Comments on: No Suspension For Cooke – Idiocy Revealed

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:45:11 +0000

There is another angle to this debate that Ron and Don brought up last Saturday, namely that any deliberate attempt to injure, whether in the context of a legal hit or not, is penalty and suspension worthy.

By: Duff in the UK

Duff in the UK — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:57:31 +0000

Best thing about the whole ‘rule debate’ is that they were quick enough to bring in the ‘Avery Rule’ after big Sean upset Brodeur with nothing more than some stupid antics (and lets be fair, it was well within the rules at the time and in my opinion a stroke of genius on Avery’s part!) – Avery is a grade A pest, but what he did to Brodeur was distracting but no where near the ‘head shots’ calibre of dangerous. And yet it’s going to take until NEXT season to properly deal with schmucks like Cooke?

A Pittsburgh supporting friend of mine asked why we were all ragging on Cooke when Bertuzzi has done much worse in the past, Richards has done similar this very season and Phaneuf has had his moments as well – I simple pointed out all of those three can actually play the game (admittedly big Bert not as well these days), while Justin is spot on – Cooke is judged by his grade of sand paper!

By: fish

fish — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:54:55 +0000

Cooke wasn’t suspended because the Richards/Booth hit set a precedent.

The precedent at the time was “star players can get away with anything”. The current precedent is “everyone can get away with anything”

Somebody should redefine the word “consequences” for mr. Campbell…

TW Tom Curran, Neanderthal’s were not dumb at all. They had a pretty advanced tribal society going on back then. Please stop insulting our fellow Hominids and reveal Campbell for the creature that he is… It’s gotta be somethingwith the mental capacity of plankton…

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:26:13 +0000

At no point do both of his feet leave the ice (his right ‘toe’ on the ice – semantics maybe, but not in light of the reason he was suspended).
He received a minor for interference, and the official language for the suspension was: “deliberate check to the head area”
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/299875-matt-cooke-hit-with-a-two-game-suspension-but-where-is-the-consistency

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:17:35 +0000

Good call cbuckser, at 0:36 Mr. Cooke is airborn.

By: kitten fister

kitten fister — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:35:29 +0000

haha, got black out drunk last nite so who knows what the hell is up there. my appologies

By: cbuckser

cbuckser — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:31:23 +0000

Cooke left his feet check he checked Anisimov. That was charging.

His check on Savard broke no current rule. Thus, there was no penalty and no basis for a suspension.

The new head-shot rule is coming too late; at worst, it should have been adopted last summer. But, it wasn’t. The GMs decided that dirty, dangerous headshots should be permissible provided that the player delivering the check didn’t break another rule. That is the idoocy—not Colin Campbell’s decision not to suspend Matt Cooke.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:32:02 +0000

kitten fister has something up [i]their[/i] ass this morning.

By: jtbourne

jtbourne — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:17:32 +0000

Haha, settle, that was an adendum to yesterdays. Check the date, a-hole Today’s will be up in a hot sec.

By: kitten fister

kitten fister — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:15:33 +0000

today’s blog is the equivalent of a teacher popping in a video and kicking there feet up