I also don't like Sedin's hit because he is clearly aiming for his head. Maybe it's legal right now, maybe it isn't, I don't know anymore, but I don't want to see hits to the head. Game is too fast and players get too severely injured.
![Image](http://myimg.us/images/03.21.12/24958.gif)
I hope the NHL doesn't feel this way.Sarcastic wrote:If he doesn't get at least 5 games for such a blatant elbow then there needs to be some sort of investigation into the way the NHL runs things.
I also don't like Sedin's hit because he is clearly aiming for his head. Maybe it's legal right now, maybe it isn't, I don't know anymore, but I don't want to see hits to the head. Game is too fast and players get too severely injured.
FtwFroggy wrote:If Cooke's suspension was really about the Savard hit, then where was richards' 10+ game retroactive suspension for the booth hit?
It was about making an example out of someone, and once they acknowledged Cooke was public enemy #1, it was simply a matter of waiting for ANY screw up.
Physical_Graffiti wrote:FtwFroggy wrote:If Cooke's suspension was really about the Savard hit, then where was richards' 10+ game retroactive suspension for the booth hit?
It was about making an example out of someone, and once they acknowledged Cooke was public enemy #1, it was simply a matter of waiting for ANY screw up.
Physical_Graffiti wrote:FtwFroggy wrote:If Cooke's suspension was really about the Savard hit, then where was richards' 10+ game retroactive suspension for the booth hit?
It was about making an example out of someone, and once they acknowledged Cooke was public enemy #1, it was simply a matter of waiting for ANY screw up.
That's my point; in isolation, Cooke got what he deserved.no name wrote:Physical_Graffiti wrote:FtwFroggy wrote:If Cooke's suspension was really about the Savard hit, then where was richards' 10+ game retroactive suspension for the booth hit?
It was about making an example out of someone, and once they acknowledged Cooke was public enemy #1, it was simply a matter of waiting for ANY screw up.
The league went through the trouble of making an example of Cooke, which was fine, but if they followed through with all suspensions like that maybe you would have players take notice like Cooke did and make a change in their game.
Personally, I don't expect a "Matt Cooke Suspension", I expect 5-10 games (i.e. more than what he'll get).Henry Hank wrote:I don't think it's realistic to expect a Matt Cooke suspension because it doesn't appear that Keith has a suspension history, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Five games seems fair in that case because by their standards it is a pretty harsh sentance, especially for a guy who hasn't been subject to supplemental discipline before.
That really was an egregious elbow, though. Totally unnecessary and apparently intentional, and it caused what might be a significant injury on the eve of the playoffs. That one seemed to be personal and would be an easy one for them to punish relatively harshly.
Agreed.columbia wrote:no name wrote:Physical_Graffiti wrote:FtwFroggy wrote:If Cooke's suspension was really about the Savard hit, then where was richards' 10+ game retroactive suspension for the booth hit?
It was about making an example out of someone, and once they acknowledged Cooke was public enemy #1, it was simply a matter of waiting for ANY screw up.
The league went through the trouble of making an example of Cooke, which was fine, but if they followed through with all suspensions like that maybe you would have players take notice like Cooke did and make a change in their game.
ThisMr. Colby wrote:I'll take the over. Keith will get the "star player maximum" which is 3 games.
And when the league slaps him on the wrist, and they will; therein lies all you need to know about why the NHL cannot get a handle on this concussion thing.Henry Hank wrote: That really was an egregious elbow, though. Totally unnecessary and apparently intentional, and it caused what might be a significant injury on the eve of the playoffs. That one seemed to be personal and would be an easy one for them to punish relatively harshly.
Hopefully they'll look at the recent Pronger and Wisniewski suspensions at the end of seasons over the past few years. Similar cheap shots. Intention was definitely there. We can only hope.sharpshootr55 wrote:Well what originally was going to be a conference call hearing, the NHL has indicated it now wants and in-person hearing according to Bob McKenzie. Keith has also not agreed to wave his right to an in-person hearing. No decision until the morning though. Really odd series of events.
Yeah, I thought it looked more accidental.Rylan wrote:It actually looked like Tanguay was trying to avoid pasting him into the decals.
This is part of the reason why I think there should be an all-inclusive rule for headshots. You can't determine intent, but there is no reason Tanguay should have his elbow up there, like you said.pfim wrote:Not sure it was malicious, then again, no real reason to have your elbow up that high.