Cooke blindsides Savard

[Stupid Fan]

I agree that this is a bad move on Campbell's part - I agree that Cooke's hit was legal as the rules are written, but that's why the rule needs to be re-written.  I totally agree - the Avery amendment was agreed to in one day because it was the playoffs.

So the NHL heirarchy seems to be playoff "fairness" > consistency > safety.  Nice to know.

I don't think there should be any list of players who play with their heads down... I think there's enough punishment on the ice for that activity.  And besides, this is a wholly different situation.  Someone skating across the middle looking at his feet while he carries the puck is one thing; someone taking a shot while almost motionless while someone swoops in and smokes him in the head from the blindside is something else altogether.

[Lyle Richardson]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=313323&hubname=nhl-penguins

Campbell won't suspend Cooke for blindsiding Savard.

In explaining his decision, NHL vice president of hockey operations Colin Campbell said that the ruling was based on consistency involving similar incidents.
 


Apparently consistency is more important to Campbell than player safety.

Well as many others in the hockey world have stated it is a clean hit as per the rulebook and you can't suspend a guy and then make a rule against it, you have to make the rule then suspend the guy.

And if I wouldn't be concerned about Campbell, I'd be concerned that the new rule that is probably going to go through won't go through until next year, meaning headshots are okay.

Hiding behind the rulebook when it's clear players are taking liberties against each other with deliberate blindside hits is a cowardly act. Someone's gonna get crippled or killed because of such a hit, and the rulebook won't be big enough to hide behind then. This has been a growing problem for years and to just shrug and ignore it is not looking out for the protection of the players.

If Savard were lying brain dead in a coma right now or was killed because of that blindside the NHL would implement tough new regulations immediately, without delay. But because he suffered a Grade Two concussion, well, we don't want to set a precedent now, do we? Wouldn't be consistent with the rules.

I'm a stickler for rules and details too, but when it comes to something like this hiding behind the rulebook rather than doing the right thing tells me Campbell is just copping out and passing the buck. It's indicative of the absence of proactive thinking amongst the league hierarchy. They'd rather wait for a tragedy to happen before addressing it rather than taking action to prevent it.

You have to watch what you do though, because if you pull a OHL or QMJHL and go outside the rules you are going to have a bigger mess on your hands with the NHLPA.

I'm pissed off that if the rule has been agreed upon with the 8 GM's that this isn't speed up to the next group. There is no reason this rule can't be agreed upon within a couple days. The biggest thing against making a knee jerk decision is that they made that decision once before to speed the game up and that is now part of the cause of the injuries. While they have some sort of point, make the rule and tweak it as needed.

I'm really not sure what the out cry is in the last two years, where was all the talk when the next big thing had his career taken via concussions? The NHL doesn't care about guys being injuried.

Again Campbell is there to enforce the rules not make them up as he goes along. We have already seen that he can't call the rules as they are set, so why would we want him to be making them up?

Also that Avery rule, why was it implemented in one night?

Imagine how fast the NHL would address blindside hits if it were Ovechkin or Crosby, their two golden children upon whom Bettman and company have staked the league's future, were the ones laid out cold junk on the ice by a blindside hit by a talentless creep like Cooke?

Paul Kelly told the GMs in last year's meeting blindside hits were the players' primary concern. That hasn't waned since then. Obviously if the league were willing to be proactive, and if they truly believed in their so-called "partnership" with the NHLPA, they'd have implemented that rule change very quickly.

At least the GMs have finally taken a step. It doesn't go far enough but it's better than no step at all.

Concussion injuries have been on the rise since the late 1990s. This has become a serious issue for the players. They're seeing too many of their friends and teammates sidelined for lengthy periods of time, they've seen careers in jeopardy or ended because of them. They're taking it far more seriously now than they did ten years ago.

Moreover, Cooke has a prior history of this kind of crap. Suspending him wouldn't have "set a precedent", it would've punish a player who has no regard for his opponents.

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/gasper/2010/03/cooke_nhl_to_bl.html

Campbell turtled and sent the wrong message.

[Hank78]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=313323&hubname=nhl-penguins

Campbell won't suspend Cooke for blindsiding Savard.

In explaining his decision, NHL vice president of hockey operations Colin Campbell said that the ruling was based on consistency involving similar incidents.
 


Apparently consistency is more important to Campbell than player safety.

Well as many others in the hockey world have stated it is a clean hit as per the rulebook and you can't suspend a guy and then make a rule against it, you have to make the rule then suspend the guy.

And if I wouldn't be concerned about Campbell, I'd be concerned that the new rule that is probably going to go through won't go through until next year, meaning headshots are okay.

Hiding behind the rulebook when it's clear players are taking liberties against each other with deliberate blindside hits is a cowardly act. Someone's gonna get crippled or killed because of such a hit, and the rulebook won't be big enough to hide behind then. This has been a growing problem for years and to just shrug and ignore it is not looking out for the protection of the players.

If Savard were lying brain dead in a coma right now or was killed because of that blindside the NHL would implement tough new regulations immediately, without delay. But because he suffered a Grade Two concussion, well, we don't want to set a precedent now, do we? Wouldn't be consistent with the rules.

I'm a stickler for rules and details too, but when it comes to something like this hiding behind the rulebook rather than doing the right thing tells me Campbell is just copping out and passing the buck. It's indicative of the absence of proactive thinking amongst the league hierarchy. They'd rather wait for a tragedy to happen before addressing it rather than taking action to prevent it.

You have to watch what you do though, because if you pull a OHL or QMJHL and go outside the rules you are going to have a bigger mess on your hands with the NHLPA.

I'm pissed off that if the rule has been agreed upon with the 8 GM's that this isn't speed up to the next group. There is no reason this rule can't be agreed upon within a couple days. The biggest thing against making a knee jerk decision is that they made that decision once before to speed the game up and that is now part of the cause of the injuries. While they have some sort of point, make the rule and tweak it as needed.

I'm really not sure what the out cry is in the last two years, where was all the talk when the next big thing had his career taken via concussions? The NHL doesn't care about guys being injuried.

Again Campbell is there to enforce the rules not make them up as he goes along. We have already seen that he can't call the rules as they are set, so why would we want him to be making them up?

Also that Avery rule, why was it implemented in one night?

Imagine how fast the NHL would address blindside hits if it were Ovechkin or Crosby, their two golden children upon whom Bettman and company have staked the league's future, were the ones laid out cold junk on the ice by a blindside hit by a talentless creep like Cooke?

Paul Kelly told the GMs in last year's meeting blindside hits were the players' primary concern. That hasn't waned since then. Obviously if the league were willing to be proactive, and if they truly believed in their so-called "partnership" with the NHLPA, they'd have implemented that rule change very quickly.

At least the GMs have finally taken a step. It doesn't go far enough but it's better than no step at all.

Concussion injuries have been on the rise since the late 1990s. This has become a serious issue for the players. They're seeing too many of their friends and teammates sidelined for lengthy periods of time, they've seen careers in jeopardy or ended because of them. They're taking it far more seriously now than they did ten years ago.

Moreover, Cooke has a prior history of this kind of crap. Suspending him wouldn't have "set a precedent", it would've punish a player who has no regard for his opponents.

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/gasper/2010/03/cooke_nhl_to_bl.html

Campbell turtled and sent the wrong message.

Lindros was a poster boy it sure as hell didn't change anything. Again how do you set a precedent when the rules say otherwise? The legal mess would be a disaster.

Edit: Since the late 90's, so it took over 10 years for the players to speak up?

Edit 2: Again Campbell's job isn't to make the rules as he goes, he is hired to enforce the rules that the NHL and the NHLPA have agreed upon.

[SensFan07]

DGB has an excellent, serious take on this:

______________________________________________________________________________

No suspension for Cooke: Pathetically, the NHL gets it right

Matt Cooke's hit on Marc Savard was a vicious cheapshot. It wasn't a case of "finishing a check", it was an intent to seriously injure a defenseless opponent by targeting his head.

The league announced today that they won't suspend Cooke. They made the right call. And they should be embarrassed by that.

As sickening as Cooke's hit was, he didn't do anything that's against the rules. He didn't leave his feet. It wasn't an elbow. It wasn't a charge. You can watch the replay as many times as your stomach can stand, and you won't see anything illegal. Put simply, there's nothing in the NHL rule book today that says Cooke did anything wrong.

There should be. Even among NHL fans, there seems to be a growing consensus on that point. But right now the league doesn't have a rule against blindsiding a defenseless opponent with a direct hit to the head. If you want to scramble a guy's brains, you can. Just make sure you use your shoulder, and it's case closed.

Was it intent to injure? Sure. But there's nothing in the rule book that says you can't try to hurt someone with a legal hit. Wendel Clark tried to hurt guys with his hits. So did Scott Stevens. So did plenty of guys.

(Update: As commenters point out, there are match penalties for "attempts to injure an opponent in any manner". So it's wrong to say there's nothing in the rulebook on this. That said, I can't remember ever seeing a match penalty called on a hit that didn't violate any other rule.)

Long-time readers know that I'm a Don Cherry acolyte. I love fighting and I'm not embarrassed to say so. And I love hitting, and celebrate it every chance I get. There's room for big hits in this league, even ones that hurt somebody.

But there has to be line, and Cooke crossed it. We know too much about concussions now to celebrate that sort of hit anymore.

Here's the problem: The solution isn't to invent a reason to suspend Cooke. The solution is to fix the rule book. Now.

I don't know about you, but I don't trust this league to start handing out suspensions based on intent. They have enough trouble handing out suspensions for obvious violations -- imagine what they'd do with some room for interpretation. I'd rather see them have clear rules with clear consequences. When it comes to head shots, they don't have that today.

They should. They've had years to get this right. They could have done it last year. In fact, they could have done it this year, effective immediately, if they wanted to (remember when they invented the Avery rule in the middle of a playoff series?). Real leagues, with real leadership, make tough decisions like this all the time. The NHL could have done it too.

They just didn't. That's where the outrage should be. Not that they didn't find a reason to suspend Matt Cooke for a hit that was clean according to the rules; but because they have a set of rules that actually allow blindside hits aimed directly to the head in the first place.

The league got it right this time. Let's hope that next year, when somebody throws the same hit, they get it right again: with a double-digit suspension.

http://www.downgoesbrown.com/2010/03/no-suspension-for-cooke-nhl-gets-it.html

[peepshow]

SORRY FOR USING CAPS AND PROFANITY, BUT F*** WHOEVER STATES THAT COOKE DIDN'T BREAK ANY RULES.

As someone pointed out earlier:

21.1 Match Penalty - A match penalty involves the suspension of a player or goalkeeper for the balance of the game and the offender shall be ordered to the dressing room immediately.

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner.

A rule was broken. How thick do you have to be to not realize this? As geduffer pointed out, Cooke doesn't attempt to avoid Savard, he in fact directly went for the head. The shoulder-to-shoulder hit was an option, but Cooke decided otherwise. The ONLY reason why Cooke isn't suspended is because Campbell refused to wear pants after the Richards/Booth hit. That is it. Richards broke a rule then, Cooke broke one now, but consistency is more important intelligence. Only an idiot never changes his mind...


EDIT: If Cooke doesn't play for the Pens, or if Savard plays for Pens, how fast do you think a suspension would have been awarded?

[Stupid Fan]

How do you know Cooke was trying to injure?  How do you prove that intent?  It's effectively impossible to determine, and frankly, you have to tread lightly when you're potentially costing people tens of thosands of dollars.  Better to have a clear rule, based on what is observable, rather than trying to scry someone's intent, and punish according to something that can never be proven/disproven.

[peepshow]

How do you know Cooke was trying to injure?  How do you prove that intent?  It's effectively impossible to determine, and frankly, you have to tread lightly when you're potentially costing people tens of thosands of dollars.  Better to have a clear rule, based on what is observable, rather than trying to scry someone's intent, and punish according to something that can never be proven/disproven.

The video is able in HD and slow motions are available. He intentionally goes for the head. Now, what usually happens when a speeding heavy body makes direct contact with a head? An injury. The only argument that could made is to claim that Cooke is a really bad hockey player that doesn't have full control of his skating, and therefore could not reasonably avoid hitting Savard's head. In that case, he should be suspended for being a danger to other players 

[Lyle Richardson]

Lindros was a poster boy it sure as hell didn't change anything. Again how do you set a precedent when the rules say otherwise? The legal mess would be a disaster.

Edit: Since the late 90's, so it took over 10 years for the players to speak up?

Edit 2: Again Campbell's job isn't to make the rules as he goes, he is hired to enforce the rules that the NHL and the NHLPA have agreed upon.

There's no legal mess now since the NHLPA stated to the GMs last year head shots were the players primary concern. Second, it took so long because it took time for a lot of these players to realize concussion injuries were on the rise primarily due to these cheapshots. Third, would it have killed Campbell to enforce the rules on a previous offender, who'd been suspended for two games earlier this season for leveling a blow to the head of Scott Walker, which should've earned him another suspension for the hit on Savard?

[geduffer]

How do you know Cooke was trying to injure?  How do you prove that intent?  It's effectively impossible to determine, and frankly, you have to tread lightly when you're potentially costing people tens of thosands of dollars.  Better to have a clear rule, based on what is observable, rather than trying to scry someone's intent, and punish according to something that can never be proven/disproven.

The video is able in HD and slow motions are available. He intentionally goes for the head. Now, what usually happens when a speeding heavy body makes direct contact with a head? An injury. The only argument that could made is to claim that Cooke is a really bad hockey player that doesn't have full control of his skating, and therefore could not reasonably avoid hitting Savard's head. In that case, he should be suspended for being a danger to other players 

Peeps is right. Try watching the flipping clip. If Cooke had kept the course he was on he could have hit him shoulder to shoulder  or he could have veered off. He wasn't preventing the shot. Savard was following through on the shot. Cooke actually veered around the shoulder and targeted the head and was looking just where he hit.

Maybe someone should look where Sid's Olympic gear was lost to see if they can find Campbell's balls.

[dougie]

You thought it ended with Bertuzzi and Moore? Draper and Lemiuex, McSorley and whoever he conked over the head? Get ready for some old-time hockey. Some frontier justice. Who says you can't put a bounty on a man's head? Fred McGrath, that's who. But don't be surprised to see someone go for Cooke's teeth with a fist or stick March 19 in Boston. You know, just like Toe Blake, let 'em know you're there.

[kenboldt]

SORRY FOR USING CAPS AND PROFANITY, BUT F*** WHOEVER STATES THAT COOKE DIDN'T BREAK ANY RULES.

As someone pointed out earlier:

21.1 Match Penalty - A match penalty involves the suspension of a player or goalkeeper for the balance of the game and the offender shall be ordered to the dressing room immediately.

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner.

A rule was broken. How thick do you have to be to not realize this? As geduffer pointed out, Cooke doesn't attempt to avoid Savard, he in fact directly went for the head. The shoulder-to-shoulder hit was an option, but Cooke decided otherwise. The ONLY reason why Cooke isn't suspended is because Campbell refused to wear pants after the Richards/Booth hit. That is it. Richards broke a rule then, Cooke broke one now, but consistency is more important intelligence. Only an idiot never changes his mind...


EDIT: If Cooke doesn't play for the Pens, or if Savard plays for Pens, how fast do you think a suspension would have been awarded?

I posted that two pages ago and it was promptly followed up by a bunch of posts about Cooke not breaking rules.  Sometimes I wonder if my posts are visible by others.  Obviously at least peepshow saw it.

[Hank78]

Lindros was a poster boy it sure as hell didn't change anything. Again how do you set a precedent when the rules say otherwise? The legal mess would be a disaster.

Edit: Since the late 90's, so it took over 10 years for the players to speak up?

Edit 2: Again Campbell's job isn't to make the rules as he goes, he is hired to enforce the rules that the NHL and the NHLPA have agreed upon.

There's no legal mess now since the NHLPA stated to the GMs last year head shots were the players primary concern. Second, it took so long because it took time for a lot of these players to realize concussion injuries were on the rise primarily due to these cheapshots. Third, would it have killed Campbell to enforce the rules on a previous offender, who'd been suspended for two games earlier this season for leveling a blow to the head of Scott Walker, which should've earned him another suspension for the hit on Savard?

From what the rules state there is nothing to suspend him on.

Oddly enough Burke wants these guys out of the game, he told Mark Spector yesterday if they can't change their game then get out. I was shocked he was one to say this.

[Sharks2009]

The intent to injure rule could be placed on many different hits throughout the league - was AO's hit on Jagr an intent to injure - trying to hit him into next week, without regard to his safety?  Maybe...but it was clean...could this be seen under the intent to injure rule?

The fact is, the league needs a specific rule in place in order to deal with this issue in the future.

Not suspending Cooke because they had previously not suspended Richards (although, IMO, the hits are slightly different, and I think Cooke had more intent than Richards) is a legitimate reason, as much as people don't like it.

[Stupid Fan]

I agree with Sharks09... I am in no way defending Cooke for his hit.

Those calling for Cooke's suspension though are basing it on saying "he hit to the head, therefore it is intent to injure".  If that were the case, the rule would say that hits to the head are illegal.  It doesn't say that.  The league could have made a rule, but chose not to.  There has to be something in his conduct indicative of an intent to injure, rather than to lay a hard, even hurting, check.

You can't just suspend someone because you don't like that they're playing by the terrible rules you have in place.  The NHL should have done something about head shots before, and I'm sorry that it takes another serious injury for them to do that now.  But to keep the administration of justice proper, it needs to be predictable and transparent.  To clothe a suspension in some presumed intent flies in the face of that.

[dougie]

Shawn Thorton and Zedno Chara are leading contenders to confront Cooke, in my book.......