Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard


    I know everybody must be sick to death of this, but I just happened to notice this, struck me out of the blue.  And I've heard people talking about other possible penalties on the play, but this is most clear cut.

    They have only been showing close ups of that hit and everybody has been focusing on the elbow.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_F7LEZ78_o

    It's only in the first 16 seconds you can see it. 

    First focus on Cooke, once the turnover happens he is at CENTER ICE and its obvious he's going for an east-west hit.  If you want to be ridiculously conservative  disregard that, notice from the moment when Savard lifts his stick signalling that he wanted the puck, note Savard is OUTSIDE his own blue line when he does that - and note that Cooke is ALSO outside his own blueline right on the wing.  So Cooke comes in from CENTER ICE - and if you are conservative about it, from the blue line and that is when Cooke finalizes his target on Savard - dropping him in line with center ice and between the dots and the blue line.

    After all, if he's not following the puck on that play, then what else could he possibly be going in that direction for - other than to hit somebody.

    The arguments about the elbow are not as clear cut, because his elbow is not parallel to the ice or something blatant like that.

    If you straighten out the distances and make the situation simpler, Savard would be waiting for a pass at the goal mouth, and Cooke came in from about the blue line (because he came in at an angle from center ice in the real hit) skating in Savard's direction the entire time and then hit him, every ref on the planet would have recognized that as charging.  Because Cooke angled toward Savard it wasn't obvious.

    I can see an argument about the elbow, it's not perfectly clear cut, but charging is prefectly clear.

    Rule 43.1 on charging - http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26331
    Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

    Also I hadn't noticed that Ryder went after Cooke immediately and appeard to be about to start with him when Orpik steps in between, they cut away to Savard and the next thing you see is Wideman BETWEEN Ryder and Cooke - then if you listen closely, you can hear someone saying "hold up, hold up."

    At first I thought Ryder totally wimped out, but that is not true.  The next frames show Wideman is CLEARLY restraining Cooke from fighting and blocking Ryder and Orpik has Ryder.  This is at 28 seconds.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

    If the referees were paying attention right ? Most NHL rules are judgement calls which makes it difficult however on this particular hit there is so many different ways you could have given a penalty.

    Intent to injure (based on Cooke's past hits n suspensions), Roughing (i've seen less called for a penalty), elbowing (colon cancer denying there wasn't an elbow) and Charging if you will.

    Then there's the supplemental part of the call because of the on ice officials missed it Campbell could have taken his pick but he acted like an attorney. The past history, like Ovechkin's shove on Campbell recently warranted a suspension, of Cooke should have put him in counseling with a lengthy sabbatical.   
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

    In Response to Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard:
    If the referees were paying attention right ? Most NHL rules are judgement calls which makes it difficult however on this particular hit there is so many different ways you could have given a penalty. Intent to injure (based on Cooke's past hits n suspensions), Roughing (i've seen less called for a penalty), elbowing (colon cancer denying there wasn't an elbow) and Charging if you will. Then there's the supplemental part of the call because of the on ice officials missed it Campbell could have taken his pick but he acted like an attorney. The past history, like Ovechkin's shove on Campbell recently warranted a suspension,  of Cooke should have put him in counseling with a lengthy sabbatical.   
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    Elbowing says the elbow must be extended.  IMO it was an elbow, but his elbow was extended, but not that much.  So I can see an arguement there.

    Roughing says using a hand or fist.

    The charging is clear as day.  Since he's used this hit before it is SO obvious that he intended to pop someone once he noticed the grouping of Bruins is tight - he's clearly focused in that direction when he is at center ice.  Like I said, even if you want to be conservative about it, when it is obvious that Savard is getting the puck - when he cocks his stick - Cooke is greater than half the width of the rink away.

    There was Colin's penalty on the play as crystal clear as can be.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wolftears. Show wolftears's posts

    Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

    *ROLLS EYES*
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

    In Response to Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard:
    *ROLLS EYES*
    Posted by wolftears


    If you want to, go right ahead.  But the charging is measureable, Cook starts bearing down on Savard from at least 50 feet away, and at most about 80 feet.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

    I think the elbow is clear, but the charging would have been tough, never leaves his feet, which is the clear indicator, but also glides into the hit, the part you left off is the opening which defines chargins as a player who jumps, or skates into an opponent.. Typically a jump is an automatic call, and then the number of steps you take to hit a guy (some refs are 3, some are 5.. etc) is what is going to be needed to define a charge...good luck seeing a charging called on a guy not moving his feet.. along with he could havent targeted savard too long, the shot the puck immediately and was hit right after the shot..

    I think cooke should have been suspended, i think more then enough of the elbow was there, repeat offender, (if colin can call ovie one how can you not call cooke one?) and intent to injure sure, colin is full of crap saying he needed to have intended to injurehim via "an elbow or knee etc" a deliberate hit to the head (elbow or not) of an opponent in a vulnerable position should have been plenty to find him guilty on that rule.

    A charge may be one of the few things I do not see..
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from scottm50. Show scottm50's posts

    Re: Just now noticed that Cooke clearly charged Savard

    Nice observation about Ryder, although I find it hard to believe he would have dropped the gloves....he has taken a lot of flack on this board for not standing up for his teammates but I think he did as much as he could have given the situation as you have described it. He is a team player and will get in the mix but he is not a fighter, some of the other so called tough guys on the team could have handled the situation when play started again but alas...nobody stepped up to the plate!!  In contrast, I thought that they played well as a TEAM against the Rangers...showed some emotion and stuck up for each other!!
     

Share