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

[Patman]

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".)

The whole point of the hit was to smash him the head... this is ostensibly the difference between this and Scott Stevens. This wasn't "he hit him in the head in the process of making the hit"... this hit's intent was to smash him in the head.

---

To me "no suspension"="Crosby is fair game". If the league doesn't want to enforce some sense of rules then they might as well live by them. Screw-ups like Cooke thrive because nothing takes them to account and the NHL doesn't like being slapped in the face. This is why you don't see retaliation because it means that you are smarter than the league... and the league doesn't like that. If the league wants to live and die by this sword then they can die by it and I'd encourage the Bruins to find an opportunity to do the same to Crosby. Immoral. Hell yes, but as we clearly see its not illegal so its a matter of time until it happens anyways... it's honestly the only feed back mechanism against players like Cooke (and that SOB that destroyed Bergeron). If the NHL wants to work that way then they can take the consequences. Find out what happens when you take the threat of punishment out of the sport.

The problem is, and has been right along, that the NHL is controlled by an large by old-boy idiots.

[jmh]

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

The whole point of the hit was to smash him the head... this is ostensibly the difference between this and Scott Stevens. This wasn't "he hit him in the head in the process of making the hit"... this hit's intent was to smash him in the head.

You must not remember Scott Stevens.

[Patman]

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

You must not remember Scott Stevens.

ok... i'll admit, i'm a little behind on his top 10 hits. I remember there are some of them that should be suspensions.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

So I figure that this BJs/Kings game is pretty much what the WCHA first round series between Tech and Denver will look like later this week.

[ColbyWMHB]

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

Hell yes, but as we clearly see its not illegal so its a matter of time until it happens anyways... it's honestly the only feed back mechanism against players like Cooke (and that SOB that destroyed Bergeron). If the NHL wants to work that way then they can take the consequences. Find out what happens when you take the threat of punishment out of the sport.

The "SOB that destroyed Bergeron" (Randy Jones, now of the LA Kings) is no Matt Cooke.

[J.D.]

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

Taking Cooke out of this, it just amazes me that there is no penalty for delivering a shoulder to the head. You have to think they're gonna change that...

[BUT09]

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

Considering they have two other "Contact to the head" penalties, it is a little mind-boggling that it isn't a general penalty. Screw elbows, sticks, shoulders, whatever. You hit someone in the head, you go to the box.

Because really, the puck is on the ice, and if you want to knock someone off the puck, use your hips and shoulders against their hips and shoulders. There is no reason within the context of the game that contact to the head should ever occur other than in an accident.

[ColbyWMHB]

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

Considering they have two other "Contact to the head" penalties, it is a little mind-boggling that it isn't a general penalty. Screw elbows, sticks, shoulders, whatever. You hit someone in the head, you go to the box.

Because really, the puck is on the ice, and if you want to knock someone off the puck, use your hips and shoulders against their hips and shoulders. There is no reason within the context of the game that contact to the head should ever occur other than in an accident.

I'm not sure it's that simple. If a guy 6'5 delivers a clean check, it's possible that his shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player who is considerably shorter (even 6'0-6'1, which is right around average for an NHL player). If a player is not standing straight up, this complicates matters--even if the head is not the intended contact point (and it rarely is).

I think that's probably the reason there is no cut and dried "shoulder to head" rule. Unfortunately, this opens up the gray area we see with the Cooke hit, which IMO was a cheap shot--I don't know for sure (obviously), but given his history, I think Cooke knew what he was doing was on the line between legal and reckless and went for it anyway. At the same time, I don't want to see the "2 minutes for being bigger than your opponent" penalty (which happens somewhat regularly in junior hockey) make its way into the NHL. I wish I could figure out a way to reconcile the two, but I guess this is why I'm not on any NHL disciplinary committee!

[moe24]

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

I'm not sure it's that simple. If a guy 6'5 delivers a clean check, it's possible that his shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player who is considerably shorter (even 6'0-6'1, which is right around average for an NHL player). If a player is not standing straight up, this complicates matters--even if the head is not the intended contact point (and it rarely is).

I think that's probably the reason there is no cut and dried "shoulder to head" rule. Unfortunately, this opens up the gray area we see with the Cooke hit, which IMO was a cheap shot--I don't know for sure (obviously), but given his history, I think Cooke knew what he was doing was on the line between legal and reckless and went for it anyway. At the same time, I don't want to see the "2 minutes for being bigger than your opponent" penalty (which happens somewhat regularly in junior hockey) make its way into the NHL. I wish I could figure out a way to reconcile the two, but I guess this is why I'm not on any NHL disciplinary committee!

That argument has always struck me as weak (nothing personal). A player, regardless of their size, needs to be aware of his surroundings and needs to be held responsible for their actions... even when completely accidental.

For example, most high sticking penalties are the result of either recklessness or are purely accidental. Regardless the penalty is called, and rightfully so. The same should be true of contact to the head. A ref's job isn't to judge intent (at least it shouldn't be) nor to "give a pass" because someone is a certain size, their job is to penalize infractions when they happen.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Considering they have two other "Contact to the head" penalties, it is a little mind-boggling that it isn't a general penalty. Screw elbows, sticks, shoulders, whatever. You hit someone in the head, you go to the box.

Because really, the puck is on the ice, and if you want to knock someone off the puck, use your hips and shoulders against their hips and shoulders. There is no reason within the context of the game that contact to the head should ever occur other than in an accident.

Tell that to Aaron Marvin.

[ColbyWMHB]

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

That argument has always struck me as weak (nothing personal). A player, regardless of their size, needs to be aware of his surroundings and needs to be held responsible for their actions... even when completely accidental.

For example, most high sticking penalties are the result of either recklessness or are purely accidental. Regardless the penalty is called, and rightfully so. The same should be true of contact to the head. A ref's job isn't to judge intent (at least it shouldn't be) nor to "give a pass" because someone is a certain size, their job is to penalize infractions when they happen.

You can't compare high sticking to the discrepancy in size between players. It's probably more prevalent at the junior level, where I have more firsthand experience, but this happens all the time: big players get penalized for legal hits all the time--mostly against smaller opponents, with "contact to the head" being the main justification.

[moe24]

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

You can't compare high sticking to the discrepancy in size between players. It's probably more prevalent at the junior level, where I have more firsthand experience, but this happens all the time: big players get penalized for legal hits all the time--mostly against smaller opponents, with "contact to the head" being the main justification.

If "contact to the head" is a penalty in that league and contact to the head actually happened then the hit wasn't really a clean hit. If you're a big guy and about to check a small guy then keep your elbows down and don't drop your shoulder into the guy's head... and realize that sometimes you're still going to get a penalty for contact that is purely accidental.

And one more thing. Sometimes s*** happens, life isn't fair, deal with it.

[GreatLakerMohawk]

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

Peter Chiarelli said that it's likely that Marc Savard's season is over.

[ColbyWMHB]

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

And one more thing. Sometimes s*** happens, life isn't fair, deal with it.

Speaking of lame arguments, see above. The rest of it is a decent argument that I happen to disagree with, but spare me the "life isn't fair" garbage. The whole point of making or changing rules in sports is to try to BE as fair as possible (knowing that 100% is out of the question)....as opposed to reactionary because a player happened to get hurt on a cheap (yet perhaps technically legal) hit. The old cliche about throwing the baby out with the bathwater applies here.

If "contact to the head" is a penalty in that league and contact to the head actually happened then the hit wasn't really a clean hit. If you're a big guy and about to check a small guy then keep your elbows down and don't drop your shoulder into the guy's head... and realize that sometimes you're still going to get a penalty for contact that is purely accidental.

I don't think rules should be made that make some players have to play a different game, or adopt a different set of fundamentals, just due to their size. Period. I know you don't agree with this, and that's fine. But I don't think that because Matt Cooke is a ****** we should make a sweeping change to the way the game is enforced if it means we end up penalizing players for things that really aren't doing a lot of damage to the game or its players.

[J.D.]

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

Peter Chiarelli said that it's likely that Marc Savard's season is over.

Maybe that's what it will take to at least make late, shoulder hits to the head illegal.