No supplemental discipline

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline


    Chowda:  Bettman didn't set this standard. It was negotiated in the last CBA by the NHLPA and NHL .

    RustyWTKassfishingCliff: Bettman didn't sign off on the CBA? Really? How do you figure that?




    This is awesome.  You come here and say that we're not smart enough yet your reading comprehension is that of a third grader from a third world country.  Chowda says that Bettman didn't set the 18 month rule, but that it was negotiated.  You come back mocking him for saying that Bettman didn't sign off on it.

    You see how they are completely different?

    I have an honest question for you, Rusty.  Please answer it. 

    Do you intentionally get things completely wrong in conversation, or are you so incredibly stupid that you're not even aware that you're doing it?

    I can't wait for you answer.

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

    Re: No supplemental discipline


    I knew he was getting nothing.  I think the 5 and game fit.   And hopefully we ignore him and continue frustrating Sid et al

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

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


    Chowda:  Bettman didn't set this standard. It was negotiated in the last CBA by the NHLPA and NHL .

    RustyWTKassfishingCliff: Bettman didn't sign off on the CBA? Really? How do you figure that?




    This is awesome.  You come here and say that we're not smart enough yet your reading comprehension is that of a third grader from a third world country.  Chowda says that Bettman didn't set the 18 month rule, but that it was negotiated.  You come back mocking him for saying that Bettman didn't sign off on it.

    You see how they are completely different?

    I have an honest question for you, Rusty.  Please answer it. 

    Do you intentionally get things completely wrong in conversation, or are you so incredibly stupid that you're not even aware that you're doing it?

    I can't wait for you answer.



    And while we're at it............we should also blame Donald Fehr for signing off on this negotiated clause too.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    Am I the only one who doesnt want Cooke to get suspended?  

    A) I would say his offense is below average for a third liner.

    B) I feel like a suspension would be getting off light (I want to see him get pounded)

    C) He's a liability because he's a risk to go to the box for 5 at any time, putting his team at a disadvantage.

     

    Am I alone with this?

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    Am I the only one who doesnt want Cooke to get suspended?  

    A) I would say his offense is below average for a third liner.

    B) I feel like a suspension would be getting off light (I want to see him get pounded)

    C) He's a liability because he's a risk to go to the box for 5 at any time, putting his team at a disadvantage.

     

    Am I alone with this?

     



    not to mention, the hit doesn't warrant a suspension. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    Am I the only one who doesnt want Cooke to get suspended?  

    A) I would say his offense is below average for a third liner.

    B) I feel like a suspension would be getting off light (I want to see him get pounded)

    C) He's a liability because he's a risk to go to the box for 5 at any time, putting his team at a disadvantage.

     

    Am I alone with this?

     

     



    not to mention, the hit doesn't warrant a suspension. 

     




    Why not?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stuke50. Show Stuke50's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline


    Cooke should have recieved 4 minutes

    Marchand should have recieved 4 mintues

    Both hits were borderline hurtful

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    Stuke I don't agree with you at all. Cooke clearly slammed McQuaid into the boards and was staring straight at his numbers. Clearly a boarding major in my eyes, which is only reinforced when you look at the reason why he did it. He was frustrated with Krug for being in the way and shoved past him and took his frustration out on McQuaid's back. In Marchand's case, he pushed him, albeit from behind, but there was not violent collision with the boards. Neal is a stronger skater and should be able to keep himself from flopping forward towards the boards. Which looked awkward as it seemed that Marchand's push was more towards the parallel of the boards. Completely different instances in my opinion.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stuke50. Show Stuke50's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    Stuke I don't agree with you at all. Cooke clearly slammed McQuaid into the boards and was staring straight at his numbers. Clearly a boarding major in my eyes, which is only reinforced when you look at the reason why he did it. He was frustrated with Krug for being in the way and shoved past him and took his frustration out on McQuaid's back. In Marchand's case, he pushed him, albeit from behind, but there was not violent collision with the boards. Neal is a stronger skater and should be able to keep himself from flopping forward towards the boards. Which looked awkward as it seemed that Marchand's push was more towards the parallel of the boards. Completely different instances in my opinion.




    A lot of subjective observations of what you think players were thinking...

    I saw McQuaid look back there fore he was a least a little at fault...enough for Cooke to get 4 mins....Marchand nearly corked Neal's head into the board ( he was too close to the boards for a hit like that ) which would have being very scary to say the least...We need both these types of hits out of the game.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to Stuke50's comment:

    A lot of subjective observations of what you think players were thinking...

    I saw McQuaid look back there fore he was a least a little at fault...enough for Cooke to get 4 mins....Marchand nearly corked Neal's head into the board ( he was too close to the boards for a hit like that ) which would have being very scary to say the least...We need both these types of hits out of the game.



    No it isn't.  He can retrive the puck against the boards without the fear of getting splattered.  This is blaming the girl for wearing a skirt too short.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline


    You don't hit in the numbers going into the boards. Period - doesn't matter if McQuaid knew the hit was coming or not, boarding is boarding.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stuke50. Show Stuke50's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to Stuke50's comment:

     

    A lot of subjective observations of what you think players were thinking...

    I saw McQuaid look back there fore he was a least a little at fault...enough for Cooke to get 4 mins....Marchand nearly corked Neal's head into the board ( he was too close to the boards for a hit like that ) which would have being very scary to say the least...We need both these types of hits out of the game.

     



    No it isn't.  He can retrive the puck against the boards without the fear of getting splattered.  This is blaming the girl for wearing a skirt too short.

     

     




     

    McQuaid did in fact have an option, he could have turned out ( he was watching Cooke come at him ).  He was not blind sided..He choose the worst postion to be in. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    In response to Stuke50's comment:

    McQuaid did in fact have an option, he could have turned out ( he was watching Cooke come at him ).  He was not blind sided..He choose the worst postion to be in. 




    Yet Cooke still hit him in the numbers into the boards. Cooke had a choice as well, and he chose to do an illegal hit. I gotta agree with NAS on this one.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    I agreed with the call initially, but I don't think the hit was as bad after seeing the replays. While it doesn't change a penalty call, I really dislike it when the defenseman sees the player heading his way and still turns into the boards anyway. For some players (like Tyutin), it's a weasel move to draw a call.  Maybe it's time for the Burke rule to go into effect.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    Ratt Cooke lowlights

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

     

     

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

    Re: No supplemental discipline

    Didnt chimera get mcq with a similar hit.  McQ needs to:

    1. Stop turning his numbers.  Not blaming him for cooke or chimera but wake up.  

    2.  Get elbows up.  

    Cooke shouldnt be in our thoughts at all until late in a blow out gm.  I like driving malkin n crosby nuts.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share