Sheriff Shanny

[Sarcastic]

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.

[Physical_Graffiti]

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.

I hope the NHL doesn't feel this way.

[Physical_Graffiti]

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.

Ftw

[PSUBALL10]

Bob McKenzie ‏ @TSNBobMcKenzie

When Keith's disciplinary hearing is held, expected to be a phone hearing, so suspension, if levied, cannot exceed five games.

[columbia]

Naturally.

[Troy Loney]

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.

Ftw

Well, the Tyutin hit and the McDonagh hit gave the NHL the power to do whatever they wanted with cook. Has Richards done anything since the Booth hit to get suspended? (not committed a suspendable offense, cause I'm sure he's had some questionable hits, but has he been suspended? )

[Henry Hank]

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.

[no name]

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.

Ftw

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.

[columbia]

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.

Ftw

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.

That's my point; in isolation, Cooke got what he deserved.

[Physical_Graffiti]

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.

Personally, I don't expect a "Matt Cooke Suspension", I expect 5-10 games (i.e. more than what he'll get).

[Physical_Graffiti]

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.

Ftw

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.

Agreed.

[joopen]

My question is... do you think Henrik felt it too?

[Froggy]

I'm gonna put the over/under at 2.5 games.

[Mr. Colby]

I'll take the over. Keith will get the "star player maximum" which is 3 games.

[shafnutz05]

I'll take the over. Keith will get the "star player maximum" which is 3 games.

This

[Physical_Graffiti]

I believe MC will be correct.

[penmyst]

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.

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.

This would be a pluperfect situation to drop the hammer. I don't think you could possibly come up with a more blatant elbow to the head. If they levelled a Cooke-like suspension for it: who the hell could argue against it?

Can we deny that Cooke was a valuable guy to the Pens when he got booted for 17 games (including the playoff series the Pens would lose without him)? But his irresponsible behavior, supposedly, led to the banhammer. And as Pens' fans, there was no legitimate case to be made for it being too severe since the league was supposedly "getting tough" on the cheapshots.

What I am saying here is that there will never be a better situation for the league to "get tough" on such reckless endangerment of another player.

It SHOULD have been a 5-minute Major. So the refs inside the game didn't even bother to "get tough" on such an assault.

And when they don't bother to assess much of a suspension for this, it will show what they aren't serious at all about stopping the hits to the head. Because they aren't serious about it.

Meanwhile, fans interested in seeing good clean hockey and upset about thuggery like this continuing to be permitted------- will be attacked as pansies and "not understanding hockey" etc. And another thug will scramble some guy's brain, maybe the brain of a superstar or maybe just some curtain-jerker, and the hockey "purist" goons can tell us "Nothing to see here! Move along!"

[sharpshootr55]

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.

[Mr. Colby]

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.

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.

[Mr. Colby]

You know I don't mind an honest play where a guy is just trying to make a hit and maybe gets his arms up a bit. Like Engelland's play earlier this season, even Ovechkin on Michalek. Sure, suspend them, but that stuff happens.

I'm much more worried about hits like Doan's the other night, like Rene Bourque on Backstrom, like Keith's last night. Those are nothing but dirty disgusting plays that have no place in the game. Backstrom hasn't even played a game since that dirty dirty cheapshot.

[shmenguin]

what is wrong with these guys?

[youtube][/youtube]

[Rylan]

It actually looked like Tanguay was trying to avoid pasting him into the decals.

[Staggy]

It actually looked like Tanguay was trying to avoid pasting him into the decals.

Yeah, I thought it looked more accidental.

[pfim]

Not sure it was malicious, then again, no real reason to have your elbow up that high.

[MRandall25]

Not sure it was malicious, then again, no real reason to have your elbow up that high.

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.

The players NEED to learn to keep elbows down. Period. There is no valid reason for players keeping their elbows at head level. None.