not, it's more than likely coming.
Owen Nolan did something very similar last night, and i honestly thought the intention on Nolan's part was worse than Cooke's. In Nolan's case, i don't think the player ever had the puck when Nolan took a run at him. But he didn't get all of him, so unlike the Cooke case, there was no injury involving a player being wheeled off the ice on a stretcher, so that's that.
In a completely unrelated topic, but i don't feel like starting it's own thread, so....did you guys all see that offside call in the Buffalo/Rangers game last night? With 10 minutes to go in a 0-0 game, there was a close play by the blueline, the puck was fed up to Brandon Dubinsky who scored on Miller to give the Rangesr a 1-0 lead. The ref called the goal back though, saying the play was offside, the replay clearly shows the puck never crossed the line. I was watching the Sabres feed & even Rick Jenneret & Harry Neal joked about the play, saying "maybe the puck crossed the line while it was in mid air". It's extremely frustrating when your team is battling for their playoff lives, haven't scored a goal in 150 minutes of hockey, and finally have a good goal taken back at time like that. |
Edited by - ryan93 on 03/08/2010 08:34:06 |
|
|
|
Guest6451
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 08:29:37
|
| Chris Neil had a similar hit on saturday against the Leafs. To me, it's predatory. A guy is in a vulnerable position, and is preyed upon by an agressive opponent. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 08:41:44
|
I am leaning towards the same opinion as Slozo, and if this was another player other than Cooke, it would be even less debated as to the legalities of the hit.
That being said, I chose option 2, 'Borderline legal, we''re in a grey area'
Although these are 'finish your check' kind of plays, I think there needs to be more responsiblity brought in by the players themselves, to maybe stop taking advantage of other players, when they leave themselves in vulnerable positions like these.
Easier said than done, I realize with the speed of the game and all, but something that needs to start being instilled.
I was always taught by my Dad, way back when, that if the player couldn't see you coming, you didn't need to take the hit. These types of plays, there is no way the player could see you coming, just from angle you're approaching from, and a full shot may be a bit much. Just as easy to give a bump and seperate the player from the puck.
On the other hand, the game is physical and if you are approaching straight on, or from the side and can be seen, the big hit, in these circumstances can be a game changer, and there is no reason to limit these.
Maybe a little more respect for other players when in vulnerable positions.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 08:50:39
|
So hard to take the dirty bag involved out of the equations. So I asked myself, "If it was Jarome Iginla delivering the hit, would he be suspended?"
The answer for me is no.
Now, I agree that it's predatory in nature as it's a blindside hit. Regardless of the hit being to the head or not, I don't like'em. And before you weekend warriors start talking about keeping your head up etc, where are you looking when you shoot the puck??
In this case, it is also a hit to the head. Intended or not, it is a hit to the head.
However, under the current rules structure, it's not illegal to blindside an opposing player.
Under the definition of the current rules, it was borderline, but I think still inside the rules. However, I sure how the GM's or NHL make some changes as hits to the head are putting a pretty big black mark on the NHL overall. |
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 09:04:30
|
They NHL has a double-standard that I think applies here. Richards' hit on Booth is eerily similar to this play, and he wasn't suspended. Cooke isn't Richards though, and has a history of scumbaggery in the league. Also, they are moving towards outlawing headshots and taking advantage of completely vulnerable players.
If Lapierre gets 4, Cooke should at least get the same. Although at this point I think the league spins some kind of roulette wheel to arrive at a decision, since it seems so random. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 09:31:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh G. Rection
They NHL has a double-standard that I think applies here. Richards' hit on Booth is eerily similar to this play, and he wasn't suspended. Cooke isn't Richards though, and has a history of scumbaggery in the league. Also, they are moving towards outlawing headshots and taking advantage of completely vulnerable players.
If Lapierre gets 4, Cooke should at least get the same. Although at this point I think the league spins some kind of roulette wheel to arrive at a decision, since it seems so random.
So are you supporting the double-standard then? Personally, I think both Richards' hit and Cooke's hit were almost identical, with the exception that Richards' was much more violent due to the speed of the hit. I can't see how the league allows one to fly and not the other, especially when, IMO, the more damaging play, didn't get a suspension.
And please, let's not even try and compare Cooke's questionable check, to Lapierre's piece of crap intent to injure. Had the recipient of that blatant transgression been more a 'star' player, or the results of said cross-check, been more serious in damages, he would have been looking at double digits for games suspended, again, the leagues double-standard at work.
The face that goes along with the penalty needs to be ignored and the double-standard taken away. Personally, I think both Cooke's and Richards' hits deserve suspensions for if nothing else, unsportsmanlike conduct, taking total advantage of a player in a vulnerable situation, but until then, if they suspend Cooke, they are further making mock of the fair play they should be promoting. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 09:48:10
|
See, this is the thing I don't get about the predatory remarks . . . a "predator" stalks his prey, and is vicious in the kill (in this case, the hit). I don't see anything predatory about this hit though!
Can someone please point out to me at what exact second(s) the hit is what you deem to predatory, and why?
The key thing for me here is that Cooke really does look as if he is trying his hardest to give a legal check, knowing that he will get a penalty right away because it's Marc Savard he's hitting. And after giving a legal hit, he happens to catch Savard's head down . . . really unfortunate, but a legal play where Savard should have had the wherewithal to expect some physical contact while skating over the blueline in somewhat close quarters with the opposition. I mean, I hate to say it when these legal hits happen and a guy is taken off on the stretcher afterward . . . but I am reminded of the Lindros hit here, in that it's a hockey play, and you have to keep your head up when skating over the blue line with the puck.
I do agree that the suspension process is pretty arbitrary right now, and needs to be fixed. And no, it shouldn't be based on reputation if it's a LEGAL hit. If it's illegal, and it happens to be a multiple past offender, that's different . . . but if anyone can poitn out to me where this hit become illegal, be my guest and show me!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
pucker
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
398 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 09:49:11
|
Matt Cooke has always been a dirty [edit-questionable wording]. It wasn't the worst hit I have ever seen but it is definitely a suspension in my eyes. Good timing too with the GM meetings coming up. Time to adjust the rules a bit to try to stop the headshots.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/08/2010 11:23:18 |
|
|
|
Guest2872
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 09:49:16
|
| I can not believe that you guys do not see the difference between the Cooke hit and the Richards hit. Yes, I will admit that there are some similarities such as angle, timing , etc. And I will even say that Richards' hit was much more violent...BUT the most important and defining difference is that Cooke hit nothing but the head!! Richards' check did strike the head of Boothe but it was the result of the follow through on the body. This is what the league is looking for and it is why Cooke will be suspended and more importantly why Richards wasn't. |
|
|
|
JERJ2008
Top Prospect
Canada
25 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 10:04:42
|
Dirty. He didn't get any shoulder, it was all head. We're trying to take headshots out of the game, right? Suspension for this one, nothing major, a game or two, but the message HAS to be delivered that hits to the head are NOT acceptable. He could have hit with his arms, or maybe even hit shoulder to shoulder here. Cook isn't a big guy, so this doesn't fall into the "I'm Zedeno Chara, ALL of my hits are head level but that's because everyone else has there head at my shoulder".
Sorry Cooker, I like you're tenacity and I miss you as a Canuck, but this wasn't your best moment. |
|
|
|
Axey
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 10:18:36
|
Well basically as of today headshots are legal in the NHL. Now with that being said, there is always the people who go over the top (See Downie hit McAmmond). Now the league is in a very awkward situation where they are trying to eliminate headshots, but yet have no rules in place to remove them yet.
By the looks of it Cooke was just finishing his check, he didn't intentionally mean to clip his chin. He barely missed his shoulder, but due to his reputation a suspension could very well be handed out, although seems injust since Richards got let off the hook. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 10:31:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So hard to take the dirty bag involved out of the equations. So I asked myself, "If it was Jarome Iginla delivering the hit, would he be suspended?"
The answer for me is no.
Beans, what's harder than "taking the dirt bag involved out of the equation" is picturing Iginla delivering such a dangerous hit, be it legal or not! Yeah, some will point back to his trip on Souray but that, while careless, wasn't intentional like this hit was! I've defended some of these hits but i too am tired of the danger and lack of respect invovled in them. I really hope that the league which is supposedly meeting about this sort of thing, does something about it and soon!
I voted "grey area" only because from what i saw, sadly it's within the rules, but shouldn't be!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 11:33:39
|
To get to the predatory comment, I do agree that the media has seem to use this comment every time there is a dangerous hit and that it is being over used.
However, in this case I do agree the wording fits. Thinking of the meaning of Predatory, I see it to be an act of agression against an often unsuspecting prey. In this case, I see it fit. Perhaps we could argue the definition but I don't see the wording out of line or context.
That being said, the bottom line to me is that this is just another head shot. Right or wrong, in the rules or not, head shots are a very dangerous part of the game today and there needs to be at least an attempt to reduce or eliminate them.
Finally, this play is nearly exact to the Richards/Booth hit so it is hard to see how the punishment (or lack there of) will be anything other than preferential treatment of certain players. Although, one thing that might hurt him is that he had a suspension for a hit to the head as recently as Jan 28th.
That being said, the Lapierre hit and this hit have nothing in common. One could be viewed as borderline, middle of the road, and in some cases clean. The other was complete garbage and intent to injure. |
|
|
|
Guest7752
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 11:33:57
|
Dirty play all the way.
Had Savard NOT released the puck, and he would have hit him just the same, and it would still be a dirty hit from behind.
After the puck was released, he had plenty of time to skate around Savard, and chose not to, so it is indeed predatory.
Is NHL trying to cut down on this crap or not, if they are, then deliver the suspension immediately and make it a long one.
It's disgusting when, on the day after, you hear kids in arenas yelling "...heads up!!! I could have pulled a Cooke on you....!!"
It's the dirty plays that have to be penalized, regardless of who the player is, so deliver the suspension when warranted, and forget about whether or not it was a "dirty" player. NHL should not have to worry about "who" they are suspending, just make sure the dirty plays stop.
The players need to know that there is ZERO tolerance for these types of hits. There should be NO "gray areas" or it should not be taken into consideration if it was delviered by a "non-dirty" player... what the hell kind of thinking is that? |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 11:46:23
|
This hit looked a lot like the one Richards made on Booth. And at the time I thought Richards should have been suspended because he caught him from the blind spot. This is the same as hitting from behind because the guy can't see you coming.
So definitly dirty and he should be suspended. |
|
|
|
baumer
Top Prospect
82 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 12:40:32
|
| Dirty and predatory, he was looking to run him over and he did just that. In my opinion it's going to cost him big time. I would guess he's looking at around ten games, which seems pretty fair. I won't debate the Richards hit because what's done is done. Cooke is a multiple time head shot offender, and did it at the time the GM's are debating this exact issue. We can all say that there have been worse hits or that he will be a scape goat for the league because he isn't a superstar, but that is the nature of the beast. You protect your assets and Matt Cooke alone does not put fans in the stands. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 15:52:54
|
I'm torn on it, personally.
On one had, it appears to be a blind side hit (the same as hitting from behind, except it was done on an angel.) This part, I dislike.
It appears to be shoulder to head... but was the intention to hit the head? I don't believe so. I believe the only reason he had hit the head was because Savard had lowered his body, during the shot. And had not became upright yet, when the hit occurred. For this, i'm not faulting Cooke.
Should he have let up? Yes, if he could. But I can't say for certain he had the time, I wasn't the one striding in, and it happened so quickly.
Should he be suspended? No. If Richards wasn't suspended for his hit, of very similar nature. Cooke should not be either. No double standards, based on player.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 16:32:17
|
Here we go again...
The hit was clean. There are no rules against hitting to the head with your shoulder and therefore if the league wants any respect it should not suspend. Just because Matt Cooke is not an elite player does not mean that he deserves a suspension. Before you freak out, read on...
Personally I think it is unfortunate that he hit him in the head but I am not convinced that he intended to hit him in the head either. For the one billionth time, hockey is a game of micro seconds; if Cooke had timed it a tenth of a second later it would have been a shoulder on shoulder hit. Most of us can't even blink in a tenth of a second so to ask an athlete to time it perfectly is unrealistic. If you have a problem with the hit then have the league change the rules, but as it stands now, it's a clean hit.
Now (also for the billionth time) The league should mandate soft shell shoulder (and elbow) pads. Sandwich the hard plastic between two layers of softer material such as foam. Of course players should be mindful of head shots, but this will help reduce the incidental contact - like this hit. Yes, unless Matt Cooke admits to intentionally hitting Savard in the head then I believe it was incidental.
Ok. let me have it. |
|
|
|
Guest9621
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 16:53:14
|
| Beans, you're an idiot if you don't think Iginla won't have been suspended for that hit, Cooke got nothing but head, just what he was going after |
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 17:44:47
|
| You can suspend a player on intent to injure though, so that does open the door a bit for a play like this. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 19:56:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9621
Beans, you're an idiot if you don't think Iginla won't have been suspended for that hit, Cooke got nothing but head, just what he was going after
Careful guest.... Beans clearly stated that he didn't think Iginla would be suspended for a hit like this. You clearly stated that if Beans thought this, he's an idiot. Therefore, you just called Beans an idiot and that's against the rules around here! 
BTW, not sure you understand what Beans was getting at. He's saying that although he didn't like the hit, he doesn't feel, due to current rules and precedence, that there will be a suspension. So, that's his OPINION. If you don't like it, so be it, but don't go attacking people and calling them idiots just cuz you don't agree with them!  |
|
|
|
Guest9698
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 20:10:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Here is a link to the hit in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z1vJrIAg-0
I know there are a lot of people calling this a dirty play by a dirty player . . . but after watching the video, I am left scratching my head at these remarks (from other articles on the hit).
I see that the hit happens right after Savard releases the puck, so it's not a late hit; the hit is a hockey play, meant to throw off the shot or rush the shot; there is no big run at the player from what I can see and Cooke is going at half speed; Cooke never leaves his feet; and Cooke only braces himself as per usual for a check and does not stick out his elbow or lower his shoulder to aim for Savard's head.
Borderline dirty. Look at his path again especially in slow motion at the end of the clip. He was going to miss Savard. Changed his arm position and leaned to drop the left shoulder further down and out to make contact. He could have easily continued his path and not made any contact.
What we can't see is how Savard landed, that may have been more damaging than the hit itself.
This is about respecting fellow players. Contact could have been avoided. But he took advantage of a player out of balance. |
|
|
|
Guest4271
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 21:44:27
|
| Hello people, look who is throwing the hit, Cooke, this guy is a dirty player, he has a history of doing this, in another blog, someone said that Vancouver was the most hated and Cooke's name is involved. I hope they throw the book at him, they want to get rid of questionable hits and head shots, the league has to step up and do something.........sad thing is that Savard is an elite player and some may think this will be determining factor on how long suspension will be. The league has lots of time as Pittsburgh doesn't play again til Thursday |
|
|
|
Guest4271
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 21:48:57
|
| Anyone watch the game and seen what went on as the were securing him to get him off the ice?? What you seen was Crosby and Orpik standing in between Cooke and Bergeron, and Bergeron was giving it to Cooke, who had no remorse for what he did, looked like he was going through the emotions and standing there to make himself look innocent.........5 games for Cooke or this will never stop until Ovie or Crosby or someone super starish gets hurt. Sad but true |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 05:40:17
|
Are people here really suggesting that Cooke was wrong to slightly alter his path so that he could actually apply a bodycheck to a serious scoring threat coming across his blueline? Seriously?!?
So, maybe Cooke should have shouted out something as he was coming so that Savard knew to rush his shot or make another choice . . . or maybe Cooke could have just avoided all contact because maybe Savard didn't see him . . .
This is ridiculous conjecture, really. The fact of the matter is that it is currently a very legal check in the NHL. Now, I take as totally legitimate the argument that in the future, this play should be penalised (I disagree with this, but that's just my opinion) . . . but to call this play dirty when it is a solid hockey play - rushing a dangerous player's shot - is just wrong.
How can you say that Cooke knew it was blindside? Is every blindside hit illegal, or dirty? If every blindside hit is illegal, what happens when a young or stupid player comes across the blueline with his head down . . . you can't hit them?
Part of the skill set of being an NHL hockey player, the most elite level there is, is having an elevated sense of where you are and where everyone else is on the ice. This is what made some of the truly great players great - they never got hit. Why? Hockey sense.
IF YOU ARE COMING ACROSS THE BLUE LINE WITH THE PUCK, EXPECT TO GET HIT - OR EXPECT SOMEBODY TO TRY AND HIT YOU.
Please don't take this out of the game or call it dirty.
As to the specific "no head shots" rule, I say, fair comment, but I am personally against it as I feel it will unfairly penalise the larger players and give an advantage to the smaller guys. My thoughts have always been about changing the equipment first, then see where we are at.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
rross
Top Prospect
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 06:16:51
|
The poll question asks if it was a "clean, dirty or somewhere in between hit". So, since Cooke hit Savards head who was in a vulnerable situation, there is no other answer than "Dirty Hit!". You can debate all you want about legal or otherwise, but bottom line is it was dirty. Cooke did not bend his knees to deliver a check shoulder to shoulder. He just skated through and hoped to hit his shoulder....this is irresponsible and not the way to deliver a bodycheck.
Go Habs Go!! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 07:05:59
|
Actually rross, that is a SOFT way to deliver a bodycheck.
There should be no debate as to legality if you know the rules and have eyes.
"Dirty" implies something that at the very least slightly contravenes the rules, but isn't something that is usually penalised. Again - it's a hockey play, the hit to the head doesn't seem intentional, and there was nothing illegal about it.
That to me says clean, but unfortunate.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 08:18:05
|
| Slozo, i think we need to start a new thread to determine the definition of "dirty" as far as NHL hits go. I agree with you on some of what you say, especially that this hit is actually within the current rules. I don't agree with your opinion of wanting to keep these hits in the game. My thing on this hit is this, he could have, as someone mentioned, bent down a little lower and hit Savard's body moreso than just his head. He also could have hit him a little more straight on and not just cruised by and hit the only thing sticking out in his path, Savard's head. Regardless, i agree with "dirty" being something illegal but at the same time, i would encourage the NHL to get rid of hits like this one. If he'd hit him straight on and the result was the same, then i'd prob be okay with it, but it makes me sick that the ONLY thing Cooke made contact with was Savards head! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 11:15:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Here we go again...
The hit was clean. There are no rules against hitting to the head with your shoulder and therefore if the league wants any respect it should not suspend. Just because Matt Cooke is not an elite player does not mean that he deserves a suspension. Before you freak out, read on...
Personally I think it is unfortunate that he hit him in the head but I am not convinced that he intended to hit him in the head either. For the one billionth time, hockey is a game of micro seconds; if Cooke had timed it a tenth of a second later it would have been a shoulder on shoulder hit. Most of us can't even blink in a tenth of a second so to ask an athlete to time it perfectly is unrealistic. If you have a problem with the hit then have the league change the rules, but as it stands now, it's a clean hit.
Now (also for the billionth time) The league should mandate soft shell shoulder (and elbow) pads. Sandwich the hard plastic between two layers of softer material such as foam. Of course players should be mindful of head shots, but this will help reduce the incidental contact - like this hit. Yes, unless Matt Cooke admits to intentionally hitting Savard in the head then I believe it was incidental.
Ok. let me have it.
Ok, I do agree with some of this. Until this past year where I had the opportunity to sit at ice level for a few regular season games I never realized how fast the pro game actually it.
However, we are not talking about a split second decision here. in most of the cases involved, rolling the film back and watching over and over again at regular speed, we are talking about a 1/2 to a full second of a player "gliding" to which most will agree is where the players had made the decision to hit. That being said, the question at hand is not the hit happening, it's the decision to make the hit.
Secondly, lets take a quick look at the top 10 hitters in the NHL today. Clutterbuck, Calahan, Brown, Robidas, Orpik, Ott, Neil, Greene, Morrow, and Backes have combined for 2156 hit to this point in the season.
How many suspensions have been handed out in this group for hits to the head??
My point?? The NHL hockey hit can be done in a way where there is not direct contact to the head and using the speed of the game is a crutch. Simply put, the dangerous hit does not have to happen and players do have the choice if they want to make a hit or not. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:28:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Here we go again...
The hit was clean. There are no rules against hitting to the head with your shoulder and therefore if the league wants any respect it should not suspend. Just because Matt Cooke is not an elite player does not mean that he deserves a suspension. Before you freak out, read on...
Personally I think it is unfortunate that he hit him in the head but I am not convinced that he intended to hit him in the head either. For the one billionth time, hockey is a game of micro seconds; if Cooke had timed it a tenth of a second later it would have been a shoulder on shoulder hit. Most of us can't even blink in a tenth of a second so to ask an athlete to time it perfectly is unrealistic. If you have a problem with the hit then have the league change the rules, but as it stands now, it's a clean hit.
Now (also for the billionth time) The league should mandate soft shell shoulder (and elbow) pads. Sandwich the hard plastic between two layers of softer material such as foam. Of course players should be mindful of head shots, but this will help reduce the incidental contact - like this hit. Yes, unless Matt Cooke admits to intentionally hitting Savard in the head then I believe it was incidental.
Ok. let me have it.
Ok, I do agree with some of this. Until this past year where I had the opportunity to sit at ice level for a few regular season games I never realized how fast the pro game actually it.
However, we are not talking about a split second decision here. in most of the cases involved, rolling the film back and watching over and over again at regular speed, we are talking about a 1/2 to a full second of a player "gliding" to which most will agree is where the players had made the decision to hit. That being said, the question at hand is not the hit happening, it's the decision to make the hit.
Secondly, lets take a quick look at the top 10 hitters in the NHL today. Clutterbuck, Calahan, Brown, Robidas, Orpik, Ott, Neil, Greene, Morrow, and Backes have combined for 2156 hit to this point in the season.
How many suspensions have been handed out in this group for hits to the head??
My point?? The NHL hockey hit can be done in a way where there is not direct contact to the head and using the speed of the game is a crutch. Simply put, the dangerous hit does not have to happen and players do have the choice if they want to make a hit or not.
Beans you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying he didn't have time decide to hit or not, I'm saying if it were a micro second earlier it would have been a shoulder on shoulder hit and it would be a perfect comparison to the Richards hit (without nearly the force) Or if Savard hadn't shot the puck it would have been a shoulder on shoulder hit and we wouldn't be having this conversation. My point is that even top level players can't always time it perfectly, there are a lot of variables, most of which depend upon the movement of the other player - which you have no control over.
I agree that Savard was vulnerable and many players would use better judgement and lay off a bit...but many won't. There are currently no rules against what Cooke did, and no one besides Cooke himself can prove that he aimed for his head intentionally, so therefore Cooke should not be penalized.
I'm sorry to all you bleeding hearts who think Cooke is a goon and are upset that Savard is an elite player but at the end of the day the hit was legal. If you have a problem with it write a letter to the NHL saying that you are a fan and you think the rules should be changed. But hanging a player for playing within the confines of the rules is rediculous! |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:33:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15......
My point?? The NHL hockey hit can be done in a way where there is not direct contact to the head and using the speed of the game is a crutch. Simply put, the dangerous hit does not have to happen and players do have the choice if they want to make a hit or not.
--------------------
Oh...and you're dreaming my friend. Yes it CAN be done without contact to the head, but good luck doing it all the time. The game moves too fast (it's not a "crutch", it's a fact)
Change the gear, not the game. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:49:46
|
I agree with changing the gear. It should have been changed a long time ago, because even if the rule is there to protect the players, there"s still gonna be a lot of hits to the head and dirty plays.
I wouldn't penalize every hit to the head, but on this particular hit it's from where he's coming. Cooke clipped Savard from his blind side. He should be suspended for hitting from behind.
If it's a hit like Phaneuf did on Okposo then it's another story, Phaneuf is coming from the front not the back or the side unlike Cooke and Richards.
And I believe this is where the league needs to draw the line. Every hit coming from a blind side or behind will be penalize, and every hit to the head like that will be suspended. And plus change the gear. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 14:01:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15......
My point?? The NHL hockey hit can be done in a way where there is not direct contact to the head and using the speed of the game is a crutch. Simply put, the dangerous hit does not have to happen and players do have the choice if they want to make a hit or not.
--------------------
Oh...and you're dreaming my friend. Yes it CAN be done without contact to the head, but good luck doing it all the time. The game moves too fast (it's not a "crutch", it's a fact)
Change the gear, not the game. Problem solved.
Looks like the GM's don't exactly agree.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=520737
I do agree that changing the equipment would reduce the injuries, but I still think there needs to be a clear definition and penalty for a hit to the head.
It will work over time. Consider elbowing. That call is hardly ever made anymore as players (or time) learned how to hit without leading with an elbow. Elbows will have occasionally. However, the vast majority are clearly intentional.
The same thing could happen with hits to the head. A bodycheck can happen (at any speed) without a clear shot to the head.
I mean c'mon. These guys are the best in the world at what they do. Are you trying to say that they simply can not change the style to show so respect and have less players get injured?? It's unlikely to happen so do nothing about it??
And the speed of the game is still a crutch. 
As proven with my 2156 hit by the 10 guys in the league that hit the most and I don't believe a single suspension for an illegal hit from the lot of them.
However, Cooke has had 1 suspension(and quite possibly a 2nd suspension) in 155 hits. That's good for a head shot every 30ish games.
That is the part that has to stop. |
|
|
|
Guest8332
( )
|
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 14:02:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
[quote][i]
Oh...and you're dreaming my friend. Yes it CAN be done without contact to the head, but good luck doing it all the time. The game moves too fast (it's not a "crutch", it's a fact)
Change the gear, not the game. Problem solved.
See Olympics rules. That is what you need regarding hits to the head. Automatic 10 minutes and additional suspension if required. I don't recall Olympics hockey being boring or non physical.
Agreed change equipment too. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 14:16:44
|
First off, you can't compare a very short tournament with a heck of a lot of prestige to a regular season NHL game. If you want a closer comparison to the Olympics, compare series' that have happened in the finals of the NHL playoffs to the Olympics.
Oops, there goes your point.
I have a feeling that changing the equipment has another player involved behind back doors that has a lot of sway . . . and that is Nike/Bauer. It sure would cost them a lot of money to change over all of the equipment, and I bet they'd be very reluctant to lose all that money when it'd be so much easier to bribe certain GMs with different forms of greater corporate sponsorship and get them on board with just "changing the rules". It's a feeling I have that has absolutely no proof, other than my experience in the corporate world and how sickly it all works for the bottom line, ignoring anything that loses them money or shuffles the status quo.
Doesn't it make anyone wonder how many, many spokespeople in hockey have talked about the equipment, but that it is never followed up on above idle chatter? Or maybe I am wrong and there are greater movements afoot to bring in new equipment designs? I'd love to be wrong about this, because I feel it would eliminate so many of the concussions that just weren't there in the 70s and early 80s when you still had big guys, flying around, getting hit in the head HELMETLESS and not getting laid out like today.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 16:06:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15......
My point?? The NHL hockey hit can be done in a way where there is not direct contact to the head and using the speed of the game is a crutch. Simply put, the dangerous hit does not have to happen and players do have the choice if they want to make a hit or not.
--------------------
Oh...and you're dreaming my friend. Yes it CAN be done without contact to the head, but good luck doing it all the time. The game moves too fast (it's not a "crutch", it's a fact)
Change the gear, not the game. Problem solved.
Looks like the GM's don't exactly agree.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=520737
Don't oversell your point yet Beans, to be clear at this stage only 8 parties agree to take it to the Board tomorrow. I believe they will all agree that "intentional headshots should be made illegal"
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making blindside and/or vulnerable hits illegal (although I'd prefer if the league would let the players police it - but those days are behind us) I felt this way years ago when Moore hit Naslund when Naslund was vulnerable. But hits that involve contact with the head are much more difficult to take out without changing the game.
If you want to make hits that ONLY make contact with the head illegal then I would not have a problem with it...but you will end up penalizing the innocent in this case as well. This is a slippery slope, next you'll be penalizing players who glance off the shoulders and hit the head, and it will deteriorate from there. Given how politically correct our society is and is becoming, we'll soon be watching rec hockey and paying $100/seat so the players can risk nothing and rake in their paydays.
--------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I mean c'mon. These guys are the best in the world at what they do. Are you trying to say that they simply can not change the style to show so respect and have less players get injured?? It's unlikely to happen so do nothing about it??
These same "best players in the world" still miss the net when they shoot from time to time...what, they can't miscalculate a body check occasionally too? I'm not saying they can't respect each other. Let me make it perfectly clear Beans so that you can't misconstrue what I am saying. If you hear nothing, hear this....
1) The Cooke hit is currently legal.
2) If you want to change the rules to make it illegal then that is fine, but tread lightly and don't make a blanket rule.
3) Hits to the head will continue to happen regardless of the rules - see your elbowing example. See kneeing. See boarding etc.
4) I would agree to a "blindside or vulnerable" rule only if we can not bring back self-policing (insert instigator argument here) Player respect is a fine line and due to the many personalities in the league it will ebb and flow as it has for the last 40 years I've been around.
5) The speed of the game is not a crutch. Even Campbell says so in the article you cited, it's a fact. All your 2156 hits example proves to me is that this whole headshot issue is overblown. It's a bigger issue because of the media.
6) Soft shell shoulder and elbow pads make a hell of a lot more sense to me than any argument I have heard in this thread or in any of the other 100 threads about this subject on this site.
|
|
|
|
Guest9494
( )
|
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 16:38:45
|
| this is gonna continue to happen till bigger suspenions are given out he went out of the way to hit his head brutal |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 16:57:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
First off, you can't compare a very short tournament with a heck of a lot of prestige to a regular season NHL game. If you want a closer comparison to the Olympics, compare series' that have happened in the finals of the NHL playoffs to the Olympics.
Oops, there goes your point.
I have a feeling that changing the equipment has another player involved behind back doors that has a lot of sway . . . and that is Nike/Bauer. It sure would cost them a lot of money to change over all of the equipment, and I bet they'd be very reluctant to lose all that money when it'd be so much easier to bribe certain GMs with different forms of greater corporate sponsorship and get them on board with just "changing the rules". It's a feeling I have that has absolutely no proof, other than my experience in the corporate world and how sickly it all works for the bottom line, ignoring anything that loses them money or shuffles the status quo.
Doesn't it make anyone wonder how many, many spokespeople in hockey have talked about the equipment, but that it is never followed up on above idle chatter? Or maybe I am wrong and there are greater movements afoot to bring in new equipment designs? I'd love to be wrong about this, because I feel it would eliminate so many of the concussions that just weren't there in the 70s and early 80s when you still had big guys, flying around, getting hit in the head HELMETLESS and not getting laid out like today.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
Hey Slozo, I don't necessarily take the equipment conspiracy point of view here but I do agree that it is an expensive endeavor and therefore is slow to take hold. Having said that, conspiracy is an interesting concept.
For the record, in the 70's and 80's, relatively speaking, there were great deal of hits laid out of this nature. The difference is that not as much was known, or accepted, about concussions so they went unreported and therefore out of the media. In addition, not all the games were televised so much went unnoticed other than in local papers. Add to that players were admittedly going a little slower. Also, the equipment was much smaller and lighter with much less plastic surface area. Take a look at Chris Chelios' shoulder pads if you want to see an example of pads from the 70's and 80's. Very light and small; today's shoulder pad designs are literally taken from Football. They are great protection for the player wearing them, but almost murder for the player taking them to the chin. Finally, because players wore less protective gear (mostly in the 70's), most were less willing to throw out massive body checks all game long.[/u] Don't get me wrong, it was a nasty and vicious game, but there were more repercussions to your own body so it may have manifested in what mistakenly appeared to be respect for other players. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 04:51:53
|
I agree with you Leigh about a lot of concussions going unreported back in the 70s and early 80s . . . that's why I was focussing just on guys getting "laid out". Hits to the head via an elbow, shoulder or other body part (incidental or otherwise) that resulted in a guy splayed out on the ice.
There was a heck of a lot less of that then . . . and it was a dirtier, tougher time for hockey in my opinion.
The whole "bigger, faster" argument to lessen that argument doesn't hold water in my opinion, as comparitively, the ratios remained the same. A big guy in the 70s may have been just average size these days, but he was still a good size bigger then regular sized players back then, just like the ratio now. A very fast player back then would have been just average as well these days probably in terms of speed . . . but he was still faster than everyone else back then. The ratios remained the same, which means the impact would have remained about the same as well, generally.
Back then, a big guy was anyone over 6' and 200lbs . . . I even remember that in the late 80's, a guy like Bob Probert was considered a 'monster' - one of the biggest, strongest (and toughest) guys in the league. He was 6'3", 225 . . . a size and weight that is still considered large, but far from rare. In fact, most teams have at least one, sometimes two or three guys this size on their team, and often larger. And yet, we don't have the small slight players anymore either . . . so it's not as if just because the top end of the size chart has risen, that the bottom part hasn't risen as well.
I really do think it's mostly the padding - exchange plastic for fabric padding they had in the 70s, and make it across the board for all players. If you do that, an elbow to the head probably won't knock the other player out (it'll still hurt big time, of course) and the guy throwing the "dirty" hit will be on the ice clutching his elbow, yelling . . . because that also really, really hurts.
Maybe we keep the hard plastic for the knee pads . . . below the waist is fine as is. But shoulder and elbow pads need to change for the safety of all involved.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Cooke hits Savard - Clean, Dirty, or Unfortunate? 
