2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

[jmh]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

as for scott stevens, yes, he delivered some questionable hits, but he was a complete dman--a no brainer for the hall of fame.

Opinions about whether Stevens should be in the Hall aside, though, the point is that if he's allowed to throw that kind of hit then Matt Cooke is too.

[bronconick]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

And until 4 years ago, you could clothesline a player in the NFL. What Stevens did 20 years ago is no longer relevant. I'm kind of astonished that the NHLPA hasn't gotten more involved, given its their players that are going to end up sounding like Ali in the future if nothing is done.

Another idea is to deny a team a replacement player for the length of a suspension. If you've got some D-bag getting suspended multiple times in a season on the roster, go those games with 11 forwards. Teammates will start controlling their own goons. That would probably have to be worked into the CBA, though.

[J.D.]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Opinions about whether Stevens should be in the Hall aside, though, the point is that if he's allowed to throw that kind of hit then Matt Cooke is too.

this is not about scott stevens and what the rules might have been. it's about what the rules SHOULD be.

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Opinions about whether Stevens should be in the Hall aside, though, the point is that if he's allowed to throw that kind of hit then Matt Cooke is too.

Wow, hockey hasn't even changed a little bit since Stevens played so the rules should be the same!

[jmh]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

this is not about scott stevens and what the rules might have been. it's about what the rules SHOULD be.

My mistake; I thought people were saying that the hit was against the rules as they presently are, not that it was against the rules as they should be.

Wow, hockey hasn't even changed a little bit since Stevens played so the rules should be the same!

I'm not saying the rules "should be" the same, I'm saying the rules about hits to head are the same, as far as I'm aware. They should change them, I agree.

[J.D.]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

So in the current NHL, there is no penalty for delivering a shoulder to the head? If there isn't, we have a serious problem.

[mookie1995]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Most nights it is encouraged that someone gets hit in the head... Albeit with a fist of course, but blows to the head are allowed (unless you use a stick, elbow, etc)

[J.D.]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Most nights it is encouraged that someone gets hit in the head... Albeit with a fist of course, but blows to the head are allowed (unless you use a stick, elbow, etc)

Guys choose to fight. Savard didn't choose to get cheap shotted in the head.

[moe24]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

So in the current NHL, there is no penalty for delivering a shoulder to the head? If there isn't, we have a serious problem.

Not specifically, but one could argue that Cooke should have gotten a penalty for something like... oh I don't know... roughing, or elbowing.

[jmh]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Guys choose to fight. Savard didn't choose to get cheap shotted in the head.

Obviously, but clearly mookie was making a point about the broader culture of the NHL, which at least condones, if not encourages, this type of thing. Is a delivering a shoulder to the head a penalty in the NHL today? I don't think it is, rather I think it's been a part of the league for a long time, which is the point I was trying to illustrate with my example about Scott Stevens. If you're a fan of the guy who got hit, you say "cheap shot! he hit him in the head!" but if you're a fan of the guy who threw the hit you say "you've gotta keep your head up!" but either way the game hasn't changed. (That was a general "you".)

[J.D.]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Not specifically, but one could argue that Cooke should have gotten a penalty for something like... oh I don't know... roughing, or elbowing.

Hey, I agree with you. And if the NHL is that blind that they have to put this in writing, it's something that needs to be done after this season.

If you're a fan of the guy who got hit, you say "cheap shot! he hit him in the head!" but if you're a fan of the guy who threw the hit you say "you've gotta keep your head up!" but either way the game hasn't changed. (That was a general "you".)

I disagree. I don't think the general "you" out there feels that way. Taking away Bruins and Penguins fans, the general "you" out there nowadays realizes something has to be done about head shots.

[Rimbaud]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

*****http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5194/jokturtle.gif******

[mookie1995]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Obviously, but clearly mookie was making a point about the broader culture of the NHL, which at least condones, if not encourages, this type of thing. Is a delivering a shoulder to the head a penalty in the NHL today? I don't think it is, rather I think it's been a part of the league for a long time, which is the point I was trying to illustrate with my example about Scott Stevens. If you're a fan of the guy who got hit, you say "cheap shot! he hit him in the head!" but if you're a fan of the guy who threw the hit you say "you've gotta keep your head up!" but either way the game hasn't changed. (That was a general "you".)

i guess it wasn't that clear....

Hey, I agree with you. And if the NHL is that blind that they have to put this in writing, it's something that needs to be done after this season.



I disagree. I don't think the general "you" out there feels that way. Taking away Bruins and Penguins fans, the general "you" out there nowadays realizes something has to be done about head shots.

i would think they need to do it now. not wait. i heard last night how 1) they are meeting this week to discuss head injuries and hits & 2) the example of sean avery waving his stick in front of marty in the playoffs -- and thus bringing about an immediate rule change prohibiting this going forward.

also i think a majority of people in the seats want to see players get "JACKED UP" (to borrow a phrase from espn's football show). everyone on the radio today called the bruins out for not fighting. not for not winning the game.

[J.D.]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

also i think a majority of people in the seats want to see players get "JACKED UP" (to borrow a phrase from espn's football show). everyone on the radio today called the bruins out for not fighting. not for not winning the game.

I'm all for guys getting jacked up, see Ovechkin on Jagr in the Olympics. Bruins fans are upset for the lack of response which tells you the fans aren't happy with the hit itself. If Savard was taken out with a clean hit, there wouldn't be this outrage. Kinda reminds me of Bergeron's two concussions. Nobody was calling for Seidenberg's head when the two collided last year because there was nothing to it.

If there is nothing handed down by the league in this incident involving a repeat offender, that sends a terrible message.

[WildShawn]

Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Mookie, I dig 99.9% of what you post on here, but I just gotta say, you're flat out wrong. His elbow makes contact with Savard's head. he was trying to injure him, and he was successful.

I don't know who I'm more p'd off at..

*Cooke for being.... Cooke
*the D'bag ref looking right at the play (who should be suspended for being as incompetent as BUnyon)
*the Boston Bruins for being pu ssies like they were when Bergeron was concussed by Randy Jones, and like they've been all year
*the NHL for only giving this D'bag 2 games

Watch your back on March 18, Crosby.