Lets just wait until someone dies

[LBH]

You have to be kidding me... instead of fixing a past mistake, lets make another one. Great logic there!!!

One side says it has to stop, the other side says "No he can't be punished for that"???!!!???

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=313323

[SGH]

How can a hit that will likely keep a player out the remainder of the season be deemed okay? I understand they are trying to get this rule changed, but a message should be sent now rather than later. This sets a dangerous message that won't be changed until the rule is changed.

They'be changed rules mid-season before, why not now?

[Colby]

I wonder if it has to do with Richard's hit a while ago that was very similar where Richard's did not get suspended.

[spackler]

I wonder if it has to do with Richard's hit a while ago that was very similar where Richard's did not get suspended.

Well that's what the article says, but what's more important, doing the right thing or being consistent?

[Big Johnny69]

Well that's what the article says, but what's more important, doing the right thing or being consistent?

Like Colin Campbell said, they can't suspend Cooke because he's a repeat offender. They have to find a reason to suspend him. And seeing as how this hit is pretty much identical to Richards' hit on Booth, they see no reason to suspend Cooke. I think, for now, they have to err on the side of consistency. If Cooke is suspended, I'm sure the Pens would appeal it based on Richards' hit. If you watch them, they look almost identical, right down to the same spot on the ice.

[spackler]

So what. They believe it to be a dirty play as evidenced by the coming rule change, so suspend him now. Why take the criticism on this issue for doing nothing, let the Penguins and NHLPA take it for appealing a suspension, basically defending an indefensible play. Who cares if Cooke wins the appeal, at least the NHL would've tried to do the right thing.

[Big Johnny69]

So what. They believe it to be a dirty play as evidenced by the coming rule change, so suspend him now. Why take the criticism on this issue for doing nothing, let the Penguins and NHLPA take it for appealing a suspension, basically defending an indefensible play. Who cares if Cooke wins the appeal, at least the NHL would've tried to do the right thing.

They suspend him for the same thing Richards did, then they are showing favoritism among their "marketable" players. Just because Cooke has been suspended before doesn't mean he gets suspended for a play that the league has already deemed a "clean" or "fair" play. Personally, I don't think it's fair to make an example out of somebody 3/4 of the way through the season because the league is thinking of changing it's rules. They should put this rule in effect at the beginning of next season and then start cracking down on it hard regardless of who the culprit it. The league has already dropped the ball on showing favoritism by not throwing the book at Ovechkin earlier in the year for his knee on knee hits.

[jeffc]

they have always had double standards for different players. why stop now. and why start being consistent now....

[Big Johnny69]

they have always had double standards for different players. why stop now. and why start being consistent now....

I agree, I just didn't want to say that. Trying to give the league a little more credit than they deserve.

[nokids]

pittsburgh plays boston in 5 games. get yer popcorn ready!

[jonf]

I've watched a few of the sports programs give their take on this, and frankly, they are being overly dramatic and simply pandering to the apparent consensus on headshots in the general public. There was NOTHING to suggest the NHL would suspend Cooke for what remains a legal hit. The faux outrage from the broadcasters is a little much, on a hit that, by the rule book, was completely legit.

Is it something the NHL is looking at changing? Yes. But can you suspend a player for a play that is currently legal? No.

[jonf]

So what. They believe it to be a dirty play as evidenced by the coming rule change, so suspend him now. Why take the criticism on this issue for doing nothing, let the Penguins and NHLPA take it for appealing a suspension, basically defending an indefensible play. Who cares if Cooke wins the appeal, at least the NHL would've tried to do the right thing.

Let's say political party X has just run a campaign promising to make a law against a certain act (that we will call Y), which is currently perfectly legal. They won the election, but have yet to make any movement to implement their campaign promise. Should we start arresting people for doing Y, just because a law might be on the way?

[nokids]

get rid of the instigator. let the players police themselves. i miss the spontaneous fights.

[Tullamore]

what has to be looked at is the no touch icing - this is a no brainer rule change! - one day the first guy in on the boards maybe his last - Don Cherry has been flapping about this rule change for years and i totally agree This has to be the first rule change - it will speed up play and have less injuries - the first man in gets way too many cheap shots - looking at some video clips i have no idea how some can actually get up. I have no idea why alot of the owners do not take a serious look at this when they are the ones that are paying the salaries - What is it going to take, a major incident? - Just like when the league put up the netting behind the nets - it took a death for the league to do something - is this what they are waiting?

[jonf]

get rid of the instigator. let the players police themselves. i miss the spontaneous fights.

I disagree with this (well, part of it). I agree that they should get rid of the instigator...it serves no purpose. BUT, every time there is a big hit these days, clean or not, there is immediately a fight (and, as much as I think fighting has a place in the game, it's getting ridiculous). So, getting rid of the instigator isn't going to suddently allow players to police themselves. They already drop the gloves as soon as anyone takes a hit.

[nokids]

true. even clean hits lead to fights. i think that's dumb.

[LBH]

My problem with this is the fact that the NHL should have done something a long time ago and didn't. Even last year, they decided not to inforce a mandatory penalty rule for hits like that. They waited until MORE players were seriously injured before they decided to act upon it.

Once again, our society reacts to serious issues instead of mitigating and preventing them. Think back as to why they have the protective nets behind the goals. They waited until some unlucky kid got killed by a puck before enforcing them. The QJMHL had them well before that...

At least, the GMs are doing the right thing now for the 2010-2011 season. Lets all hope this doesn't get quashed (or diluted) by the competitive committee or the NHL board of governors.

These type of hits MUST STOP! Period!!!

Unfortunately, I don't believe things will change much as long as Bettman and Campbell are there. I propose for Gretzky and Messier to replace them. I'm sure things would be different then...

[jonf]

I don't think the competitive committee will stop it, as the NHLPA actually requested the GMs look at hits to the head last offseason.

I know this is tantamount to blasphemy, but I have not been impressed by anything Gretzky has done off the ice. I think he gets by on name alone. I'd much rather see a guy like Yzerman in a position of power. I mean, Gretzky has never done anything terrible, but I've never really seen him say or do anything particularly insightful or admirable. He's just sort of there. He smiles, waves, signs jerseys, and that's it.

[BC MIST]

At least, the GMs are doing the right thing now for the 2010-2011 season.
These type of hits MUST STOP! Period!!!

In the proposed rule change, what is the penalty for a head shot?

If they wanted to stop head shots, they would change the rule, NOW. Other sports have. Even golf did it. Stewart Cink and the bunker raking. Ping Eye 2 wedges.

Does stopping head shots include fighting? A fist to the face IS an intent to injure in the same way as a shoulder to the head is.

Why is a second offense punished more than a first? If the first offense was punished severely, there would not likely be a second.

What made the Olympic hockey most enjoyable to watch? Good players, no fighting and few cheap shots.

[nokids]

nascar is promoting headshots.

[LBH]

I know this is tantamount to blasphemy, but I have not been impressed by anything Gretzky has done off the ice. I think he gets by on name alone. I'd much rather see a guy like Yzerman in a position of power. I mean, Gretzky has never done anything terrible, but I've never really seen him say or do anything particularly insightful or admirable. He's just sort of there. He smiles, waves, signs jerseys, and that's it.

Maybe he'd be good, maybe not... My point was more along the lines that it can't be worse than with Bettman and Campbell.