NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

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

    NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    I can't find "intent to injure" as a penalty on NHL.com.  What ever happened to this rule?

    This is frustrating me to pieces, out of the 8,000 threads on Cooke v. Savard hit and another 8,000 articles on TSN and THN and all the rest, no one is mentioning "intent to injure" - and whatever became of it?

    I know that Chris Simon got an intent to injure penalty when he stepped on Ruutu.

    More on the rules.

    This idea that there has to be an explicit rule that says "no hits to the head" is ridiculous for this reason -

    You can't possibly foresee anything that any player may ever do to intentionally injure another player - or doing something that is clearly "NOT HOCKEY".


    For example, there's no rule against inciting the crowd to lynch someone.

    Or is there?  Although there is no rule that explicitly says this is illegal, there seems to be a rule that cover it.  B) Unsportsmanlike conduct rule 75.1
    75.1 Unsportsmanlike Conduct – Players, goalkeepers and non-playing Club personnel are responsible for their conduct at all times and must endeavor to prevent disorderly conduct before, during or after the game, on or off the ice and any place in the rink. The Referees may assess penalties to any of the above team personnel for failure to do so.

    I can't find a penalty against clotheslining someone, there are penalties against the use of hands, fists and elbowing is
    46.1 Elbowing - Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.
    So a non-extended elbow - a straight arm using the inside of the elbow - isn't clotheslining

    Also - on handling the puck, the rule says
    67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and  a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.
    but I've seen it called about one million times where a puck is handled in the offensive zone and UNINTENTIONALLY ends up on a team mate's stick and the play is called for a hand pass.
    Also, I don't see how this says you can't carry the puck down the ice with an open hand.

    This is far fetched, but to make a point - players are adept at flipping the puck up onto their sticks, what if people start doing that and carrying the puck down the ice with the puck balanced on their modified stick (and also taking advantage of whatever the rule book says about what a legal stick is)?

    Would the NHL make a new rule to prevent this and wait for next season to implement this new rule?

    Why is it unfair to implement a new rule midseason?  To be completely fair about it, I'm not saying retroactively punish Cooke for it, but why would it be unfair to implement the rule midseason?

    So I'm saying if you can change the rules of the game, what is the problem with changing the rules mid-season?

    And I'm also saying that you have to leave a category so the ref can use his own disgression in making some calls so nothing ridiculous or dangerous can start happening.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    It's all in rule 21 .  Intent to injure.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SylvesterMexicano. Show SylvesterMexicano's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    Reactionary NHL, Bettman and Campbell send out a memo to Terry Gregson watch for hits when players are in a vulnerable position. Duh just in time Duh!

    Case in point now the cluless duo of Gary and Colin want to show they'll toss a superstar like today with Ovechkin. The league shows again that it waits for something very bad to happen to start to make changes because of marketing dollars. Prevention vs. reaction is something the dynamic duo know nothing about.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    In Response to Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.:
    It's all in rule 21 .  Intent to injure.
    Posted by BsLegion


    Where is that?
    Rule 21 that I see on NHL.com is about match penalties
    http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26304
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SylvesterMexicano. Show SylvesterMexicano's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    If the refs "A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner." did this then Campbell's blunder whoudn't have happened. That's Campbell's spin of being consistent. Why should i create a supplement when nothing was called on the ice ~ Colin

    Here's Cherry pointing out part of rule 21 last night...

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Sports/CBC%27s_Hockey_Night_in_Canada/Coach%27s_Corner/ID=1440151444

    Be prepared to be sickened by all of Cooke's knee to knee hits. Direct reflection of Mario and Shero that they even signed this guy!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    In Response to Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.:
    It's all in rule 21 .  Intent to injure.
    Posted by BsLegion


    oh - it's under match penalty right there in front of me, I thought it would have had its own section.  So  no explanation, no mention from the league why this wasn't intent to injure?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    Pittsburgh likely signed Cooke to protect Crosby and Malkin from (one of )the dirtiest players in the league - Matt Cooke...unless he takes one of them out in practice!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.

    In Response to Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression.:
    In Response to Re: NHL rules, no "intent to injure" penalty and referee disgression. : oh - it's under match penalty right there in front of me, I thought it would have had its own section.  So  no explanation, no mention from the league why this wasn't intent to injure?
    Posted by BadHabitude


    They seem to ignore it .   As if it's not there.  The rules are in place,  a little vague at times but  Cooke's forearm to the head had intention to hurt, it was clear and should have been suspended. 
    Alright enough on this , 03/18 justice must be served.

     

Share