Matt Cooke

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

    Re: Matt Cooke

    The difference in the Perception of Stevens and Cooke is this.

    Stevens was huge and captain and made a living playing strong tough hockey. He through a lot of hits only a group of them were considered dirty.

    Cooke on the other hand is a 4th-3rd liner at best who isnt big enough to through any clean hits unlike Stevens and Cooke is only known for the knee and headshots hes thrown multiple times a season multiple seasons in a row on a variety of skilled players.

    Cooke = Scum
    Stevens = One of my favorites growing up even if he did cross the line once or twice.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mikeonetwo. Show Mikeonetwo's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Personally, I think the answer to "blindside hits to the head" is very simple.

    The player who injures the other with an "illegal hit" is suspended for the same amount of time it takes the injured player to return to the ice.

    In this case Cooke would be resuspended until Savard is healthy enough to play.

    I wish Savard the best and a speedy recovery.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BTownExpress. Show BTownExpress's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]Dr. Miller, I don't know where you went to medical school, but I will just make a brief comment. Don't even think for a minute that you have the slightest clue regarding the complexities of the human organism and the brain. I have been in the medical field for over 30 years and I am amazed on a daily basis at the tremendous strength, yet fragile line each of us lives between... what you can count on is that nothing is exactly predictable...so don't make comments which allude to the fact that Savard is somehow faking it...I am personally disgusted by your comments...you are rediculous! Response to Re: Matt Cooke :
    Posted by TomOBrien[/QUOTE]

    Honestly, this is exactly how I feel about medical doctors (and others) who have been practising for for 30 years!  More specifically, their brand of medicine/education based strictly on materialism is, in fact, incomplete and incorrect.  Yet, these business people with licenses to practise medicine (and law, pharmacy, vetinary medicine) are simply business people who believe that problems  can be solved strictly by observing that which appears only to the physical senses...materialism.

    They don't know ho to fix this problem; don't care to.   Rather, they simply wish to keep their business rolling.  How convenient...at the expenses of humanity.

    FYI: every single person I asked in undergrad about why they wished to be a medical doctor, dentist, pharmacist, etc... had the same answer: for the money.

    Personally, I am just as disgusted by materialists who parade along with their 20-40 of experience making the illusion that they are saving the world as they profit.  Ironically, I've still yet to find a person in the profession who understand/cares what the symbols that they adorn mean?

    BTW, what do you know about predictability?  Care to start slicing the zodiac and using your noggen?  Ironically, Hipocrites- Father of modern medicine - was quite clear: no one should ever attempt to rovide health care without first examing the patient's Natal Chart.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]The difference I see between Stevens and Cooke's hits, is Stevens keeps the elbow tucked and leads with the shoulder, and he's nailing the actual puck carrier, in many cases (Lindros, Kariya, etc.) they have their heads down looking at the puck on their stick. In Cooke's case, Savard had actually released the shot, he's in a vulnerable position having just fired the puck, Cooke does not use his shoulder but uses his elbow and continues to skate towards Savard to make the hit knowing Savard's vulnerable after releasing his shot.  This is not "finishing your check" it's "going for the head." Dirty, unethical and unnecesary to the sport of hockey.
    Posted by Guy-Fawkes[/QUOTE]

    Word. Perfectly said.

    This hit was not Savard's fault. It was a blindside hit. On a guy who had already released his shot, and was no longer a factor in the play. He no more should have expected that sort of hit than he should have expected an anvil to drop from the ceiling.

    That is not hockey. That is intent to injure. No, the two are not the same. It's a brutal game, but there are rules.

    And the NHL agrees. If hitting someone in the head is just "part of the game," then why did they institute a rule against it?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Matt Cooke is a piece of garbage- the hit on Savard was dirty with intent to injure. Obviously the NHL didn't take care of business ...so now Marc Savard's career is in jeopardy, and the Bruins are paying the price.

    How do you stop it ??? First you make sure Cooke is carried off the ice with a towel over his face to stop the bleeding - then you destroy Crosby...followed by Malkin - then some skumbag like Cooke won't ever try something like that ever again. Apparently he thought he could get away with it...he was right, and that's a bad very set of circumstances -

    And like it or not - Claude Julien doesn't want emotion from his teams. You can win the battle and lose the war. That situation was an opportunity for this team to band together, it became the opposite. When emotion and unity needed to be called on against Philly - the tank was empty. The "system" makes no provisions for leadership or guts, and those are ingredients that champoinships are made of -
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Duinne,

    Why are you playing that game of fault.  How can anyone blame Savy for getting drilled.  You can't.  Nor could you blame Lindros or Booth.  It's unfortunate that they got hit, but it is a part of the game of hockey...its a contact sport.  Dirty plays?  Yes!  But its hockey and they know the risk when they sign up.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]Duinne, Why are you playing that game of fault.  How can anyone blame Savy for getting drilled.  You can't.  Nor could you blame Lindros or Booth.  It's unfortunate that they got hit, but it is a part of the game of hockey...its a contact sport.  Dirty plays?  Yes!  But its hockey and they know the risk when they sign up.
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    Why am I "playing that game of fault?" What on earth are you talking about? I'm doing the exact opposite!

    How can anyone blame Savvy for getting drilled? Are you serious? I wish I had a dime for every time I heard/read "if he'd kept his head up, he wouldn't have gotten hurt - it's his own fault!"

    And yeah, it's a contact sport. The players know the risks and accept them. If someone hits you hard and hurts you, but it's clean, OK, you can live with that. What a player cannot, and the league cannot, and should not, live with is INTENT TO INJURE. I don't see how anyone can dispute this.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Duinne, I like your posts so please don't take this the wrong way.  But you continue to say its not Savy's fault.  That is playing the fault/blame game.  Anyway...intent to injure.  Let's chat about that for a minute.  What do you classify as intent to injure.  I don't think any player in this league(Cooke included) that wants to see another players career put in jeopardy.  If that were the case they would face criminal charges similar to Marty and Bert. 

    Gettng hit in a contact sport...how the heck can one define intent to injure?  If it were tennis or soccer then yes...but when grown men are skating at the speeds they do and its a contact sport how can this even enter the debate unless it were a criminal act.

    Richards hit in my eyes was clean.  I hate seeing someone layig on the ice...but he wes caught with his head down.  I hate saying you have to play the game to understand but unless you truly have been out there its hard.  I have played at a higher level and that does not make me an expert.  But it does give me insight on the actual speed and how physical it can be. 

    Anyway, lets move on....if you want the last word you can have it.  I just think this has been beat to death. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]Duinne, I like your posts so please don't take this the wrong way.  But you continue to say its not Savy's fault.  That is playing the fault/blame game.  Anyway...intent to injure.  Let's chat about that for a minute.  What do you classify as intent to injure.  I don't think any player in this league(Cooke included) that wants to see another players career put in jeopardy.  If that were the case they would face criminal charges similar to Marty and Bert.  Gettng hit in a contact sport...how the heck can one define intent to injure?  If it were tennis or soccer then yes...but when grown men are skating at the speeds they do and its a contact sport how can this even enter the debate unless it were a criminal act. Richards hit in my eyes was clean.  I hate seeing someone layig on the ice...but he wes caught with his head down.  I hate saying you have to play the game to understand but unless you truly have been out there its hard.  I have played at a higher level and that does not make me an expert.  But it does give me insight on the actual speed and how physical it can be.  Anyway, lets move on....if you want the last word you can have it.  I just think this has been beat to death. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    What a bunch of bu!!$hi! - Cooke hit Savard in the head with a cheap shot - it was done INTENTIONALLY, and Savard is severly INJURED as a result. That is intent to injure...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Sure it is JW, and every injury sustained from a hit is also intent to injure.  Its a contact sport no dfferent from football where the goal is to kill the QB.  Coaches stress to finish hits.  when Cooke stops hitting he is out of a job. 
    Cheap shot or not...its the exact same reason I said Stevens and others have done similar hits.  Its hockey and not tiddly winks.  You know who is on the ice at all times and you keep your head up.  He was taught that the day he joined contact hockey.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]Dr. Miller, I don't know where you went to medical school, but I will just make a brief comment. Don't even think for a minute that you have the slightest clue regarding the complexities of the human organism and the brain. I have been in the medical field for over 30 years and I am amazed on a daily basis at the tremendous strength, yet fragile line each of us lives between... what you can count on is that nothing is exactly predictable...so don't make comments which allude to the fact that Savard is somehow faking it...I am personally disgusted by your comments...you are rediculous! Response to Re: Matt Cooke :
    Posted by TomOBrien[/QUOTE]

    I was merely asking a question because it seems very odd to me.

    Were you one of the physicians responsible in returning Savard to the ice for the playoffs last season, Dr. O'Brien ?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Oh, Where did I say Savard was "somehow faking it ?"

    Oh, I didn't actually say that either.

    I said that I wondered if the Bruins' medical staff returned Savard to the ice too early after his concussion in last season's playoffs.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    I don't think Savy is faking it but it sure crossed my mind.  He was tortured all summer with trade rumors and an uncertain future in Boston.  It's human nature to suspect the worst.  But the head is a funny thing.  That brain can only take so many thumps before you turn into Ali.  I just hope he has a very healthy life one way or the other.  If it means hanging the skates up...so be it.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Shuperman, I have to say you are off the mark questioning what "intent to injure" is.  Dunne is right. The fact is, as long as Ive been involved in the game, "intent to injure" has been in the rulebook.  All the years I refereed, I was taught that unlike tripping or cross-checking, "intent to injure" is a judgement call rather than a set of specific criteria.  However, Its not hard to figure out when you see it.  Its basically a "catch all" for behavior so egregious that its not otherwise defined.

    Going by Bettman's mindless logic, if Lucic grabs Ribiero by the head and slams his head into the dasher, breaking his face, there's no suspension (Cooke) because there's no specific rule in the rulebook about grabbing someones head and smashing it into the dasher.  Ridiculous, right? Thats what happened with Cooke.  I was and am still mortified that Cooke wasnt suspended for Deliberate Intent To Injure.  How hard is that?

    I referreed a Jr game years ago where I gave a Gross Misconduct to a coach who thought a kid shot the puck at him on the bench (he didnt) so he picked the puck up and hit the kid in the head with it.  He was suspended for the year.  Should there have been a specific rule for throwing a puck at someone's head?  Of course not.

    I honestly do not understand what the NHL would gain by not suspending Cooke under Intent To Injure.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]Shuperman, I have to say you are off the mark questioning what "intent to injure" is.  Dunne is right. The fact is, as long as Ive been involved in the game, "intent to injure" has been in the rulebook.  All the years I refereed, I was taught that unlike tripping or cross-checking, "intent to injure" is a judgement call rather than a set of specific criteria.  However, Its not hard to figure out when you see it.  Its basically a "catch all" for behavior so egregious that its not otherwise defined. Going by Bettman's mindless logic, if Lucic grabs Ribiero by the head and slams his head into the dasher, breaking his face, there's no suspension (Cooke) because there's no specific rule in the rulebook about grabbing someones head and smashing it into the dasher.  Ridiculous, right? Thats what happened with Cooke.  I was and am still mortified that Cooke wasnt suspended for Deliberate Intent To Injure.  How hard is that? I referreed a Jr game years ago where I gave a Gross Misconduct to a coach who thought a kid shot the puck at him on the bench (he didnt) so he picked the puck up and hit the kid in the head with it.  He was suspended for the year.  Should there have been a specific rule for throwing a puck at someone's head?  Of course not. I honestly do not understand what the NHL would gain by not suspending Cooke under Intent To Injure.
    Posted by SoxFanInIL[/QUOTE]

    Very well said.

    And you're damned right I'm blaming Cooke. Shuperman doesn't think he was intentionally trying to hurt Savard? Is he serious? The guy's a repeat offender, the worst cheap-shot artist in the NHL. Not just head shots, but knee-on-knee hits, hitting from behind -- for God's sake, he even once deliberately kicked Chris Osgood in the head!

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

    Know what's most sickening? The head shots are bad enough -- it's the absolutely deliberate knee-on-knee hits that are practically vomit-inducing. I'll say it again: That is not hockey. I can't understand how anyone can watch this guy play and not think he's out to hurt people.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TomOBrien. Show TomOBrien's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:I am not sure what you are really getting at here...are you saying that all people who choose a career like this are all about the $$? If so, that is off base...There are parts of what you said though that I certainly agree with, but not that...if you saw the vehicle I drive, you would laugh yourself to death (1989 Camry)...as with any group, you have all types of people...broad strokes never work. All that I have and all that I am is far more about my family and touching other people's lives...I see what I do as a vocation not a means to buy great toys...not punching a clock or a job...I guess that is why I teach and write now...I wish medicine was so cut and dry...it just isn't...either way, the truth about Marc Savard should come out eventually...go Bruins!!
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Matt Cooke : Honestly, this is exactly how I feel about medical doctors (and others) who have been practising for for 30 years!  More specifically, their brand of medicine/education based strictly on materialism is, in fact, incomplete and incorrect.  Yet, these business people with licenses to practise medicine (and law, pharmacy, vetinary medicine) are simply business people who believe that problems  can be solved strictly by observing that which appears only to the physical senses...materialism. They don't know ho to fix this problem; don't care to.   Rather, they simply wish to keep their business rolling.  How convenient...at the expenses of humanity. FYI: every single person I asked in undergrad about why they wished to be a medical doctor, dentist, pharmacist, etc... had the same answer: for the money. Personally, I am just as disgusted by materialists who parade along with their 20-40 of experience making the illusion that they are saving the world as they profit.  Ironically, I've still yet to find a person in the profession who understand/cares what the symbols that they adorn mean? BTW, what do you know about predictability?  Care to start slicing the zodiac and using your noggen?  Ironically, Hipocrites- Father of modern medicine - was quite clear: no one should ever attempt to rovide health care without first examing the patient's Natal Chart.
    Posted by BTownExpress[/QUOTE]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Soxfan,

    I too have been involved in the game for a very long time.  Played professional in the US after my university hockey and junior stints ended.  This doesn't make me an expert as I previously stated but it gives me a lot better insight than someone that hasn't. 
    Intent to Injure- I fully agree that there are instances that warrant this.  Marty McSorley, Chris Simon, etc etc.  Was Matt Cooke head hunting?  Most definitely he was....BUT hello....why is Matt Cooke in the league?  He isn't here to score...he is here to be a pest, hammer people with hits and cross the line every time he puts his skates on.  He stops and he has no job.  Each team in the league has guys like this(maybe not as extreme).  He is essentially a human bowling ball out to hit(AND HURT) as many people as he can.  He is usually on a CHECKING LINE...and yes I do understand that checking means a few things.  a. to seperate the man from the puck. b. physical side of the sport which can dictate and sway momentum....a big hit definitely can do that.
    So I am agreeing to disagree in sorts.  B/C the sport is based on a physical element that makes it unique from other sports.  It is a violent sport with a high degree of speed..  With risks comes injuries.  Do I like some of the rules in hockey?  No...there have been as many injuries due to no touch icing that have ruined careers.  Head shots isn't a new thing.  It's just becoming more the norm b/c the players don't respect the opponent.  If this type of hit happened in the 70-80's there would be an all out brawl and bounty on Cooke.  Cooke doesn't skate off the ice that night.  In todays game there are a lot of things that come into play.  a. gear- it is a weapon. b. speed- much faster game which ultimately combined with (a). will cause injuries.  c. no fighting- say what you want but Cooke should have been jumped by an entire bench of Bruins.  Cooke would think twice before he hit someone again.  

    I am obviously placing the larger extent of so called blame on Cooke.  But this isn't the 1st time Cooke has rocked someones world.  Which is my entire point about Savy knowing who is on the ice.  Playing hockey growing up you were always told and asked who the big hitters/fighters were as much as who the other teams top scorer was.

    My bone of contention on Intenet To Injure is the definition.  The only reason the league made this a rule b/c of public outcry.  4 officials missed it.  No penalty of Richards either.  No penalty on Dough Weight.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhepQWlvQKs
    Intention....yes....intent to injure?  
    Matt Cooke hit
    Intention...yes....intenet to injure?  I say yes.  But how can you clearly define one over the other.  Unless you do what the league has decided on which is to banish all head shots.  But in doing so it will lead to something else.  Similar to when they took fighting out it lead to high sticks and guys like Cooke who think they are superman b/c they answer to no one.  So Duinne, if you are anti-fighting as well you basically created Cooke.

    Duinne
    1st off I am gonna take a wild guess that you have never played a game of contact hockey in your life?  Yes knee-on-knee are brutal.  But they were done long before the last 5 years.  Careers ruined.  Were you screaming about that 20 yrs ago and more when players careers were gone?  Or just b/c this is your flavor of the week.  Relax by the way. I am making points about a play which is up for debate.  I essentially agree with you.  But for you, its a witch hunt.  Guess what.  Matt Cooke still makes millions of dollars to do the same thing this year. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Cooke is scum, no doubt about it.

    Stevens hits were far from innocent, he would anticipate someone crossing redline or blue line and hit them with full head of steam with everything he had,  some def charges he took more than the 3 steps to give his head shot greeting.  He could still play on my team anytime.


    Linseman played hard and fought his own battles and took the penalties.  He was watched like a hawk by the ref and very seldom did he get away with anything, but he sure as hell did not take shiite, Cooke would have received his eye for an eye.

    A Hab fan talking about rats, that has been their past time keeping their lockerroom full of their own"Bens".  Their glory days were full of them in the 70's. They held the dirtiest stick men in Risebrough, Jarvis, Mario Tremblay, and the torch was passed to Mark Hunter, Carbonneau and Clod Lemieux, talk about dirty and stickmen, no not the frickin Habitants.

    In the wisdom of Red Green "Remember kids, keep yer head up and your stick on the ice", words to live by.

    The Bert incident was no diff than the Cooke incident except Cooke received no retaliation.  The shot to Moore, cited as a blindside was a retaliation for shot to his star Naslund, Moore thought he could get away with it and skate from Bert, but he was wrong.  The outcome should have been diff, Bert could not hold back anylonger and attacked, Moore new he was going to attack as did everyone watching.  I know I am going to get flack for this but who cares, a sword is a two edged thing and it came back to bite Moore, he ws being made stand to his crime but now he comes away the frickin martyr. He was never going to make in the league as a player, it was his shiite that was making a name for him. Deemed the sucker punch heard round the hockey world, gimme a break Rocket Richard and Wayne Maki clubbed men over the freakin head with their sticks.

    Another martyr Brashear knew McSorley was coming after him and he was too busy running from him, that was obvious.

    Neither of these retaliations were direct cause of the injuries it was the occurences after that gave the outcome to both, heads hitting ice.

    This is why the retaliatory penalty has always been called and will continue to be called.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    GOAT :

    Again, you sound ignorant when you try to speak of matters, of which, you know not.

    The only Hab that even came close to your Rat in terms of dirty play was Claude Lemieux.

    Here's an interesting piece on the NHL's top ten dirtiest players of all time :

    http://www.spiderjones.com/pdfs/sa_nhl_dirtiest.pdf

    Lemieux is justifiably on the list, but two Bruins, Linseman and Cashman, are higher up the list than him, and don't bother retorting that the piece was probably written by a Habs' fan because if it had been, Dale Hunter would have certainly made the grade.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    Goat :

    Did you happen to read that bit about Cashman kicking Tiger Williams in the head with his skate in that piece ?  

    Since we're talking about the 1970s, did you catch this quote in that piece ?

    "Taking on the Bruins of the early 70s was like attending a mugger's convention in Central Park."

    Now, hockey was never a sport for the faint of heart, but as I remember, the Bruins and Flyers were the two dirtiest teams in hockey in the 1970s.
     
    You look sort of foolish implying that the Habs of the 1970s were a dirty team.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    RMiller- you look foolish posting over 1,000 times in less than 5 months, trolling the Bruins board.  The Habs have had plenty of dirty players over the years, just like every other team; Claude Lemeiux, Mario Tremblay, Chris Nilan, Shayne Corson lead the pack in my mind. 

    The argument that you are making is foolish, B's fans are fairly having trouble moving on because Savard is still feeling the effects of the cheap-shot.  That is what this thread was about, not surprising that you have turned it into a "Bruins reap what they sow" conversation. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke



    I think everyone is missing a major point on Cooke, and that is he invented a new type of hit designed to hurt people.

    As in the Anisimov hit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXixraReToU

    When a defenseman makes the pass out of his own end he will frequently take a hit as people follow through.  No one thought of doing that in the offensive zone.  Cooke started targetting people for that.

    Why hadn't people done it before?  Because it's kind of a stupid play, it takes you out of position, it puts 2 people in the same place where the puck has been vacated, and it also takes you out of the play as your part of the ice is empty and your guy open.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again.  On dump ins, why not have everyone shoot the puck at the defensemen's face?  Of course most guys will be quick enough to knock it down or it will miss, but you will catch someone in the mouth eventually.  Under the current league rules it's not an obvious intent to injure, as the intent to injure wasn't called against Cooke v. Savard.

    Equipment has nothing to do with this.  The stuff I wore in 1972 is just as protective as it is today.  The stuff I wore in 1972 was twice as heavy as it is today and when it got wet it was twice as heavy still.  I remember as 12 or 13 barely being able to pick up my bag.  Players are in way better shape and bigger and faster now then they were then and their equipment weighs half as much.  That's why you get the big hits now.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from huscroft28. Show huscroft28's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    RMiller, you toad.  Read Savard's comments this morning and then tell me that Matt Cooke should still be permitted to play.  He's a head-hunter and you're a toad in CHabs clothing.  Lemieux was on of the dirtiest of all time and he was a turtle too - the worst.  Throw Chelios in that category as well.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TomOBrien. Show TomOBrien's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    I never said I was a physician...and I cannot imagine he was OK to play back then...your guess is as good as mine. But to get back to the point...is that all your were getting at?  really? Re-read your comments then...and re-qualify your commentary...I bet EVERYTHING seems odd to YOU!
    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Matt Cooke : I was merely asking a question because it seems very odd to me. Were you one of the physicians responsible in returning Savard to the ice for the playoffs last season, Dr. O'Brien ?
    Posted by RMiller87[/QUOTE]
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: Matt Cooke

    In Response to Re: Matt Cooke:
    [QUOTE]Soxfan, I too have been involved in the game for a very long time.  Played professional in the US after my university hockey and junior stints ended.  This doesn't make me an expert as I previously stated but it gives me a lot better insight than someone that hasn't.  Intent to Injure- I fully agree that there are instances that warrant this.  Marty McSorley, Chris Simon, etc etc.  Was Matt Cooke head hunting?  Most definitely he was....BUT hello....why is Matt Cooke in the league?  He isn't here to score...he is here to be a pest, hammer people with hits and cross the line every time he puts his skates on.  He stops and he has no job.  Each team in the league has guys like this(maybe not as extreme).  He is essentially a human bowling ball out to hit(AND HURT) as many people as he can.  He is usually on a CHECKING LINE...and yes I do understand that checking means a few things.  a. to seperate the man from the puck. b. physical side of the sport which can dictate and sway momentum....a big hit definitely can do that. So I am agreeing to disagree in sorts.  B/C the sport is based on a physical element that makes it unique from other sports.  It is a violent sport with a high degree of speed..  With risks comes injuries.  Do I like some of the rules in hockey?  No...there have been as many injuries due to no touch icing that have ruined careers.  Head shots isn't a new thing.  It's just becoming more the norm b/c the players don't respect the opponent.  If this type of hit happened in the 70-80's there would be an all out brawl and bounty on Cooke.  Cooke doesn't skate off the ice that night.  In todays game there are a lot of things that come into play.  a. gear- it is a weapon. b. speed- much faster game which ultimately combined with (a). will cause injuries.  c. no fighting- say what you want but Cooke should have been jumped by an entire bench of Bruins.  Cooke would think twice before he hit someone again.   I am obviously placing the larger extent of so called blame on Cooke.  But this isn't the 1st time Cooke has rocked someones world.  Which is my entire point about Savy knowing who is on the ice.  Playing hockey growing up you were always told and asked who the big hitters/fighters were as much as who the other teams top scorer was. My bone of contention on Intenet To Injure is the definition.  The only reason the league made this a rule b/c of public outcry.  4 officials missed it.  No penalty of Richards either.  No penalty on Dough Weight.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhepQWlvQKs Intention....yes....intent to injure?   Matt Cooke hit Intention...yes....intenet to injure?  I say yes.  But how can you clearly define one over the other.  Unless you do what the league has decided on which is to banish all head shots.  But in doing so it will lead to something else.  Similar to when they took fighting out it lead to high sticks and guys like Cooke who think they are superman b/c they answer to no one.  So Duinne, if you are anti-fighting as well you basically created Cooke. Duinne 1st off I am gonna take a wild guess that you have never played a game of contact hockey in your life?  Yes knee-on-knee are brutal.  But they were done long before the last 5 years.  Careers ruined.  Were you screaming about that 20 yrs ago and more when players careers were gone?  Or just b/c this is your flavor of the week.  Relax by the way. I am making points about a play which is up for debate.  I essentially agree with you.  But for you, its a witch hunt.  Guess what.  Matt Cooke still makes millions of dollars to do the same thing this year. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    Shuperman, I also played some pro, in the early 80's in a full Slapshot-style league that had fights spill over into the stands more often than people would believe.  Not to be argumentative, but I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

    There's simply no way on the Savard play that he could be expected to see that cheap shot coming.  I agree you have to know who's on the ice, but the only way I can view that hit is someone going for someone's head, from a blindside.  That play happened a little out of camera angle, so I do not completely blame the refs for not seeing it.  However, I do blame the NHL office for not reviewing the play and deeming it intent to injure.  Its ALWAYS been illegal to check to the head... thats where roughing ("high hits") call come from.  The head has NEVER been an accepted target for a bodycheck, only the upper torso.  I simply do not understand the logic of not calling that play, that night, Deliberate Attempt To Injure, especially given Cooke's rapsheet.

    Finally, in my day, someone would have come off the bench and speared Cooke withing minutes of this happening.  The Bruins' pathetic gutless response along with the NHL's non-action creates the Cookes in this world.  I'm sorry if promoting intentional violence offends some people's sensitivities, but the main reason players these days do not respect each other anymore in terms of injury is because the street justice has disappeared.
     

Share