Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 The League Sucks - Matt Cooke Suspension Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/23/2014 :  23:04:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Suspension to Matt Cooke was not enough.

Allow me to summarize the Video Explanation given by the League:

"
On Tuesday night Matt Cooke hit Tyson Barrie.
This hit was determined to be kneeing.
The knee was extended prior to impact.
The play was in front of Cooke the whole time.
Cooke had plenty of time to get out of the way.
Cooke could have hit the player square on.
The hit has been determined to be 'intent to injure'.
The League also considered that Cooke is a repeat offender who has been fined or suspended a total of 9 previous times throughout his 15-year career.

To summarize:
Knee-on-knee hit
Intent to injure
History with the League

We believe that the severity of this incident merits a significant suspension.

...We hereby suspend Matt Cooke of 7 games.
"


How can it go from saying, "this offence merits a massive suspension", to "we're giving him 7 games" in the same sentence!?!? Is this a joke?

The League blew it on this one.

Does anybody disagree with that? How many games do you think Cooke should have gotten. What a piece of sh*t. I am extremely disappointed.







Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  08:22:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
That suspension was a CROCK-O-$#@&

I agree it should have been more. It's interesting in the league's explanation of the hit and the suspension they mention that he's not considered a repeat offender BUT they go on to talk about the number of fines and suspensions he's had? The biggest problem i have with this suspension is that it could amount to 2 playoff games and 5 reg season games? While 7 playoff games is pretty big, the 2/5 is not! There should have been a stipulation whereby it goes up if they are not all playoff games served! I would have preferred to see a suspension of 7 playoff games and the first 10 reg season games next year. IF the Wild don't play 10 playoff games (which is likely the case) then the suspension jumps to 20 reg season games.

I think where i stand on these hits and suspensions hasn't changed. My opinion remains, i don't think they should take into considerations the injury inflicted if they ever want to clean up the game for real. There have been worse (more obvious) hits than this one that didn't end up with the victim out for 6 weeks that imo, should be treated just as harshly as ones like this where a serious injury is inflicted. If it's deemed there is/was intent to injury (or simply something really reckless), there should be a suspension. If a guy takes a two handed swing of the stick at the head of an opponent and misses, i'm pretty sure there would still be a suspension, no? Same should go for dangerous plays like this!
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3582 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  08:42:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree as well. Was looking for minimum of 20 games (spread over playoffs and next season) - as Crock said, repeat offender, intent to injure (and succeeded in intent), it all adds up to a big suspension.

Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4580 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  09:19:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Agreed, well said Crock.

The real problem in this decision goes to the League's stance on PLAYOFF games versus REGULAR SEASON games . . . in essence, they look at a Reg Season Game as a "1", and a Playoff Game as a "2", maybe even a "3". SO in their heads, they actually gave Matt Cooke a 14 game suspension.

IMHO, any suspension over a certain length occurring during the playoffs (say, 5 or more games) should carry that suspension during the regular season, AND have them out of the rest of the playoffs no matter what. Playoffs done, and Matt, you got 14 games. See ya.

There should be things that are set to "automatic" in this suspension area . . . then, there's no wondering. No playing around. No arguing. And, with that kind of accountability . . . there are a lot less incidents like this.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!
Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  09:47:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It was almost exactly two years ago to the day - Raffi Torres was suspended for 25 games for his hit on Marian Hossa. The hit was explained to be:
1. Reckless
2. Intent to injure
3. Repeat Offender

He got 25 games - Postseason and Regular Season included. He even appealed the suspension, which was rejected.

Now, whether or not you agree with the Torres' Suspension (I personally found that one to be a little bit over the top); it certainly sets a precedent. The League has stated that when the factors are:
1. Reckless
2. Intent to Injure
3. Repeat Offender

You get suspended for a long period of time.

The Matt Cooke was certainly all of these - and even more I would argue - yet, he gets a quarter of the suspension of Torres.

How does Torres get 25 games, but Cooke "only" get 7 here? Absolutely ridiculous. Cooke should have gotten 25 minimum. The League absolutely blew it this time.
Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  10:07:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would also like to touch on what Alex said. In the explanation video, the League actually attempts to suggest that Matt Cooke is "not a repeat offender" (having not been suspended since 2011).

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? That's literally like letting a pedophile out after two years because of "good behaviour".

Again, to use the Raffi Torres example. From what I can find (and for some weird reason it's hard to find data on this), Torres has "only" been fined or suspended by the League a total of six times in his career (suspended - 4 times, fined - 2 times). And, other than his massive 25 game suspension; has "only" had one other "major" incident - in 2011 when he charged into Jordan Eberle.

Matt Cooke? 10 times. That's 6 suspensions and 4 fines. 6 suspensions and 4 fines is "not a repeat offender"? I think he would be hard-pressed to find a better example of a "repeat offender". Well actually, come to think of it, Matt Cooke is by the League's own definition of it, the "dirtiest" player out there; and the biggest repeat offender out there.

This suspension and explanation are a complete, and massive failure.


Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  11:22:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok, so a few points to clarify. First and foremost, the NHL DID NOT say he wasn't a repeat offender. The part that is being conveniently left out is, ACCORDING TO THE CBA, Cooke is not a repeat offender. That is true and the NHL can not change the rules or perception of what a repeat offender is as it's clearly outlined in the CBA. If you don't like that you have to blame both the NHL and the NHLPA for the way the rules work. If they did change the rules the NHLPA could have had the suspension overturned immediately. He hasn't been suspended in 3 years. That's the facts and the rules as outlined in the CBA.


Now, I have been a huge supporter of tough suspensions on players for year and that hasn't changed. I've also watched this replay a number of times and I see a few things. Most importantly, Cooke did NOTHING in the way of avoiding the knee on knee contact and this was, 100% unequivocally, an action that is worthy of a suspension. Now, I would challenge almost anyone to review the hit and specifically watch Cooke's right shoulder and Barrie's left shoulder. If you watch that you will see that Barrie changed the angle of approach and Cooke had full intention of hitting Barrie square in the chest. Cooke's right arm is tucked and he is going forward with his shoulder and his right hand is off his stick. I have no doubt in my mind that Cooke's intention was the rock the crap out of the kid in open ice. When the kid moved so should have Cooke. He didn't and that is what he should be suspended for.

I don't see this that Cooke was hunting for the knee on knee. He was looking for a big open ice hit and didn't let up or try to avoid the hit when the kid move. He may have further extended his knee after the kid moved and I can see that point of view. I just think people are not accounting for the evidence that shows Cooke was looking for an open ice hit. This wasn't a Marchment/Samualsson kind of hit where they had both hands on their stick and made no intent to do anything but to go knee on knee. Cooke was going for a hit, the kid moved, and he didn't pull his knee back in.

I say the NHL got this one just about dead on. I wouldn't have argued with something like 10-12 games either but I can't get behind much more than that.


Finally, I completely agree with Slozo's point in that the NHL more heavily weighs playoff games vs. regular season games and I agree that's wrong. It's the same as suspensions being decided based on decisions. Suspensions need to be based on actions/intent and a regular season game and playoff game should have the same value in a suspension.



Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  12:24:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The League mentions in the video "...although Matt Cooke has been involved in previous incidents, he is not considered a repeat offender..."

So, they mention it. But as Beans said, they also mention that he won't be tried as a repeat offender.

Now, under normal circumstances, I would fundamentally agree with the "3-year grace period idea". But this is Matt Cooke. This is - and it's non-debatable btw - the dirtiest player in the League. 6 previous suspensions and 4 previous fines - not to mention any number of incidents and warnings from the League. This is the dirtiest player in the League.

I like the idea of the 3-year grace period. But, we should never have a "one size fits all" blanket solution for these types of problems. They need to be looked at as an individual case. In this case, it's pretty clear that Matt Cooke should retain the title of "repeat offender". For life. Duncan Keith might be able to get a "clean slate" after three years. But not Matt Cooke. And this is when brains have to overcome robot-like stupidity. This is the equivalent to a serial killer getting out of jail early because of a loophole in the law. We all know it's wrong. So, instead of saying "there's nothing we can do about it blah blah blah", why don't we say, "we're going to do something about it."

The League has this power. And let's forget about the nomenclature for a minute here. Whether or not Cooke is tried as a "repeat offender", the League still could have suspended Matt Cooke for 25 games.

Second, Beans - what are you talking about Cooke "...had full intention of hitting Barrie square in the chest...". Not even close Beans. Cooke's intent is CLEARLY for the knee. And he accomplished exactly that. To blame Tyson Barrie for moving out of the way is insane. Sure, he moved out of the way....... Of another player sticking out his knee in order to injure him. He didn't move out of the way of the hit. He tried to avoid the knee-on-knee contact. Cooke's response was to FURTHER stick out his knee. No no no no no Beans. No cred for that comment. Sorry man. That was a knee-on-knee - and it was intended. This was just about as dirty a play as you can get.

Then, if you look at Matt Cooke's YouTube compilation of dirty hits, you will see just how many times he has thrown out his knee. That is, in fact, Cooke's "go to" sewer-rat injury-creating move. He's done it or gone for it like dozens of times throughout his career. It's disgusting.

Go look at his compilation on YouTube again. Then come and talk to us.

Finally, there is no way that Raffi Torres gets 25 games, while Matt Cooke gets 7. No f#%!*@%ing way. Cooke's was much worse; and from a comparable player in a comparable situation. The League completely blew that call. Cooke should have gotten 25+ games.








Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/24/2014 :  16:18:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Unfortunately, it has been agree on by the NHL and the NHLPA that after 3 "clean years", you are no longer considered a repeat offender. SO, we need to look at this hit and say to ourselves, what if this was not Matt Cooke, but instead, Sam Gagner, Daniel Sedin or Marty St. Louis??? I think 7 (potential) playoff games would have fans of those players screaming! Crock, i totally agree that it's impossible to forget this guy's history, but if that's the way it's set up, they prob had no choice?

I agree with Beans to some extent on the hit itself and i actually heard one "hockey guy" on the radio yesterday doing the same (defending Cooke to some degree). I personally don't think that he went after Barrie with the intent to clip him knee to knee. Let's not forget, this type of hit can easily result in the hitter injuring his own knee! I too believe he meant to put a hit on Barrie (Cooke's perfect victim as he's smaller than Cooke) and when Barrie avoided it, he did a poor job in pulling his leg back. I have watched this video countless times though and i don't see this whole "he extended the knee even further when he saw that he had missed the hit" part? I don't think his position (knee) changed in fact but having said that, that's a big part of the problem. Had he made an attempt to get his knee out of the way, we prob wouldn't be talking about this right now!

I don't agree with the playoff games = reg season games though. I think playoff games are far more important (for obvious reasons) and therefore teams are hurt much more when missing a guy for these. I still believe a suspension like this one should be dictated by how many games are playoff games missed, and how many are reg season games. I'd have no problem with them saying 10 games (playoffs) BUT double them for any that aren't playoff games missed. So, if he missed 2 playoff games for a balance of 8 remaining, this becomes 16 in the regular season! It'd be nice if they simply carried it over to the next playoffs as this would stick with the offending player making them less valuable moving forward (especially as a FA or possible trade deadline aquisition) however, some guys may never make the playoffs again thus avoiding the bulk of suspensions!
Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2014 :  13:51:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If Raffi Torres got 25 games (Playoffs and Regular Season games included) for his Hit; Matt Cooke deserves not a game less than 25.

The message with this is clear: Send your rats onto the ice, and have them injure the other team's Top Players. Who cares if Cooke "only" gets 7 games? We don't really need this minor 3rd-line sewer rat on our team anyway. Besides, with Barrie out, we'll win the Series, and Cooke will be back! Yay!

Complete and utter horsesh*@^#**#^@(&$$!!t. I am totally pissed off about this one.

I understand that "technically he isn't a repeat offender because three years of no incidents...". But that really shouldn't factor into the decision. The League could still have suspended Cooke for 25 games here. With or without Union agreement.

It's literally like not punishing a drunk driver who already has 10 prior convictions. Because they "haven't been in the last 3 years"*. It is stupidity. And we all know it.

* - which, in itself is horsesh*t. His last "incident" occurred in 2011 - and he missed 17 games, so that meant he had 17 fewer games with which to cause an "infraction". Then, we had the lock-out Season. So, it's "technically" three years. But it's more like 100 games. Which is about the same amount of time between Raffi Torres' incidents before he hit Hossa. I call that a "repeat offender", and the League used the same language in the video. They are "aware" of this player's history but chose to hide behind a stupid technicality.

* - Besides, nobody is mentioning Erik Karlsson. Now, I know this is going to foggy up the conversation a little bit here. Because for some stupid reason, the consensus is that that incident "wasn't done on purpose.". But, I am of the opinion that it was on purpose - if for no other reason than a.) It was Matt Cooke. b.) It was Erik Karlsson.

Q: HOW MANY OTHER TIMES HAVE YOU SEEN ANOTHER PLAYER GO INTO THE BOARDS WITH ONE FOOT IN THE AIR, AND IT COMES RIGHT DOWN ONTO THE ACHILLES OF ANOTHER PLAYER????????

A: Never. It has only ever happened once in the History of Hockey. Matt Cooke (the biggest sewer rat in the history of the game) vs. Erik Karlsson (the biggest defensive star that we have seen since Lidstrom). It was on purpose.

But simply: If Raffi Torres got 25 games; Matt Cooke should have gotten 25 games. The League blew this call. And I am pissed to no end about it. A complete abdication of control or authority on the League.

Stephan Quintal should be fired immediately. And this decision should be relooked at. It is a complete joke.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/25/2014 :  16:20:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by CrockOShight


* - Besides, nobody is mentioning Erik Karlsson. Now, I know this is going to foggy up the conversation a little bit here. Because for some stupid reason, the consensus is that that incident "wasn't done on purpose.". But, I am of the opinion that it was on purpose - if for no other reason than a.) It was Matt Cooke. b.) It was Erik Karlsson.

If that's the only 2 reasons you come up with, i don't think that is enough. Personally, i don't care who did it, i feel it was 100% accidental. I just don't see how this could have been intended!

quote:
Originally posted by CrockOShight

Q: HOW MANY OTHER TIMES HAVE YOU SEEN ANOTHER PLAYER GO INTO THE BOARDS WITH ONE FOOT IN THE AIR, AND IT COMES RIGHT DOWN ONTO THE ACHILLES OF ANOTHER PLAYER????????

A: Never. It has only ever happened once in the History of Hockey. Matt Cooke (the biggest sewer rat in the history of the game) vs. Erik Karlsson (the biggest defensive star that we have seen since Lidstrom). It was on purpose.




The Kassian incident with Bolland earlier this year was described as "similar to the Achilles injury suffered by Ottawa Senators defenseman Erik Karlsson last season".

Thing is, the more "freak" or less occuring, the more that makes me feel it was 100% unintentional. I get it with a kneeing or elbowing or hitting from behind thing. THOSE, could easily be sseen as intentional, but the Karlsson thing, no one will ever convince me that it was the intended move by Cooke.
Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/26/2014 :  12:31:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Kassian hit on Bolland was nothing like the Cooke-Karlsson incident.

In the former, Kassian's foot runs into the back heel of Dave Bolland. His leg and foot never leave the ground. Kassian was clearly going for the puck in traffic in the corner with other players involved in the middle of the period on a forecheck that led to a goal.

In the latter, there was nothing happening. There was 10 seconds left in the period. There was nobody around. Cooke's foot leaves the ice, and comes right down upon Karlsson's achilles. Look at his left foot. He lifts his left foot up - WAY into the air - and he kicks it way out, and brings it down. He brings it down hard right onto Karlsson's heel.

Already a questionable play. But then you add in the names involved. Matt Cooke is the biggest rat in the history of hockey - and I don't think that that's up for debate - 10 previous suspensions and fines - numerous other "incidents" that weren't called - eg. Marc Savard. And Erik Karlsson - a budding SuperStar on a Team who is in a tight battle in the Standings in the same Conference. Is that just a coincidence?

Let us suppose that it was an "accident". It was a pretty fortunate turn of events for the Penguins.

But let's talk about that. Wouldn't that be a great strategy? Let's injure the other team's Top Players! That's the way to win Hockey Games these days.

Look, The Motive is there. The Intent is there. The Leg is IN THE AIR!! Where there's smoke, there's fire. And sure, you can say all you would like that this was a "freak accident". But it's pretty coincidental that it was "Matt Cooke" and "Erik Karlsson". What are the odds of that? Why doesn't this happen more often? Why is it that every time that Matt Cooke is on the ice, something ends up happening? "Freak accidents" only occur around Matt Cooke? Could we say that the Marc Savard hit was a "freak accident"? Scott Walker? Ryan McDonagh? Fedor Tyutin? Alex Ovechkin????

Remember - 10 previous suspensions and fines. 10. That is an NHL record by like double. AND, that's NOT including all of the other incidents in which he was not fined or received supplementary discipline. Check out how many of them there are:

http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2011/03/21/video-a-timeline-of-dirty-and-reckless-matt-cooke-hits/

I personally believe that all players are of the same breed, and are all in this together. They do not want to injure other players, and they do not play with malicious intent. No one wants to injure another player. I truly believe that.

...except when it comes to Matt Cooke. That is where I draw the line. Look at the history, look at the videos. He is a rat, and he needs to be banned from the League. You mark these words: He will do this again. He will injure another player. Do you want it to be Sidney Crosby next time?






Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/26/2014 :  13:07:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
But we've gone off topic!

Cooke on Barrie was 100% intent to injure. Are you kidding me? That was a KNEE! Look how many times Cooke has attempted this in his career. Check out the link I posted or just google a compilation of Matt Cooke douchebaggery.

Look at Cooke's knee-on-knee on: Erik Cole, Zach Bogosian, Alex Ovechkin, Mats Sundin, and a couple of others which I couldn't identify.
His elbows on: Kane, Roy, Yandle and McDonagh (OMG).
His hits from behind on: Tyutin, Markov. And his super dangerous, career-ending glancing headshots on Anisimov and Savard.

That's 11 "incidents" that I just named. All super dangerous, definite intent to injure, and just absolute complete douchebaggery. And of those 11, he was punished only twice (Anisimov and McDonagh).

Suspended or Fined 10 times in his career. Add to that another (at least) 9 incidents that did not go unpunished. Heck, that McDonagh hit alone should make him an "offender for life". He could have easily gotten a Season Suspension for that absolutely disgusting display.

Watch them all. Again and again.

http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2011/03/21/video-a-timeline-of-dirty-and-reckless-matt-cooke-hits/

Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waePHWjVGY

And another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nig2naN8NTs

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Fool me... let's see here... 19 times? Well... Now this is just a joke.

I think that maybe you guys haven't seen all that Matt Cooke has done. Go, look at them all. Then come back to me. Once you've seen all of these - and remember, this is just a selection (there are plenty of others). It speaks for itself. His reputation, and his actions, speak for themselves.

The League blew it this time. They should have kicked him out of the League for good. A wasted opportunity, and absolutely the wrong message. Now, Minnesota is going to win that Series and the message will be clear: Send out your rats, injure the Top Players of the other team. And you will be rewarded. Look at Minnesota.

Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 04/26/2014 :  14:23:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Crock, you don't seem to comprehend how a CBA works. The CBA is the set of rules that both the NHL and NHLPA have to follow. It's not that the NHL didn't want to consider Cooke a repeat offender. They couldn't. I'm not say they did or didn't want to but they were not allowed to under the rules of the CBA. Even if the opinion you have was shared by everyone in the world it wouldn't matter. The CBA basically wipes the slate clean for a player if they keep their nose clean for 18 months.

I'm not saying I agree with you opinions because I don't. I'm specifically discussing the facts being that according to the binding legal contract between the NHL and NHLPA, Cooke is NOT a repeat offender and had the NHL treated him as a repeat offender the suspension would have been immediately overturn in. Arbitration.

You don't have to like it or agree with the concept, but it is a fact that neither you nor anyone else can deny. When looking at the facts of the CBA the NHL got it right.

Try reading this blog, it might make more sense of the situation.


http://www.thestar.com/sports/the_spin/2014/04/it_s_the_matt_cooke_show_again.html



Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/27/2014 :  01:15:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans. I don't think that you are understanding.

Okay, let's "try him" with a "clean slate" (wink wink).

"I, the League - which has promised to and set out to eliminate and punish any RATS found within the ranks - find Matt Cooke guilty of 25 games without pay."

See how I did that there? I still followed the CBA's agreement. I "considered" Matt Cooke to be a "non-offender". But, I still gave him 25 games there - which he ABSOLUTELY deserved (and not a game less).

Do you understand now? That CBA "loophole" is... irrelevant.

Did you watch Coach's Corner tonight? Don Cherry just said exactly - almost word for word - what I've been saying for the past two days.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockeynightincanada/coachscorner/video/#id=2452525356

If the League had any balls - or actually cared about the state of the safety of the players of the League - they would have done something here. They did not. They completely suck. Stephane Quintal should immediately be fired.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4580 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2014 :  06:31:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm in Crock's corner after that video review . . . wow. It's a huge indictment as well on the league, and their utter failure in applying good disciplinary measures.

CBA, shmee bee eh. In the end, as much leeway as the league has demonstrated and actually used in NOT applying suspensions and fines in cases where EVERYONE thought it appropriate . . . they could EASILY have used the exact same leeway in applying a precedent setting suspension well above what even Crock was suggesting.

And that, friends, is a fact.

They missed the boat BIGTIME in this incident.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2014 :  08:55:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I see both sides really, but i can tell you this much. IF they'd thrown him a 25 gamer, it would be under appeal by Cooke and the NHLPA IMMEDIATELY!!! Unfortunately, whether or not you/we agree with it, this is pretty much a guarantee. Again, i ask, if this were an actual first time offender, who's never even had as much as a 5 min major for anything, what sort of suspension would he get? This is unfortunately the same suspension that Matt Cooke gets BECAUSE OF THE RULES that were agreed upon by the league and the PA.

I get it, Matt Cooke has a HUGE history of illegal, abeit some questionable hits. But again, there are rules even the league has to follow. They can't just go giving him a 25 game suspension and turn around and give an actual first time offender 5-7. Like it or not, he's considered a first timer because of the agreed upon rules.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not agreeing with it, as i don't like this crap in hockey any more than the next fan, but i do understand there are rules / protocol to follow in things like this.

BTW, i heard more than one "expert" side with Cooke on this particular hit and say it was not nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Their opinion wasn't that he didn't contact the knee, but moreso that they didn't feel the intent was there and that it was just contact made during an attempt at a legal shoulder check. Can't remember who they were but Keith Jones may have been one of them?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2014 :  10:52:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Not to echo Alex's point but it's not just that the NHLPA would have appealed it but they would have won hands down.

Reason being is that NO kneeing suspension in the history of the NHL has been 25 games. Never once. Therefore, the view of the arbitrator would have been a) the NHL is treating Cooke as a repeat offender or b) the punishment does not fit the crime.

In both cases, it's extremely likely the NHL loses their case.

Secondly, no one has been able to argue that Cooke's right arm is tucked, off this stick, and pushing forward as Barrie moves. People keep conveniently side stepping that observation

Finally, Slozo you are certainly smart enough to distinguish FACT from OPINION. A Fact is by definition something that is known to be true. Such as the rules within the CBA around a first time offender. It's documented, agreed upon by both parties, and is factual. An OPINION is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.



Let me clarify:

Fact : The CBA has clear rules and definitions of a repeat offender and they rules must be followed when the NHL as making decisions on a suspension.

Opinion: Cooke was intentionally targeting the knee
Opinion: The NHL should have ignored the CBA and more severely punished Cooke based on his past discretions.
Opinion: Cooke was attempting an open ice hit, Barrie moved, and Cooke should have and could have attempted to avoid the contact.
Opinion: The NHL got it right with the suspension.


There is only one fact in this argument and it can not be denied. We can argue about all the other stuff but the fact is irrefutable.


Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2014 :  19:38:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Get out the NHL rule book and get ready to throw it! Joe Thornton just went knee on knee with Justin Brown! Thornton was skating towards Brown, brown changed direction, and Thornton didn't do anything to avoid the hit.

That must be worth about 60 games, right guys?


Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2014 :  11:22:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans, did you watch Don Cherry on Saturday? He just about lost his sh*t - almost as badly as I have been this whole time. And, he said pretty much exactly what I've been saying.

If you haven't seen it, please watch it. I am completely, 100% in agreement with Don Cherry on this one.


Beans' Opinion: The NHLPA would have appealed a 25-plus game suspension.
Beans' Opinion: The NHL would have lost hands down.


I don't think the PA would have "necessarily" appealed a 25 game suspension. And even if they had, it certainly isn't clear that they would have "won" the appeal.

Anyway, why would they appeal? Who in their right mind would disagree with 25 games to the biggest rat in the League?? And how would the League "lose" hands down????


Raffi Torres got 25 games, which was appealed, rejected, and finally shortened via a compromise agreement to 21 games (something like 12 Playoff Games and 9 Regular Season Games). Comparable players in a comparable situation.

I'm not even going to address the forensics. Beans - it's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY too obvious of a call here. Cooke took four strides and planted his leg right into Barrie's knee. It's not even close. Beans, do you play hockey? We call that a "knee-on-knee douchebag" hit. It was pretty much a textbook example.

Furthermore, the VAST majority of the hockey world is on "our" side here. Watch Don Cherry. He positively loses his sh*t here. Most bloggers I've read say the same thing. Most comments on the Internet too. I heard you cite one "expert" who threw some nebulous "he didn't mean to" half-hearted argument into the fray - but the vast majority are on the same page here. Cooke should have gotten 25+ games.

...Let the PA discuss an appeal all they want after that. You have to do what is right first. The League just abdicated any sort of control they have over the League.


<Joe Thornton>
And for the record, Joe Thornton last night was a completely different situation. I saw that, and I actually thought of you guys. But, it's a completely different situation - ie clearly NOT intent to injure. A quick turn, and players collided. That's what you would call "not intentional". Sure, Joe was a little bit aggressive. It was an aggressive game. He got the 2 minutes he deserved, and that's it.
</End discussion of Joe Thornton>
Go to Top of Page

mandree888
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
380 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2014 :  13:15:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Get out the NHL rule book and get ready to throw it! Joe Thornton just went knee on knee with Justin Brown! Thornton was skating towards Brown, brown changed direction, and Thornton didn't do anything to avoid the hit.

That must be worth about 60 games, right guys?



Actually i would do just that! throw the book at em (60 games really?!?!) but at a 15 game start for a "play" you want out of the game should be the minimum REGARDLES OF IF YOU ARE A REPEAT OFFENDER!
the fastest way to these "plays" (knee on knee, head shots, hit from behind, boarding) is to attach serious implications

Regular season
15 game min going to 30 for the second offense and an addition 15 for the third and if somehow this player stills does it again gone for a season

Playoffs
if it happens go play golf! you are gone. done for the playoffs!

Edited by - mandree888 on 04/29/2014 13:15:59
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2014 :  15:11:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Mandree.....i don't mind your suggestion at all. Prob is, as Beans and i have stated, there is an existing agreement between the league and the PA that has rules in place that MUST be followed. If the league and PA renewed this agreement and ammended it to what you propose, i'd be 100% behind it! Unfortunately, until then, they can't do a whole lot more than they did here.


Crock.... I know you addressed Beans, but since he and i are on the same page (not necessarily liking the suspension that Cooke rec'd but understanding that it's arguably the best Quintal could do in his position at this time), i thought i'd chime in. You have to understand something here. When Raffi Torres rec'd his suspension of 25 games, he had not been "clean" for the previous 2 years (or 18 months required i believe?). In fact, he had been suspended for 2 games just 3 months prior! I can only guess/assume that had Cooke been suspended a few times in the past couple years, that Quintal would have excercised his ability to "throw the book at" Cooke for this hit, but as sad as it may be, he didn't really have that ability due to the rules set forth by the agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA.

I get it, Cherry agrees with you. Great! But Cherry also fails to mention the difference in the situations. Also, let's face it, Cherry is on Coach's Corner to entertain. He doesn't have time on his segment to get into details nor take calls or emails from people like myself or Beans who'd enjoy the opportunity to discuss the FACTS in regards to this situation!!!

Do you know how unions work? Have you ever been a part of one? Have you ever seen a union stick up for a member even when that member is clearly in the wrong? Happens ALL THE TIME. I once knew a guy who's dad was the union rep for BC Transit. He had the unenviable position once of defending an employee / union member who was caught drinking on the job (yes, a bus driver, driving the public around while drinking). He didn't agree with it, but as a union, IT WAS HIS JOB!!! He had to do it!!! This is the same in the Cooke situation. I can all but guarantee you the union would have appealed and in this case, because of the rules, likely would have won.

Simply put, Cooke, although possessing a history of bad hits and suspensions, is considered a first time offender by the rules set forth and agreed to by the NHL and the PA. Due to this, he had to be punished in the same regard as a true first time offender. Unfortunate, and not something i like, but it's the way it has to be under the agreement.
Go to Top of Page

mandree888
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
380 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2014 :  16:16:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
is there anythingin the CBA about what a minimum suspension is? or is it up to the NHL to decide what the minimum is?
(honestly i don't know)
i was under the impression that the NHL could decide the minimum. and if they can at any point they could decide to crack down and rais the minimum can't they?

yes i agree if they tried to suspend a non repeat offender right now like this they would get appealed. but couldn't they just say we are cracking down and you are the first one we are cracking down on?
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4580 Posts

Posted - 04/30/2014 :  08:33:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Not to echo Alex's point but it's not just that the NHLPA would have appealed it but they would have won hands down.

Reason being is that NO kneeing suspension in the history of the NHL has been 25 games. Never once. Therefore, the view of the arbitrator would have been a) the NHL is treating Cooke as a repeat offender or b) the punishment does not fit the crime.

In both cases, it's extremely likely the NHL loses their case.

Secondly, no one has been able to argue that Cooke's right arm is tucked, off this stick, and pushing forward as Barrie moves. People keep conveniently side stepping that observation

Finally, Slozo you are certainly smart enough to distinguish FACT from OPINION. A Fact is by definition something that is known to be true. Such as the rules within the CBA around a first time offender. It's documented, agreed upon by both parties, and is factual. An OPINION is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.



Let me clarify:

Fact : The CBA has clear rules and definitions of a repeat offender and they rules must be followed when the NHL as making decisions on a suspension.

Opinion: Cooke was intentionally targeting the knee
Opinion: The NHL should have ignored the CBA and more severely punished Cooke based on his past discretions.
Opinion: Cooke was attempting an open ice hit, Barrie moved, and Cooke should have and could have attempted to avoid the contact.
Opinion: The NHL got it right with the suspension.


There is only one fact in this argument and it can not be denied. We can argue about all the other stuff but the fact is irrefutable.






The NHLPA would have won it hands down? Really? Is that your expert opinion, Mr. Lawyer?

The fact is, every league and CBA has rules - but if the NHL had approached the NHLPA and given a heads up, or gotten some feedback prior to something that was going to take into account an exceptional case like Matt Cooke's . . . I think they would have been able to wield some political maneouvering into getting their way. Bettman's boys are no dummies on how to do this, and quite frankly, it's not new to them.

They easily could have set a precedent for a "special case" where a now legally first time offender egregiously offends in exactly the same manner as he had for an incredibly long time beforehand.

And what is the worst that could have happened? The NHLPA contests; they get all kinds of pressure as well and negative publicity on defending an a-hole dirty player; public pressure mounts; the NHL is forced to make a concession on the length of suspension, but it still ends up being twice as much as what it currently is.

And my last point will be this - the NHLPA is a crock of s***e, let me tell you that. They are the worst part of the NHL and the shenanigans that go on in dealing out suspensions, etc . . . because they ONLY seem to care about the offender, and never give a crap about the injured player!!! See the Steve Moore incident for a fantastic breakdown of how horrible this player's union is . . . it's only bent on defending the actions and mitigating the suspensions of every single aggressor, and putting down, shutting up, and killing any notion of any kind of player grievance. This thing with Cooke is only more of the same . . . what has the NHLPA done for Tyson Barrie?

In the end, all the NHLPA does is engender dirty play, lawlessness, and goonery.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/30/2014 :  16:02:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888

is there anythingin the CBA about what a minimum suspension is? or is it up to the NHL to decide what the minimum is?
(honestly i don't know)
i was under the impression that the NHL could decide the minimum. and if they can at any point they could decide to crack down and rais the minimum can't they?

yes i agree if they tried to suspend a non repeat offender right now like this they would get appealed. but couldn't they just say we are cracking down and you are the first one we are cracking down on?



Mandree...I honestly don't know the answer to this, but it's a great suggestion. I would venture to guess that it would be difficult to throw a HUGE suspension at Cooke in this instance (20+ games) without an immediate appeal, but maybe something in the 10 range? Likely would still be appealled, however, there's a better chance that the NHL would win if it wasn't too ridiculous.

ETA....The only other thing i can think of, and this would be a real "loophole" of sorts, would be if Stephan Quintal handed out a huge suspension, would he be able to claim that that's his way, regardless of what the past regime(s) have done?

Edited by - Alex116 on 04/30/2014 16:25:35
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 04/30/2014 :  16:22:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
The NHLPA would have won it hands down? Really? Is that your expert opinion, Mr. Lawyer?

I'm not Beans, and i'm certainly far from being a lawyer, but it is MY opinion, absolutely! I don't see the league having much chance ANY chance of winning that battle.

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

The fact is, every league and CBA has rules - but if the NHL had approached the NHLPA and given a heads up, or gotten some feedback prior to something that was going to take into account an exceptional case like Matt Cooke's . . . I think they would have been able to wield some political maneouvering into getting their way. Bettman's boys are no dummies on how to do this, and quite frankly, it's not new to them.

They easily could have set a precedent for a "special case" where a now legally first time offender egregiously offends in exactly the same manner as he had for an incredibly long time beforehand.

So, correct me if i'm wrong. The league contacts the NHLPA and asks them nicely if they'll allow them to more or less break the rules / agreement the two sides signed and hide behind something they then call a "special case", allowing the league to slap a larger than normal suspension on a player who they've all agreed to consider a first time offender at this time? What part of this makes you think the PA would ever consider this? Matt Cooke is a part of the union, no? Can you imagine a union ever doing something like this???

quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And what is the worst that could have happened? The NHLPA contests; they get all kinds of pressure as well and negative publicity on defending an a-hole dirty player; public pressure mounts; the NHL is forced to make a concession on the length of suspension, but it still ends up being twice as much as what it currently is.

OR....the appeal is made and the league ends up giving Cooke a similar suspension as they would to a guy like Nathan Mackinnon who's NEVER been in trouble whatsoever? WHY? Because it's been agreed to, like it or not, and i don't for the record, that Matt Cooke = Nathan Mackinnon in this case!!! (Never thought i'd type those words ) lol.

quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And my last point will be this - the NHLPA is a crock of s***e, let me tell you that. They are the worst part of the NHL and the shenanigans that go on in dealing out suspensions, etc . . . because they ONLY seem to care about the offender, and never give a crap about the injured player!!! See the Steve Moore incident for a fantastic breakdown of how horrible this player's union is . . . it's only bent on defending the actions and mitigating the suspensions of every single aggressor, and putting down, shutting up, and killing any notion of any kind of player grievance. This thing with Cooke is only more of the same . . . what has the NHLPA done for Tyson Barrie?

In the end, all the NHLPA does is engender dirty play, lawlessness, and goonery.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!



Pretty much agree with you here. I don't like the way the PA works, but unfortunately that's the way it works. I think the majority of players (those who abide by the rules for the most part) need to get together and agree to allow the league to punish these "rats" better than they currently are able to.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4580 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2014 :  06:38:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:

I'm not Beans, and i'm certainly far from being a lawyer, but it is MY opinion, absolutely! I don't see the league having much chance ANY chance of winning that battle.



See, think back to when Shanahan became the new sheriff - was he handing out suspensions that were a significant amount higher than previous, for the exact same rule? Check. Was the NHL and Shanahan getting contested evey single time it happened? Nope. Occasionally they were contested, and sometimes even downgraded a couple of times . . . life went on.

Historically Alex, this whole threat that you and Beans are stating has always been there, sure - but it's MOSTLY been just that. A threat. In real terms . . . the NHL has been able to (within a short amount of time) DRAMATICALLY increase suspension length for infractions that haven't had any rule changes.

And like I mentioned before . . . the NHLPA contests it? SO the "rhymes with truck" WHAT! Go ahead, contest away . . . it's not like you Cooke presents a real tough case to present as exceptional and groundbreaking in regards to having a history wiped clean. He is at the top of the ladder for scumbags, Enemy Numero Uno, the Big Kahuna of A-Holes. What could happen at worst? I'll tell you what . . .
-NHLPA contests, and mostly wins or wins outright in having his suspension become what he got here approximately
- public outrage ensues . . . NHLPA looks bad . . .
- rules are revised.

What's the big freakin' risk here, folks? Some money for lawyers?

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2014 :  08:16:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well stated Slozo. I agree that Shanny stepped things up a notch and that's why i mentioned in my post to Mandree that maybe it would have been possible to have Quintal step in and claim "i'm the new sheriff in town" and do things "his way" (big increase in suspensions), however, keep in mind, if he threw a 15-20 gamer at Cooke, ALL other first time offenders (actual first time offenders, because again, unfortunate as it is, Cooke is classified in the same regard as a true first timer) would have to face similar HUGE bans! I don't think Quintal would have any ability to simply say that "based on his history, this guy is a special case". It sucks, but Cooke, within the agreement, is labelled as a saint of sorts.

The "Shanny-bans" were increased for sure, but it was also announced that this was going to happen and that they would be trying to clamp down. To suddenly do this to one single guy (regardless of reputation) goes against everything that an agreement and a union stands for!

Yes, you are totally correct in implying that the worst to happen would be some lawyers making money, some public outrage etc and because of all that, maybe this would bring the changes that i think we all agree are necessary!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2014 :  13:38:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh the lovely world of perception vs. fact! How cloudy the vision is of some. Let's talk facts:

Fact : Shanahan, in 3 full seasons, levied fines of greater than 7 games exactly 10 times. That means out of 116 punishments, Matt Cooke's was in the top 10 percentile of MOST SEVERE PUNISHMENTS handed out in the past 3 years. That means Quintel's first punishment was more severe than most of Shanahan's punishments. Remember, by definition, Cooke is not a repeat offender.

Fact: There are many players on the list who have been suspended 2 or more times who have not received a COMBINED total of 7 games of suspensions. Player who HAVE been suspended in the past have not been suspended as much as Cooke, who is not a repeat offender.

Fact: There have been 4 suspensions in the past 3 years for kneeing including Cooke's. His penalty was the MOST SEVERE suspension for kneeing. Remember, like it or not he is not a repeat offender by definition. The other suspensions for knee were all by first offender players.

Fact: More than 40% of all the suspensions were 2 games or less. Not really indicative of Shanahan dolling out all these big suspensions is it??


Fact: Any union(such as the NHLPA) has the LEGAL OBLIGATION to serve the interest of their members. That means that regardless of the thoughts of the bargaining unit, they MUST prove due diligence in representing their members. IfCooke wants to appeal the ruling, the NHLPA CANNOT legally say no. They have to do minimally the first step in the appeal process. If they lose the appeal they can then prove they did something to protect the interest of the worker. If they don't do that, they can be sued by the worker and lose their certification as a union.


OPINION: I can't say it's facts but I can provide this kind of detailed argument by one google search and 10 minutes on my keyboard, what do you think a lawyer could have done if a larger suspension was given to Cooke and he appealed it?? I think it's pretty save to say it would have been overturned.


Take a look at this list of suspensions in the NHL in the past 3 seasons if you don't believe me.

http://www.capgeek.com/suspensions/




Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2014 :  15:45:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Fact: There have been 4 suspensions in the past 3 years for kneeing including Cooke's. His penalty was the MOST SEVERE suspension for kneeing. Remember, like it or not he is not a repeat offender by definition. The other suspensions for knee were all by first offender players.



For those too lazy to look it up, here are the other first time offenders' kneeing punishments......

Skinner, Jeff 2012-03-16
2 Regular Season games
$9,729.72 forfeited

Neal, James 2013-12-09
5 Regular Season games
$128,205.15 forfeited

Hall, Taylor 2013-02-22
2 Regular Season games
$9,729.72 forfeited

Cooke rec'd 7 PLAYOFF games (like it or not, they're valued more than regular season games)! Granted, he didn't have to forfeit any money since they're not really getting paid to be playing in the playoffs but 7 playoff games is quite substantial.

Yet again, i want to clarify that i personally would have loved to see Cooke get a bigger suspension. But, that would / will require some ammending to the current CBA, something that won't happen overnight and certainly not in the middle of a playoff round!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2014 :  11:08:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Joe Thornton kneed Brown in that series and got nothing. Paille kneed a Montreal player almost exactly they same way Cooke did and will likely get nothing.

Take Cooke's name out of it and people are either saying the suspension was good or it was heavy. Disagree all you want, Cooke is not a repeat offender by definition of the CBA.

I, like Alex, wouldn't have said too much if the suspension was higher. I would like to see higher suspensions for all infractions. But, those are not the rules that are established or agreed upon. I can't argue with anyone who wants the system to change. I can very easily argue with anyone who says the suspension should have been longer under the current system. It just couldn't happen.


Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2014 :  11:42:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, this has been a very interesting discussion.

Beans - I understand your point. However; where we disagree, is that The LEAGUE is not under any obligation to pander to the Union. The League very easily could have thrown down a 25-game suspension, and then let's look at the appeal process afterwards. *It is NOT for sure that Cooke would have gotten that sentence downgraded simply by virtue of being a "first-time offender".

I want to make something clear: My stance is usually that of "less punishment" rather than more. I kept hearing guys calling for Raffi Torres to get a Season; James Neal to get 50 games; Brent Seabrooke to get the rest of the Playoffs etc. I disagree with all of those. I thought ALL of those sentences were correct or even too strict. I tend to favour less punishment to more.

The exception, is MATT COOKE. Beans, you've talked yourself around and around in circles here - but have you watched the links? It's all well and good to repeat your point 16 times - but have you taken the time to research what our point is? MATT COOKE is the biggest sewer douchebag rat to have ever played this game. He NEEDS to be banned.

After Marc Savard, I said THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. It did. After Erik Karlsson, I said THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. It did. This time, after Tyson Barrie, I am again saying THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. Matt Cooke will do this again. And another player's career will be ruined.

Beans, you've gone on and on about the Union protecting its players; but what about the obligation to protect the players who are still out there playing? We have a guy out there - a sewer rat of a douchebag - who goes out there, and tries to injure other players. He tries to ruin careers. He needs to be banned. To protect the players of the league. Is that not an "obligation" of the Union as well?

Recall Marc Savard. That was the dirtiest most douchebaggy hit of all-time. Blindside shoulder shot to the head. It makes me want to puke. Matt Cooke got nothing for that display of complete disregard for another player's safety. That hit, has literally cost Marc Savard MILLIONS of dollars. Millions. At the time, he was one of the top players in the game. He was going to be an unrestricted free agent. He would have made 7 million a year. Now, he sits in a Dark Room somewhere with headaches. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

But more disgusting, is that the list could go on and on and on. Matt Cooke has ruined - or attempted to ruin - at least at LEAST 10 different players' careers over this douchebag sewer rat career. And all you have to say is that, "The Union has a legal obligation to protect its players."??

No kidding. So, protect your players. Get the rats out of the game. Get THE RAT out of the Game.

Besides, there is only one thing more disgusting than legal loopholes that allow rats like that to go unpunished; and that's when we pander to that loophole.

The League should have thrown down a massive suspension, and put the ball in the Union's Court. IF the Union appeals, and the League loses, so what? At least the message was sent.

Alex - There were other knees. And thank you for your eloquent and well-researched posts. The difference with those knees, is that none of them were done by Douchebag Matt Cooke. Look at his videos, and count how many knees he has gone after. Again, and again, and again. He is a complete scumbag douche, and he needs to be banned from the game.

Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2014 :  12:53:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
...And something else that somehow seems to have been forgotten.

THE WILD WIN THAT SERIES. ARE YOU F!%@#($)ING KIDDING ME!?!?

Cooke's Hit, was THE turning point of that Series. F$@%^#&*ING Disgusting. The turning point of the Series is when a sewer rat douchebag goes out there and injures a star player on the other team.

Let's talk about The Fans in Colorado. Oops. Sorry. Your Season was just cut short, because the other team CHEATED. And worse, WE AREN'T EVEN GOING TO PUNISH THE GUY WHO DID IT.

How about the Millions of lost revenue to the Avalanche? How about the lost revenue to the bars and restaurants of Avalanche fans? How about the amount of time Barrie will spend in rehab? How about his career might never be the same and that might have cost him his career? Imagine all of the energy, time and effort put in by Barrie and his family to get to this point in his career. Mitigated by a douchebag.

The Union does have an obligation to protect its players. So, let's protect the players. Tyson Barrie is a player. Last time I checked...
Go to Top of Page

mandree888
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
380 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2014 :  14:03:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
cooke IS being punished to full extent of the current CBA! i agree he SHOULD have got more. but it would have been appealed because the suspension of the magnitude to which you are speaking has never been done. if they threw a 25 game suspension for example for a kneeing incedent do you honestly think cooke wouldnt decide to apeal said decision? and after he does the NHLPA MUST BY LEGAL DEFINITION defend him regardless of how wrong it may be. Crock i get it your pissed! trust me a lot of avs fans are too. but essentially the league protected all other avs players by suspendeding him rom THAT SERIES don;t look at he seven games and say wippee sh!t. that is a WHOLE PLAY OFF SERIES! that IS HUGE!
Can you imagine what Carolina would do without Skinner for an entire playoff series??
how about Edmonton without Hall?
Pits without the real deal james neal?

i would have like to see the book thrown at cooke and have it bounce off his skull a couple o times but it would have been appealed and most likely brought down to a ten game sentace wich isn't that different!

Do i want him out of the NHL? HELL YES! i think most do
but he is already part of the union and the union MUST defend him to the best of their abilities else the union is disbanded and the NHL never retains ANY credabilty for as long as it is around!
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2014 :  14:27:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
how about Edmonton without Hall?



Insert "Edmonton needs to make the playoffs" jokes here.

Mandree - It looks like you understand where Beans and i are coming from.

Crock - You don't seem to understand, otherwise you're just not accepting the facts here. The league already came down harder on Cooke than others as evident by the fact he was suspended longer than any of the other guys guilty of "kneeing". There's just no way the league could give him a suspension 5 times worse than the next guy! I get it, he's a dbag and "shouldn't" be considered a first timer. BUT, for now, he is considered that!!! NOTHING can be done about that except for make changes in the agreement, something i'm confident the majority will pressure for next time around (or sooner).
I've watched the links you've supplied. I didn't need to, but i did. I've seen them before. Cooke played here in Vancouver where i hated him. I wish he rec'd, or i should say, i wish he was eligible to recieve, a 40 game suspension for what he did. It just doesn't change the fact that it would have been a complete waste of time and resources for the league to suspend him in that way. Also, i get that you think at worst it may have set the ball in motion to make changes had the league done so, but let's not forget that in the few days to a week that it may take, another "true" first timer may have delivered a similar blow. What then? That guy gets 40 as well?

Please at least recognize or let us know, that you do understand that we aren't defending Cooke or his actions here, rather, we're defending the league/Quintal's decision to suspend him as he did.
Go to Top of Page

mandree888
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
380 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2014 :  14:30:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
how about Edmonton without Hall?



but let's not forget that in the few days to a week that it may take, another "true" first timer may have delivered a similar blow. What then? That guy gets 40 as well?




uuummmmmm .... YES that is exactly what i expect........ thats they only way in my opnion to rid it once and for all

by this i mean as long the suspension is consitant! through all first time offenders

Edited by - mandree888 on 05/02/2014 17:58:31
Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 05/03/2014 :  17:02:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I get it! Omg. I got it.

It's just WRONG.

What you are suggesting, is negotiating with terrorism. And I, for one, will NOT negotiate with terrorism.

No, not all "first timers" should get 40 games. You're asking us to judge players as robots. We are not robots, and there is not a "one size fits all" solution. That's why we have a Player's Safety Department, and that's why we appointed A Commissioner of Players Safety.

And personally, I think that he BLEW it on his first big opportunity. By negotiating with terrorism, we have compromised the very purpose of our department - players safety.

Finally. Matt f***ing Cooke. Do you remember the Marc Savard hit? Matt Cooke got nothing, and do you remember what everyone said? "Oh... blindside hits aren't punishable by the CBA blah blah blah." And he got nothing. And it ruined a great player's career. And then Cooke went out, and injured like 10 other players.

If we are going to act like robots and pander to arbitrary rules, then why have a commissioner of player's safety? Why not just let a machine do the job? That's what you're suggesting. Let's just let a robot decide what the punishment is and... oh well, wherever. No problem.

Cooke is NOT a first-time offender - and we ALL know that. Quintal should have done his job: protect Players. The #1 threat to player's safety? Matt Cooke.

Do your job. Ban him. Argue with the Union or Arbiter until you are blue in the face. The CBA expires in six years anyway. Do your f***ing job, and ban the #1 threat to player's safety.

This is the third time Cooke has gotten away with murder. And he will do it again. When that happens, I will reopen this forum, and I will say "I told you so". And then I'll shed a tear for the player whose career he ruined.

Cooke should have gotten 25 games. And we ALL know it. Next time he does it, he should get banned from the League. I'm still pissed.














Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5790 Posts

Posted - 05/04/2014 :  14:06:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Crock...I love the "terrorism" comparison in your post. I know it's ironic that it's humorous, while you are being absolutely serious, but the humor element was well played!

Having said that, I think we can agree here, that it's the agreement between the NHL and the PA that is the problem. I agree that Matt Cooke "technically" isn't a first time offender, but unfortunately, he's labelled as such in the agreement. I also understand why the NHL has this "be clean for 18 months...." clause in the agreement. BUT, I will say, a multiple time offender such as Cooke, should be viewed differently. That is my opinion, unfortunately it's nothing to do with the current agreement that Quintal MUST follow. Also, it's not robotic, nor is the player safety commissioner. He doesn't have to give the exact same penalty to each guy, as seen here where Cooke got 7 PLAYOFF games to others, who are deemed similar, getting just 5 or less regular season games! Like it or not, Cooke was punished harsher than others, just not the lifetime ban you'd hoped for.

As for the Savard blindside headshot, it's true that hits like that weren't punishable the way they are today. That too is extremely unfortunate, but please keep in mind that it's hits like that that paved the way to where we are today with regards to headshots. Yes, still not perfect, but far and away better than a few years back!

So, before you sit anxiously awaiting Cooke's next heinous act, please realize, "I told you so" won't make a difference. He is due back i believe for game 5 of the Wild / Hawks series (if it goes that far?), and if he comes onto the ice and blatantly elbows Jonathan Toews into next week, please save us the "i told you so", as none of us are arguing that! It is my hope, and I'm sure Beans and Mandree would agree, that the league and PA can get together and amend the "first time offender" clause whereby guys like Cooke who are multiple time repeat offenders, can ALWAYS be looked upon like that!
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4580 Posts

Posted - 05/05/2014 :  07:14:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

Crock...I love the "terrorism" comparison in your post. I know it's ironic that it's humorous, while you are being absolutely serious, but the humor element was well played!

Having said that, I think we can agree here, that it's the agreement between the NHL and the PA that is the problem. I agree that Matt Cooke "technically" isn't a first time offender, but unfortunately, he's labelled as such in the agreement. I also understand why the NHL has this "be clean for 18 months...." clause in the agreement. BUT, I will say, a multiple time offender such as Cooke, should be viewed differently. That is my opinion, unfortunately it's nothing to do with the current agreement that Quintal MUST follow. Also, it's not robotic, nor is the player safety commissioner. He doesn't have to give the exact same penalty to each guy, as seen here where Cooke got 7 PLAYOFF games to others, who are deemed similar, getting just 5 or less regular season games! Like it or not, Cooke was punished harsher than others, just not the lifetime ban you'd hoped for.

As for the Savard blindside headshot, it's true that hits like that weren't punishable the way they are today. That too is extremely unfortunate, but please keep in mind that it's hits like that that paved the way to where we are today with regards to headshots. Yes, still not perfect, but far and away better than a few years back!

So, before you sit anxiously awaiting Cooke's next heinous act, please realize, "I told you so" won't make a difference. He is due back i believe for game 5 of the Wild / Hawks series (if it goes that far?), and if he comes onto the ice and blatantly elbows Jonathan Toews into next week, please save us the "i told you so", as none of us are arguing that! It is my hope, and I'm sure Beans and Mandree would agree, that the league and PA can get together and amend the "first time offender" clause whereby guys like Cooke who are multiple time repeat offenders, can ALWAYS be looked upon like that!



What YOU and BEANS don't get is what Crock and myself keep repeating . . . the league should have at the very least ATTEMPTED to give a bigger suspension, making this an "exceptional case".

You actually help make our argument, as you point out that the league already went above what should have been a first timer suspension. There should be a pregnant pause there, and then the question . . . so there wasn't an appeal by the NHLPA after that?

Nope. It was crickets.

So what does that tell you - that there is more leeway to be had, before an appeal would be instigated? Are we to assume that the NHL magically got the exact number just before a successful appeal would have gotten?

I sure wouldn't assume that.

So again, I'll say it slowly:
The NHL failed here, because they didn't try to really push the envelope to the greatest extent possible, EVEN IF IT WOULD HAVE ENDED UP BEING CONTESTED SUCCESSFULLY.

This was an exceptional case, for literally the most prolific and storied "rat" of our time since Sean Avery. And a very significant player IN THE PLAYOFFS was injured, and it had a significant impact. An EXTREMELY good case to set a brand new precedent in exceptional cases like this was right there.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!
Go to Top of Page

mandree888
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
380 Posts

Posted - 05/05/2014 :  12:40:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
as much as i understand where beans and alex are coming from i fully agree with slozo.

I can not find anywhere in the current CBA that indicates what the length of a suspension can be. For that reason i feel the NHL blew it!
If the Cooke wanted to appeal it fine let him. that is his right. but honestly i think it would have gone the same route as the shawn thorton appeal it would have went to betman he would say you really are nucking futs arent you? and then nothing would have happend.

yes the NHLPA must defend him but i think if the NHL said we are craking down to take this out of the agme and setting a higher amount of games to suspend, then there isn;t anyting the NHLPA could do. as i beilieve it is in the NHL's rights to assign the number of games.
Go to Top of Page

CrockOShight
Top Prospect



90 Posts

Posted - 05/05/2014 :  12:55:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Slozo and Mandree are my lawyers, and yes, they represent me. Well said boys!! And a very good point made by Slozo here - they "could have" appealed. But they didn't. What does that say?? ("Maybe we got away with one here boys...")

Thank you Slozo!! I hope (y)our Leafs fair better in 2014-2015. :)

Alex - Hahahahahha... Thank you for the laughs (and understanding my terrorism jokes).

I LOVE that Don Cherry won't let this one sit either. He gets props from me for that.

Anyway, Chicago is going to make Minnesota a minor footnote into an otherwise controversial Playoff Season. It is ironic that a team with Seabrooke and Keith - who themselves are not the cleanest of players - end up being the "good guys" here by beating down the loathable Matt Cooke poisoned Minnesota Wild. Ah, hockey.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page