+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 65
Thread: Suspension?
-
03-17-2010 11:32 AM #31
Looks like the book has been thrown at Downie. He has apparently received a $1000 fine.
Rich
[SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
-
03-17-2010 05:05 PM #32
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- XXXXXXXXXXXX
- Posts
- 4,215
Meanwhile Cooke from Pitts gets nothing. Bettman is an ass.
My opinions are my own, I do not follow others.
-
03-17-2010 05:08 PM #33
-
03-17-2010 05:13 PM #34
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- XXXXXXXXXXXX
- Posts
- 4,215
Oh really? When did the NHL start allowing head shots?
Cooke clearly took a run at Savard and if that wasn't a head shot then the NHL might as well let every player go head hunting. Savard was in a vulnerable position and Cooke took a run at him.
Cooke plays to hurt players. Cherry showed many of his so called "LEGAL HITS" on Saturday night, knee on knee, head shots etc.
If anyone should be banned for the season it should be that GOON.
Ovechkin's push on Campbell was dangerous, no doubt about that. But if Campbell gets up and continues playing there would be no suspension.
Cooke's head hunting hit was just as dangerous and Savard is out of the Bruins lineup as well.
Bettman and Campbell need to make better decisions when it comes to suspensions.
Plain and simple. Otherwise goons like Cooke will continue to injure star players.
My opinions are my own, I do not follow others.
-
03-17-2010 05:56 PM #35
The NHL has always allowed headshots. They have never been illegal. Only the method of delivery is relevant.
There is no doubt that Cooke's hit was a headshot, but that is not actually grounds for punishment according to the rules.
You're right that if Campbell gets up then Ovie gets no suspension. But is that really the way you want the league policed? That is the precise reason that dangerous hits keep happening. You have to punish the act, rather than result.
I am in agreement that hits like Cooke's should be out of the game. But, based on the rules as they stand, there was no reason to punish Cooke. You have to change the rule before you can change the punishment.
Quite frankly, everybody is headshot crazy at the moment. Peope are reacting emotionally, rather than rationally, and are being influenced by the ongoing coverage of the 'headshot epidemic' on 24 hr sports channels. It's no longer about actually applying the rules as they exist, or making a rule change that is a good long term solution. It's all about doing anything to look like you're taking the problem seriously, even if the majority of the people complaining haven't, and will never watch a hockey game in their life.
Classis example of this overreaction was during last night's sens/leafs game. That penalty on Sutton was an irrational, emotional response to the headshot debate. It was a clean shoulder check, that just barely made contact with the players head. However, the players head snapped back slightly (more as a defensive manoevre than as a physical reaction to contact) and so the ref threw up his arm for a penalty. Of course, when it came time to actually call the penalty, it ends up as roughing. Roughing? For a shoulder check? On a guy with the puck? Where is that in the rule book? A clean hit that resulted in a penalty, for no other reason than media bombardment.
-
03-17-2010 07:00 PM #36
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Ottawa
- Posts
- 1,076
-
03-17-2010 10:08 PM #37
-
03-18-2010 02:15 PM #38
Excellent post jonf, you made a number of good points, but the one I most agree with is the emotional reaction to these incidents.
Like many areas of our society, emotion, and public opinion rule, whereas logic and clear thinking seem to be pushed to the wayside.
The hit on Seabrook last night will only fuel this media driven fire.
Personally, I don't think there needs to be any rule change.Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent global warming.
-
03-18-2010 02:40 PM #39
In complete agreement with the previous posters.
To jonf regarding the Sutton hit/penalty... I was ok with the hit, the only reason I could see why maybe they would have called it roughing (they never called it elbowing like the announcers thought they saw) was due to the fact that the guy was already engaged in a check along the boards and was somewhat ''vulnerable'' (tired of using that excuse). Not sure if there's actually a rule regarding that.Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-
03-18-2010 03:54 PM #40
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- XXXXXXXXXXXX
- Posts
- 4,215
I wonder if any of you have ever witnessed a young hockey player in pain after he was subject to a head shot and suffered a concussion?
I personally have witnessed this when it happened twice to a JR B hockey player. The first time it happened to him he sat in the dressing room with the trainer, crying and didn't even know where he was at the time.
After the required tests and time away from the game he came back to play.
It happened again and his playing days were over. His Father is a Doctor and he campaigned the league to start cracking down on head shots. The league eventually did so. Now it is an automatic 5 minute penalty and game misconduct. If there was video review in JR B I am sure the league would further suspend players who dish out head shots.
There is no place in any hockey league for reckless head shots. Those hits cause injuries that can lead to permanent brain damage. Argue all you want, say it is legal, keep your head up etc etc. But wait until it happens to your son or daughter or someone you know personally and you will have a different outlook on the subject.
My opinions are my own, I do not follow others.
-
03-18-2010 04:11 PM #41
Of course you'll have a different response when someone you know is involved...but that is an EMOTIONAL response, not a rational one. Why do you think victim's families aren't allowed to sit on the jury in a criminal trial? Because their ability to judge the situation rationally and impartially is compromised.
Yes, it's a shame when a player gets a concussion. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the hit that caused it should be banned.
As I have said, I don't have an issue with putting in a headshot rule (provided it is selective). But there is simply no way to argue for suspending players for executing legal hits. It's not a question of whether it's someone's son, or daughter, or whether headshots make puppy dogs cry. It's a question of legality, and being fair to all involved, including the one executing the hit. It is simply not fair to dole out punishment for a hit that was within the rules.
The Wiezniewski hit last night is another example of an overreaction. Any other year, that hit barely gets mention. Charging penalty, and maybe a supplemental 1 game suspsension, if Colin Campbell is feeling a bit bored. But now, it's Exhibit C in the People vs. Hockey. A hit to the chest, player's helmet came loose, hit his head on the glass.
If players are concerned about injuries, they should wear their helmets properly.
-
03-18-2010 05:40 PM #42
-
03-18-2010 06:20 PM #43
The logical response if your goal is to reduce head injuries, is to penalize each and every headshot that occurs. Regardless of whether it is a clean hit by the rules today, the only reason to plow somebody in the head is to try and injure them.
Yes - there are cases where the headshots are unintended. I would argue that those should be penalized too. Just like when you poke at the puck and end up tripping your opponent instead; the act is penalized, not the intent. The impetus is on the player making the play to ensure he does so in a fashion that is safe and does not put his opponent's life and livelyhood at risk.
The whole 'well A is 6'6" and B who got hit is only 5'9" ' excuse doesn't fly with me either. There is no reason player A couldn't come in with just as much force, only crouched down a little as to make the contact body-on-body. Speaking from experience as a smaller hockey player (back when I played minor hockey), this will take you out of the play for damn sure, and it is a whole hell of a lot safer for the person being hit.Wannabe Golf
-
03-18-2010 06:56 PM #44
Watching at full speed, I would have agreed with you. Watching in slow motion, it is quite obviously a hit to the head, and a very deliberate one at that, in retaliation to an equally dangerous hit earlier in the sequence that was not penalized as there was no injury involved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_503816.html
Watch for yourself, 1:15-1:18. He's quite obviously got his elbow in the guy's face, driving his head into the glass.Wannabe Golf
-
03-18-2010 08:00 PM #45
His elbow makes contact with the chest. As he follows through, he pushes him with the elbow, yes. But it was the initial contact with the shoulder that sends him flying into the glass. He roughs him up with the elbow a bit after that, but that is not what caused the injury.
It's the classic debate...if you make contact with the shoulder, and the elbow then extends on the follow through, does it count as an elbow? In the past, the consensus has been that, no, that is not an elbow.
You say there was a 'dangerous hit earlier in the sequence.' Well, it's hockey, it's fast, and these guys are big. All hits are dangerous. People seem to have forgotten that. Injuries aren't new, and they aren't going anywhere.
-
03-18-2010 08:00 PM #46You only get out of something what you put into it
-
03-19-2010 11:03 AM #47
-
03-19-2010 01:05 PM #48
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- russell
- Posts
- 80
Bring back the old school. If Someone was out of line it was taken care - a good clean fight - back in the 60's 70's and earlier 80's there were no cheap shots - no concussions, etc... it was taken care of the way it was to be taken care of. Players back then did respect on another - unlike today. Players of today seem to hit on the cheap and will not fight they rather hit someone from the blind side and not back themselves up. The game is much faster than it was 20-30 years ago but back then there were no career ending hits either - Respect!
-
03-19-2010 01:17 PM #49
I'm tired of people saying fighting is the answer. It's ridiculous. Just because Don Cherry says it, doesn't make it so. People seem to have this nostalgic view that, back in the day, if a player made a bad hit, they got their ass kicked, and then repented in front of the gods of hockey, and never did anything dangerous again. Well, players these days are forced to fight after every single big hit, clean or not. It's clearly not keeping concussions or dangerous hits down.
And yes, I do think fighting is a part of the game. But, it is not and will not prevent dangerous play.
-
03-19-2010 01:20 PM #50
That's BS IMO. There were lots of cheap shots and surely lots of concussions they just did not know how to diagnose it back then. Back in the 50’s and 60’s there was lots of broken bone directly related to slashing with the hard wood sticks. Maurice Richard was continually targeted. Today the game is faster and the players are bigger thus the hits come harder.
Strive for perfection, but never expect it!
-
03-19-2010 01:21 PM #51
-
03-19-2010 01:23 PM #52
Here's my solution. No more helmets. People didn't used to hit nearly as hard or recklessly back when people didn't wear helmets, and players were better prepared to deal with contact. Even now, when a player loses their helmet, their opponent has the common sense not to crush them into the boards when they have the chance. So, if we really want to curb headshots, and concussions, let's take off the helmets. Problem solved.
-
03-19-2010 07:48 PM #53
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- russell
- Posts
- 80
This is for blah blah people who thinks fighting is BS (jonf and mberube)
Forget Don cherry - if u played the game - (University of Michigan - Wolverine BABY!!) - i'm not just talking about in pee wee or anything - then u would know how the game was played - hard good hits - yes there were alot of chipyness but not nearly the BS that goes on now. Players are not forced to fight - that is BS - that is the problem! There are no more enforcers on any team. As an owner of a team would u not think about a player getting a blooding nose than getting smoked on a cheap head shot - Come on man! Ask any player that played the game in the 60's 70's and up to the early 80's they will say there was Respect amongst eachother - Then came Claude Lemeiux and through Respesct out the door.
one Example of few years Ray Emery fought one of Buffalo's toughest guys - and no one - I mean no one from the bench came to his rescue - that is why ottawa will never sniff the cup- not a tight team! if that would have happended 30 years ago the bench would be cleared. And Spezza says - well he's a tough guy he can handle himself. - The day of me, myself and I has arrived! no more team unity!
- that's my Rant - I'm out - SMACK!
-
03-22-2010 09:54 AM #54
a week ago, don cherry went on a 5 minute rant about Cooke, it was beautiful.
http://communities.canada.com/EDMONT...-him-quot.aspx
youtube video is out there somewhere.You only get out of something what you put into it
-
03-23-2010 06:29 AM #55
-
03-23-2010 05:34 PM #56
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- russell
- Posts
- 80
that was a great rant by Don.
- i don't know if any of u remember a game in the mid 70's the Russians played various NHL teams - this game was aganist Philly and one of the Russians gave out a really cheap shot. The next shift that player came on the ice Ed Van Imp came out of the penalty box and just smoked him - dirty yes - but it was a message. The Russians left the ice.
Cooke needs to be put in his place - he's been doing it too long.
-
03-23-2010 05:48 PM #57
-
03-23-2010 06:13 PM #58
i think there's not enough 'revenge' in the game today. it's not only about dirty hits, it's about standing up for your teammate with a clean hit, a dirty hit, a fight, a suspension so be it.
i always hated tie domi but i respected him in the sense that if you went after Mats Sundin he'd find you on his next shift.You only get out of something what you put into it
-
03-23-2010 06:49 PM #59
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- russell
- Posts
- 80
I agree NoKids - It's all about standing up for your mates - When Ed Van Imp hit that player it was a message- that player from Russia never gave a cheap shot during rest of the tour
- Ed was standing up for his teamate - which is no where to be seen today! There is nothing wrong with going after someone after a cheap shot and a fight is necessary. - And yes a good fight or a good clean hard hit will reduce the cheap shots!
Sounds like jonf should not be watching hockey it may be a little violent- Bowling is a good choice
-
03-23-2010 07:03 PM #60
Haha...I'm convinced you haven't watch hockey in 30 years. You clearly haven't watched any the past 2 or 3. As I said earlier...absolutely every time there is a big hit, regardless of whether it is clear or not, a fight ensues. If it's a borderline cheap shot, you better belive there's going to be a fight. Fighting is in the game now, and is used to protect players. But, they're still getting hurt with cheap shots. Clearly fighting is not enough. So, while I take no personal offence based on your ridiculous claims (for all I know, you yourself had your brains scrambled by some cheap shots), i'd prefer you didn't waste my time with inane comments with no basis in reality.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Trek Fuel 70 full suspension mountain bike
By jet84 in forum Other StuffReplies: 2Last Post: 07-16-2009, 01:58 PM -
Daly eager for 1st PGA event since suspension
By Kilroy in forum Tour TalkReplies: 1Last Post: 06-11-2009, 04:33 AM -
Ohlund's suspension
By jonf in forum SportsReplies: 1Last Post: 11-18-2007, 06:39 PM -
Tootoo Suspension
By Bidou in forum SportsReplies: 9Last Post: 03-23-2007, 04:31 PM -
Suspension due to darkness at TPC
By wahz in forum Rules Of GolfReplies: 1Last Post: 03-23-2002, 03:16 PM